Pilots, experts call out push to make CASA weigh costs of safety
By Patrick Hatch
March 19, 2019 — 12.00am
Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.
The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.
The FAA grounded all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in the US on Thursday, two days after Australian and European authorities ordered the relatively new aircraft to stop flying.
The 737 MAX crises has prompted fresh scrutiny of a bill the Morrison government introduced to parliament last month that would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the first time to "consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community" when making aviation safety rules.
Small aircraft operators who claim their industry is being strangled by onerous regulation and safety compliance costs lobbied deputy prime minister and transport minister Michael McCormack heavily for the change.
"Safety needs to be the primary and overriding consideration," said Simon Lutton, executive director of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which represents commercial airlines pilots.
We need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.
AFAP's Simon Lutton
“We have an excellent safety record in Australia and we need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.”
Aviation expert Neil Hansford, from Strategic Aviation Solutions, said the FAA's biggest concern last week appeared to have been "the Boeing share price and jobs in America".
“To commercialise the implementation of safety and operations regulations is not sound and could lean to the problem we have in the United States," he said.
He said that having to take into account the fact that "some people are going to go broke" as a result of necessary new safety rules "totally negates" the reasons of making the new rules in the first place
The changes have been designed to appease the general aviation industry - which includes including charter, pilot training, recreational and agricultural operators - which says it is being strangled by over-regulation.
Royal Flying Doctor Service chief executive Martin Laverty, who leads the minister's general aviation advisory group, said the change was a "step in the right direction".
“We at the Flying Doctors put safety above all else. We also have to be cost efficient in our flight operations. Legislative change to have the air regulator weigh cost whilst retaining safety as its key concern is a good step forward," he said.
Ben Morgan, chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which represents about 4000 members in the general aviation including about 750 business owners, said the industry was in dire straits and that Mr McCormack's amendment did not go far enough to change that.
“Anyone who says they’re not on board with making aviation safety regulation affordable... is privy to signing a suicide note to our entire industry," said Mr Morgan.
“We’ve watched thousands in our industry go broke in the past 30 years for no reasons other than the minister won’t stand up and do his damn job."
CASA would also take into account the differences in risks that apply to different sectors of the aviation industry under Mr McCormack's proposed changes.
Geoffrey Dell, an air crash investigation expert and associate professor at Central Queensland University, said part of the reason CASA was formed in 1995 was to address conflicts between safety and commercial interests inside the transport department.
“It’s a huge step backwards and sadly we keep forgetting the lessons of the past," Dr Dell said.
"It’s just an additional layer of white noise that potentially prevents safety corrective actions being taken promptly. You don’t know how much safety costs until you have an accident.”
A spokesman for Mr McCormack said aviation safety would always be the government's top priority and it had consulted industry before introducing the bill.
“This has no bearing on immediate safety issues, where CASA will continue to be able to act in the interest of safety," he said.
A spokesman for Labor's shadow transport minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the bill.
Qantas, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association and the General Aviation Advisory Group were all consulted on the changes and did not raise any concerns, according to the bill's explanatory memoranda.
Oh Gawd, where do you start with this one!
It's interesting and perhaps a tad sad that this Lutton guy from the AFAP seems to just not get it. How can decimating the bottom end of aviation possibly be in his unions interest?
The "Air Crash investigation expert"sounds like he's been watching too many Air Crash Investigators on the box.
The new bill introduced into parliament if you read it and interpret it properly its obvious its been very craftily worded to ensure that nothing is really changed, the status quo remains intact and CASA will continue with its inane hillbilly regulatory fraud.
For all CASA's amateurish regulatory madness Australia is no safer today than when they started. We remain way behind the USA safety wise.
What is "Safety"? How is it measured? Who sets the height of the limbo bar?. CASA sets the height based on what parameters? In reality safety is impossible to define, CASA sets the bar to suit themselves and their inflated ego's.
What is incontrovertible however is, over regulate and your industry dies as has been glaringly illustrated in Australia. If the industry dies what was the point of the regulation?
There has to be a balance between regulation and cost otherwise the country just does without aviation. An illogical proposition.
By Patrick Hatch
March 19, 2019 — 12.00am
Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.
The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.
The FAA grounded all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in the US on Thursday, two days after Australian and European authorities ordered the relatively new aircraft to stop flying.
The 737 MAX crises has prompted fresh scrutiny of a bill the Morrison government introduced to parliament last month that would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the first time to "consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community" when making aviation safety rules.
Small aircraft operators who claim their industry is being strangled by onerous regulation and safety compliance costs lobbied deputy prime minister and transport minister Michael McCormack heavily for the change.
"Safety needs to be the primary and overriding consideration," said Simon Lutton, executive director of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which represents commercial airlines pilots.
We need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.
AFAP's Simon Lutton
“We have an excellent safety record in Australia and we need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.”
Aviation expert Neil Hansford, from Strategic Aviation Solutions, said the FAA's biggest concern last week appeared to have been "the Boeing share price and jobs in America".
“To commercialise the implementation of safety and operations regulations is not sound and could lean to the problem we have in the United States," he said.
He said that having to take into account the fact that "some people are going to go broke" as a result of necessary new safety rules "totally negates" the reasons of making the new rules in the first place
The changes have been designed to appease the general aviation industry - which includes including charter, pilot training, recreational and agricultural operators - which says it is being strangled by over-regulation.
Royal Flying Doctor Service chief executive Martin Laverty, who leads the minister's general aviation advisory group, said the change was a "step in the right direction".
“We at the Flying Doctors put safety above all else. We also have to be cost efficient in our flight operations. Legislative change to have the air regulator weigh cost whilst retaining safety as its key concern is a good step forward," he said.
Ben Morgan, chief executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which represents about 4000 members in the general aviation including about 750 business owners, said the industry was in dire straits and that Mr McCormack's amendment did not go far enough to change that.
“Anyone who says they’re not on board with making aviation safety regulation affordable... is privy to signing a suicide note to our entire industry," said Mr Morgan.
“We’ve watched thousands in our industry go broke in the past 30 years for no reasons other than the minister won’t stand up and do his damn job."
CASA would also take into account the differences in risks that apply to different sectors of the aviation industry under Mr McCormack's proposed changes.
Geoffrey Dell, an air crash investigation expert and associate professor at Central Queensland University, said part of the reason CASA was formed in 1995 was to address conflicts between safety and commercial interests inside the transport department.
“It’s a huge step backwards and sadly we keep forgetting the lessons of the past," Dr Dell said.
"It’s just an additional layer of white noise that potentially prevents safety corrective actions being taken promptly. You don’t know how much safety costs until you have an accident.”
A spokesman for Mr McCormack said aviation safety would always be the government's top priority and it had consulted industry before introducing the bill.
“This has no bearing on immediate safety issues, where CASA will continue to be able to act in the interest of safety," he said.
A spokesman for Labor's shadow transport minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the bill.
Qantas, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association and the General Aviation Advisory Group were all consulted on the changes and did not raise any concerns, according to the bill's explanatory memoranda.
Oh Gawd, where do you start with this one!
It's interesting and perhaps a tad sad that this Lutton guy from the AFAP seems to just not get it. How can decimating the bottom end of aviation possibly be in his unions interest?
The "Air Crash investigation expert"sounds like he's been watching too many Air Crash Investigators on the box.
The new bill introduced into parliament if you read it and interpret it properly its obvious its been very craftily worded to ensure that nothing is really changed, the status quo remains intact and CASA will continue with its inane hillbilly regulatory fraud.
For all CASA's amateurish regulatory madness Australia is no safer today than when they started. We remain way behind the USA safety wise.
What is "Safety"? How is it measured? Who sets the height of the limbo bar?. CASA sets the height based on what parameters? In reality safety is impossible to define, CASA sets the bar to suit themselves and their inflated ego's.
What is incontrovertible however is, over regulate and your industry dies as has been glaringly illustrated in Australia. If the industry dies what was the point of the regulation?
There has to be a balance between regulation and cost otherwise the country just does without aviation. An illogical proposition.