Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Carmody Hour.
#46
Of bureaucratic stonewalls & Fort Fumble embuggerances - Dodgy

On 'CASA meets the Press' thorny despairs at the M&M appointment of Comardy...

"..Another career Mandarin installed by the "Iron Ring" to ensure Australia continues down the road as an International Joke and ensuring their trough privileges remain intact. The corrupt scum bags win again, the industry loses again.

Oh well, there's always New Zealand suppose, Australia is screwed.."

...and Kharon cites a perfect example (above) of a classic FF case of embuggerance that has reached finality (maybe??) under the Comardy watch, that would appear to contradict the supposedly 'new' caring, sharing, trustworthy CASA that is warmly embracing the recommendations of the Forsyth review recommendations... (retch!) Undecided

Anyway for what it is worth I get the feeling that Senator Fawcett was already privy to the fact that Comardy was to be the anointed one:



 

Along with the apparent reincarnation of the CVD matter by Senator Fawcett, I also get the feeling that the good Senator believes he has the upper hand on the ATSB Essendon B200  investigation as it is related to aviation safety surrounding airport developments:

Quote:Senator FAWCETT:...I guess I am seeking assurance from you, Mr Carmody, that CASA's approach to this, as we have discussed here on multiple occasions, will move beyond the, 'It can be made safe by limiting the operations' to, 'This is what an airport is designed to do in terms of the Commonwealth lease'—which says it must maintain its existing capacity and have the option to grow capacity—so that CASA will put its hand up and say, 'If these changes are made for existing or future operations, it will be unsafe,' as opposed to saying, 'It can be made safe by limiting operations,' which has been the practice in the past. I am seeking that assurance from you that the organisation will change the way it views its role in assessing that aggregation of safety implications.

Mr Carmody : I will certainly look at that.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.

Mr Carmody : I understand the logic of the statement you have made. I would like to go back and review how it is actually done, but I understand the point you are making.

Senator FAWCETT: I have raised on multiple occasions the example in Archerfield and the realignment and shortening of runways and the fact that CASA has ticked off on that. Yet, as pointed out by the operators there, for them to comply with CASA's requirements, in terms of planning for wet runways, climb gradients, factoring that they have to put in, they cannot comply. Therefore, yes, it can be made safe by having reduced payloads, but that then affects the commercial viability of the operation and flies in the face of the terms of the lease for the airport.

Mr Carmody : Understood.



  
However 60 odd previous Senate Inquiry recommendations and 37 mostly obfuscated Forsyth recommendations, prove that despite the tenacity and good intentions of the RRAT committee the bureaucracy still stubbornly blocks any real reform of the aviation safety regulator... Dodgy

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#47
Gobbledocks version of congratulations

Having Wingnut as DAS will be about as effective as being given an enema filled with battery acid.

5 years is a long time Shane. We're watching........

TICK TOCK
Reply
#48
Peetwo,
"October 2016 Acting Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety
April 2016 – October 2016 Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
June 2014 – April 2016 Deputy Secretary / Chief Executive Officer, Department of Veterans’ Affairs
June 2009 – June 2014 Deputy President of the Repatriation Commission; member Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
October 2006 – October 2009 Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Civil Aviation Safety Authority
January – October 2006 Deputy Secretary Intelligence and Security, Department of Defence
July 2002 – December 2005 Deputy Secretary Strategy, Department of Defence
June 2001 - January 2002 Deputy Secretary Intelligence and Security, Department of Defence"

Looking at wing nuts career, it would seem he's had more experience as a spook than an Aviation SAFETY pundit.
Perhaps thats why CAsA are so interested in accessing META data so they can read everyones email accounts.
Your CAsA medical records are certainly not private, where everyone down to the tea lady can access your medical files.
That was bought home to me by two FOI's fronting my CP, without my knowledge, to discuss a medical problem I had, it was obvious they had read my medical file, not even the real police can do that.
There is no doubt CAsA has morphed into a renegade, Pseudo police force.
Their speciality is fitting people up, as they say, and because they are the jury, judge and executioner they can destroy peoples businesses, career's, and lives with no possibility of appeal or review, utilising dodgy UTube videos, swearing false statements, and committing perjury in front of kangaroo courts overseen by Pseudo judges.
Reply
#49
Thorny;

"There is no doubt CAsA has morphed into a renegade, Pseudo police force.
Their speciality is fitting people up, as they say, and because they are the jury, judge and executioner they can destroy peoples businesses, career's, and lives with no possibility of appeal or review, utilising dodgy UTube videos, swearing false statements, and committing perjury in front of kangaroo courts overseen by Pseudo judges".


And that's just their good points mate!!!!
For a look at CAsA's own staff medical records you need to search the filing cabinets in the dilapidated Wolston Park nuthouse in Brisbane!
Reply
#50
Aye, even so..

Investments come in many flavours; some pure speculation, the race track being a classic example. The stock market another; you pays your money and takes your chances. Others do not realise an immediate return; like the kids school fees, not so much an investment for you, but a long term benefit to them. Almost everything you do involves a risk and a ‘cost’ in one way or another.

Take the work of the inestimable Senate RRAT committee as an example. Gods alone know the total cost of the Pel-Air debacle (CASA and ATSB have NFI). Think about it- holistically; from splashdown to this day. Just for fun, let’s have a wee keek at the big ticket items on the bill.

Man hours for search and rescue.
ATSB on site investigation.
Vic police on site.
Salvage.
ATSB initial report –
CASA parallel investigation
Time to provide the ‘final’ report.
Legal cost of actions against James.
Man hours taken to reach Senate inquiry stage.
Cost of the extensive Senate inquiry – (not just Senators, but the whole operation).
Cost of salvage II and CVR analysis.
Cost of producing the Senate recommendations.
Cost of consultation before Truss ordered the ASRR.
Cost of the ASRR.
Cost of the Canadian 'peer' review.
Cost of report #2.

The above is not an extensive list; when you begin to break it down into component costs; the numbers, even on conservative ‘guesstimates’ very quickly become very scary.

The Australian people; knowingly or not, directly or indirectly, have invested, through third party proxy, without their express approval, in blind faith; a very significant sum in the Pel-Air ‘investigation’. To keep that investment viable; several millions more have been invested in a Canadian peer review and countless man hours expended in the new ‘review’.

Carmody is, clearly, the ministerial choice as the new boss CASA; he is most certainly not the industry’s first choice. We may then safely assume he speaks with the ministers voice and is going to provide us with only departmentally vetted ministerial answers to our questions, strictly in the interests of ministerial protection.

So, it is question time:-

Can the minister advise when all 60 recommendations made by the Senate Committee and the ASRR will be fully and completely implemented?

Can the minister provide a guaranteed time line for full implementation?

Can the minister provide empirical evidence of that implementation?

Can the minister show what direct action has been taken against those who manipulated an air accident report, mislead a Senate committee and destroyed an industry faith in it’s regulator and safety agencies?

Can the minister show what actions have been taken to prevent such an aberration being repeated and explain why industry may, once again, have faith in the actions of the regulator and of the accident investigation system?

Can the minister explain why, this huge investment in one small area of aviation safety has not generated a tangible return?

Carmody may well contemplate sitting on his rump, counting the super until he retires; but those questions will still demand answers unless he stirs his bones and actually addresses the problems which have been ignored for many a long, weary year now.

I say, Pel-Air is the veritable tip of a very large, ugly iceberg. CASA version of ‘safety’ is a complete nonsense and ATSB investigation of the results of CASA incompetence is naught but piss poor lip service dedicated to keeping the minister’s boots free of the mud, blood and shite left in the wake of our failed investment.

The Carmody hour runs for 60 minutes; the clock starts now.

Selah..
Reply
#51
A fortnight of Comardy Caper re-runs - Dodgy

Just over a fortnight now since miniscule_NFI_6D officially rubberstamped the M&M pick for CASA CEO - so what's been happening at FF HQ since the official announcement... Huh

Well yesterday FF announced the release of the latest - as required by the ASRR - biannual customer service delivery survey:

Quote:Help CASA help you by completing this short survey about our customer service delivery. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/casachannelsurvey  #aviation

[Image: DC4yZn6UIAATlTT.jpg:large]

Here is one IOS member's tweep reply/response to the CSD survey... Wink :

Quote:Where is the question about the forsyth review? Or the control cables, or satisfaction with part 135, or 61... or costs of ADSB, or SIDS?

Next today - again from the FF twitter guy - CAsA announce yet another review/advisory panel... Confused
Quote:We're forming the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel to streamline & better coordinate consultation on safety issues. https://www.casa.gov.au/media-release/new-consultation-arrangements

[Image: DC-J3HFUQAAixur.jpg]
& via Oz Flying:
Quote:[Image: CASA_flight_ops.jpg]A CASA Flight Operations Inspector at work. (CASA)

CASA establishes New Advisory Panel
23 June 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will introduce a new advisory panel next month as part of a review of the regulator's consultation regime.

The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will replace the functions of several other consultative committees and panels, after review findings concluded that CASA was limited in effectiveness by duplication and complexity.

"The ASAP will be the primary advisory body through which CASA will direct its engagement with industry and seek input on current and future regulatory and associated policy approaches," CASA Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody said.

"In addition to engagement on rulemaking, the ASAP has the latitude to engage on any issues which may impact on aviation safety or the way CASA operates.

"Agreement on the policy approach and actions to address identified issues will be achieved before work and effort are put into implementing solutions. "

Initially the sub-committees of the Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) will support ASAP with the secretariat managed by CASA’s Stakeholder Engagement Group.

Currently, CASA has several panels providing feedback, including the SCC, Director’s Advisory Panel, Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum (AACF) and Regional Aviation Safety Forum (RASF).

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...rgr9CSu.99
 
Meanwhile with the Senate RRAT committee responsible for parliamentary oversight of CASA, relations would appear to be have reached an all time low under the leadership of CC (Comardy Capers)... Confused
Examples of CC & his minions disrespecting the Senators and industry - Rd I:
Estimates & drone inquiry update

[Image: Gold-Sterlo-gold.jpg]

















 

MTF? - Definitely I'd say...P2  Cool
Reply
#52
6D & CC's aviation isolationism policy - Dodgy

[Image: Comardy-Capers.jpg]

In the course of doing research into the background/history of PASO (refer PelAir thread post: PASO, dots, dashes & an unfortunate ditching - Part II) and the international aviation safety politics of the Asia Pacific (i.e. CAANZ vs CASA, the PASO Bledisloe Cup; I came across some interesting references that highlight how out of touch with reality our government and aviation safety bureaucracy is with the rest of the world... Blush

From December 2010 Asian Development Bank publication (Note how many times harmonisation is mentioned): https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/...eg-tar.pdf

Quote:2. All developing member countries of PASO have acceded to the Pacific Islands Aviation Safety and Security Treaty, which requires regulatory harmonization. To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of PASO operations and create a least-cost operating environment for airlines, the legislation and regulations of member countries must be harmonized to create a common inspection regime and common compliance protocols. The technical assistance (TA) will assist developing member countries of PASO to update and harmonize their legislation and regulations. The TA will also examine the financial performance and revenue model of PASO with respect to both its fee structure and member countries’ aviation revenue base, and assist PASO to refine its management systems to ensure sustainability. The design and monitoring
framework is in Appendix 1.

II. ISSUES

4. The developing member countries of PASO are signatories to international and regional treaties that commit them to meeting aviation security and safety standards through the uniform application of ICAO standards. In recent years, these standards have been greatly expanded, particularly those related to security. However, most PASO members are unable to fully meet all of their oversight obligations. As a result, many Pacific island countries have received less than satisfactory results from the ICAO-mandated Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program and Universal Security Oversight Audit Program.

5. Audits and inspections must be undertaken in accordance with the legal environment of the state of operation, based on national regulations and the standards and recommended practices (SARPs) of ICAO. While improved compliance with these obligations is essential, aviation safety and security regulatory frameworks across the region are inconsistent. Variations in the rules cause increased compliance costs for airlines, and make efficient implementation of the PASO work plan more challenging. A harmonized operating environment will produce benefits to airlines, national civil aviation administrations, and travelers.

11. The outcome is expected to be revision and harmonization of national aviation legislation and regulations. Indicators will be final legal documentation that is consistent with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (NZCARs) to provide a uniform set of standards and recommended practices and inclusion of authority to raise aviation oversight revenues in national laws, expected by the end of 2012. A third outcome indicator is legislative adoption of the revised legislation and regulations, which may take a further year for all countries to achieve.

12. The direct beneficiaries of the project include the governments of PASO member
countries that will be able to rationalize their civil aviation administrations and lower public sector costs, regional air transport operators that will experience lower regulatory compliance costs and more responsive services, and users of air transport that will benefit from higher security and safety standards.

B. Methodology and Key Activities

13. The outputs of the project will achieve regional harmonization of aviation legal frameworks and financial sustainability of PASO...


14. Assisting with revisions to national aviation legislation and regulations will continue from the base established by the review of national legislation and regulations (para. 7). The TA will reconfirm the detailed aspects required for revision through preparation of new or amended legislative acts and rules. Two particular concerns are that national laws should provide for adequate delegation of authority and enforcement by civil aviation authorities (CAAs), and should be consistent with international law instruments which may require ratification or accession to ensure they are given effect in national laws. Since six of the 11 participating countries have primary legislation modeled on NZCARs and will require minor updates, whereas the other five will require more comprehensive legal drafting, standardizing the New Zealand rules provides the most efficient and effective path to harmonization. With respect to regulations, most states can expect to adopt the NZCARs by reference. The TA will then prepare detailed drafts of revised legal instruments based on standardized models with necessary adaptation to national circumstances. National legal advisers will provide extended assistance for the adoption and adaptation of the system of aviation regulations and technical guidance material.

Fortunately for PASO & the Pacific Island nations the Kiwis again win the Bledisloe Cup... Wink

Reference (2014) - TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
PACIFIC AVIATION SAFETY OFFICE REFORM PROJECT
STRENGTHENING PASO GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT (P-A01):

Quote:1.6 The Strategic Goals of PASO are to:
1. Develop regional capacity and provide for a long-term improvement in the quality of aviation safety and security oversight services.
2. Ensure that the Pacific aviation sector complies with international requirements established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for safety and security regulation and oversight.
3. Reduce service fee and operator compliance costs through economies of scale, achieved by sharing resources through a single regional organization.
4. Harmonise safety standards and security provision across the Pacific region, building on the adoption of New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules.
5. Promote an efficient oversight capability in member States.
6. Encourage member State participation in RSOO activities with the objective of assisting other States in the certification or approval of organisations in aviation activities.
7. Establish regional training programs for member State’s technical personnel
8. Develop an information and reporting system, which facilitates access to safety-related and safety critical information in the region.

 And from the MOC (Memorandum of Cooperation) between PASO & the CAANZ, it would appear that despite Australia being one of two nations to fully implement ICAO Annex 19 (SSP), PASO would prefer to be guided by the Kiwis in implementing a State Safety Program... Rolleyes :
Quote:[Image: MOC-1.jpg][Image: MOC-2.jpg][Image: MOC-3.jpg]
  
Good to see the miniscule Chester (Government), M&M and Comardy Caper endorsed aviation policy is reaching its penultimate goal of totally isolating our aviation industry from the rest of the world - UDB! Dodgy


  
MTF...P2 Cool

[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]
Reply
#53
Dear Comardy Capers (cc 6D) - L&Ks AOPA Oz.

Via AOPA Oz:

Quote:[/url][Image: 15894256_953888234742102_324544041238266...e=59CDFE72]
[url=https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/?ref=nf&hc_ref=NEWSFEED]


Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia 

General aviation industry calls on CASA to appoint fair representation

Dear Mr Carmody,

Further to the announcement of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) new Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).

Whilst the AOPA Australia can appreciate and understand CASA’s desire to streamline its industry consultative panels, we do not support the exclusion of the general aviation (GA) industry associations.

Based on CASA data, the GA sector of the Australian aviation industry is by far the largest employer and overall stakeholder, only second to the airline industry. The importance and value of GA to the overall Australian aviation economy can only be considered vital.

Excluding the GA industry associations from the ASAP is viewed as counterproductive to the overall safety objectives that guide CASA, further damaging the already strained relationship between the regulator and industry. It is also being viewed by many as an attempt to silence constructive industry objection and opposition.

We are genuinely alarmed that CASA has decided that the 12,000+ registered GA aircraft owners, 14,000+ GA pilots and 1,400+ GA AOC and COA holders (who employ tens of thousands of people across our industry) no longer warrant clear and direct representation. The AOPA Australia rejects this outcome entirely.

Mr Carmody, you have publicly stated; “My vision is for CASA to be an open and transparent regulator and one the aviation industry finds it easy to do business with… I am confident that by working co-operatively with the aviation community we can make positive progress and deliver effective changes that achieves safe skies for all… The ASAP will be the primary advisory body through which CASA will direct its engagement with industry and seek input on current and future regulatory and associated policy approaches... In addition to engagement and rule making, the ASAP has the latitude to engage on any issues which may impact on aviation safety or the way CASA operates.”

At no time prior to the announcement of the ASAP did CASA reach out to consult or discuss these important changes with the AOPA Australia. This does not demonstrate an ‘open and transparent’ relationship, nor does it convey a sense of ‘co-operation’.

If you are true to your statement and genuinely wish to work co-operatively with the aviation community, so as to make positive progress, then we are calling on you to review the ASAP appointments and to expand the panel to include the following vital industry associations;

- Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
- Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Organisations Business Association
- Aerial Agriculture and Applicators Association

The listed associations are respected and managed by highly experienced and qualified boards, each able to demonstrate long histories of positive aviation safety advocacy on behalf of the GA industry and its participants.

The expansion of the ASAP to nine members does not represent an unreasonable or unmanageable number, and would not negatively impact on the ability of the panel to achieve its goals. What this expansion would do, is to ensure the GA industry is provided with valuable ‘direct’ representation and would demonstrate CASA’s commitment to genuine co-operation.

The concerns and challenges facing the GA community at this time require clear and direct representation at the highest levels of both CASA and the government, so as to enable open and transparent debate of the issues which are holding our industry in decline and damaging our collective future. We must both encourage open and free debate on the topics which challenge our thinking and resolve to identify solutions that can provide maximum benefit to both safety and industry productivity.

Working in partnership is the only genuine long-term solution to achieving this goal.

I trust that your statements are correct, and that you are indeed seeking an open and transparent co-operation and that you will move to include the GA associations before the first meeting of the ASAP.

Thank you for your time and I await your response.

Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director


.pdf   CASAASAP.pdf (Size: 1.61 MB / Downloads: 1)

Also via Oz Flying:
Quote:[Image: GA_DDM_YSDU.jpg]General aviation: AOPA Australia believes it is not being given fair representation in Canberra. (Steve Hitchen)


AOPA slams CASA over ASAP Exclusion
7 July 2017

AOPA Australia CEO Ben Morgan has described his organisation's exclusion from the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) as counter-productive to aviation safety.

In a letter yet to be delivered to CASA CEO Shane Carmody and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester, Morgan says not including AOPA Australia, the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) and the Aerial Application Association of Australia (AAAA) means that general aviation has not been given fair representation.

ASAP is made up of only six members:
  • Qantas
  • Virgin Australia
  • Airports Association of Australia
  • Regional Aviation Association of Australia
  • The Australian Aviation Associations Forum
  • Recreational Aviation Australia.
[*]

"Whilst the AOPA Australia can appreciate and understand CASA’s desire to streamline its industry consultative panels, we do not support the exclusion of the general aviation (GA) industry associations," Morgan states.

"Based on CASA data, the GA sector of the Australian aviation industry is by far the largest employer and overall stakeholder, only second to the airline industry. The importance and value of GA to the overall Australian aviation economy can only be considered vital.

"Excluding the GA industry associations from the ASAP is viewed as counterproductive to the overall safety objectives that guide CASA, further damaging the already strained relationship between the regulator and industry. It is also being viewed by many as an attempt to silence constructive industry objection and opposition."

The make up of ASAP has been controversial since the new of the panel was released, but CASA has stated the the inclusion of The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) covers most of the GA associations. AOPA, AMROBA and AAAA are all members organisation of TAAAF.

Despite this, AOPA Australia and Ben Morgan believe there is scope for independent representation outside of TAAAF.

"The expansion of the ASAP to nine members does not represent an unreasonable or unmanageable number, and would not negatively impact on the ability of the panel to achieve its goals," Morgan says in the letter. "What this expansion would do, is to ensure the GA industry is provided with valuable ‘direct’ representation and would demonstrate CASA’s commitment to genuine co-operation.

"The concerns and challenges facing the GA community at this time require clear and direct representation at the highest levels of both CASA and the government, so as to enable open and transparent debate of the issues which are holding our industry in decline and damaging our collective future.

"We must both encourage open and free debate on the topics which challenge our thinking and resolve to identify solutions that can provide maximum benefit to both safety and industry productivity."

The letter is expected to be made publically available this afternoon

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Q9jRvGr.99
[*]
Confused Rolleyes  - Hmm...popcorn is ordered... Shy

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#54
FAA vs CASA: Point of difference. 

Via Flying mag:

Quote:Jobs in Aviation Series: FAA Administrator Michael Huerta
The Federal Aviation Administration’s chief says it is “absolutely” the place for second careers to begin.
By Flying Staff August 4, 2017





While FAA administrator Michael Huerta certainly had a full plate at EAA AirVenture 2017 in Oshkosh, he was more than willing to take a moment to discuss the future of aviation for our Jobs in Aviation series. The FAA employs approximately 47,000 people, including engineers and technicians, but like other companies, the FAA is also currently looking for people who can analyze data.

“We have adopted a new approach to regulation, we call it risk-based decision-making,” Huerta told Rod McDermott of McDermott & Bull. “That’s a very different skillset we haven’t had in the FAA for a long time. It is critical for us to do our job in the future.”

When it comes to starting fresh with the FAA, Huerta said the administration is “absolutely” a place for second careers. Specifically, he told the story of a man who came from the private sector because he believed that what the FAA is doing in IT is truly exciting. He served as the FAA’s director of software and is now the chief data officer.

Watch the video above for more on Huerta’s insight into new careers in aviation, as well as the FAA’s top initiatives for the remainder of the year and beyond.

Compare that to the CC arrogance at Senate Estimates:





&..





And if you wanted an example of just how inept and totally risk-based our big R, WOFTAM regulator is, take a look the latest on the CAO 48.1 debacle - see HERE & yet again today in the Oz Dodgy :

Quote:CASA’s delays on pilot review spurs concern
[Image: 1de6327bd6ef981304021131f9f99792?width=650]New safety rules for pilots have been further delayed by specialists conducting a review.
  • Annabel Hepworth
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM August 11, 2017
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Pilots have voiced fresh concerns at delays by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority over the introduction of new rules on pilot flight and duty time limits.

CASA this week announced the appointment of a team of specialists to conduct a review of the aviation fatigue rules for operators and pilots.

In a statement, CASA confirmed it would extend the implementation of new fatigue rules by six months to allow sufficient time for the recommendations of the review to be considered.

Australian and International Pilots Association vice-president Shane Loney said he understood why there was a delay but was “disappointed this is still going on”.

“We’re disappointed at how slow it is,” he said.

The pilots’ group says Australia is ahead of other countries by introducing the regime but the Regional Aviation Association of Australia argues the new rules impose costs without a commensurate safety gain.

  
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#55
REPCON: AR201700062 - In SMS I believe! 

Not exactly sure if this is because of Carmody's influence but the regulator's response to AR201700062 is one of the most refreshing and proactive responses that I have ever witnessed... Wink

Quote:Regulator's response (Regulator 1)

CASA has reviewed the REPCON and notes that the reporter is not challenging the legality of the fight duty being offered to the off duty crew member. CASA notes the operator’s assertion that the flight duty was offered in accordance with established crewing policies and procedures and that remuneration was in accordance with the applicable employment agreement.

Implicit in the operator’s response to the REPCON is an acknowledgement that the management of fatigue is a responsibility shared by the flight crew and the company. CASA notes that substantive detail regarding how each party should meet its respective responsibility is not expected to be raised by CASA’s Certificate Management Team (CMT) for [operator] until a proposed amendment to CAO 48.1 comes into force.

Taking into account the potential for extended periods of wakefulness during a ‘back-of-the-clock’ flight duty period offered to a flight crew member on their rostered day off, CASA’s Human Factors (HF) and Safety Management Systems (SMS) subject-matter experts have developed a number of suggested measures that could address the risk of fatigue arising from this practice. These have been forwarded to the CMT oversighting [operator] for their consideration and are presented in Appendix 1.

Appendix 1
When making the offer to a flight crew member for a ‘back-of-the-clock’ duty on a day off, [operator] should consider taking the following steps to ensure the risk of fatigue is managed proactively.

a) The responsibility of the organisation and the individual to adhere to sound sleep/fatigue management practices is a cornerstone of an effective SMS/FRMS. Individual fatigue education/ongoing training should specifically cover the potential hazard associated with accepting additional duties (whether work or personal) when on a rostered day off. Equally, an organisation’s fatigue management policy and procedures documents should specifically address offering ‘back-of-the- clock’ duties to a flight crew member who is on a day off. Lastly, crewing officers must follow the organisation’s fatigue management policies and their training should assure their awareness of this obligation.

b) Any agent acting on behalf of the operator is responsible for assuring crew members being offered ‘back-of-the-clock’ duties are fit for the duty as reasonably practicable. Knowledge of the length of the sleep opportunity of a flight crew member, consideration of the notification time of such a contact should be standard practice and demonstrate a reasonable effort to ensure the fitness to fly of the individuals contacted.

c) Some form of ‘standardised’ pre-emptive safeguard incorporated into existing policies and procedures requiring the crewing officer to enquire about the recent sleep history of the flight crew member using a short checklist would be a relatively simple enhancement to the existing SMS. A structured decision process could be built into the checklist to allow for a set of ‘standards’ to be followed to ensure that critical areas are addressed. Any ‘score’ that exceeds a set limit would prevent a flight crew member from accepting a duty. The checklist might request information such as:
  • how long the flight crew member has been awake at the time the offer is made
  • how much sleep has been achieved in the past 24 hours
  • have they engaged in strenuous physical activity
  • have they engaged in mentally taxing activities (e.g., study)
  • a rating of how fit for the duty they feel.
d) When crewing involves a member(s) who was scheduled to be off, encouragement to engage the application of the organisation’s approved fatigue countermeasures such as controlled in-flight rest, to maximize alertness and minimize drowsiness should be part of the crew’s briefing. A further strategy might require the flight crew member called-in on their day off to be pilot-flying on the first sector and pilot-not-flying on the second sector.
e) The operator should maintain records of instances where a flight crew member accepts a ‘back-of-the-clock’ duty on a day off as a means of demonstrating the effectiveness of the SMS applied to the scheduling practices. Additional information that may be useful include recording factors such as:
  • a pre-duty assessment of how alert they feel, e.g. Samn-Perelli score
  • a post-duty assessment of how alert they feel
  • whether controlled in-flight rest was used during the flights – if so
    - how much was achieved
    - was it perceived to be effective.
Such questions could be used within the SMS/FRMS as metrics for the use of the procedure and provide information concerning the efficacy of its continuation.
 
[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]
Never thought I'd say it but well done that particular CASA crew... Wink
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#56
Carmody on ASAP - Rolleyes

Via this month's CASA Briefing:
Quote:                                          
September 2017
Date of Publication: 
26 September 2017
[Image: briefing_banner_new.jpg]

From CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody


On 4 September 2017 we took another a key step in re-setting the way CASA consults and engages with the aviation community. That was the date of the first meeting of the new Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, which has been set up to provide me with informed and objective high-level advice on current, emerging and potential issues and the way CASA performs its functions. The meeting was chaired by Professor Pat Murray and there was enthusiastic participation by all Panel members. The Panel agreed progress needs to be made quickly on a range of long-standing issues and that CASA should strive to develop the remaining new regulations by the end of 2018. Members also agreed action needs to be taken to streamline and recast consultation mechanisms.

The membership of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel is drawn from representative groups including The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, Recreational Aviation Australia and the Australian Airports Association, as well as the two largest airlines. This means the Panel delivers views and expert advice from a wide spectrum of Australian aviation and can focus on the ‘big picture’ issues from a policy perspective rather than individual or sector based interests. At the first meeting the Panel agreed that its work will be supported by technical working groups to be established as required from a pool of interested and suitably qualified people. These working groups, which will look at specific issues, will be tasked and guided by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel to ensure alignment with agreed strategies and priorities. CASA will shortly be calling for expressions of interest from members of the aviation community interested in being involved in the technical working groups and other activities to support aviation safety.

Issues identified by the Panel for resolution as quickly as possible include pilot medical certification standards, radio frequency use in low level uncontrolled airspace, validation of the principles underpinning the development of the new flying operations suite of regulations, future policy directions to safely support growth in drones and concluding the outstanding actions from the aviation safety regulation review. I am very pleased there was common ground on the need to progress and close off these issues as they all have a high priority and must not be allowed to drag on. The Panel reviewed CASA’s guiding principles for the development and implementation of new safety regulations and, while agreeing they are sound, asked for them to be refreshed. This refresh will focus on a stronger emphasis on risk analysis, simplicity and clarity in the principles supporting the exercise of discretion, the 'uniqueness’ of the Australian aviation environment being seen as an exception rather than the default and timeliness.

You can find out more about the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and read the minutes of the first meeting.

Best wishes
Shane Carmody


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#57
Question Milud.... why is Australia Unique??? Just my view, but the only thing "Unique" about Australian aviation is CAsA.
Reply
#58
Here's the talk... Rolleyes

Via CASA Briefing:

Quote:New instruction on using safety information
Date of Publication: 
Thursday 28th September

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has taken another important step in implementing its regulatory philosophy and ensuring a 'just culture' approach is taken to safety regulation.

A new instruction from the Director of Aviation Safety to CASA staff sets out limitations on the use of information that may show a contravention of the safety rules.

The instruction clarifies how information can be used when CASA makes decisions about whether enforcement action may need to be taken.

Individuals and organisations found to have violated a provision of the safety rules will be given an opportunity to address and correct safety issues without CASA initiating enforcement action.

Enforcement action will only be taken where there is a deliberate, wilful or reckless breach of the aviation safety rules, where there is a pattern of repeated misconduct or there is a failure to take appropriate corrective or protective action to address identified safety issues.

CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said the new safety information instruction puts into practical effect key elements of CASA's regulatory philosophy.

"It is vital that CASA does not simply talk about taking a 'just culture' approach to regulation but actively implements the principles into our day-to-day operations and decision making," Mr Carmody said.

"Our rational 'just culture' approach means that where honest errors or mistakes are made CASA looks to support the efforts of individuals and organisations to make necessary improvements, correct identified problems and ensure safety risks are effectively managed in the process.

"Individuals and organisations with an understanding and commitment to safety need to take responsibility for addressing safety shortcomings and where they demonstrate the ability and willingness to do this CASA need not take action.

"CASA is encouraging a proactive approach to safety by the aviation community by clearly setting out how we will use safety information and the basis on which we will refrain from taking enforcement action based on that information.

"Of course, if the safety rules are deliberately flouted or action is not taken to address safety issues then CASA must and will take appropriate action.

"I am making it very clear to CASA staff and the aviation community that we will use information in the interests of safety and in a manner consistent with the 'just culture' principles reflected in our regulatory philosophy."

Go to the instruction on the limitations on the use of safety information.

Now let's see the walk... Shy

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#59
General Aviation and Can'tberra mirages:-

An Aviator, near death of thirst, staggers towards an oasis shimmering,
The palms fronds surely beckoning, promise be cool waters of purity,
Another sand rise, the fronds and promise hovering beyond to bring
A shaking sense of purpose, to drive the sinews past, the final futility.

We will acknowledge actions of reform if and when they occur.
Reply
#60
Stan V in response to CASA TWG register etc. - Rolleyes

Via one of the PAIN/IOS email chains.. Wink

Quote:Hi All,

The CASA article copied below is to my mind an admission of a lack of competence on the part of CASA experts. The ASAP is one level, now a further level of industry experience is called for.

Admirable if not for the fact that the so called staff experts receive annual benefits of several hundred thousand dollars (each) for their so called expertise. I suppose this is further established in that their achievements in the almost thirty years since 1988, in complying with the Minister’s orders to “rewrite” the regulations has been almost completed. That’s if you regard approx. 50% as a good effort! Then in the same article (below) this appears!
the planned reform of the flying operations regulations and a post implementation review of aircraft maintenance engineer licensing”, these have been a work in progress for this extended period of time and still/again need “reform”?

Quote:Call for expressions of interest for CASA Technical Working Group register

Dear CASA subscriber

Following the successful establishment of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), CASA is now in the process of establishing a register of aviation industry experts who are able to participate in Technical Working Groups (TWGs) to support the work of the ASAP.

Where established, TWGs will provide industry members and relevant technical experts with a forum to provide input on specific technical issues and proposals being considered by the ASAP.

Each TWG will be formed as required and disbanded at the completion of the assigned tasks. Specific details about TWGs can be found in the ASAP Terms of Reference.

To build a register of suitably qualified potential TWG members, we have launched an expression of interest process using the CASA Consultation Hub, where interested people will be able to register their details using a survey style questionnaire. CASA is looking for diversity in skills, experience and qualifications from interested applicants.

With several significant developments on CASA’s immediate horizon, including the planned reform of the flying operations regulations and a post implementation review of aircraft maintenance engineer licensing, establishing a register of suitable and available experts is a priority.

If you are a member of Australia’s aviation industry with a genuine interest in the future of aviation safety, then please go to the CASA Consultation Hub where you can register your interest.

All questions or inquiries about the EOI process can be directed to asap@casa.gov.au
 
On another matter, In 2007 Mr. S. Carmody advised the then Minister’s (Hon. Marc Vaile) that [my] long outstanding matters (cover-up of CASA involvement in Fuel Contamination and subsequent orchestrated failure (by CASA) of Schutt Aviation at YMMB) had been RESOLVED. Carmody was at the time working as Deputy to Bruce Byron. As no detail or slightest evidence of The RESOLUTION was available under F.O.I, the matter was further verified by subsequent regular requests to new Ministers, namely Albanese and Truss, which further established this.

These requests were made through my then local Member Mark Dreyfus.  It would attest that Carmody’s statement (Email provided under FOI) was a blatant untruth. Strangely, I was never even consulted in establishing any form of resolution!


For those of you still believers in Australian Democracy, open your eyes, we are a definite Bureaucracy run by overpaid unelected “crooks” overseen by incompetent politicians (with some exceptions). For those who haven’t yet read it get a copy of “Game of Mates” (EBook and hardcopy). No challenge on its content as they don’t want to wake up the public. If it concerned football or cricket we’d be all up in arms. No “she’ll be right mate”.

Regards   Stan van de Wiel.

And Sandy's response to Stan:
Quote:Stan,

Quite right, but an inadvertent admission; coming from a body that pretends that we need a whole bunch of industry expert personnel to help devise ways out of the black hole created deliberately by CASA. How much will these persons be paid? At the same hourly rate charged out by CASA for it’s numerous unnecessary permissions included outrageous upfront charges ($8000 for a single instructor basic flight school, and that’s just the application start)? 

“Safety” deja vu, the worn out, ancient and totally insincere excuse for inaction. ASAP is just another complete waste of time and will only accomplish more stalling.

Safety has been reduced due to loss of recency, loss of numerous skilful and experienced personnel from a myriad of aviation businesses in a number of specialities, both in piloting and repair and maintenance. All out due to the never ending streams of unworkable regulations accompanied with fee gouging and permission stalling making much of GA unviable and hence the great loss of businesses, flying schools charter operators and maintenance bases. 

CASA has proven itself incapable of the safe administration of aviation in Australia. The level of safety in this country exists in spite of CASA and safety cannot improve, where, in terms of General Aviation the industry is in a high degree of stress and decline which has been induced by the regulator, the regulator having none of the discipline or rigorous control imposed where the outcomes are sheeted home directly to the Minister and government. 

The ‘independent’ Commonwealth Corporate body is a failed model and CASA will never reform itself because it’s incentives are to maintain power for exceptional salaries and working conditions. Coupled with a succession of do nothing Ministers and their laughable ‘Statement of Expectations’ we have a hopeless situation until and unless Parliament makes substantial changes. 

There is no point at all wasting time with ASAP or it’s advisory groups.

It is well known what steps can be taken immediately to turn around the disastrous and continuing losses in GA. 

1. Relieve the outrageously expensive biennial special pilot ID (ASICs), increase validity period immediately (Not required in the USA). 

2. Allow independent instructors to teach without the super expensive Air Operators Certificate (as USA).

3. Allow car driver medicals (similar USA)

4. Revoke unique expensive and counterproductive Australian maintenance requirements and reinstate rational skills and qualification pathways for maintenance personnel .

Regarding no. 3, this reform had to be legislated by Congress;  the US Aviation Agency did not initiate this reform for much the same reasons our regulator will not cause real reforms of it’s own accord. 

Regards to all, an open email,

Sandy Reith 


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)