Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Alphabet if’s and but's.
The worm turns.

Legend has it that Marie Antoinette kicked off the French revolution by telling the hoi-polloi to bugger off and eat cake. Conversely, great leaders like Churchill understood the people and could manage to move them to extraordinary heights and efforts. Our Darren 6D ain’t quite as pretty as old Marie and no where near as bright as Winston; but he has managed an extraordinary feat. One which every other minister and DoIT leader has carefully avoided for decades; unification of an industry group, led by the AOPA. No smoke, no mirrors, I wonder why ever not?

[Image: DJVywyoVoAA-Od0.jpg]

Never, in field of Australian aviation conflict has so much been done by one man to stuff up the status quo. Well done 6D – you’ve pissed ‘em all off, the whole bunch, now you must answer for your purblind folly. I shall try to explain it to you, just so as you understand why resignation is your only honourable course; redemption is out of the question. You see, setting fire to ones feet to keep ones hands warm has never been a very good idea.

History first: recent, the Pel-Air incident and Senate inquiry exposed the tip of an ugly, dangerous, government sponsored iceberg. The real CASA and ATSB were revealed for what they truly are – official – in the Senate. Everyone knew it, but fear and the lack of a platform to voice their anger prevented reform and change taking place. Pel-Air prompted the ASSR, which was a genteel, civilised document, offering a way to repair the damage and move forward. Had the ASRR been honestly taken up and supported, matters aeronautical would have improved, quietly, with the blood letting done in private. It was a beacon of hope held dear, by those who would have been satisfied by a quiet, no fuss revolution. Hopes of real reform were high, the mood buoyant. Those hopes were cynically crushed, the light of meaningful reform ruthlessly extinguished. You can’t do that to folk – not without some sort of push back.

Where it is.

[Image: Pollies_TW_2016_CB82A5C0-1576-11E6-99C802D27ADCA5FF.jpg]

Moving on to the present day – we must look at the gross errors you have made. For a start, you fail (dismally) to understand pilots; particularly the Australian version; bad blue. In secundus, you have failed, miserably to understand why the long, (30 years) loud calls for reform have not abated. Then you must ask why it has been so? Once you understand these things you may glean the reason for the underlying anger, which has developed into open outrage. The final part of your lesson is the AOPA gathering at Orange, yesterday.

Where it should have been.

[Image: r0_0_5184_3456_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]

This could be the beginning of the long awaited revolution – and you, Darren 6D, caused it. Well, you and whatever fools you listen to; those who provide slick, easy escape paths, all of which lead, eventually, to an untenable position. By excluding and actively trying to destroy the AOPA a weapon has been forged. How long do you think it’s going to be before the Aero clubs and their members realise that by using one AOC and the provisions for ‘remote’ base operations the call for independent instructors may be satisfied, like it or not. When they quite legally run around the false objections and return learning to fly, in country centres, to  part of a vibrant industry section, what then? Do the math; AOPA, without attracting any further support, is now a major force (by the numbers) and growing, determinedly so; with lots of support. Dare you keep sulking and pretending they ain’t real? Don’t forget the USA chapter have weighed in, you are staring down a big number of people now. Bluff, bluster and bull-shit will only get you a ticket on the train wreck.

Well done 6D – your arrogance, ineptitude and ignorance have released the force that thirty years of divide and conquer has carefully kept quiescent; unification, aligned anger and the numbers to make it stick. Bravo - duck wit.

Well done AOPA and all those who attended. May the force be with you.

Toot - toot.
Reply

On the slow death of local airports -
Confused

Via the other Aunty today Wink :

Quote:Will Australia's small airports soon be a thing of the past?
RN
By Lyn Gallacher for The Law Report

Posted about 6 hours agoTue 3 Oct 2017, 4:53pm
[Image: 9007116-3x2-700x467.jpg]

Photo:
"I used to do aerobatics over our home": Ron Dickenson has been a pilot since 1944. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)



There's not too many aviators left with Ron Dickenson's kind of logbook. He's 91, and has been a pilot since 1944.

Now, it seems his flying career could mark the rise and fall of general aviation in Australia.

Across the country, tiny airports are at risk. Sixty-one per cent of small aerodromes ran at a loss in 2014-15.

With expenditure expected to rise by 38 per cent in the next decade, the numbers don't look good. But there was a golden age of Australian aviation and Mr Dickenson was part of it.

When he received his first pilot licence, it simply read: "Licence to fly flying machines."
"We did anything. There must have been regulations for the airlines, but they didn't seem to apply to private planes," Mr Dickenson said.

[Image: 8996748-3x2-700x467.jpg]

Photo:
Times have changed since Mr Dickenson first started flying in the 1940s. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)


"I used to do aerobatics over our home in Kew [in Melbourne]. Mum would come out and she'd wave a towel or a sheet, then I'd fly back again."

But security and safety considerations have put an end to these fun-filled days of aviation. The sky is no longer what it was.

In 1944, when Mr Dickenson began his training in the air force, the military was where the development of most new planes and aviation technologies took place.

Today that's not necessarily the case — with hybrid and electric planes being developed by the private sector.

Some are already on the market, but these short-range planes need an aviation ecosystem in which to operate — which means small airfields to land at.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Government handed over the control of hundreds of tiny airports to city councils under a scheme known as ALOP, the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan.

[Image: 9007154-3x2-700x467.jpg]

Photo:
Yarram airport in eastern Victoria is one of many facing an uncertain future. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)


ALOP came with the caveat that the councils were not permitted to sell, lease or dispose of the aerodromes without the written consent of the secretary of the Department of Transport.

To some councils, this gift looked more like a burden, because it's the council that now needs to find the funding for runway overhauls, landing lights and fencing.

The airfield at Kempsey on the mid north coast of NSW is a striking example.

In a recent judgment involving a collision between a kangaroo and a landing aeroplane at the airport, the judge found in favour of the plane owner.

The Kempsey Shire Council was liable for the cost of a new propeller worth almost $200,000.

The judge said the council knew about the kangaroo problem and should have put up a fence, which would have cost $100,000.

The council argued the money could have been better spent elsewhere and is appealing the decision.

Development vs. aviation

The Australian Airports Association suggests as many as 50 per cent of Australia's regional airports may be operating at a loss each year.

Many local councils can see more revenue in selling the land to real estate developers.
On Melbourne's outskirts, airports like Geelong, Philip Island, Pakenham, Berwick, Wallan, Welshpool, Melton, Moorooduc and Labertouche have all gone this way.
The situation is not much better in NSW or Queensland.

[Image: 9007128-3x2-700x467.jpg]

Photo:
It's estimated more than half of Australia's regional airports are operating at a loss. (ABC RN: Michael Shirrefs)


In remote Australia, where cars are simply not an option, the problem of airport closures is not so bad.

Under the terms of ALOP, councils were legally required to keep airports as airports, but some have been mothballed prior to sale, forestalling any challenges.

This is how the situation in Kempsey could be heading, as well as in Gympie, Queensland, and in the Victorian towns of Mildura and Yarram.

What do we stand to lose?

Aviators like Mr Dickenson are having to explain to the wider community how small airport closures affect them.

The benefits of tiny airports are harder to define than those of their large counterparts because they don't measure passenger movements or represent regular flying schedules.
Yet they are needed for postal services, water bombing activity, air ambulances, the SES, police, tourism, crop dusting, survey planes, flight training schools and simple connectivity.

General aviation has long been a home of ideas, where knowledge, experience and innovation have helped drive the future of flying forward.

In Europe, tiny airports are being used to develop new environmentally and economically efficient aviation technologies.

But that culture is absent on Australia's increasingly deserted small runways.

&.. RN radio:
Quote:Tiny Airports in trouble
http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...3_1730.mp3


Tuesday 3 October 2017 5:30PM (view full episode)


Globally aviation is booming, so why are tiny airports facing an uncertain future? According to the aviation community, the right regulatory framework is not in place. Tiny airports are where training, crop dusting, mail delivery, maintenance, banking and emergency services, survey, charter and recreational flying takes place. They are also centres of innovation, and many in the industry are concerned that if the tiny airport ecosystem breaks down Australia could miss out the next chapter of aviation history; a cleaner, cheaper, safer flying future.

A special report from Lyn Gallacher, RN Producer and novice pilot.
[Image: 9010620-3x2-340x227.jpg][b]IMAGE:[/b] ROBIN SIDEBOTHAM IN THE HANGAR WITH HIS PLANE (MICHAEL SHIRREFS)

[Image: 9008280-3x2-340x227.jpg][b][b]IMAGE:[/b] RN PRODUCER LYN GALLACHER AFTER HER FIRST FLIGHT(SUPPLIED LYN GALLACHER)[/b]


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Flying School alliance to cut costs on Part 142 - Wink

Via Hitch off the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: AVIA_Darren-Schmidt.jpg]Avia Aviation's Senior Base Pilot Darren Schmidt can see the benefits of APTA membership. (Steve Hitchen)

Flying Schools choose APTA as Part 142 Solution
6 October 2017

Moorabbin-based Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) is gaining momentum as smaller flying schools begin to feel the bite of having to transition to CASR Part 142 rules.
APTA provides upper-level key personnel oversight services to its members, which in turn enables those flying schools to make the move to Part 142 more easily and with less cost.

Part 142 has been written to include the coveted 150-hour CPL course that is currently sought after by most CPL students, but the move has left smaller flying schools stranded with the 200-hour course covered by Part 141 because they simply can't afford the level of management and control demanded by CASA to be approved to Part 142.

"Part 141 was written for the smaller flying schools," APTA CEO Glen Buckley says, "and Part 142 is for the larger academies like those with university affiliations."

Buckley is the owner of Melbourne Flight Training (MFT), a Part 141 school, but was facing with significant costs simply to retain the level of business that he already had.

"We would have loved to stay in that environment [Part 141]; it's much cheaper to operate than a Part 142 school," Buckley said, "however, we got 95% of our income from the 150-hour CPL, which we were going to have to walk away from unless we found a way to move to Part 142."

Buckley started APTA to enable MFT and other small flying schools to share the cost of competing with the larger academies that can more easily comply with Part 142 and soak up the students who wanted to take the fast path to a CPL.

One of those smaller schools was Avia Aviation.

"Joining APTA gives us the advantage of competing with other schools," says Avia Senior Base Pilot and Grade 1 Instructor Darren Schmidt, "especially with access to the 150-hour CPL syllabus, because we can now run the integrated courses whereas we couldn't under Part 141.

"Our students gain because they have to pay for 50 hours less training to get their CPL. That's huge benefit of joining APTA."

According to Buckley, APTA membership holds benefits well beyond just Part 142, as even the cost of complying with Part 141 and the Part 61 Licensing regulations is commonly estimated at around $250,000. He believes leveraging the management expertise of APTA means members schools can now assure compliance at a much lower cost.

APTA currently has five member companies, which can also share resources between themselves, but Buckley is looking for more to join the group. The current APTA members are:
  • Melbourne Flight Training
  • TVSA Flight Training
  • Avia Aviation
  • Learn to Fly
  • Flight Standards
"All members operate under one common set of seven manuals, with supplemental Base Operations Manuals for each member to account for the differences in school practices," Buckley points out. "APTA members also don't have to cease operations when key people–such as the CFI–leave, because they are still covered by the APTA Air Operators Certificate."

Both Part 141 and Part 142 schools have until 31 August 2018 to completely transition to the new rules.

More information is on the APTA website

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...ZLQR8Uu.99

Still bemuses me that such lengths have to be taken by grass root aviation businesses just to lessen the huge red tape costs inflicted by a big R-regulator... Undecided



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
This is absolutely lateral thinking. The coiffured clown do nothing Darren, has already indicated his capture by the Mystic of safety scam.

The reality that CAsA unions run the aviation agenda, much like the teachers union run education, means there's little chance of any meaningful reform. They will sabotage anything that anyone tries to implement that attempts to improve efficiency and change the status quo.
Think of part 61.
The intention was to simplify and improve pilot standards and reduce costs. What these people morphed it into is a complete cluster***k of unintelligible gobbledygook that saps the life blood out of an already fragile industry. The same could be said of part 141 and 142 which could perhaps explain the exodus of flying training to more sensible countries. People will just have to get used to no aviation and illiterate kids, unless they want to import aviation personnel from overseas (already Happening) or export their kids offshore to gain a proper education (already beginning to happen).

This Co-Op idea, if you can't beat them, join them, has some merit. AOC's are currently being shared, perhaps not in a formal sense, but there are owners attaching their aircraft to an AOC holder to operate on their behalf, the costs of doing so are bad enough but pale into insignificance compared with trying to obtain their own AOC.

Given the obscene costs of gaining an AOC and the huge regulatory cost burden of maintaining it, this co-op model could provide an answer by sharing the red tape, and the myriad of unproductive key personnel required by CAsA to match their own bloated bureaucracy. It will not however alleviate the extraordinary costs of including an aircraft on an AOC.

The old saying "there's strength in numbers" may also come into play. As we know smaller aviation companies are in reality Ghost managed by CAsA FOI's. They decide, from the CEO down who is fit and proper to occupy the roles in the company CAsA decide are necessary. Gum nut airlines, their imagined operator with a couple of small turbines and Navajo's had something like twenty Admin staff. There is also evidence that they decide which pilots may be employed. Anyone on their shit list doesn't get a look in, the chief pilot is powerless to implement operational practices, in some cases expressly contradicting manufacturers recommended practices, without their express approval, all care, but of course no liability or responsibility.

A larger outfit administering an AOC covering a multitude of operators could put a brake on these excesses to a certain extent and provide some protection against retributive action when a small operator is confronted with some of their more ridiculous and patently unsafe directions but dare not push back.

The danger in all this is CAsA, confronted by intransigence to their direction, may attempt to take out the core personnel and bring down the whole shooting match down. The commercial side of GA, even if everyone was on the same page, would not have the resources the big airlines do to face them down if it came to real stoush and unfortunately they know it.
Reply
Thought to action and ‘legal’.

"All members operate under one common set of seven manuals, with supplemental Base Operations Manuals for each member to account for the differences in school practices," Buckley points out. "APTA members also don't have to cease operations when key people–such as the CFI–leave, because they are still covered by the APTA Air Operators Certificate."

How long now have the BRB been saying ‘get smart’ use the rules and the system to gain ‘independent’ instructors in the rural areas?. APTA have shown one way and it’s a brilliant idea; bravo. But what of the ‘Aero clubs’ without and instructor ‘on tap’?

The notion of one outfit, like say AOPA holding a certificate and establishing remote bases for ‘their’ operations has real merit and is worthy of serious consideration. If CASA can’t or will not grant the easement needed; then working within the existing rule set to provide ‘instruction’ at bases where the revenue stream will not support a full time ‘school’ or instructor is ‘do-able’.

Anyway, great stuff from APTA, top marks for patience, diligence, intelligence , fortitude and industry assistance. Thank you.

Toot toot.
Reply
Hitch with a ASAP TAAAF update - Rolleyes

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: TAAAF_image_composite.jpg]The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) presents a united industry view to Canberra under the guidance of Honorary Chairman Greg Russell. (composite image)

TAAAF sends Three Policy Papers to Canberra

10 November 2017

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has sent three new policy papers to CASA CEO Shane Carmody, covering what it says are issues of great concern to the aviation industry: engineering training, flight training and a revitalisation of general aviation.

The three papers were written with the idea that they would be discussed at the next meeting of CASA's Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) in two weeks' time.

"We've been working on these papers for a while and sent them into the government about three weeks ago," TAAAF Honorary Chairman Greg Russell told Australian Flying. "We think there's a response coming to us shortly.

"I have asked that these three papers go to the next ASAP meeting. I think that's a legitimate way for TAAAF to formulate policy and put it into a consultative process now that we have this panel in place.

"We tried to keep them concise and there are recommendations there that cover more than just CASA, for example, the question of engineering training.

"I think [presenting the papers] is a logical development of the whole forum approach, and now with this consultation mechanism in place, we think this is the right way to get this material into the forum."

Engineering Training

TAAAF says the engineering training program in Australia has "all but collapsed" citing data that indicates that in 2009 there were 779 apprentices, 398 in 2013 and estimates that put next year's figure at less than 100.

"Firstly, there is a lack of a transparent training pathway for students to enter the industry and identify and career pathway," the TAAAF position paper says, "and secondly, the funding arrangements for RTOs [Registered Training Organisations] across the various states are confused and diverse.

"Additionally, these RTO’s are now required to have an additional CASA Approval, namely as a Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO)."

In the paper, TAAAF congratulates CASA for implementing a review of CASR Part 66 maintenance training regulations, but says the issue of funding is one that still needs attention, and recommends "that the Federal government assume control over the funding and management of the training requirements specified by CASA in order to produce appropriately skilled engineers whose licences include greater scope and are recognised internationally."

Flight Training

According to TAAAF, the new flight training regulations, CASR Parts 61, 141 and 142 "impose undue complexity and cost on the aviation industry that will lead to a significant reduction in training capacity."

The paper lays the blame for the situation on four main issues:
  • Students at CASA-approved flight training schools (as distinct from university-backed courses) have to access to HECS or other government funding
  • CASA will not indemnify instructors with a Flight Examiner rating the way they did for Authorised Testing Officers
  • The new CASRs place very high demands on training organisations and individuals that TAAAF believes will lead to a capacity reduction
  • The Federal Goverment tightened 457 visa requirements, which restricts the ability for Australia to recruit instructors from overseas.
"This combination is leading to pilot shortages in various areas, a reduction in the operations of existing flight training schools, a restriction on availability of specialised training, and an overall reduction in capabilities across the industry," TAAAF says.
To correct the situation, the position paper recommends that ASAP establishes a joint industry/CASA review of the three new regulation suites to be completed within three months; that the Federal Government extend funding to all CPL candidates and those doing operational ratings, and the Federal Government take steps to simplify aviation industry access to 457 visa candidates to enable a greater exchange of international expertise.

Revitalising General Aviation

That general aviation is in decline is a position the entire industry has taken over the past 10-15 years, and the TAAAF paper on the subject refines the problem down to four main issues:
  • Overly-prescriptive regulation
  • CASA's lack of focus on GA
  • A failure of state and federal policies on training
  • Cost of access to training facilities and airports
Whilst recognising that many different factors have contributed to the decline of GA, the paper goes on to point out that there are several things that can be laid at CASA's doorstep.

"The key issue is that CASA has struggled with general aviation issues for at least a decade largely because it has not enunciated a clear policy or organisational structure that relates risk and controls to the different needs and capacities of the different sectors it regulates.

"This has led to a slow and overly complex regulatory reform process and significant new costs and complexity."

With CASA currently considering an internal restructure, TAAAF has grabbed the opportunity to recommend the regulator set-up a GA directorate and take a more relevant regulatory stance toward the industry in line with the results of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR).

TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. It is due to review and release an updated major policy statement next year.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...W1hWFsy.99


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
I would hate to think that anyone thought I was bagging the Russel effort to get on top of the regulatory farce and straighten the whole shemozzle out. It is a ‘must’ do. Russel has deep, ‘proper’ knowledge of the weights and ropes which run the deep heart of our bloated bureaucracy; indeed, he was very much part of it and worked ‘the system’ very well. But ‘speed’ is incredibly important.

When one is sitting on a half million a year, secure and at no financial risk; there is time to per sue ‘reform’ at a leisurely pace. But, all the while the industry clock is ticking; and, it is not keeping accurate time. Parts 61, 66, and a few others are creating havoc - right now, in real time. This before we even get to the ridiculous i.e. pilots are no longer considered ‘approved’ meteorological observers. Which, standing alone, is cause for great concern – in a safety sense, if nothing else. But the law is there; it is ridiculous, it needs to be repealed – like yesterday, which would be good.

We have been at ‘regulatory reform’ for three decades now – thirty bloody years. CASA will deliver the packages into ‘law’, no matter what rubbish is enshrined. Aat the present rate of reform it’s going to take another thirty years to straighten out the dogs breakfast we are forced (under criminal liability) to live with. Which regulations have been modified to reflect industry needs or preference. Don't worry - the answer is ZERO.

Great effort Greg – appreciated – but could we please just move it along a little faster – at industry pace – not at the usual speed of the Sleepy Hollow retards. Thank you; that would be great.

Home safe (again) -  well done lad - now get 'em in; we'll not discuss matters aeronautical; unless you became an unintentional criminal today;  No, well how are the dogs?
Reply
Alphabets push for winding back strict liability offences - Rolleyes

Finally the Alphabets collectively lift the scab on CASA's attempted O&O of the Government response to ASRR Recommendation 32:

Quote:Recommendation 32

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reassesses the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

Response

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

CASA, in consultation with the Department and industry, will conduct a review of the penalties for offences in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the CASR.

This review report will be provided to the CASA Board and Director of Aviation Safety and the Attorney-General’s Department (in terms of Criminal Law penalty policy) for consideration by 30 June 2015.

The Government is also aware that CASA is giving consideration to the establishment of a civil penalty regime, noting this would require a change in CASA’s legislation.

The Government supports CASA releasing a policy paper in the first half of 2015 to the public and industry for comment to seek their views on this proposal.

Via the Oz today... Wink :

Quote:[Image: e1f4ce27692523cf6a8fc2b05309fb9c?width=650]

Strict liability in penalty review

12:00am
ANNABEL HEPWORTH

Aviation safety authority and bureaucrats will kick off a review of penalties in the civil aviation rules next year.

Quote:The contentious issue of strict liability will be on the table when Australia’s aviation safety authority and bureaucrats kick off a landmark review of penalties in civil aviation rules next year.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority said it would review penalties under the Civil Aviation Act and the regulations with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development after the drafting of the remaining regulatory reform agenda.

“It is expected the review will be initiated in 2018,” a CASA spokesman said.

The review is expected to focus on “the proportionality of the penalties imposed for specified offences, having regard to the seriousness of the offences ­involved”, the spokesman said.

“Consideration will also be given to the possible decriminalisation of certain legislative ­requirements, and the possible ­relocation of certain of offences from the regulations to the act and vice versa. Consideration will also be given to the propriety, desirability and practicality of a civil penalties regime.”

The issue of strict liability ­offences — which remove the need to prove the person intended to do something wrong, or did so with knowledge, recklessness or negligence — will be within the scope of the review.

“The extent to which strict liability offences should be retained in the civil aviation legislation will be considered in the course of the review,” the spokesman said.

“Strict liability offences are common in Australian legislation governing public safety, including our own longstanding Civil Aviation Regulations and the earlier Air Navigation Regulations.’’

In 2014, a report by the panel led by aviation veteran David ­Forsyth — which criticised CASA for taking too hard a line — urged a review of penalties, a recommendation the government agreed with.

The Forsyth panel said there was concern about the severity of the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

The review cited the example of failing to inform CASA of a change of address within 14 days’ attracting a much higher fine than when a driver doesn’t inform the motor registry of the same thing.

But the review has been plagued by delay.

The Australian Aviation Association Forum honorary chairman Greg Russell said he had sympathy for the size of the reform agenda CASA was dealing with and said this was “no mean feat”, though “we are continuing to see encouraging signs out of CASA”.

The nature and level of penalties had “certainly been an irritation” in the sector.

“What do you do first?” Mr Russell said. It’s just terribly important to get these regulatory things fixed, at least this phase of it. Then the industry will know where they stand. I think that’s the big bugbear.”

Aircraft Owners and Pilots ­Association executive director Benjamin Morgan said his group wanted to see a “wholesale retraction” of some of the penalties.

He also said he was concerned breaches of most of the provisions of the regulations, and some of the provisions in the Civil Aviation Act, were “strict liability”.

Aerial Application Association of Australia chief executive officer Phil Hurst echoed the concern on strict liability.

“The concept of having an ­advanced high-reliability industry and a culture that goes with that is that you’ve got to be able to put trust in people to do the right thing,” Mr Hurst said.

“You have to verify. Without doubt, you’ve got to verify. But you don’t use strict liability as a simple way of making the issuing of penalties easier.”

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said: “A safety culture cannot be imposed. It must be fostered. A regulator can police sensible accepted standards, but it cannot foster the safety culture with a rule book and a heavy-handed application of penalties.”

CASA has previously come under fire for being slow to adopt recommendations from the Forsyth report.

After the CASA executive considered a draft preliminary review of penalties, it was decided a full review of penalties would be started after the regulatory reform agenda was dealt with.

Plans to release a discussion paper by March this year were postponed. It is now expected CASA will release a paper for consultation on the nature and level of penalties in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. The CASA spokesman said a review of offences and penalties would be “useful and constructive”.


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
“Minister it would appear, on the face of it, that there may be some merit in considering if we could, next year, review the status of the Aviation Safety Review of 2014.

Unfortunately the aviation industry, and especially those little plane people, don’t understand how we’ve saved many many lives and how difficult it is to review the vast number of regulations that have been needed to accomplish this task. Yes Minister I hear what you are saying about some dissatisfaction from some quarters, but these people are a very small minority, the sort of outback cowboys that we have to come down on pretty hard and yes we’ve managed to drive many of them out and thus saved a lot of time and trouble within Aviation Hearse.

The smooth running of our current administrative model is one to be admired and I’m expecting the Board to favourably look at rewarding, especially our senior people, all the CASA employees for their dedication, hard work and unstinting help to other Commonwealth corporate bodies, like ATSB, when called upon. Thank you Minister, we’ll have a Statement of Expectorants ready for signing very soon, say early next year. Yes Sir, it would be tight by 30th March next year assuming no unforeseen developments.

We could get cracking on the review some time after that. Thank you again Minister. Oh yes of course I’ll pass on to you any important developments that we cannot handle without your invaluable judgment. Of course Minister, no disturbances over the summer break, only a major catastrophe would cause me to call you at your summer beach house.”
Reply
Further TAAAF update & AMROBA latest newsflash -  Rolleyes

(11-10-2017, 05:16 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Hitch with a ASAP TAAAF update - Rolleyes

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: TAAAF_image_composite.jpg]The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) presents a united industry view to Canberra under the guidance of Honorary Chairman Greg Russell. (composite image)

TAAAF sends Three Policy Papers to Canberra

10 November 2017

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has sent three new policy papers to CASA CEO Shane Carmody, covering what it says are issues of great concern to the aviation industry: engineering training, flight training and a revitalisation of general aviation.

The three papers were written with the idea that they would be discussed at the next meeting of CASA's Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) in two weeks' time.

"We've been working on these papers for a while and sent them into the government about three weeks ago," TAAAF Honorary Chairman Greg Russell told Australian Flying. "We think there's a response coming to us shortly.

"I have asked that these three papers go to the next ASAP meeting. I think that's a legitimate way for TAAAF to formulate policy and put it into a consultative process now that we have this panel in place.

"We tried to keep them concise and there are recommendations there that cover more than just CASA, for example, the question of engineering training.

"I think [presenting the papers] is a logical development of the whole forum approach, and now with this consultation mechanism in place, we think this is the right way to get this material into the forum."

Engineering Training

TAAAF says the engineering training program in Australia has "all but collapsed" citing data that indicates that in 2009 there were 779 apprentices, 398 in 2013 and estimates that put next year's figure at less than 100.

"Firstly, there is a lack of a transparent training pathway for students to enter the industry and identify and career pathway," the TAAAF position paper says, "and secondly, the funding arrangements for RTOs [Registered Training Organisations] across the various states are confused and diverse.

"Additionally, these RTO’s are now required to have an additional CASA Approval, namely as a Maintenance Training Organisation (MTO)."

In the paper, TAAAF congratulates CASA for implementing a review of CASR Part 66 maintenance training regulations, but says the issue of funding is one that still needs attention, and recommends "that the Federal government assume control over the funding and management of the training requirements specified by CASA in order to produce appropriately skilled engineers whose licences include greater scope and are recognised internationally."

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...W1hWFsy.99

I note that due to Inflighto's query in comments to the 10 Nov '17 LMH...

Quote:[Image: avatar92.jpg?1510896449]
Inflighto8 days ago
Hi Hitch,

Where can the general aviation 'public' access the TAAAF discussion papers? Are they published somewhere online?

Thanks, Chris
 
...that Hitch responded with this:

Quote:[Image: avatar92.jpg?1436502934]
SteveHitchen Mod Inflighto4 days ago

Chris. Your wish has been granted! At the base of the news story there are now three links for you to download the TAAAF policy papers. Thanks. Hitch

Quote:TAAAF is a co-operative group made up of Australia's peak aviation bodies designed to give the industry coherence when dealing with government and regulators. It is due to review and release an updated major policy statement next year.

TAAAF GA
TAAAF Flight Training
TAAAF Engineering Training

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...44F7Htf.99

I also note that KC & AMROBA, as an active TAAAF member, has proactively struck while the pan is hot and followed up the AAAF initiative with another typically succinct and incisive newsflash bulletin Wink
Quote:
[Image: BN-11-17-390x205.jpg]
Breaking News 
Manufacturing Potential 2018 – If FAR System Adopted
November 18, 2017 Ken Cannane Comments Off on Manufacturing Potential 2018 – If FAR System Adopted
Manufacturing Potential 2018


AIRCRAFT & PARTS MANUFACTURING POTENTIAL – 2018 & ON

The potential of aircraft and aircraft parts manufacturing in Australia is fully dependent on government creating the environment to support their policy; jobs & growth.

Government must implement a global regulatory system that enables our manufacturers and designers to compete in the international aviation market. Our current regulatory system is dated and restricts manufacturers from being innovative & competitive.

The USA aviation manufacturing system was modernised 18 years ago but the Australian system, based on the old USA system, is still operating to the USA pre-modernised system that is bureaucratic and has excessive red tape. It must be updated urgently.

The Government, Department of Infrastructure and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have taken no action to modernise aircraft and parts manufacturing regulatory requirements over the last 18 years. In that period, more red tape has been created.

18 years of government holding back the potential of this industry.The FAA replaced their system with a system that is not only ICAO compliant, harmonised with Europe but also provided appreciable cost savings whilst enhancing safety.

It removed unnecessary red tape, places responsibility and delegated authority with the manufacturer, approved design organisations and individuals. Regulatory functions previous carried out by the FAA have also been delegated to manufacturers and designers. Their changes have enhanced safety and reduced overall costs.

Unlike every regulatory change made by Government/DIRD/CASA over the last couple of decades, the FAA managed to reduce red tape, devolved functions to industry and significantly reduced costs. A rare feat for any regulator, let alone in aviation.

The USA system is now the most modernised aviation manufacturing regulatory system that, in 2009, provided $370M savings for just over $2M change implementation costs.

The concepts of the changes are reflected in the title change of FAR Part 21, Certification Procedures for Product, Articles, and Parts compared to CASR Part 21, Certification and Airworthiness Requirements for Aircraft and Parts.Note Airworthiness Requirements removed.

GOVERNMENT MUST ADOPT THE FAR CHANGES ASAP.

Adopting the FARs and supporting FAA documentation will enable growth and jobs.
We may even see more small aircraft designs being considered.

Modernisation may even see the upgrading of older aircraft by modifications to improve safety as is happening in the USA system today.

VISION MISSING FROM GOVERNMENT/DIRD/CASA

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_111917_070800_PM.jpg]

This is not a vision that will bring about jobs and growth. The safest skies is one without aircraft.

The FAA’s Mission states: Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world; whilst the FAA Vision states: We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.

Within CASA we needs the same commitment as the FAA recently made to the US Congress.

FAA Statement to Congress: “Efficiently and effectively managing the safe oversight of the largest fleet of aircraft in the world, while continuing to support the innovation of new and novel technologies is a challenge, but one that we recognize is vital to the economic growth of our country. The U.S. aviation manufacturing industry provides the livelihood for millions of Americans and is a dynamic and innovative industry that we are proud to oversee”.

Our mature aircraft & parts design and manufacturing businesses provide safety levels better than what is prescribed in ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). Australia’s design & manufacturing technical and organisational expertise have embedded ‘safety’ as a fundamental in engineering, it is the reason products continue to improve because new innovation and technologies are implemented regularly to enhance safety.

A lot of the changes incorporated in FAR Part 21 since 2009 were once applied to our aircraft and parts manufacturers under previous regulatory systems before 1990. Australia once led the world with the requirements for utilising manufacturing quality systems.

FAR Part 21 is now explained in their Industry Guide to Product Certification published in May, 2017.

“This revision of The FAA and Industry Guide to Product Certification (hereinafter referred to as “the Guide”) incorporates changes based on lessons learned and the most recent policy and guidance published by FAA. It also encourages the broader and more consistent use of the principles and expected operating norms for efficient design approval processes consisting of TC, STC, TSOA, and Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). But this edition goes further in establishing the principles and guidance for how an Applicant and the FAA can begin a transition to a state where there is progressively less direct involvement of the FAA in the compliance activities of the Applicant.

FAR Part 21 is now about the certification of aircraft, products, etc. and providing a document to put the product into service. Airworthiness control/continuing airworthiness is in FAR Parts 43, 91 & other operational Parts. Even Part 21, Subpart Q, Markings was transferred to Part 45, Subpart B.

Note: FAA “product” definition includes “aircraft” as does ICAO & EASA.

Ken R Cannane

AMROBA
http://www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
AHIA gets an early Xmas bonus courtesy Carmody.

Fellow TAAAF member AHIA would appear to have a win for their flying school training sector.. Wink

Via Oz Flying online:

Quote:[Image: Training_MB_BH.jpg]CASA is proposing to amend Part 61 to enable a 105-hour CPL(H). (Ben Hall)

CASA proposes 105-hour CPL for Helicopters
21 November 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has proposed to amend CASR Part 61 to allow for a 105-hour training syllabus for the commercial helicopter pilot licence (CPL(H)).

The proposal will also enable the 105-hour course to be taught by Part 141 (non-integrated) training organisations and not require basic IFR training for the recreational navigation endorsement, PPL with helicopter category rating and the CPL(H).

"The proposal has been developed following ongoing consultations between the Australian Helicopter Industry Association [AHIA], helicopter flight training operators and CASA," CASA has said.

"Transition regulations which are consistent with this proposal, have been in place since the commencement of the flight crew licensing regulations in September 2014. The transition provisions continue until 31 August 2018."

CASA Part 61 amendments would enshrine training practices that the Australian helicopter training industry are already using successfully. The new regulations would be based largely on those that existed prior to the introduction of Part 61. If the change is accepted, the new regulations would have to be implemented before the transition provisions expire next year.

"The proposal would remove doubt over the continued use of the 105 hour CPL(H) course and the requirement for basic instrument flight training," CASA says. "This would help support and encourage operators to complete their Part 141 transition."

More information and feedback links are on the CASA website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...4Yh1M6w.99
 
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)