[Peetwo]

From the Oz today Steve Creedy is again catching up, this time on the bollocks that is Part 61 and that letter from Skidmore:

Mark Skidmore: CASA to fix bungled flight crew rules  

• by: STEVE CREEDY
  
• May 08, 2015 12:00AM
  

CASA boss Mark Skidmore says the regulator is working to rectify its controversial flight crew licensing rules. Source: Supplied



Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore has conceded that the regulator botched last year’s introduction of controversial flight crew licensing rules, but says it is working to rectify the situation.  

Mr Skidmore said he believed industry angst about the Part 61 regulations resulted from a combination of poor communication and the rules themselves.

“I’m quite prepared to say that we haven’t implemented this as well as we should have but there’s work that we have to do there … to correct that,’’ he said.

The regulator has so far issued 10,600 new Part 61 licences, seen as a high take-up despite a tran­sition period running until September 2018.

But there remains industry anxiety about the rules, associated material such as the Manual of Standards and the way the transition had been handled by CASA.

Mr Skidmore took the unusual step last month of writing to all ­pilots about Part 61 seeking feedback on the rules.

The letter said CASA had made adjustments to the way some aspects of the new rules were being implemented, as well as to the regulatory requirements, after a forum involving representatives of the aviation community in December.

It said many of the issues related to transition arrangements for the new rules and changes made by way of instruments and exemptions would ultimately be incorporated into revised rules.

“While consultation takes place as rules are being developed, inevitably there are issues or unintended consequences that need to be addressed,’’ the letter said.

“We need feedback from individuals about what is working well and what is not.’’

Initial feedback looked at ­issues ranging from ratings and endorsements, the licence format, the need for air transport pilots ­licence flight tests and confusion about the transition for private pilot’s licence.

Officials said the dozen emails received by Tuesday were constructive and dealing with the ­issues. In a phone hook-up with reporters this week, Mr Skidmore said how long it took to address the Part 61 issues would depend on the feedback he received from the letter.

He said this included making sure CASA staff were educated about the changes so that they clearly understood what the authority was attempting to achieve with Part 61.

Asked about criticism of CASA’s failure to respond to industry warnings before the changes were implemented, he noted this had occurred before he was appointed. “I can’t correct the past,’’ he said. “All I can do is try and correct the future and learn from it and hopefully make sure we don’t do it again.

“But at the same time what I’m trying to do now is … get the information — here’s my letter to ­people to say tell us what you think is not right and let us have a look at it and try to correct it.’’

On lessons learned from the experience, he believed the authority should be comparing the implementation of Part 61 with other changes and looking at whether more upfront work was needed in areas such as staff training or whether there should have been testing in pilot programs.

He had also been driving consistency in the authority’s approach to the aviation community to minimise confusion and ensure staff were providing “good relevant and consistent information’’.

But he agreed it was sometimes difficult for the industry to accept change.

“Change is difficult for people, there’s no doubt about it,’’ he said. “But to me change is inevitable at the same time; if you don’t change you’re not evolving so you’re not going forward. We need to look at ways we can improve and do things better and I’m looking internally at CASA at how we can improve and do things better.’’

Mr Skidmore also revealed he was looking at reinvigorating the Standards Consultative Council as one way of improving the regulatory process.

“I also want to engage with the industry, with the aviation community, to understand and have good discussion regards regs into the future — what do we need to establish how best we can achieve that,’’ he said

On the lack of trust between the aviation community and CASA, Mr Skidmore said it would take time to rebuild trust, but he was hoping the parties could work together to achieve that.

“It’s cultural change both on my side for CASA and externally for the community to understand or to trust us,’’ he said. “Cultural change takes five to seven years.’’

He vowed to try “as hard as I bloody well can’’ to achieve the change in his first term, and noted it was often the case that signs started appearing in a year or two.

“That’s nice when you can see that starting to happen, so I’ll be looking for that and I know you guys will judge me on it,’’ he said.

FFS....with respect Mr Skidmore while you're dithering & fluffing about, the industry continues to face an uncertain future...  If it is trust that you want the best thing you could do is read the following, courtesy of the Ferryman:

kharon
61 ways to flog a dead horse.

Unless there is a very real wake up call to the bored issued this week 'we' are going to be stuck, forever with the bastard, retarded mutant of Part 61.  Not only is the rule set hopelessly esoteric, academically flawed, operationally complex, unnecessarily convoluted, totally impractical, it is legally unsound – from industry point of view.  There simply is no protection; each and every paragraph may be turned into a large stick, used to beat the hapless victim insensible.

The rest of the world get by with less than 100 pages of clear, sensible, sane requirements; that list is long.  These countries do not make a 'safety issue' of what is, essentially an administrative matter.  Administrative in as much as there is system, which must be complied with – such NZ has, for an example.  What is not in the NZ/FAA rule is some pseudo academic (writ by the village idiot on an ego trip) definition of 'standards' defining not only how to put your pen back in your shirt pocket, but the penalty for not doing it according to prescription; or how to place your feet on the rudder; or how to best do asymmetric circuits, at night.  My own favourite – a note excusing you from doing an engine out overshoot in a single engine aircraft: don't laugh, not until you have read through this 600 page monstrosity.

Perhaps a nicely polite letter to the bored and the DAS informing them that the rule set is unacceptable, unworkable; and, industry refuses to tolerate the impost, the legal risks, the incredible amounts of paper required or the implications contained with 600 pages of wishful thinking.  The short version, if you prefer – stick where the sun don't shine.

Toot toot.

Well, everyone's buggering about, playing nice and remembering the pogroms of McComic era. Sod that – tell 'em - it's a ducking crock; loud long and often.  Steam by pass valve – opening.   FFS – JUST BIN THE BLOODY THING.  You know you want to.....

 
IMO if Skates were to implement the part in bold ASAP this would instantly garner much respect from industry and would lay strong foundations for a return to some form of trust with the regulator. However while he continues with the rhetoric - that can be construed as weasel words by some of the more pessimistic IOS - then Skates will be seen as being just another puppet of the Iron Ring and will shortly be on the slippery slide of irrelevance & ridicule.

MTF...P2  

Ps Skates for further constructive feedback it would not hurt if you took the time to read the Creampuff post off the UP & restored here by "K" - Shamelessly lifted from the UP boards.