[Peetwo]

From little to big, industry concerns remain the same. -   

Remember this bit of a vent from Scott McMillan, CEO of Alliance Airlines, back in March??

RAAA member, Alliance Airlines  - In a Flight Global article published today, Alliance Airlines tells a few home truths about today's Skidmore led CASA  

Alliance Airlines considering switch to NZ AOC

03 March, 2016
 | BY: Ellis Taylor
 | Brisbane 

---

McMillan says that despite approaches by Alliance and other operators to CASA asking it to take a cost-benefit approach to the unique retrofit, but got no joy.

“[CASA] bureaucrats will say, ‘how good are we!’ But at what cost and what benefit?”

---

“Obviously safety is first,” says McMIllan. “If you bring in an FRMS and it tells you certain things, you’ve got to do it, but you’ve also got to win on the upside.”

---

He points out that New Zealand allows more flexibility with pilot rostering and fatigue management than the proposed Australian rules, making it appealing to switch jurisdictions.

---

“A pilot with a New Zealand license can fly with much greater flexibility already than an Australian one – and we’re going to make it less flexible,” says McMillan.

---

“We are seriously considering moving our whole operation to a New Zealand air operator’s certificate. We satisfy almost all the requirements already.”

Ouch, not a good look Skates old son  

Well apparently he had a lot more to say on the record with the Aviation Business Mag in their May/June edition - see HERE - examples:

"No-one could run a commercial enterprise like CASA," he vented.

"The regulatory reform process is a euphemism for a shambles.

"On September 26 it will be 30 years since the commencement of these regulations and we are not even halfway there."

McMillan considered many of the DRAFT regulations "just nonsensical".

He said Australian aviation was a safe industry, but there were too many staff at CASA proposing too many regulations.

"CASA wants to be the aviation guns of the world and Australianise every regulation in the book," he said.

"Every country surrounding Australia has a set of regulations that are almost identical to ours and work so why change them?"

---

"In New Zealand a regulation will be 3 to 4 pages whereas in Australia it can 70 to 80 pages and the can be open to interpretation in several ways."

McMillan considered a lot of the regulations were "just change for the sake of change."

"Part 61 relating to crew licensing was a total disaster by CASA's own admission," he said.

P2 comment - Refer to the following link for the latest on the continuing shambolic saga of Part 61, that will now go down as Skidmore's draconian legacy to industry: AMROBA v Skidmore Part 61 - UDB!

Kharon - "..Part 61 now has so many necessary exemptions as to render it farcical, it is no longer a law, but a crippled vehicle which the owners must keep repairing to salve their egos..."  

For reference - HERE - is the link for all the work done and in progress initiated by Oliver's Part 61 Tiger Team. Within that there is an additional link - HERE - which takes you to a page of 'legislative instruments' that have been introduced since the original Part 61 first became law on 01 September 2014.

Now in reference to the "K" post here is the latest list of exemptions put in place to address the shortcomings and industry imposts identified so far within the Bible sized CASA Part 61... :

Exemptions

• Exemption - instrument proficiency checks for aircraft pilot type ratings (CASA EX93/16)
  
• Exemption - CASR Part 61 aircraft flight reviews (CASA EX97/16)
  
• Exemption - CASR Part 61 aeronautical knowledge examinations and two year completion period: CASA EX86/16
  
• Exemption - aeronautical experience for an NVIS rating or endorsement: CASA EX77/16
  
• Exemption - single-pilot turbojet aeroplane specific instrument proficiency check exemption: CASA EX41/16 
  
• Exemption - from completion of an approved training course in multi-crew cooperation: CASA EX225/15
  
• Exemption - against ATPL flight test requirements: CASA EX222/15
  
• Exemption - Grade 3, 2 or 1 training endorsement (aeroplane) flight test: CASA EX219/15
  
• Exemption - from the flight instructor rating flight test: CASA EX218/15
  
• Exemption - from the pilot instructor rating aeronautical knowledge examination (PIRC): CASA EX215/15
  
• Exemption - from the spinning flight activity endorsement (FAE): CASA EX214/15
  
• Exemption - English language proficiency assessments: CASA EX146/15
  
• Exemption - logging of time in flight for co-pilots on single-pilot certificated aircraft: CASA EX116/15
  
• Exemption - Parts 141 and 142 - CASA approval of kinds of aircraft: CASA EX126/15
  
• Exemption - from certain low-level rating requirements: CASA 92/15
  
• Exemption - dual flight checks before solo flights by student pilots: CASA EX 78/15
  
• Exemption - aeronautical experience requirements for grant of commercial pilot licences - aeroplane category: CASA EX22/15
  
• Exemption - aerial application proficiency check and operator proficiency check (head of flight operations) - aeroplanes: CASA EX162/14
  
• Exemption - flight examiner rating for holders of CAO 82.0 check pilot approvals: CASA EX140/14
  
• Exemption - foreign cadet pilots taking flight test for a commercial pilot licence - class 1 medical certificate (replacement exemption September 2015): CASA EX156/15
  
• Exemption - aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement (replacement exemption August 2015)
  
• Exemption - of certain Cobham Aviation Services’ pilots from low-level rating requirement: CASA EX 130/14
  

 Simply staggering when you consider that the above only includes the 'exemptions' so far and none of the additional pages of related amendments that also require more & more legislative instruments to be generated and tabled in parliament. The Attorney General's department must have a separate section totally devoted to handling CASA generated legislative instruments - UDB!

 Kind of makes you question the veracity of Skidmore's 10 point regulatory philosophy -

However KC in the latest AMROBA newsletter - Volume 13 Issue 6 (0616) - appears to have faith that industry will be able to hold Skidmore and the CASA Iron Ring to account if they fall back on their word:

...Implementing regulations that enable businesses to operate to modern business practices and technology. If it adds costs, it must value add to safety.

No evidence that it value adds to safety then it should not be implemented.

CASA supports this approach, DAS Skidmore has documented the policy for development of requirements. We are supportive and we expect his staff to follow the policy.

Directly supervised small businesses don’t need documented procedures if the requirements are well documented by the regulator...

Hmm...time will tell I guess, in the meantime..

"..Round and round the Mulberry bush...??


MTF...P2