[Peetwo]

Comardy/Boyd to KC - "Up yours mate!"


Reference post via Mount NCN thread:

 KC & AMROBA on ASRR R21 & R22.

Somewhat related I note that KC put out a paper that confronts the lack of progress on ASRR R21 & R22, while putting forward a suggested model that embraces the concepts and principles of an ICAO civil aviation system organisational structure:

---

---

---

       

I note that in Oz Flying today, Hitch draws attention to the fact that Boyd and presumably the majority of the board, including Comardy, have categorically rejected COO and ASRR recommendations 21 & 22... : 

CASA says it can deliver better value from a more agile approach rather than establishing small regional offices. (CASA)

CASA rejects Regional Offices Recommendation
12 May 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has said that it won't establish small regional offices as recommended in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR).

Recommendation 22 of the ASRR stated that CASA should consider establishing small offices at specific industry centres to "improve monitoring, service quality, communications and collaborative relationships."

In its response to the ASRR, the Federal Government noted the recommendation, but did not agree with it, referring it to CASA instead.

"CASA has been reviewing the value of small regional offices," a CASA spokesperson told Australian Flying. "We are aware that industry wants CASA to be efficient and consistent in the delivery of our regulatory services and that these services are provided without increased costs.

"We believe we can deliver a better outcome for less cost. This includes adopting a risk based approach rather than increasing our office footprint. 

"We are exploring adopting a more agile approach where we will deploy staff short term to work with industry wherever they are required on an operational and safety needs basis."

The government ASRR response linked the recommendation to Recommendation 21, which suggested that CASA needed to change its structure to a "client-oriented output model", something that CASA says it has done through establishing the Stakeholder Engagement Group and the Industry Relations Branch within that group, and the Client Services Centre within the Sustainability Group.

However, the regulator has not at this stage ruled out establishing a general aviation unit under any future re-structure, a concept raised by the government response and not included in the original ASRR recommendation.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...VSMR8JR.99

  
So once again our unelected, self-serving aviation safety bureaucracy goes against the wishes of the industry, the Alphabets and indeed their 'elected' political masters err Muppets...

Yet another example of where CASA obfuscate their responsibility of truly addressing the industry 'trust' issues that were highlighted in many of the recommendations in the ASRR...

Remember the weasel worded regulatory philosophy - https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/standar...philosophy - but then we are still yet to see the deletion of former DAS McComic signed Enforcement Manual foreword, that contains his 'black letter' embuggerance dispensation:     

Embuggerance according to Carmody..Oliver..err McComic

Ps Embuggerance manual tracking update: Download preface.pdf

It would appear that J Mac is still the real DAS/CEO at Aviation House - UDB!

"..plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.."  - Alphonse Karr


MTF...P2

Ps Additional comment from Hitch in this week's LMH...

...This week I decided to chase up a largely forgotten recommendation from 2014's Forsyth Report. Recommendation 22 has been left to sleep in the corner as the party went on around it; I suspect because it wasn't actually agreed to in the government response. It calls on CASA to establish smaller offices in regional centres to help improve levels of efficiency and the relationship with the aviation community. Personally, I didn't identify this as being a recommendation central to the recovery of general aviation, but it would have gone a long way toward getting CASA out of the ivory towers and into the bricks and mortar of the streets. CASA has now rejected the recommendation, saying in summary that the idea is not cost-effective. That may be true from their point of view, but burying themselves deep in the labyrinths of capital cities to oversee an industry that exists largely on airports (rarely situated in capital city labyrinths) isolates them from the very industry they are trying to be a part of. CASA has promised to be more agile and flexible instead, but given the traditional inertia of government bureaucracies, the reality is that the industry is likely to end up with neither. Good thing that recommendation wasn't agreed to.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...Y42aP1q.99