CASA meets the Press
(07-28-2018, 05:37 AM)kharon Wrote: Janus – the two faced god.

“Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.”

Hitch – “I am not sure CASA coming out and defending itself against accusations of having an anti-GA agenda is a brilliant tactic; they'd be better off just getting on with the job. This week acting CEO Graeme Crawford went there again etc.”

When I read in a report, words like those in the Hitch opening sentence (above), I’m never sure whether to grab the AP bucket first - or the key-board. Tragedy it would be,  should I mix up the actions.

Hitch – “doing so has drawn even more derision.

There is only one way to deal with a creature like Crawford. If I ask nicely, I’m fairly sure P2 can provide a whole range of Hansard video featuring the man who is defending the CASA actions. Watch and study first – then, decide whether you believe if this man has the best interests of the industry at heart - or not.























To my mind, there is a lot more McConvict than Santa Claus on display in the video evidence. If you were seeking to cast a villain in a dark movie; one in which the story line was focussed on (Hitch) - Many of these cases remain unresolved through lack of acknowledgment that CASA's treatment of good people was harsh at best and devious at worst.” You would look no further than Crawford, would you.
 
Jung - “The reason for evil in the world is that people are not able to tell their stories.


If you can spare the time (if P2 can find it) watch a real reformer at work – Mike Smith – (the man who should be DAS) at Wagga (try AOPA). Chalk and cheese; puts the stark differences between what CASA should be, and what it is in reality, into very sharp focus indeed.
 
Not that any of it matters; not so long as we have a minister who’s best advice comes through a conduit, from the likes of Crawford and Aleck. A minister who not only swallows it, but takes the soft, safe option and actually embraces it.  I'll have that bucket now please GD...
 
“A knavish speech sleeps in a fool's ear.”
 
Toot – MTF – toot.

From miniscule Mc'Nobody's thread:

Quote:Just exactly who is this Graeme Crawford?

Other than a nasty piece of work?

P2 - See here TB: Janus – the two faced god. 

And: https://www.linkedin.com/in/graeme-m-crawford-2b77983/

P2 edit - Watch Mike Smith here:





& from approximately - 21:00 minutes here:



Reply
Wonder who wrote his Linkedin profile for him?
Aleck I suppose, certainly has his style about it.
Good old silver tongue.
Interesting with his much vaulted attributes, he seems
to have had trouble holding down a position for very long.
Then ends up in CAsA, an employer of last resort.
Reply
AA's take on the Luther Crawford bollocks -  Rolleyes

Via AA last week:


CASA defends record on general aviation
written by australianaviation.com.au July 25, 2018

[Image: PHAN6869.jpg]

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has defended its record in relation to general aviation and called on those questioning its commitment to the sector to look at its recent actions.

Writing in the July edition of The CASA Briefing, acting chief executive and director of aviation safety Graeme Crawford noted the recent debate about the regulator’s relationship with the general aviation sector.

“Implicit in this debate is the suggestion by some people that CASA does not support a sustainable and viable general aviation sector,” Crawford said.

“I would like to assure everyone this is simply not true.”

“There is no CASA agenda against general aviation and we regard the sector as a vital component of the national aviation community.”

General Aviation calling for change

Crawford’s comments, published on Wednesday, follow the recently concluded Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) summit at Wagga Wagga.

The two-day gathering concluded on July 10 with more than 30 industry associations agreeing to a communique that said the current regulatory stance adopted by CASA was “out of step with contemporary regulatory practice” and contributing to the rapid decline of Australia’s general aviation industry.

“The Australian economy has the opportunity to benefit from pilot and engineering training, aircraft and component maintenance and construction services flowing from the world-wide expansion of air travel and aviation activity – especially in Asia,” the communique said.

“To achieve this, we must be able to respond effectively and be liberated from over regulation.”

Industry associations present at Wagga Wagga summit, which was organised by the recently-formed Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA), included those covering aircraft owners and pilots, maintenance and engineering, parachutists, gliding, hang gliding, recreational aviation, sport aircraft and seaplanes, among several others.

Crawford said many of CASA’s staff were participants in general aviation or started their careers in the sector, and had a “practical understanding of the issues and challenges” the sector faced.

“CASA can’t deliver solutions to the broader economic and social changes that are affecting parts of general aviation, but we can and will do our best to provide an appropriate safety regulatory framework that creates confidence in general aviation across the broader community,” Crawford said.

“CASA is focused on regulatory solutions that are both practical, proportionate and address aviation safety risk.”

The communique that was agreed to at Wagga Wagga has been sent to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack, as well as his shadow counterpart Anthony Albanese. Both politicians spoke at the summit, with McCormack saying he was keen to listen to their proposals for reform.

Meanwhile, Albanese said he and the Labor opposition were committed to working with the government in a bipartisan way.

The communique called on the federal government to change the wording of the Civil Aviation Act, which as it currently stood said CASA had to “regard safety as the most important consideration” in its role regulating the industry.

Instead, the communique proposed that CASA, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, “must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation as well as maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector”.

Further, the gathering called for the main object of the Act to be to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

Crawford said CASA would continue to develop regulatory solutions that considered risk appetite and safety consequences.

Further, he called on those who doubted CASA’s commitment to general aviation to “please look at our recent actions”.

“Three major reforms this year to the aviation medical system are practical examples of reducing costs and impacts on the aviation community, particularly general aviation,” Crawford said.

“The Basic Class 2 medical, which became available in early July 2018, is targeted at private pilots and makes getting an appropriate medical quicker, easier and cheaper.”


[Image: IMG_1473_1170.jpg]Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) summit delegates after agreeing to the communique to be presented to government.


Good to see AOPA Oz are quick to put the Luther Crawford weasel words to the test... Wink 


Quote:[Image: AOPA-Oz-1.jpg]



[Image: AOPA-Oz-2.jpg]



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 03/08/18: Yarrawonga on the market, CASA needs Ockham's Razor and trading flight for life.

Via the Yaffa:

Quote:[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fyaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com%...ch_tbm.jpg]

The Last Minute Hitch: 3 August 2018
3 Aug 2018



– Steve Hitchen

Those that fly around Victoria's north or the south-east of NSW will know that Yarrawonga is one of the handiest and most friendly airports in the area. Home to a small pilot shop, manufacturers of aircraft covers and maintenance organisations, it's a pivotal location for a fuel stop, food stop or just a quick chat. Now it looks like that could all come to an end soon. Moira Shire Council has declared that it costs too much to run and therefore is going to sell it. I would like to advise the council that it's not good salesmanship to tell the whole world the merchandise is very costly to run; it makes it very clear that to turn a profit the new owners would have to crank up the income. That means massive increases in landing fees and rents that will see the airport usage decline and the business have to move out. But, that could be the plan. If they think they can sell Yarrawonga airport as a going concern, the council must be populated by fools. It remains then that they know any new owner won't be able to make a go of it and the decision to sell is effectively a decision to not have an airport at Yarrawonga anymore. And that will have an impact on the shire that they are pretending it won't; there is a lot of money that flows into Moira Shire that is not credited to the airport's balance sheet. I can cite cases of pilots who own holiday homes in Yarrawonga that would probably sell them if they can't fly up there rather than drive. But then again, aviation-averse councils such as Moira can see only the income from development and not the benefits of connection to the rest of the country that only an airport can bring. I sincerely hope that after the airport is gone, no-one ever needs to be air-lifted from Yarrawonga to the Alfred Hospital.

Quote:Since when is flying under the oversight of an incorrect solution safe?

There have been a couple of instances this week where interpretation has misled people to make some erroneous statements with a great deal of honesty. Please forgive me if I don't go into them; I'll probably just make the same mistakes. But for me it has put intense focus on the problem of complexity in Australia's aviation rules and the language we use to write them. CASA, the government and the Labor Party are sticking to their guns that the primary focus of aviation regulation must be safety, so how the hell they allow regulations to be written the way they are is simply bewildering. It is not in any way safe for regulations to be open to interpretation in such a way that they are regularly misinterpreted! There is an old saying in the technical writing industry: if there are two ways to intrepret what you wrote, someone will interpret it the way you didn't mean. David Forsyth touched on this in the ASRR report handed down in 2014, recommending we start talking in plain English, and it needs to happen very soon. I am pleased to see that CASA has said the Manual of Standards for the new GA maintenance regs will be done in plain English; this is a good start in what is a very long road. However, there is still the problem of complexity, which was highlighted at the recent GA summit at Wagga Wagga when hard copies of all the Australian regs were laid out on a table. There were five four-ring binders, two two-ring binders and ERSA. By comparison, the US regs were sat along side them: two books. I'm going to again quote my favourite philosophy because I think it's very pertinent here. Ockham's Razor says "All thing being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the correct one." It therefore follows that the most complex answer tends to be the incorrect one. Since when is flying under the oversight of an incorrect solution safe?

Facebook group Pilot's Lounge Australia has linked up with Bush Flyers Down Under to raise money for struggling Australian farmers. This is a great initiative and well worth the aviation community's support. The idea is to work out how much it costs you to go flying for an hour, donate that money via an online campaign to Drought Angels and go an do something else instead. It's called Trading Flight for Life. I know, what else would you rather do but fly? In this instance the cause is a great one, and if it means sacrificing an hour in the air to help out the farmers, many of whom live their lives in the dark shadow of bankruptcy, then it really is a small price to pay.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch

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



Comment:

Martin Hone  12 hours ago

It is both sad and frustrating to hear of another council deciding that it can no longer afford its own airport, and that the only option is to sell out to the development vultures. But even you have missed the bleeding obvious, Steve. What about the council helping to set up an airpark ? Hell, there is already a bunch of committed enthusiasts living and working on the airfield. With a little imagination and work, the facility could be made more attractive to a greater number of aviators so that it becomes sustainable and the council benefits from a cash injection from land sales plus ongoing rates. It works in other parts of the country, as you well know.

Next: Fort Fumble review of 2 in the cockpit rule -  Undecided 

Via the Oz:


Quote:Two in the cockpit rule relaxed
[Image: 357f25ef93621cd283ff08dce97636d1]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Australia’s major airlines are rethinking the ‘two in the cockpit’ rule after a review found the practice to be fraught with risk.


Australia’s major airlines are rethinking the “two in the cockpit” rule after a review found the practice to be fraught with risk.

The rule was adopted by multiple airlines worldwide following the 2015 Germanwings crash in which co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked his captain out of the cockpit and crashed the A320 into mountains, killing all 150 people on board.

Under the rule, a crew member is required to take the place of the captain or co-pilot if one of them leave the cockpit for a bathroom break.

When the practice was adopted by Australian airlines in agreement with the federal government a week after the German­wings crash, it was decided a review would be conducted after 12 months.

Yesterday Civil Aviation Safety Authority acting chief executive Graeme Crawford revealed the review had identified “unintended consequential risks” from the practice.

These included the “second person in the cockpit potentially distracting the pilot, making inadvertent contact with cockpit switches and taking cabin crew away from their safety role in the cabin”, he said.

“It was also found the practice complicated flight crew access to the cockpit and introduced an additional risk of flight deck incursion,” Mr Crawford said.

“(CASA’s) recommendation is for air operators to evaluate their own safety requirements and make an operational decision on whether to maintain ‘two in the cockpit’ in their standard operating procedures.”

In response, Qantas said it would consider “implementing a change to the current procedure”. Similarly, Virgin Australia said it was reviewing its position on the practice and would provide a further update soon.

European airlines including Lufthansa, Swiss and Austrian Airlines have already ended the practice after Europe’s Aviation Safety Agency relaxed the requirement.

Australian International Pilots Association president Murray Butt said the rule’s introduction was an overreaction and the ­organisation welcomed CASA’s recommendation.

“The rule was introduced without any analysis of the risk factors of having a third person coming into the flight deck,” Mr Butt said.

“We hope the airlines move quickly and they can make the public understand that while the two in the cockpit rule was introduced to placate public fears, now they’ve had a good look at it, it’s not such a good idea.”

He said it was more important to work on mental health programs for pilots.

Marcus Diamond from the Australian Federation of Air ­Pilots said they were hopeful the airlines would respond quickly to CASA’s recommendation.

“We couldn’t see any real benefit from (the rule),” Mr Diamond said.
 
& from Creepy:

Quote:Australia eases Germanwings two-person cockpit rule
By
Steve Creedy
579
August 03, 2018 

[Image: P72.jpg]
Australian airlines will be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have two people in the cockpit at all times.

The Australian government followed the lead of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and adopted the two-in-the cockpit rule for aircraft with a seating capacity of more than 50 passengers after the crash of Germanwings Flight 9252 crash in March, 2015.

Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who had been diagnosed with suicidal tendencies, deliberately flew the aircraft into the side of a French mountain, killing 144 passengers and six crew.

The idea was to have another crew member enter the cockpit if one of the pilots left for any reason but the practice has raised a number of safety and security issues.

EASA eased the two-person rule in August, 2017,  and German airlines revealed they would abandon it April this year, arguing it increased security risks rather lowered them.

Australia’s  Civil Aviation Safety Authority said a review of the practice in Australia found there were “unintended consequential risks, including the second person in the cockpit potentially distracting the pilot, making inadvertent contact with cockpit switches and taking cabin crew away from their safety role in the cabin”.

“It was also found the practice complicated flight crew access to the cockpit and introduced an additional risk of flight deck incursion,’’ CASA said in a recent briefing note.

“The recommendation is for air operators to evaluate their own safety requirements and make an operational decision on whether to maintain ‘two in the cockpit’ in their standard operating procedures.

“CASA’s aviation medicine branch will continue to monitor pilot mental health and maintain a high level of awareness among pilots of mental health priorities and sources of assistance.”

Australian pilot unions have welcomed the decision to ease the rules.

It comes as the EU recently published strengthened mental health guidelines for pilots.

The new rules mean all European airlines will need to perform a psychological assessment of pilots before they start employment, something many airlines already do.

They also include a support program for all pilots working for European airlines to help them “recognize, cope with and overcome “problems which might negatively affect their ability to safely exercise the privileges of their license”

Mandatory alcohol testing will be extended to pilots and cabin crew of all European and foreign airlines that fly into the EU.



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
LMH 10/08/18: It's all about consultation this week as small transport ops are dropped into the crucible.

Via the Yaffa:



  • [Image: hitch_tbm.jpg]



The Last Minute Hitch: 10 August 2018
10 August 2018


In general aviation, pessimism is robust but optimism is fragile. As much as we'd like to reverse that, things keep happening that justify the pessimism. We all applauded Minister McCormack at Wagga Wagga when he announced that CASA would craft a new set of maintenance regulations specifically for GA, but our ovation may have been premature given that we didn't have the full story. With the release of the initial discussion paper this week, we find that the new regs will apply to only a very small segment of what we call "GA", because CASA has deemed to re-define the term so that charter operations and joyflights are no longer part of GA. Although the proposed new regs seem like a great idea, they will benefit only a few small segments of GA: flying academies, ag operators, aeromedical (except patient transfer), SAR and dedicated airwork aircraft. Private flying schools and aero clubs won't benefit because their aircraft are also used in joyflights, which means the aeroplanes will have to be maintained to the passenger-carrying rules, even though their main purpose is training. Flying academies won't have this problem because they don't offer their fleets for joyflights. Once again, the operators who need the most relief from the regulatory burden are being offered none.

Quote:"..sacrificing joyflights may be the only choice they really have.."

I see three options for the flying schools and aero clubs: maintain one aircraft to the higher standards and use only that one for joyflights, maintain the entire fleet to the higher standard or start refusing joyflights. A dedicated aircraft will add complexity and kill flexibility; running the entire fleet to the passenger-carrying regs will add cost. If the new GA regs are really going to provide the cost and burden relief that CASA says they will, flying schools and aero clubs may have to move to the new regs simply to stay alive. As training forms the larger part of their business, sacrificing joyflights may be the only choice they really have, denying GA one of its greatest promotional tools. The old caper of re-branding a joyflight as a Trial Instructional Flight will have limited ability to assuage the problem because TIFs are training and therefore passengers can't be carried; they're good for only one person. From my desk, the only answer I can see is to reclassify joyflights out of passenger-carrying and back into GA. Perhaps submissions from the industry might reflect that.


On the optimistic side, the consultation documents for these new regs do hint at a new attitude. Take, for instance, this statement. Adopting a regulatory structure based on an established and appropriate international standard that is tried, tested and proven to be working effectively, is an efficient approach to delivering tangible improvements to Australia’s GA community. That is an absolutely inarguable position for them to take, afterall, we've been telling CASA that for decades! The amount breath and tears spent trying to get this over to CASA seems to have born fruit, but it must be very frustrating to proponents of the FARs that CASA has come back like it was all their idea. All we need now is for that now-acknowledged philosophy to be applied to Part 61 ... Part 66, Part 141, Part 142, Part 135 and every other appropriate regulation.


Concurrent with the above, CASA has also started the consultation process for Part 135, which is the set of rules that cover small aeroplanes in passenger-carrying ops; in other words, low-capacity RPT, charter and joyflight. This is another conundrum for smaller operators: do they keep their charter AOC or opt out? For some companies, they will have to bite the bullet because their charter income is a larger proportion of their business, and for others it's their reason for existence. The new Part 135 proposals do present a large increase in costs (e.g. you will have to fit TAWS-B if you have more than six seats), and as charter is not a high-margin business, there is unlikely to be room to absorb the extra drag on cash flow. CASA says the new regs are designed to combine the flexibility of charter with the safety benefits it says exist in structured training and checking, but, not being an "economic regulator", they have ignored the extra costs. I also have to ask why, when they admit they were told in 1999 to apply RPT-style regs to charter, it has taken 19 years to get around to it? The answer might lie in the statement that CASA "was told ..." So who told them? I suspect the "telling" was political, meaning that CASA probably didn't even believe there was a safety issue to be addressed and so didn't give it priority. You have to wonder if there really is a safety issue that Part 135 will fix.


Bathurst Regional Council has confirmed they are going to apply commercial-standard rents to leases at the airport. They see this as a reasonable thing to do; why should airport operators get lower lease rates than other industries? Their reasoning falls down because of the monopoly they hold. Commercial leases outside of airports are subject to the natural laws of competition; if lessees don't like the rates they can always go elsewhere. Aviation companies must be on airports, which are owned and controlled by one entity: the council. That makes a monopoly situation, and it should be treated as such. Rates at regional airports should be subject to scrutiny from a regulatory body, in this case the Department of Transport and Infrastructure. It would be the ideal function of the mooted Office of Aviation Industry put forward in the resolutions from the AGAA GA summit held at Wagga Wagga. It is not fair to aviation companies that they are locked into a monopoly situation without protection. The major capital city airports are subject to this type of oversight, so why not the regionals as well?


May your gauges always be in the green,


Hitch


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...Bke1RIi.99



Sandy comment:

Quote:Sandy Reith 

Good job Hitch, right on the money regarding the dysfunctional regulatory regime that GA, all of GA, has been saddled with for many years, and getting considerably worse. Remember the ASSR and David Forsyth’s recommendations? Hailed in many quarters as defining the way out of the morass and virtually totally ignored by government after a few platitudes and changing the CEO, the fatuously titled ‘Director of Air Safety.’ 

Mate, keep up your good work, thousands of jobs have already been lost, opportunities for thousands of young Aussies (especially from the bush) could be realised with sensible policies. Proven international practice, yes, well, bit of a joke? Not obvious for the last 30 years? Give me strength.

MTF..P2  Tongue
Reply
Steam – On.

You may read the latest Hitch article – HERE – in Australian Flying without my rudely inserted comments.  Sorry Hitch, and no disrespect, or offense intended but, I couldn’t just let the article pass by without comment, there’s too much at stake to sit idly by with a coffee and let it all float past. So, with your indulgence – Steam On GD, pile it on mate…….

Hitch – “In general aviation, pessimism is robust but optimism is fragile. As much as we'd like to reverse that, things keep happening that justify the pessimism.”

I am mildly surprised to see even Hitch mentioning ‘optimism’ in the same sentence as GA. Wishful thinking I could understand, but history and cold hard facts preclude, in no uncertain manner, any optimism. Until the aviation industry as a whole body says enough and backs that statement with determination to reform the Act, the regulations and the regulator, the endless rounds of meaningless discussion will continue. CASA and the DoIT and many ministers have ridden out past mild storms of protest with consummate ease and why not. They have nothing else to do – industry must earn it's living, pay the bills, meet compliance and run the business; they need to generate the revenue to this. CASA on the other hand have all the toys needed to continue on their merry way – money, time, power and access to ministerial support - all provided by those who must work with the system given. Imagine a flying operation gifted those big guns, with no responsibility for the money or the unholy mess left in the wake. No boys, you’ve taken a blunt, rusty corkscrew to a fight against big artillery. Until all the big guns of the industry get together and challenge this monstrosity, head on, no holds barred and slug it out to the end, optimism is a false, bitter disappointment, a promise, as empty as a politicians promise to be truthful.

Hitch – “We all applauded Minister McCormack at Wagga Wagga”

Not all did – in fact there was a marked, general whisper of ‘we’re ducked’ the minute he opened his mealy mouth. It was made clear right there, right then, that there is no intention to change any damn thing. Read his ‘speech’ – all there - or watch the video, which even more clearly  defines the murder of optimism and crucifies hope with a stake in its heart. Placebo – hells bells the man was only there for 20 minutes at the start, couldn’t get out of Dodge fast enough. A cynical con job – he can say he came, he listened, he consulted and threw it back to the very same people who created the current untenable situation.

Applause? Dream on. Hitch -  [he] announced that CASA would craft a new set of maintenance regulations specifically for GA, but our ovation may have been premature given that we didn't have the full story. With the release of the initial discussion paper this week, we find that the new regs will apply to only a very small segment of what we call "GA", because CASA has deemed to re-define the term so that charter operations and joyflights are no longer part of GA. Although the proposed new regs seem like a great idea, they will benefit only a few small segments of GA: flying academies, ag operators, aeromedical (except patient transfer), SAR and dedicated airwork aircraft. Private flying schools and aero clubs won't benefit because their aircraft are also used in joyflights, which means the aeroplanes will have to be maintained to the passenger-carrying rules, even though their main purpose is training. Flying academies won't have this problem because they don't offer their fleets for joyflights. Once again, the operators who need the most relief from the regulatory burden are being offered none.

Would you applaud that – would that fill you with ‘optimism’? I don’t think so. If it does then perhaps its time to visit an ‘alienist’ or hold an exorcism, for you have ‘wandered’.  

Hitch – "I see three options for the flying schools and aero clubs:

GA is more than Flight school and ‘Joy-flights’ – the big charter outfits and regionals (those left standing) are going to be seriously hurt by the new 135 and the maintenance regulations. Where will all the new chums from the flight schools, those which manage to survive, go to get those vital first multi engine hours, gain real life experience and develop command skills then? Rest assured, the government agency may be happy with fluffy, feel good, ultra safe (on paper) qualifications, but insurance companies will not share in that pipe dream. They have an iron clad  ‘cash and no bullshit’ approach to pay outs and are not easy to fool. You may baffle a disinterested minister, but not those boys..........

Hitch - [maintain] one aircraft to the higher standards and use only that one for joyflights, maintain the entire fleet to the higher standard or start refusing joyflights. A dedicated aircraft will add complexity and kill flexibility; running the entire fleet to the passenger-carrying regs will add cost. If the new GA regs are really going to provide the cost and burden relief that CASA says they will, flying schools and aero clubs may have to move to the new regs simply to stay alive. As training forms the larger part of their business, sacrificing joyflights may be the only choice they really have, denying GA one of its greatest promotional tools. The old caper of re-branding a joyflight as a Trial Instructional Flight will have limited ability to assuage the problem because TIFs are training and therefore passengers can't be carried; they're good for only one person. From my desk, the only answer I can see is to reclassify joyflights out of passenger-carrying and back into GA. Perhaps submissions from the industry might reflect that.

Well Hitch, from my desk I can look past the small world you see, to the wider landscape where charter and cargo services become priced and regulated out of business; have a chat with young Master Wyndam up there in Scone, get his views – take a wider view; and, be afraid, be very afraid, for the Bogey man indeed cometh.

Hitch - On the optimistic side, the consultation documents for these new regs do hint at a new attitude. Take, for instance, this statement. Adopting a regulatory structure based on an established and appropriate international standard that is tried, tested and proven to be working effectively, is an efficient approach to delivering tangible improvements to Australia’s GA community. That is an absolutely inarguable position for them to take, after all, we've been telling CASA that for decades! The amount breath and tears spent trying to get this over to CASA seems to have born fruit, but it must be very frustrating to proponents of the FARs that CASA has come back like it was all their idea. All we need now is for that now-acknowledged philosophy to be applied to Part 61 ... Part 66, Part 141, Part 142, Part 135 and every other appropriate regulation.

Amen to that – but mate, history, history and history again – as FAR back as the late Eighties – same rhetoric, same result, same tragic long faces when the realization that they’d been snowed dawned on their enthusiastic, optimism. That mark you, with a minister who actually wanted the changes made. Even then – the dream turned into a nightmarish pile of platitude, excuses and more rubbish masquerading as reformed regulation. Guess who paid for all that?

Hitch – “Concurrent with the above, CASA has also started the consultation process for Part 135, which is the set of rules that cover small aeroplanes in passenger-carrying ops; in other words, low-capacity RPT, charter and joy-flight.

Hitch, mate, do some research – we’ve heard it all before and before that again. The simple fact that ‘consultation is in progress spells out, clearly, that CASA have no idea how to set about the task; and, signifies, clearly their intention to ignore world class rules which work. If there ever was any intention to embrace the FAR (and upset the AFAP) then they would simply do so and save this country a small fortune. They have taken a stand, backed it with our money and they cannot gracefully back down and admit the made a pigs ear of the regulatory reform process. They dare not admit that hundreds of millions have been flushed into a sewer of their own creation. Change the Act. Reform the regulator, adopt world standard rules and all will be well – provided industry can make it through the process. The rest is flatulence, they know it, we know it, the wool blind minister knows it, the bloody Senate committee know it for crying out loud. Dinner is over, the dancing has stopped now it’s time to get to the business end of this long, slow dance.

Hitch – This is another conundrum for smaller operators: do they keep their charter AOC or opt out? For some companies, they will have to bite the bullet because their charter income is a larger proportion of their business, and for others it's their reason for existence. The new Part 135 proposals do present a large increase in costs (e.g. you will have to fit TAWS-B if you have more than six seats), and as charter is not a high-margin business, there is unlikely to be room to absorb the extra drag on cash flow. CASA says the new regs are designed to combine the flexibility of charter with the safety benefits it says exist in structured training and checking, but, not being an "economic regulator", they have ignored the extra costs. I also have to ask why, when they admit they were told in 1999 to apply RPT-style regs to charter, it has taken 19 years to get around to it? The answer might lie in the statement that CASA "was told ..." So who told them? I suspect the "telling" was political, meaning that CASA probably didn't even believe there was a safety issue to be addressed and so didn't give it priority. You have to wonder if there really is a safety issue that Part 135 will fix.

Enough; time this industry grew a backbone. Time to put aside the cozy relationships, the exemptions, the permissions, hand outs , self interest and privilege’s doled out. Those are rights, not favours, under real law. Don’t ask ‘em – tell ‘em. This is a complete and utter balls up – fix it or fuck off and let someone who knows what needs to be done, get it done.

There, I feel better now. Not that it will do the slightest bit of good, but WTD. Aye, steam off GD, steady as she goes mate.

Toot - toot.
Reply
STEAM ON, STEAM OFF, OR JUST PLAIN ‘STEAMER’?

Oh dear oh dear, the Last Minute Snitch. What is wrong with that bloke? Why has he gone from being a fairly normal knock-about bloke who lives and breathes flying, to being a captured CAsAmite singing the praises of a Regulator and cardboard cutout Miniscule while he acts like that fool Steve Creepy, a hypnotised Presstitute!

Surely Snitch has been in the industry long enough to know that words are cheap, especially words spat out by bureaucratic turd polishers. To be honest the Australian aviation turd is beyond polishing, nothing can save it. All this cheap politician waffle means SFA. If Malcolm Turdball can drop half a billion dollars in the lap of small reef organisation on a whim, then he can drop the same amount into GA as well as the demolition of CAsA and starting again. No, sorry, the Miniscule speaketh with forked tongue and through the anus.

No Ferryman, no steam on today, it’s just a giant steamer - our industry mate. And after 30 bloody years of failed reform and half a billion dollars pissed into the wind we have every reason to be offended my muppets like Snitch, McDo’nothing and any other oxygen thief who talks but doesn’t deliver.

Tick ‘steaming’ Tock
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)