[Peetwo]

Ref: http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/...ism-amroba

There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around?? - 

Via the latest AMROBA Newsletter: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...ssue-3.pdf

---

Acts of Parliament & Civil Aviation

“Treaties: Once ratified, treaties are binding on signatory States – known as Contracting Parties. A “Contracting State” is a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force.”. The Chicago Convention is one such treaty.

Any foreign nation reviewing the Convention Annexes differences lodged by Australia would conclude that Australia does not meet minimum treaty Annexes Standards.

These Standards state “shall adopt”. – So why can’t we adopt these standards?

If government had simply maintained the (Convention) aviation treaty’s standards and recommended practices, instead of creating unique and costly requirements post the creation of CAA, then Australian civil aviation would not be in the mess it is today.

If aviation Acts had been written correctly in 1988, we would still be a compliant State.

A basic misunderstanding is that we no longer live in an open world of free trade in the aviation industry. Being compliant with the Convention is not enough to trade globally.

The EU and USA stopped that in the late 1990s when they decided that they needed an EU
– USA aviation trade agreement. That meant all other contracting States needed similar agreements with either or both the USA & EU as well as each other.

Implementing/Expanding BASAs
As CASA experienced, under Leroy Keith & Mick Toller, when you focus on developing globally harmonised regulations that also assist international civil aviation trade agreements, then the need to adopt wording, interpretations & intent of ICAO SARPs, and the country with whom we intend to have a BASA with, become much more focused. This was experienced with Part 21.

If we move to include maintenance in the USA BASA, then the operational FARs should also be adopted. This then raises the issue for the non-airline sectors, do we need a FAR based LAME? Do we need a Direct Supervision AMO?

Australia also needs to remove “Minister’s Directions” from Acts and replace with changes to the Act as they do in the USA. An Act or Acts must clearly clarify the responsibility of portfolio Departments to negotiate civil aviation foreign trading agreements.

The Civil Aviation Act needs re-writing to include a new dedicated CASA “Foreign Office” responsible for developing and maintaining, under civil aviation trade agreements (BASA) with other nations, the Certification and/or Maintenance Implementation Procedures or Technical Agreements with the best outcome for the Australian industry to trade globally.

Benefits:
Expanding the current USA-Australia BASA to include maintenance is fundamental to implementing FAR based performance regulations that will improve safety and lower costs.

Changing the Air Navigation Act to make Infrastructure and DFAT primarily responsible for negotiating trade agreements in the form of BASAs would also benefit civil aviation from GA to airlines. Australian modifications/repairs should be accepted.

The Convention states we shall adopt as close as practical the Standards & Recommended Practices of the Annexes. Treaties are binding on a State.

---

---

Hmm...popcorn ordered - batter up?? - MTF...P2