Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AMROBA.
#91
Breaking news AMROBA - 01 Jan '18.

Via KC & AMROBA:
.pdf   Three-Tier-Delusion.pdf (Size: 867.85 KB / Downloads: 1)
.pdf   Gov-Responsibility.pdf (Size: 872.07 KB / Downloads: 1)

Quote:[Image: Jan-2018.jpg]

Breaking News 

Government Responsibility & 3 Tier Delusion

January 1, 2018 Ken Cannane

Three Tier Delusion Gov Responsibility

Government Must Take Responsibility for Regulatory Restricting Aviation Growth

The only reform that can be relied on.

CAA/CASA replacement of Executives every time a new CEO is appointed.

"…..by the end of June 2007 we had new executives in all our senior management positions. There is no one in a senior management position now who was in that position when I arrived at CASA in December 2003" (Bruce Byron 2006/07 Annual Report)

Governments (CAA/CASA), since 1988 continue to develop regulations and red tape that have decreased individual and organisation participation and the utilisation of CASA registered aircraft.

If industry does not comply with these over prescriptive requirements they face enforcement action but CASA itself has not complied with paragraph 9(1)© of the Civil Aviation Act since 1995. When will government take enforcement action and direct CASA to meet their obligation to promulgate "Aviation Safety Standards"? This is the third tier referred to in the ASRR.

Quote:9 CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

by means that include the following:

© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

CASA has not promulgated one "aviation safety standard" under Sec (9)(1)©.
What is an Aviation Safety Standard? The Act Interpretations state:

"aviation safety standards" means standards relating to the following:

(a) the flight crews engaged in operations of aircraft;

(b) the design, construction, maintenance, operation and use of aircraft and related equipment;

© the planning, construction, establishment, operation and use of aerodromes;

(d) the establishment and use of airspace;

(e) the planning, construction, establishment, maintenance, operation and use of:

(i) services and facilities of the kind covered by paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Air Services Act 1995; and

(iii) services of the kind referred to in paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 to the extent that those services use aircraft;

and any construction associated with those facilities or services;

(f) the personnel engaged in:

(i) the maintenance of aircraft and related equipment; or

(ii) anything referred to in paragraph © or (e).

CASA’s past General Counsel (1995 to 2006) made the following statement as a private citizen to a Senate Inquiry into the Administration of CASA after he left CASA.

"CASA’s FAILED REGULATORY REFORM PROGRAM


Under paragraph 9(1)(c ) the Civil Aviation Act 1988 CASA is required to conduct safety regulation by means that include:


"© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards".


CASA’s discharge of this responsibility during the past 5 years has been an abject failure"

Since 1995, CASA was required to develop and promulgate aviation safety standards but CASA has abrogated this responsibility. If they had promulgated internationally harmonised "aviation safety standards" based on ICAO/FAR then the regulatory reform would have been completed within 2 years.

Only government can hold CASA accountable to comply with the Act.

Ken R Cannane

AMROBA

www.amroba.org.au

Safety All Around.
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#92
The following is IMO a good fit for the AMROBA thread.

Via the Oz today:



Rhys Jones: Lifetime of work making aircraft safer

[Image: 9b534322b213d97b808ed2b004bd1f54]

Rhys Jones with a model of the F/A-18 Hornet Picture: David Caird


   The Australian
   12:00AM January 26, 2018
   
   ANNABEL HEPWORTH
   Aviation Editor
   Sydney
   @HepworthAnnabel

It was the roof blowing open mid-flight on Aloha Airlines Flight 243 in 1988 that showed the importance of the field Rhys Jones has dedicated decades to — the structural mechanics of aircraft and repairing corrosion.

The professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Monash University has today been awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) for his work, which saw him spend 16 years at the Aeronautical Research Laboratory at Victoria’s Fisherman’s Bend, a key hub for Australian aviation that was part of the then Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

His original studies in the 1960s and 70s were in mathematics at Adelaide University, and amid all the talk of a “STEM revolution” he has some sharp thoughts on the value of the discipline today.

“Too many engineers are not taking their mathematics seriously enough,” Professor Jones says, noting how important it is to aerospace engineering. “If Australian engineers are going to be able to compete with the rest of the world, they have to have the strongest understanding of their discipline possible because we are not the cheapest — we’ve got a small local market. You’ve got to be able to innovate or die ... to understand the theory you’ve got to have really good mathematics.”

During his time with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation he helped on work done in the US to develop technology to deal with ageing aircraft, at a time when the sector was still reeling from the Aloha incident, the causes of which included fatigue damage.

In the early 1990s, he took a post at Monash University but says he always had “one foot” in work around the defence sector.

His interest in aircraft has lasted and he went on to pioneer work on civil and military planes aimed at dealing with the issues around corrosion and cracking. His work is aimed at ensuring “continued airworthiness and if you have an aeroplane with problems, how to ensure you can fix it”.

Professor Jones worked with private sector company RUAG Australia and the US Navy on a “cold spray” technique to repair aircraft that is now used on Australia’s navy helicopters and to other aircraft. One of his papers was chosen to be in a top 10 collection for the century to 2007, published by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.


& Sandy's response:

Quote:Alexander


Well done Trent for making one bright spot in General Aviation and offering some suggestions for growth. I share your concerns about subsidies, a much better solution is to stop subsidising CASA with it’s plethora of unnecessary permissions that attract enormous fees and to revisit the ‘one off’ increase fuel levy imposed by Albanese that was planned to raise $89.9 over 4 yrs for ‘special safety programs’ in 2012. Truss simply rolled that one on, so much for sunset clauses and last I heard was this was over $127 million extra collected from our aviation industry. 

As a former GA owner operator across 50 yrs and sadly having watched the half destruction of a very productive and necessary GA industry, I can attest to the extraordinary over regulation, supposed update of all the rules started 30 years ago and still not finished, and causing job losses and large numbers of flying schools closing. 

One additional reform that could make GA far more sustainable would be availability of freehold on airports. Airports should be like roads, public on the airside with private property on the landside. This would allow the business security that is necessary for banks to lend and investors to become involved. 

All we need is a commonsense Minister who will take control away from the dysfunctional independent regulator CASA. Alex in the Rises


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
#93
First AMROBA newsletter for 2018: Volume 15 Issue 1 (January 2018)

Quote:1. Need to provide ‘regulatory inspections standards’.

Many aircraft manufacturers provide definitions of the various levels of aircraft inspections standards. However, most countries have minimum regulatory inspection standards promulgated in regulations to address the older aircraft that do not specify the inspection standards.

FAR 43.15 requires the inspection to determine the aircraft, or part of the aircraft meets all applicable airworthiness requirements and, if the aircraft is under a system of maintenance, to do in accordance with the procedures and system specified in the SoM.
Current maintenance personnel are used to terms like routine and detailed inspections and many manufacturers provide a definition of the difference. This too is based on more FAR Part 43 minimum standards.

2. FAA Reauthorisation Bills.

CASA does not have the same political scrutiny that the FAA is put under by their parliament transport committees. The USA Parliament has House Committees review the FAA performance and technical issues confronting the industry just about every two years before presenting a Bill that reauthorises the FAA for a further period.
The contents of these Reauthorization Bills make interesting reading. For instance, the 2013 Reauthorisation Bill amended their Act re CDPOs.

(a) In General.--Section 44704 (e) is amended to read as follows:

``(e) Design and Production Organization Certificates.--``(1) <<NOTE: Effective date.>> Issuance.--Beginning January 1, 2013, the Administrator may issue a certificate to a design organization, production organization, or design and production organization to authorize the organization to certify compliance of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances with the requirements and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a). An organization holding a certificate issued under this subsection shall be known as a certified design and production organization (in this subsection referred to as a `CDPO').

Remember, it was the 2016 reauthorisation bill that eliminated the current 3rd class medical requirement within 180 days of enactment. It would allow any pilot with a valid driver’s license to carry up to five passengers in aircraft weighing up to 6000 pounds, on flights below 14,000′ MSL and at speeds below 250 knots.

3. Maintenance records - deferred defects.

When the registered operator or the RO’s pilot delivers the aircraft to a maintenance organisation there is usually a discussion that is had with the RO or the pilot on what maintenance is to be carried out. This complies with the regulations as the customer has to authorise the maintenance organisation to perform maintenance and what maintenance is to be carried out.

How often during those conversations does the RO or pilot raise issues that have not been documented in the maintenance records but will require servicing or maintenance?
However, as a maintenance organisation are we doing the right thing by writing up these defects that the pilot had not listed on the maintenance release or an approved alternative maintenance release and/or log book system? These are not defects identified during maintenance.

Also it would appear that KC & AMROBA are mobilising for a GA battle Royale...  Confused


Proposed General Meeting – Tamworth NSW

Many issues are confronting the on-going viability of general aviation and more may be introduced.

We need members and associates to meet and professionally discuss our future.
  •  Regulatory Reform & Red Tape Reduction associated with harmonisation.
  •  Replace Regulatory Development with Regulatory Economic Reform?
  •  Is CASA the problem or is it the Act that directs their modus operandi?
  •  Do we adopt a modified version of the USA FBO system for GA?
  •  Where are the future AME/LAMEs coming from? Will they have the expertise for the future?
  •  How do we attain higher utilisation of VH registered aircraft?
  •  Reducing costs to maintain a viable safe aviation industry.
  •  Encouraging the use of aircraft as a normal form of transport.
Location: Tamworth because the DPM resides in Tamworth. Most agree we need to invite the DPM to attend. It was also suggested to enable GA members and friends to privately fly in, stay a night and return home the next day.

If Tamworth is seen as difficult to get to, where else should it be held to improve attendances?

Duration: Two days has been suggested so that day one could identify all the issues, identify what action should be taken and by whom. Day two could include other GA associations’ executive representatives to discuss proposed actions.

Invitees: Many suggest that CASA senior management should be invited to pm day one to be part of the discussion. Others clearly reject this approach. Voice your opinion.

Should aviation media be invited and at what time? All through the meeting as we have done in the past?


Good to see KC & AMROBA are not prepared to let CASA and the aviation safety bureaucracy continue to destroy the Australian GA industry without a fight - Wink
  
Time for the rest of the Alphabets to get on-board me thinks.. Rolleyes
 

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#94
Caution Will Robinson…

In principal the ‘meeting’ is a great idea. But: it will need some speakers, in particular holders of Air Operator Certificates who are unafraid of rocking their own boat. There are probably about a dozen left who can and, more importantly – will, speak up. No need to guild the lily; just tell it as it really is. This is fraught with peril and would require some encouragement, there is always the next audit around the corner.

Then there are the respected few who are an absolute ‘must-have’. Folk like the Rev Forsyth for example, Phil Hurst for another, Mike Smith another, Greg Vaughan another; Dick Smith another. There are a few out there; calm, sane experts with credibility and nowhere near ‘silly’.

Personally, I would invite to attend, but not to speak, the ‘Alphabet’ top dogs. Too many are suspicious of their ‘agenda’, however laudable it may be. They have taken a position and have a rice bowl to protect; their members are precious to them and their very livelihood depends on ensuring the very best for ‘their own kind’. QED – many times and they will dance with the devil.

I (personally) would not let CASA within a bulls roar of the place. They need to be presented a ‘manifesto’ – along the lines of the Magna Carta.

But at the end of the shift – you still have to convince a basically uninterested politician to tangle with CASA and make some radical changes. That politician must be persuaded that ‘the Act’ as it stands is unconstitutional; that CASA is an escaped lunatic and that the blood is not on his hands.

[Image: DQtkQ-SVAAA7TzU.jpg]

Take more than a man who wants to slaughter a couple of ‘illegal’ dogs when the country is infested with ‘illegals; and, 457 visa folk taking jobs away from locals to get it done right. But have your meeting – the last one really did a lot of good; didn’t it? “No” you say– well, I wonder why ever not.

But then, I often wonder why our ‘real’ experts hesitate to step up to the crease. Then I realize that experts know what a lost cause is and when to abandon ship. Most of the aviation ‘guru’s have walked away from ‘reform’ – that must give you hint.

ATSB and CASA must be disbanded; the Kiwi’s did it very neatly and have never looked back. They reformed the regulator; then the regulations and have set an enviable bench mark for sanity, economy and a way forward ever since. Can anyone see CASA agreeing to that?

FWIW, I’d steal the devil’s own lunch if KC asked me to, I’ll also help with the meeting – but, will I hold my breathe in anticipation of real change? Of course not.

My glass is empty – this is unpardonable; inexcusable – so, best get off my beam ends and amble over to fridge – this happens when one is home alone.
Reply
#95
A General Aviation meeting, a ‘Tamworth Mark 11,’ would be a valuable exercise in several ways.
 
Firstly and obviously to create publicity for the ongoing plight of GA in particular and to generate political awareness without which reform is impossible. Impossible because the present model of regulatory governance for aviation has shown itself incapable of providing a workable or efficient environment for the GA industry. Thirty years into the rules rewrite (still not finished), several hundred $millions wasted and the last tranche of rules from 2014 are proving disastrous particularly for flying training. The transition to the new flying training rules is probably nearly complete, how many flying schools are left is a matter for conjecture because CASA does not count the numbers for comparison with years past. However the numbers remaining will be a tiny fraction compared to thirty years ago when CASA was remodeled into the independent Commonwealth corporate of today.

Secondly it behoves all of us to share and refine our thoughts on what is wrong and to reach some consensus on the method of reform. To this end it is clear that only by a change to the Act can reform occur. In the variety of diverse opinions about specifics, one would be hard pressed to obtain clause by clause complete agreement. Therefore the focus must be on the necessity for legislative change by demonstrating that the current trajectory is one of failure.
 
CASA should not be invited, CASA is irrelevant to the political changes that are required.
A Sydney meeting would have more media coverage and is a more reachable destination for the majority, especially those from interstate.

A two day seminar type meeting would have various sessions for all involved but the main publicity would be from high profile keynote speakers in the plenary session followed by question time.

There should be at least one speaker to debunk the myth that to fly is a government given privilege. We need to throw off in ourselves the outworn notion that we are always beholden to the Crown in the final analysis.

The rule of law works when it allows our legitimate pursuits not impinging greatly on the rights and freedoms of others.

For GA simple rules would work. No one baulks at the road rules and in principle it will be no different for GA.

Airline and commercial flying will always be more systematic and more stringently rules based to international standards.

AMROBA is to be congratulated for its consistent work towards achieving rational, workable and internationally acceptable standards for aviation in Australia.
Reply
#96
KC asks a fair QON? Rolleyes  


Via the AMROBA website:

Quote:[Image: BN-1-2-18.jpg]Breaking News 
Does Government Want GA?
February 12, 2018February 12, 2018 Ken Cannane
Does Government Want General Aviation



[Image: A1.jpg]
[Image: A2.jpg]
[Image: A3.jpg]

Standing by for the AQON? Big Grin


MTF...P2 Tongue

Ps   “With more than 5000 airports around the United States, our national network of general aviation aircraft and airports help businesses and communities to stay connected and compete in an increasingly global economy. General aviation enables businesses to access plants and customers anywhere in the country in a timely fashion, deliver goods and services to far-off markets, and conduct many meetings in different locations in a single day. These aircraft not only help communities to stay competitive, but as studies show, they actually increase shareholder value.

General aviation manufacturing is one of the few manufacturing industries that contributes to the balance of trade.

In addition to highlighting the economic benefits of the industry, the survey highlights the value of general aviation to communities around the nation in the terms of supporting agriculture, medical care, blood and organ transport, law enforcement, postal service, disaster relief, and access to many remote and rural parts of our country.”
- Following on from that quote I noted this related extraordinary AOPA article... Wink

Quote:Credit where due
Progress leads AOPA to withdraw FAA complaint against Waukegan AirportProgress leads AOPA to withdraw FAA complaint against Waukegan Airport
January 31, 2018 By Joe Kildea

In August 2017, AOPA filed three Part 13 complaints with the FAA over egregious fixed-base operator fees at three airports, one of which was Waukegan National Airport just outside Chicago. But following recent improvements, AOPA has withdrawn the complaint against Waukegan, acknowledging the steps taken by the airport to make it more accessible and friendlier to pilots.

[Image: 0131_waukegan.jpg?la=en&hash=A2A7D83B7A9...86BC25D115]
Photo courtesy of Waukegan National Airport.

“Grant Farrell from the Waukegan Port District and Skip Goss, the airport manager, understand the value of general aviation and importance of competition. We thank them for listening to our concerns and taking proactive steps to meet federal grant obligations and improve access,” said AOPA President and CEO Mark Baker.[Image: ri?ph=3031bd758b4456f88ef71857ffbba1ff27...TRxWUJQRjE]

The decision was announced in a Jan. 30 letter from AOPA General Counsel Ken Mead to the Illinois Department of Transportation and the FAA citing the airport management’s “concerted and transparent actions to improve the accessibility of the airport to transient users by offering alternative ramp parking and facilitating lower fuel prices.”

AOPA’s complaint alleged that Signature Flight Support, the only FBO at Waukegan, was using its monopoly position to force aircraft operators to buy unreasonably priced fuel and pay fees for services that were neither requested nor utilized.

In response, the airport announced in December that it would offer free tiedowns for transient aircraft and a pedestrian gate to access the ramp so pilots and passengers are not forced to go through the FBO. The FBO also reduced the price of self-service avgas from almost $6 a gallon to $4.81. A survey of websites shows avgas off the truck at Signature remains at $6.60.

According to the letter, “The alternative parking area, including wide promotion of its existence, will improve competition at the airport, better ensure the reasonableness of prices and fees for aeronautical services, and protect reasonable airport access.”

The letter notes that Waukegan’s steps match guidance the FAA issued in December to help airport sponsors understand their responsibility in assuring reasonable and non-discriminatory pricing at airports that receive federal funds.

“This is just the sort of response we are hoping for,” Baker said. “Our preference is that airport sponsors and FBOs themselves seek ways to give pilots choices when an FBO has a monopoly. We hope other locations can see Waukegan as a model. In the meantime, we will continue to press other locations to be more transparent with their fee structures and to provide pilots with choices when it comes to which services they choose to use at an airport.”

To learn more about the FBO fees issue and AOPA’s efforts to protect general aviation access, watch this recorded AOPA webinar. Baker and others working on the issue discuss the FAA guidance, how egregious FBO fees affect airport access, and what airports can do to ensure they meet FAA grant obligations.



Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)