Quote:A nod, to the Gods (and Murphy).

Whilst it may be 'easy' for some to offer their little, but artfully pointed barbs, slick jibes from a privileged, (kissed on the arse by the Gods) position; there are some who learned the 'real' lessons of operational flying in the Alma Marta school of 'hard knocks'. Going through 'the hoops' of VFR to CPL and first multi engine (PA 30) was a breeze; thanks to the good and (historically) exceptional training  gifted and, in 'suitable' weather the young 'K' could afford the occasional 'attaboy' for a job done to 'standard'. Of course VFR was OK; but to earn ones keep, an instrument rating was 'de rigueur'. So, the Penny's were found and 'training' began. Luck; pure blind good fortune placed me in the hands of a man who 'knew' what IFR really was. Never was he one for 'forms' or 'systematic' clap-trap; he simply, borderline brutally, ensured that almost any maneuver could be performed; no matter what was occurring, be performed, without hesitation; damage to engine or airframe and to the unfortunates 'in-the-back'. It was 'tough love' and I have thanked the Gods many times over for his 'attention' to my many failing; and, importantly, for the 'gift' of being able to 'understand' the messages delivered from engine, airframe and instruments as a holistic picture. For example; three engines chocked with ice, inside 30 seconds +3” of clear ice, 1000 below LSALT @ Wee Jasper; or, a cylinder through the windscreen 'surveying' a monster thunderstorm at 20 odd thousand and an OEI approach to 'minima' to follow. There are more examples; double engine fail at F170 @ 0100 alongside the Diamndtina – SY to DN. The list goes on; the point is. that despite 'the stuff' which 'ticks-the-boxes' one simply does not know what one does not know. Experience teaches the rest (Murphy assisted).

This report – HERE – takes me back a ways to this report – HERE. The latter report caught the interest of a TV show producer. Nothing else would do but I was called out (from leave) to operate a Merlin on the exact track to the impact point. The GPS was our 'suspect'. Our GPS took us 'eerily' to the exact smoke darkened place. Yet, this was an experienced, fully qualified professional in command of the accident flight, 'in weather'. But there was evidence of tragedy, as stark and clear as if it happened 'yesterday'. Aye; a CFIT: - another one.!

“This isn't just 'the way things are.' This is the way you made them. This is the result of your choices, your actions. Yours.”

How many more I wonder? IF (big one) a competent, highly qualified, current, fit professional can be deceived by weather, mission and instrumentation, then what chance a new chum, on a VFR ticket surviving? My bets book would love to take your bet. This current 'laissez-faire' - 'no responsibility' approach from CASA is creating a false sense of 'security' (for wont of better) within the ranks of the 'private' operational set. Or; the blind leading the blind, if you prefer. I see this – developing across this planet; clever, experienced, highly qualified pilots have been brought to grief due to nature, terrain and bloody awful weather. Why? Oh, please tell me why a Mutt with minimum training and experience can believe that 'they' will win through; every time they declare war on Murphy, the Gods of weather and those who's sage advice is consigned to 'history' and deemed 'not applicable' to them?  It simply beggars belief. The most consistent event which claims lives (many) is simply left to the discretion of those with NFI and with zero accountability/ responsibility for the 'happening'. Always the 'blame' resides with the deceived. Oh!  BOLLOCKS (in Spades, redoubled).

Aye well; there's line up at the doors; shop floor is clean, beasts fed and watered; the wild wood awaits our nocturnal visit; best shut up and crack on I suppose. But the shame of the weather related CFIT deaths must, sooner or later must be accounted for – (IMO). By the regulator – perhaps??

Selah.

Quote:"Children of the Magenta" refers to pilots over-reliant on automated flight systems (specifically the magenta-colored navigation lines on displays), a term coined by American Airlines captain Warren Vanderburgh in 1997. It highlights the "automation paradox," where advanced, safer systems lead to de-skilling and loss of situational awareness when automation fails or acts unexpectedly.

Quote:
Col Pay Award for Lifetime Service to General Aviation

Phil Unicomb

With nearly five decades in aviation, Phil Unicomb has shaped Australian general aviation through advanced instruction, aerobatics and loss-of-control prevention training. A mentor to thousands of pilots and more than 40 state and national champions, Phil’s influence extends across instructors, examiners, corporate pilots and airline captains. His lifelong commitment to safety, professionalism and skill development makes him a fitting recipient of the Col Pay Award.

Quote: Wrote:Friday 23 October 2015

Session 8
09:00 - 09:30
The Hon Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development
(Subject to Final Confirmation)

Regional Aviation: The Sky's the limit..

---

..Session 10
10:00 - 10:30
Mark Skidmore
Director of Aviation Safety,
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

CASA's direction - Regional focus...

---

..Session 13
12:30 - 13:00
Jason Harfield
A/g Chief Executive Officer
Airservices Australia

Delivering value for Australian aviation

---

Session 14
13:00 13:30
Martin Dolan
Chief Commissioner
Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Repeat lessons: What the ATSB is finding?..

Quote: Wrote:If you take a look around the world you will see a number of countries that are particularly dependent upon aviation as a core component of their transport and social infrastructure; Australia is clearly one of those countries.

Why is it then that we as a nation suffer so badly from a regulatory regime that is so poorly suited to modern Australia and our industry?

There are many reasons for this of course, mainly historical but also geographical and political that lead us to a system today that is overly complex, anachronistic and damaging, not only to our future investment in hard assets but more importantly, in people.

Many participants I speak to in the aviation industry have recently and deliberately steered their children and grand-children well clear of aviation. I too do not want my children involved in the industry unless we see some strong leadership from Government.

We have to ask a further question. Why is it that many of us who have been in the industry for a long time do not see it as an industry worth considering for the next generation(s)? We will come back to this question shortly.

As has been expertly chronicled in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), chaired by David Forsyth, there is much wrong with the industry and whilst the current government should be congratulated for implementing that review, they have been close to negligent in the speed by which they have dealt with its recommendations.

We have only recently seen the Statement of Expectations (SOE) issued by the Minister to CASA, a full six months after the appointment of the new Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore. Additionally, we are only now seeing movement on the ASSR recommendations, a full 15 months after its publication.

One of the overriding themes from the ASRR was the breakdown in the relationship between CASA and the industry. This was born of many issues, most of which remain. The debacle that is Part 42 and Part 145 was implemented with undue haste and from my view with potentially dangerous outcomes. Can someone please explain how we have a safer and more efficient industry as a result of those changes? We certainly have far fewer participants in aviation as smaller organisations that could not afford the layers of bureaucracy that those changes brought, exited the industry.

Those organisations employed staff all over Australia and now we have lost an unacceptable volume of skills that sadly are now provided by overseas suppliers.
Separately, can someone also explain the shambles that is Part 61?

I feel for those pilots who have finished their training since August of last year and still cannot get their ATPL’s issued. These candidates are our industry’s future, and thus having expended an enormous amount on their licence, have no way of gaining or advancing their employment. This is scandalous. How would CASA have reacted if an aviation organisation in Australia had botched a major change to their operations to this extent? An immediate “Show Cause” I would think.

Can someone also explain the huge disconnect between Commonwealth and State legislation that now limits engineering apprentice training to only a handful of registered organisations?

Further, it is both outrageous and concerning, that there exists such a dichotomy between the CASA regions, the Certificate Management Teams and individual inspectors. This is evidenced through the inconsistency in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Regulations. Fatigue Risk Management is a classic and topical example of the lack of direction, cohesion, or understanding that exists within the regulator.

The four examples I have given above are real life outcomes of a disjointed framework in which the aviation industry operates throughout this vast country.
Under successive colours of government we have ended up with a regime that is broken.

Whilst we enjoy an enviable safety reputation in this country, this is borne more of the diligence of personnel within our surviving aviation providers than in regulation and regulatory oversight itself.

Senior managements within all organisations I know are well aware of their obligations under the Civil Aviation Act and discharge their duties with diligence and concern. This is why outcomes such as Part 61 cause us all such heartache.

By my calculations we are into our 23rd or 24th year of “Regulatory Reform” and all I now see is “Regulatory Reform Fatigue” as the outcome of many failed processes, false starts and confusion.

So in that environment, how are we going to encourage the next generation into the industry? I fear that will become increasingly more difficult.

I have outlined above just a few examples of where the industry, regulators and government are not working together to foster the industry.

It’s easy to bleat I know, and much harder to fix “machinery” that has been covered in temporary fixes for decades. Perhaps what is most frustrating, and the reason for the bleating, is that many of the solutions have already been identified and recommended by the ASSR and supported by industry.

When we ask the question as to why we simply did not adopt the New Zealand regulations we are told that somehow “Australia is different” and then in the next breath we hear about harmonisation with the rest of the world.

Look at all the South Pacific nations that have adopted the New Zealand regulations and the benefits that now flow to New Zealand suppliers as a result.

Why does it take months to modify an aircraft for Australian registration when it takes days in Europe?

The New Zealand experience of Aviation Regulatory Reform is in my opinion a success story. It was achieved through real consultation and collaboration, and a genuine willingness of CAANZ to engage with industry.

The solution obviously rests with Parliament and the relevant Minister(s)

We elect Government, they set the legislative environment, formulate the regulatory framework and then employ the senior personnel to regulate. The industry supports this but DOES NOT support individual personnel within regulators running their own “legislative” agendas.

The industry is encouraged by the appointment of directors from industry to the new CASA Board.

However, Parliament must take a greater interest in aviation and each colour of government should at least have a Junior Minister for Aviation that can dedicate their time to ensuring the regulatory framework and policy settings are appropriate for our modern industry.

Without a bold new coordinated vision for our industry how do we hope to attract the appropriate talent to take this vital industry forward?

Please note these views are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

(11-06-2015, 07:07 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Sky Wars - The Force awakens - GA uprising?? Bring it on! 

 {Hint 4 Boyd: This bloke/roadblock needs to be escorted from the building ASAP}

From off the Oz this AM it would appear the troops are mobilising finally

From the Prez De Stoop.. :



{Hint 4 Boyd & the Board: This guy needs to be escorted into the building ASAP - https://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-smith/2/595/785}


Mike Smith

Civil Aviation & Regulatory Program & Operations Auditing

Quote:..Full marks to De Stoop. The man has integrity, balls, and isn't afraid to show the world the true state of play. One can only wish that sort of strong respected leadership was in play years ago, back when corporate kiss arses as well as weak and arrogant batty boys were running AOPA, ain't that right Lookleft?


I like how De Stoop also isn't afraid to 'out' the reason, or at least one reason, why reform keeps getting scuttled - long term bureacratic survivors who have overstayed their welcome for far too long and ensured that the Iron Ring survives. Nice work Mark, diplomatically worded and succinctly put. Not something the Gobbledock could do!

It's funny how the Forsythe review, a catalyst for change, has been buried and cremated. Yet whenever the Governments authorise other reviews on things such as tax reform, unions, anything they actually want to change, they use a review to start the ball rolling and they make changes pretty quickly! The buried Forsythe review is proof that the Miniscule wants no change whatsoever. Shame on you, you out of touch, prehistoric numbnut...