[Peetwo]

"Never a let a chance go by - Oh Lord!.."

It would seem that CASA have used the opportunity of Malcolm Turnbull's proroguing & subsequent special recall of parliament and all the political shenanigans/smokescreen involved to discretely table another 11 exemptions, 5 repeals of airworthiness directives, 3 AD amendments, plus a authorisation and a reg & MOS amendment:

Civil Aviation Act 1988—

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988—
Authorisation and permission — helicopter winching operations—CASA 33/16 [F2016L00463].
Direction — flight time limitations for helicopter mustering operations—CASA 37/16 [F2016L00505].
Instructions — use of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)—CASA 27/16 [F2016L00475].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Engine Flameouts - Revised Operating Technique and Modifications—AD/B737/16 Amdt 4 [F2016L00389].
Exemption — CASR Subpart 99.B DAMP requirements for foreign aircraft AOC holders—CASA EX50/16 [F2016L00373].
Exemption — display of markings—CASA EX46/16 [F2016L00364].
Exemption — for seaplanes—CASA EX57/16 [F2016L00466].
Exemption — from certain prerequisites for an ATPL flight test—CASA EX222/15 [F2016L00015]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from requirement to carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment when operating in defined airspace—CASA EX53/16 [F2016L00465].
Exemption — from the flight instructor rating flight test—CASA EX218/15 [F2015L02115]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from the PIRC—CASA EX215/15 [F2015L02096]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — from the spinning FAE—CASA EX214/15 [F2015L02097]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — Grade 3, 2 or 1 training endorsement (aeroplane) flight test—CASA EX219/15 [F2015L02117]—Replacement explanatory statement.
Exemption — operating in vicinity of non-controlled aerodrome, VHF radio broadcasts and maintaining a listening watch—CASA EX60/16 [F2016L00491].
Exemption — requirement to obtain a pass in an instrument rating theory examination—CASA EX24/16 [F2016L00458].
Maintenance of Cockpit Voice Recording Systems—AD/REC/1 Amdt 4 [F2016L00369].
Manual of Standards Part 66 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 2) [F2016L00390].
Periodic Testing of ATC Transponders—AD/RAD/47 Amdt 4 [F2016L00368].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directives—
CASA ADCX 004/16 [F2016L00330].
CASA ADCX 005/16 [F2016L00362].
CASA ADCX 006/16 [F2016L00467].
CASA ADCX 007/16 [F2016L00391].
CASA ADCX 008/16 [F2016L00484].
Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003—Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 101) Regulation 2016 [F2016L00400].

  

CASA open for corruption business - Part I: Ruling by exemption & notified differences -   

Quoting Hansard from Skidmore session above:

Senator XENOPHON: So we are starting three years before the US. I stand to be corrected, but I think New Zealand is due to start a year after the US.

Mr Skidmore : I believe it might be 2021, from memory. But the mandate that has been set was established some time ago, and the consultation that occurred with industry occurred back then in regard to certain in establishing the time frames. I would have to find some of the details regarding.

Senator XENOPHON: Because of time constraints, what has been put to me by a number of people in the general aviation community is that many general aviation operators will hit the wall because of ADS-B, that it will be a significant financial impost and that costs would in all likelihood come down significantly once the US adopted by 2020, so why are we doing this several years earlier than the US, which is going to be the market leader, if you like, in rolling this out?

Mr Skidmore : I would do not think that anyone disagrees that ADS-B is a good system. We are putting it in place and there are already 73, or 75, stations that Air Services has established. The system is up and running. It is already being used. There are a number of people who have already implemented ADS-B. We would be turning around and denying them the benefits of ADS-B if we—

And then from the Tamworth rally P9 noted Jeff Boyd quoted as saying (about that Estimates session) :

For  mine, the first give away is where Boyd says “Mark was a bit set up”, which is a total bollocks of the first water.  The next is adopting a position contrary to the Act, ‘Commercial consideration’, which has been a CASA catchall No-no supporting all manner of aberration for generations.  It is a strange, contrary, confused stance, more typical of a victim of Stockholm syndrome than that the fire breathing, reformist Chairman of the CASA board.

And yet section 9A of the CA Act clearly states:

9A  Performance of functions

             (1)  In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
             (2)  Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
                     (a)  the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
                     (b)  the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.

Then quoting the Skidmore Estimates session once again:

Senator XENOPHON: Is CASA still open to talking to representatives of the general aviation community about their serious concerns respect of ADS-B.

Mr Skidmore : Anyone can talk to us in regard to asking for an exemption if they can put forward a good safety case, and we are happy to look at it.

Which was a sentiment pretty much mirrored by Jeff Boyd at the Tamworth rally and later with the interview with ABC New England's Kelly Fuller -  Geoff Boyd CASA.

It might be just me (and P9) but doesn't the exemption option suggest a huge conflict of interest with s9A of the Act? Not to mention the COI to the relevant section of the Act that deals with the granting of exemptions as a parliamentary instrument - s98 Part 5A: 

 (5A)  The regulations may empower CASA to issue instruments in relation to the following:

                     (a)  matters affecting the safe navigation and operation, or the maintenance, of aircraft;
                     (b)  the airworthiness of, or design standards for, aircraft.
An instrument must not prescribe a penalty.

Which brings me to the CASA AQON in reply to Senator Sterle QON 161 :

Question no.: 161
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Exemption Process
Proof Hansard Page: 111 (8 February 2016)

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

Senator STERLE: Can you outline what happens throughout the exemption process? Who makes the ultimate decision over whether an exemption is granted or not?

Mr Skidmore: The applicant would put forward the information regarding the exemption. The requirement for an exemption is listed. I am not sure whether I am the best person to go through this process. I will find the best person to go through the process for you.

Senator STERLE: For the purposes of timing, I am happy for you to take it on notice if that can be provided.

Mr Skidmore: Certainly. We can do that.

Answer:
Subpart 11.F of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998) deals with exemptions. Under subregulation 11.160(1), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) may grant an exemption from a provision of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, CASR 1998 or a Civil Aviation Order in relation to a matter mentioned in subsection 98 (5A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act).

Under subregulation 11.160 (2) of CASR 1998, an exemption may be granted to a person or a class of persons. Under subregulation 11.160 (3), CASA may grant an exemption on application, or on its own initiative. If a person applies to CASA for an exemption, Subpart 11.F of the CASR sets out the information that is required to be provided by the applicant to CASA.

For an application for an exemption, CASA must regard as paramount the preservation of an acceptable level of safety. For making a decision on its own initiative, CASA is guided by the requirement in subsection 9A (1) of the Act that in exercising its powers and functions CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

Under regulation 11.205, CASA may impose conditions on an exemption if necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Under regulation 11.210, it is a strict liability offence not to comply with the obligations imposed by a condition. Under regulation 11.225, CASA must, as soon as practicable, publish on the Internet details of all exemptions under Subpart 11.F. Under subregulation 11.230(1), an exemption may remain in force for no more than three years or for a shorter period specified in the instrument.

CASA internal processes for the grant of an exemption

The CASA business unit which receives an application for an exemption, or considers that CASA should grant an exemption on its own initiative, will generally prepare a standard form recommendation (SFR) document that is directed to the relevant Executive Manager in CASA for consideration by that person as to whether to grant an exemption. The SFR will set out the reasoning for the exemption and the safety considerations associated with it. If the Executive Manager supports the grant of an exemption in principle, a request is made to CASA’s Legal Services Division (LSD) to draft the exemption instrument. In doing so, LSD will consider whether the exemption can lawfully be granted. The General Counsel of CASA will provide the exemption instrument to the Executive Manager for signing, under cover of a minute.

In relation to a ‘first of type’ exemption, it has been CASA’s policy and practice for the past six years, that only the Director of Aviation Safety can sign such an exemption. In such matters, the above processes will still apply. The person who signs an exemption makes the ultimate decision as to whether it should be granted. P2 comment - I'm imagining the 'exemption' application accompanied by a brown paper bag loaded with the prerequisite number of 50s -    

From where I am standing CASA ruling by exemption is complete & utter BOLLOCKS! It is merely covering up for the fact that the 1000s of pages of prescriptive regulations are massively cost prohibitive, unreadable & therefore totally un-useable for industry purpose. Not to mention the probability for corruption under such a system (IMO) is extremely high.


MTF...P2