Thorn Bird, I will attempt to answer your question... Why? The answer is "Because".
The short answer:
Because most politicians are gutless and lazy. They farmed out aviation regulation to an arms length Government corporation – CASA that insulates them from responsibility for accident and loss of life and provided it with the most obtuse and imprecise Aviation Act it was possible to write without public outcry. This is a Faustian bargain; CASA has used the freedoms conferred by the Act and its corporate structure not for the benefit of the Australian economy and society but to satisfy its internal perverse lusts at the expense of the aviation industry as evidenced by its deliberate frustration of attempted reform for at least the last ten years. It should also be noted that the Aviation Act does not prevent CASA from fulfilling what passes for its mission by forbidding aviation altogether. This is not a trivial observation.
The long answer:
Because CASA, the Department of Transport and the ATSB do not have the technical ability, let alone operational capability to regulate one hundredth of the technology and operation embodied in modern RPT aircraft such as an Airbus A380 or Boeing B787 Dreamliner, it has no real work to do. The Australian airlines are in a one on one continuous conversation with Boeing and Airbus about all aspects of the operation of their aircraft and the interposition and potential interference of a regulator in that communication is both pointless and counter productive. The American investigation of the B737Max accidents has laid this process bare. CASA merely rubber stamps the decisions taken by Boeing, Airbus, the FAA and EASA.
Because CASA, is irrelevant to the operation of RPT transport in Australia , it justifies its existence and budget by focusing on what it can regulate – any aviation industry participant who is not Qantas, Virgin or a Regional airline. It homes in on small operators who don’t have the political power, high technology and financial resources to tell them to fuck off, like Qantas can. The overall result may be observed in the peeling paint, cobwebs and weeds associated with shuttered General Aviation operations all over Australia.
Because CASA has to justify its budget by focussing on the little guys, it must amplify the danger they pose to the general public. This then gives CASA permission to micromanage the little guys to deal with the "threat" they pose to the man in the street. This scope of this micromanagement extends from the operators of drones weighing 250 grams or more, model aeroplanes, hang gliders and kites through to business jets and the level of prescriptive detail extends from the correct tightness of a tyre tube cap to aircrew fatigue mitigation rules of mind boggling complexity.
Because micromanagement is unpleasant and counterproductive, it is resisted, especially when it is inflicted on people by others who may not know what they are talking about, CASA thus has to back up its rules by draconian criminal penalties for the slightest infraction in an effort to maintain the semblance of control out of pure fear. Not only are the penalties for infraction criminal matters, they are offences of “strict liability’ meaning that mitigating circumstances are no excuse. As any criminologist will tell you, this sets up a lose/lose negative interaction between regulator and the regulated. Is compliance achieved? On the surface, Yes. Is safety thereby guaranteed? No.
Because having chosen to achieve control by fear in a micromanagement environment the regulations become endlessly complex and contradictory as the framers try to cater for an impossible matrix of situations. This creates anomalies, impossibilities and unintended consequences. The solution chosen is to issue exemptions, more than a thousand of them, to paper over the cracks as they occur. Similarly there are some 4000 notified discrepancies between model ICAO regulations and the Australian version.
Because CASA has chosen to micromanage instead of regulate on the basis of common sense and a rational set of objectives, it has written the regulations to give it enormous latitude in their application. This means no aviation participant can be certain about anything despite the micromanagement, thus increasing business and personal risk. The regulations are peppered with deliberately obtuse language and imprecise terms that leave them open to interpretation by CASA (but not pilots). Naturally, no two CASA staff will make the same interpretation. Favourite words and phrases are: ““CASA must be satisifed”, “appropriate means of compliance”, “sufficient” and the king of all of them: “acceptable”. Who decides what is sufficient, appropriate or acceptable? Compared to what??
Because CASA has created a minefield of complex and highly prescriptive regulation it now requires considerable time to make decisions. The solution chosen is to write all regulations in the negative sense ie “CASA must not…...unless it is satisfied that…..”. This way an applicant cannot require specific performance by CASA of anything because CASA has deliberately tied its own hands. In relation to rules governing operations, the writing this way - "a pilot must not…..unless” means that all forms of aviation activity are prohibited unless they are compulsory. The negative effect of this on innovation and creativity is obvious.
Because we now have a meaningless jumble of regulation that can be twisted at will and human nature being what it is, the application of the regulations is a fertile field for the conduct of vices in the form of naked ambition, careerism, personal vendettas, persecution, sadism, envy and greed. The result of this is described as the main conclusion of the Forsyth review – that CASA has lost the trust of the aviation industry. The plundering of public airport land by private property developers only reinforces this perception.
Because we have created a tangled mess of meaningless and incomprehensible regulation, patched together with exemptions and backed by severe criminal penalties, we find that all power within CASA gravitates to the group who are good with words but are least likely to understand the technical ramifications of aviation safety – the lawyers.
Because CASA is maintaining what appears to some to be a rotten unproductive and unjust system, some will rebel and attempt to challenge the primacy of CASA. Such actions are perceived by CASA and/or its staff as threats and CASA responds to these with a massive arsenal of punishments including destroying businesses and careers.
And because of this unfortunate system, sovereign and regulatory risk to investment in Australian aviation is correctly perceived as extreme compared to other activities. As a result Aviation does not generate the jobs it should nor the GDP it should let alone the GNH (gross national happiness) intelligent use of aviation should produce. A short visit to New Zealand will show you what a thriving aviation industry looks like. We don’t have one here.
CASA staff and management can be forgiven for having a seige mentality given the animosity they have created and this makes change in this awfully negative situation virtually impossible.
It remains to be seen if the combined efforts of Minister Joyce, Chairman Binskin and DAS Spence can break this logjam and return aviation to its rightful place. Time is not on their side.
P.S. There are numerous examples of evidence for every assertion I have made, perhaps the most telling being the number of anonymous submissions made to Government reviews for fear of CASAs retribution.
The short answer:
Because most politicians are gutless and lazy. They farmed out aviation regulation to an arms length Government corporation – CASA that insulates them from responsibility for accident and loss of life and provided it with the most obtuse and imprecise Aviation Act it was possible to write without public outcry. This is a Faustian bargain; CASA has used the freedoms conferred by the Act and its corporate structure not for the benefit of the Australian economy and society but to satisfy its internal perverse lusts at the expense of the aviation industry as evidenced by its deliberate frustration of attempted reform for at least the last ten years. It should also be noted that the Aviation Act does not prevent CASA from fulfilling what passes for its mission by forbidding aviation altogether. This is not a trivial observation.
The long answer:
Because CASA, the Department of Transport and the ATSB do not have the technical ability, let alone operational capability to regulate one hundredth of the technology and operation embodied in modern RPT aircraft such as an Airbus A380 or Boeing B787 Dreamliner, it has no real work to do. The Australian airlines are in a one on one continuous conversation with Boeing and Airbus about all aspects of the operation of their aircraft and the interposition and potential interference of a regulator in that communication is both pointless and counter productive. The American investigation of the B737Max accidents has laid this process bare. CASA merely rubber stamps the decisions taken by Boeing, Airbus, the FAA and EASA.
Because CASA, is irrelevant to the operation of RPT transport in Australia , it justifies its existence and budget by focusing on what it can regulate – any aviation industry participant who is not Qantas, Virgin or a Regional airline. It homes in on small operators who don’t have the political power, high technology and financial resources to tell them to fuck off, like Qantas can. The overall result may be observed in the peeling paint, cobwebs and weeds associated with shuttered General Aviation operations all over Australia.
Because CASA has to justify its budget by focussing on the little guys, it must amplify the danger they pose to the general public. This then gives CASA permission to micromanage the little guys to deal with the "threat" they pose to the man in the street. This scope of this micromanagement extends from the operators of drones weighing 250 grams or more, model aeroplanes, hang gliders and kites through to business jets and the level of prescriptive detail extends from the correct tightness of a tyre tube cap to aircrew fatigue mitigation rules of mind boggling complexity.
Because micromanagement is unpleasant and counterproductive, it is resisted, especially when it is inflicted on people by others who may not know what they are talking about, CASA thus has to back up its rules by draconian criminal penalties for the slightest infraction in an effort to maintain the semblance of control out of pure fear. Not only are the penalties for infraction criminal matters, they are offences of “strict liability’ meaning that mitigating circumstances are no excuse. As any criminologist will tell you, this sets up a lose/lose negative interaction between regulator and the regulated. Is compliance achieved? On the surface, Yes. Is safety thereby guaranteed? No.
Because having chosen to achieve control by fear in a micromanagement environment the regulations become endlessly complex and contradictory as the framers try to cater for an impossible matrix of situations. This creates anomalies, impossibilities and unintended consequences. The solution chosen is to issue exemptions, more than a thousand of them, to paper over the cracks as they occur. Similarly there are some 4000 notified discrepancies between model ICAO regulations and the Australian version.
Because CASA has chosen to micromanage instead of regulate on the basis of common sense and a rational set of objectives, it has written the regulations to give it enormous latitude in their application. This means no aviation participant can be certain about anything despite the micromanagement, thus increasing business and personal risk. The regulations are peppered with deliberately obtuse language and imprecise terms that leave them open to interpretation by CASA (but not pilots). Naturally, no two CASA staff will make the same interpretation. Favourite words and phrases are: ““CASA must be satisifed”, “appropriate means of compliance”, “sufficient” and the king of all of them: “acceptable”. Who decides what is sufficient, appropriate or acceptable? Compared to what??
Because CASA has created a minefield of complex and highly prescriptive regulation it now requires considerable time to make decisions. The solution chosen is to write all regulations in the negative sense ie “CASA must not…...unless it is satisfied that…..”. This way an applicant cannot require specific performance by CASA of anything because CASA has deliberately tied its own hands. In relation to rules governing operations, the writing this way - "a pilot must not…..unless” means that all forms of aviation activity are prohibited unless they are compulsory. The negative effect of this on innovation and creativity is obvious.
Because we now have a meaningless jumble of regulation that can be twisted at will and human nature being what it is, the application of the regulations is a fertile field for the conduct of vices in the form of naked ambition, careerism, personal vendettas, persecution, sadism, envy and greed. The result of this is described as the main conclusion of the Forsyth review – that CASA has lost the trust of the aviation industry. The plundering of public airport land by private property developers only reinforces this perception.
Because we have created a tangled mess of meaningless and incomprehensible regulation, patched together with exemptions and backed by severe criminal penalties, we find that all power within CASA gravitates to the group who are good with words but are least likely to understand the technical ramifications of aviation safety – the lawyers.
Because CASA is maintaining what appears to some to be a rotten unproductive and unjust system, some will rebel and attempt to challenge the primacy of CASA. Such actions are perceived by CASA and/or its staff as threats and CASA responds to these with a massive arsenal of punishments including destroying businesses and careers.
And because of this unfortunate system, sovereign and regulatory risk to investment in Australian aviation is correctly perceived as extreme compared to other activities. As a result Aviation does not generate the jobs it should nor the GDP it should let alone the GNH (gross national happiness) intelligent use of aviation should produce. A short visit to New Zealand will show you what a thriving aviation industry looks like. We don’t have one here.
CASA staff and management can be forgiven for having a seige mentality given the animosity they have created and this makes change in this awfully negative situation virtually impossible.
It remains to be seen if the combined efforts of Minister Joyce, Chairman Binskin and DAS Spence can break this logjam and return aviation to its rightful place. Time is not on their side.
P.S. There are numerous examples of evidence for every assertion I have made, perhaps the most telling being the number of anonymous submissions made to Government reviews for fear of CASAs retribution.