Is CASA a liability to an aircraft industry?

[Guest ozzie]

Novocastrian is sooo nineties.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Ive called it Newy for 30 years as has my Newy local relos.

 

 

[Oscar]

As interesting as this rambling and sometimes ranting socio-political discussion has been in revealing the personal agendas of various posters, where has anything relating to the title of the thread gone?

 

If I can drag the thread back to the original idea... having just transcribed all of BCAR S to a spreadsheet for my CAR35 (or Part 104 M??) engineer to complete for submission to CASA so the repairs and modifications to my aircraft will be approved, I have realised that CASA's new regime is so fixated on ensuring it can not be held responsible for anything that it has devolved the onus of 'proof' onto the CAR35 engineers, so it requires a complete response to ALL the requirements of BCAR S for ANY mod to an BCAR S compliant aircraft. That has elevated the workload on the CAR35 engineer by a factor of around 8 for a typical. small mod./repair.

 

The only evident reason for this is that the current crop of CASA engineers tasked with approving work on aircraft have so little knowledge of the applicable rules/requirements, that the applicants have to supply a complete response to every element in the certification standard - over 170 of them by my estimation. Thus we have to provide a response to the currency of the compass deviation placard in the case of replacing the fin and rudder on a fibreglass aircraft!

 

CASA is tasked by legislation with the safety of everything that flies and the people under whatever is flying. Whether that is or is not realistic is a moot point - but how CASA is discharging its task certainly IS. There is ample evidence to carry the argument that CASA is loading the industry/sport unreasonably with requirements that are designed first and foremost to reduce its own liability.

 

Instead of ranting about the general condition of society/which political party is to blame, this thread would serve a more useful purpose if it were to concentrate on the cost/effectiveness of CASA requirements to actually achieve 'safety'. That is the stuff to provide to Warren Truss in his review - not ranting dogma about 'greens/bludgers/wages/labour contracts' and all the other complete and utter bullsh#t nonsence that has overtaken this thread.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Before the last election, my local member phoned me to ask was there anything he could do for me. I sent him a letter saying how CASA was acting unreasonably because of fear of litigation, and how parliament should pass an act to protect CASA officials from being sued so that they could start behaving better.

 

Well the local member passed my letter on to Albanese who gave it to CASA to write a response and I got this nonsense which didn't begin to address the issue.

 

But hope springs eternal, maybe if we all complain to our local members when we get the chance, something may happen. Of course, if CASA were abolished, there would be nobody there to act in fear of litigation. Well we can dream.....

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Point taken Oscar. Hope the review gets lots of submissions. Does anyone know if RAAus is making one?

 

 

[djpacro]

.... it has devolved the onus of 'proof' onto the CAR35 engineers, so it requires a complete response to ALL the requirements of BCAR S for ANY mod to an BCAR S compliant aircraft. That has elevated the workload on the CAR35 engineer by a factor of around 8 for a typical. small mod./repair.....

I have seen stuff omitted by Reg 35 engineers in the past - the full set of all the requirements is a good checklist. We have always been required to provide proof i.e. show conformance with the requirements.

 

..... that the applicants have to supply a complete response to every element in the certification standard - over 170 of them by my estimation. Thus we have to provide a response to the currency of the compass deviation placard in the case of replacing the fin and rudder on a fibreglass aircraft!....

A major repair so I wouldn't expect to get away with a quick reference to the handful of requirements which would apply to a small change. Been a few years since I have dealt with CASA engineering but I have had similar over the top paperwork requirements in my younger days and I soon learnt that it is much easier to write "yes" in the compliance box of everything with a brief reason for it (substantiating data when appropriate) rather than try to explain why something is not applicable.

[Oscar]

I have seen stuff omitted by Reg 35 engineers in the past - the full set of all the requirements is a good checklist. We have always been required to provide proof i.e. show conformance with the requirements.A major repair so I wouldn't expect to get away with a quick reference to the handful of requirements which would apply to a small change. Been a few years since I have dealt with CASA engineering but I have had similar over the top paperwork requirements in my younger days and I soon learnt that it is much easier to write "yes" in the compliance box of everything with a brief reason for it (substantiating data when appropriate) rather than try to explain why something is not applicable.

Indeed, the appropriate response covers structural and aerodynamic matters. However, the underlying issue is that CASA as the regulatory body should have the capability to assess an EO for completeness in terms of its effect on the compliance of an aircraft to its certification standard and request any additional justification that might be missing; by requiring that a statement of compliance with a complete standard be supplied where whole sections of that standard are completely irrelevant to the EO's effect, is an utter nonsense. It is driving CAR35 engineers out of the business because they simply don't have the time to devote to this minutiae of no value to their clients - and without them the bottom-end of RAA and GA will not be able to function. CASA has become - starting with the Dick Smith as Chairman debacle - the aeronautical employer of last resort for the bottom of the barrel engineers that can't find employment in the commercial arena. The good aero-engineers of yesteryear that were in CAA/DOT left long ago and the oversight of the industry and sport is massively the poorer for that.

 

Now we are left with the completely inept making the rules to ensure their own future, from the very top down. The Truss 'review' needs to be assured that 1) aviation, even at RAA level, is a socially valuable resource; and 2) that CASA's role should be to promote the activity by developing an effective regulatory environment rather than one predicated purely on saving its own and its Minister's backside. Let's forget the socio-political horse manure and get on board with providing the Truss review with the ammunition and the incentive to drill, bore and ream CASA into something that actually serves its constituency rather than itself .

 

 

[djpacro]

... get on board with providing the Truss review with the ammunition and the incentive to drill, bore and ream CASA into something that actually serves its constituency rather than itself .

Only a few weeks left to make submissions with evidence rather than whinge.

[Oscar]

Only a few weeks left to make submissions with evidence rather than whinge.

There are some people getting on in a very determined way, doing just that: contacting people in the industry, compiling evidence, presenting the case.

 

The more information we can provide to the Truss review, the better the chance of having some effect. However, submissions need to consider the realpolitic of what will make an impression. They need to follow three major principles: firstly, engage the political will for change; secondly, provide the evidence of what change is needed in a reasonably concise and understandable format; and thirdly, provide some sort of metric by which a Ministerial office can determine that the Departmental response actually addresses the metric and not just slides around it.

 

Engaging the political will is critical. One needs to demonstrate that fundamentally, there is either (or preferably both of), a politically good outcome likely to result, or alternatively that a politically bad outcome will result if the change is not embraced. For RAA-class aircraft, arguments on the lines of 'we are all jolly good chaps, leave us alone', or 'we have the right to fly around without all this crap', won't get anywhere. We need to show, or at least postulate convincingly, that RAA activities have social/economic value. I think there are several good lines of argument that can be advanced here, including that the whole of light aviation helps to reduce the disadvantages seen in living in regional communities, that it can be a highly important element in the support of regional and remote communities, that it promotes the supply of expertise beyond the major industrialised areas, that is is an integral part of the economic fabric of some rural industries etc. Put shortly, it is essential that the Minister concerned can see 'value' in pursuing the proposed course of action.

 

Providing evidence in a concise and understandable format is also necessary. Politicians have a limited attention-span (sometimes by nature, oft-times by the circumstances of office) and whatever is presented has to be not just a generalised whinge but a realistic summary of what the problem is, what effect the problem has and sufficient authenticity to be convincing. If one takes the time to read the HORSCOT report, you can see the direct result of decent and detailed evidence leading (in particular) to the radical changes in MTOW that allowed recreational-class aircraft to evolve from single-seat devices limited to 500' AGL out in the boonies, to the effective aircraft we have today.

 

Finally, providing a metric or metrics by which the Minister etc. can evaluate what actual action/s has/have been taken on the part of the authority to address the issue/s presented is very important, to stop the endless round of the authority concerned replying to a Ministerial direction to 'do something about this' by either just meddling around the edges or deflecting the whole idea on the grounds (in CASA's case) of 'would adversely affect safety', or something similar. Trying to secure something relatively unmeasurable such as 'improved facilities will stimulate the growth of the sector' are open to a thousand obfuscating responses. Some sort of metric demands a specific response to that metric.

 

If we believe that changes are necessary - and I don't think we are, as a group, incorrect in that, then this is a chance to start the ball rolling.

 

 

[Yenn]

It is a good idea to make a submission and I have done that via SAAA. But it is unreasonable to expect anything to happen. CASA take no notice of politicians or ministers. If pushed enough they say it is a safety issue. Politicians take no notice of constituents, unless they see an advantage in it. There would be no advantage to a politician locking horns with CASA, because if there was the slightest chance CASA would say the pollie was downgrading safety.

 

CASA is a self perpetuating body charged with keeping aviation safe. the easiest way to do that is to stop all flying, except airlines.

 

They seem to be continuously changing the rules and yet, when we get the new rule it is still the old one with meaningless changes, which are to make sure they are not responsible.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for change.

 

 

[facthunter]

Truss flies. While you would be an optimist, to expect lots you can only try. I've submitted things over the years and think some of them got listened to. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

It is a good idea to make a submission and I have done that via SAAA. But it is unreasonable to expect anything to happen.CASA take no notice of politicians or ministers.CASA is a Ministerial responsibility. While I totally agree that CASA has an entrenched culture of managing to avoid taking notice of its Minister, it cannot do so if the Minister 'insists'. What it is extremely adept at doing is sidestepping/derailing the Ministerial directive or simply not responding in a timely fashion; there is (rather a LOT!) of stuff started in the Sharpe era that is still completely unresolved..

 

If pushed enough they say it is a safety issue. Absolutely correct, and highly effective in the case of any Minister not sufficiently motivated to demand CASA justify the argument. Any successful submission needs to anticipate that response and present itself in such a way that it cannot be proffered as a reason for not taking action. CASA has intruded in areas of operation that have absolutely no reasonable justification on 'safety' grounds, so submissions need to cut that argument off at the knees by reasoned and forceful argument(s).

 

Politicians take no notice of constituents, unless they see an advantage in it. Again, absolutely correct - submissions have to generate sufficient momentum in terms of political will that a Minister actively wants the change to happen. If that were not a skill verging on art, there would be almost no place in the scheme of things for lobbyists. However, the fact that they exist says that change is possible, if difficult.. I've been there and managed it in a small way, in regard to achieving decent representation for motorcyclists on the rule-setting authorities (though I have to admit getting 10 thousand motorcyclists to Canberra to confront the Minister of the day helped considerably..)

 

There would be no advantage to a politician locking horns with CASA, because if there was the slightest chance CASA would say the pollie was downgrading safety. It's their theme song; a submission has to pre-emptively strike it down as an acceptable response. Nothing less than that has a chance of success.

 

CASA is a self perpetuating body charged with keeping aviation safe. the easiest way to do that is to stop all flying, except airlines. It's hard to argue with that as a generalisation - but if it was the only possible outcome, we'd still be in the same situation we were at the time of the HORSCOT enquiry. It requires commitment, time and effort, but it is possible. Even Archilles had a vulnerability, but the knife has to be sharp and the thrust accurate and deadly.

 

They seem to be continuously changing the rules and yet, when we get the new rule it is still the old one with meaningless changes, which are to make sure they are not responsible. Bruce Byron managed to rid CASA of the head of Legal at the time, because he understood just how much that position had managed to block any decent progress. However, he didn't last long enough to get the job done properly. MacCormick has simply rolled over. As Sun Tzu said: 'know your enemy'.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for change.

[Chocolate]

In answer to the thread question...yes casa with its current regulations is a giant liability to the survival, sustainability and growth of general aviation. The statistics on pilot age and aircraft age in the last ten years tell the sad story of what red tape regulation will do to an industry. Excessive and nit picky red tape is enshrined in the regulations / caaps. Do I think warren truss will do a Campbell Newman style clean out...no. As a former long term public servant in another area of government also rife with over regulation even I find the regs and advisory material appallingly written and dreadfully contradictory, and I m used to reading that stuff!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Right on all counts Chocolate.

 

The quaint, inappropriate and extremely confusing and frustrating language would never get past the drafting people if there was a Department of Civil Aviation rather than this body which can make up its own rules and is only as good as its Minister who these days has to manage road, rail and shipping transport as well, and in these three modes freight, passenger and service, bringing in buses and coaches which are just as complicated as aircraft in administration.

 

That's an unworkable workload for a Minister, but wait there's more:

 

He also has Infrastructure, and that opens up an equally big can of worms, and many would say, a more important role.

 

And we're still not there:

 

He is also responsible for Regional Development which has him administering Australia's 565 local governing bodies, our local councils.

 

So is it any surprise that this Minister, regardless of Party will never be able to speak with any detailed authority, achieve any forward motion, or control the czars doing their own individual thing.

 

 

[Chocolate]

Right on all counts Chocolate.The quaint, inappropriate and extremely confusing and frustrating language would never get past the drafting people if there was a Department of Civil Aviation rather than this body which can make up its own rules and is only as good as its Minister who these days has to manage road, rail and shipping transport as well, and in these three modes freight, passenger and service, bringing in buses and coaches which are just as complicated as aircraft in administration.

That's an unworkable workload for a Minister, but wait there's more:

 

He also has Infrastructure, and that opens up an equally big can of worms, and many would say, a more important role.

 

And we're still not there:

 

He is also responsible for Regional Development which has him administering Australia's 565 local governing bodies, our local councils.

 

So is it any surprise that this Minister, regardless of Party will never be able to speak with any detailed authority, achieve any forward motion, or control the czars doing their own individual thing.

And deputy prime minister as well? What a load he has..he would just be jumping from one hot issue to another.

 

 

[facthunter]

He lost primary votes in his own electorate last election, against a trend. Don't expect a lot You are right on the money with your CASA comments Chocs. They are much worse than when it was the DCA. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

He lost primary votes in his own electorate last election, against a trend. Don't expect a lot You are right on the money with your CASA comments Chocs. They are much worse than when it was the DCA. Nev

We have had five Ministers in succession who have had no interest in aviation: Anderson, Truss, Vaile, Albanese, and now Truss again. The last Minister who had a genuine interest in trying to do something useful was Sharpe - and he DID try, bringing in people from the sector outside of CASA to review and significantly re-write parts of the legislation (incidentally, on their own time and at their own expense). He was booted because of his political indiscretions, not his lack of will to make changes and Anderson was his successor. Anderson, let it be remembered, gave away regional airstrips to Councils as his parting gift to Australian Aviation.. which surely shows how little regard for the future of the sector HE had. An act of unmitigated bastadry, in my view. Under Anderson, the malignant forces within CASA were able to entrench themselves and build a fiefdom that continues today.

 

While Truss may well be thicker than two short planks on edge (though by all accounts he is a fundamentally decent person), if the sector doesn't at least TRY to engage his attention, then it has itself to blame as much as the 'system' for the future of the sector. We cannot expect Truss to osmotically gain an understanding of the problems that beset the sector and the central role of CASA in exacerbating those problems.

 

Remember also that any Ministerial office runs through a network of Ministerial 'advisors' - staff - and NOT public servants - who filter everything going to the Minister. These people are political animals first and subject experts , not at all. Their job is simply to make the Minister politically attractive, and they don't give a flying, fur-lined intercontinental f%%k about the effects of the Minister's actions beyond the political consequences. I speak from long personal experience of Ministerial staff dating back to the time of Jim Killen as Minister for Defence.

 

If you are convinced that no amount of effort to try to change things is worth it - then fine for you, but don't just sit on the sidelines and carp about how bad life is. You've given up the fight before it started and you are disqualified from being taken seriously. Unrealistic hope of change is certainly a recipe for frustration and annoyance, but if you aren't prepared to at least lend a hand in trying to achieve change, then you have no legitimacy to continue whingeing about the lack of progress. If you want change - then damn well assemble a decent submission and give it a go, or at the very least, support those who are making the effort.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Oscar why dont you post your submission here so that people have a basis for what your suggesting as a decent submission. . At least it might give people a taste of what to write rather then having a go at people who might see it as an insurmountable task or above them. If you are as familiar with how this works as you suggest it cant hurt.

 

 

[Oscar]

Oscar why dont you post your submission here so that people have a basis for what your suggesting as a decent submission. . At least it might give people a taste of what to write rather then having a go at people who might see it as an insurmountable task or above them. If you are as familiar with how this works as you suggest it cant hurt.

I can't - because what I have been contributing to isn't my submission!. It's being prepared by an aero-engineer and CFI of a FTF operating in Sydney; I've been assisting with contact information, format and presentation advice etc. because that's what I can most usefully provide. That work has actually been going on since before Truss announced the review, with meetings with some senior and fairly influential members of the government, and it's reasonably important that one person coordinates the effort so that the message isn't diluted or scrambled by well-intentioned by not properly co-ordinated 'support' material.

 

There's no one magic formula for format and content - but what I've suggested above has generally worked well. It first got me before the House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety as a 'private' (i.e. non-institutional) witness in 1973, and following that general line has been successful in getting to the ear of Ministers of several other Departments on other later occasions and with some success in obtaining changes - small changes perhaps, but important to the group I was aligned with at the time. I can only vouch for what has worked for me.

 

The overarching point I am trying to make here is: just generally being annoyed at CASA won't change anything. Select the issue, or issues, that are a burr under your saddle, research the situation so you have a cogent and sound argument for the change you think should be made, and then assemble a submission that engages the Minister's attention (and crudely stated, this means outlining why the suggested change would be good for him as the Minister, not just the sector!), provides him with the ammunition that he needs to demand answers from CASA and also provides him with a ready way of assessing that CASA's response is valid and reasonable.

 

There are plenty of people with knowledge, experience and ability to help prepare a decent submission within the aviation community; if you're unsure of how to proceed but have a desire to contribute, try bouncing some ideas off those around you in that community. I suspect that you'll find that just by talking things over with a few like-minded people, you'll start to see a path emerge.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

My turn . . .

 

1. The most fundamental problem we have in aviation is Section 8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1988 :

 

(2) CASA:

 

(a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession;

 

(b) shall have a seal; and

 

© may sue and be sued in its corporate name.

 

CASA is the sole example - so far as I am aware - of a regulatory body that has to organise everything it does or is responsible for, with a view to minimising its liability.

 

This problem was exemplified in a paper presented to the Australian Aviation Law Association, by Chris Gee, QC, 1n 1985. His theme was: "who is worth the powder and shot?" - i.e. when a lawyer has an aviation case to pursue, who has the deep pockets? His answer then was "The CAA". The CAA became CASA in 1988; and guess what? It was set up by the Keating government, to be a milch cow for the legal industry. The reason at the time was that there was considerable media stirring over the CAA not having prevented a couple of nasty accidents; the CAA was seen as needing to be exposed to being sued, in order to make it lift its game.

 

Understandable, but not the right way; almost all of the changes we have seen in the way CASA goes about its business, can be seen to have a basis on minimising its corporate liability.

 

The FAA cannot be sued; it is protected by the U.S. Tort Claims Act. Therefore, it can actually regulate the U.S. aviation industry in accordance with whatever its fundamental policy may be from time to time. Whether it does a good job of that or not, is a moot point. But at least it can look at other priorities than "how much does this affect our liability?". I very much doubt one could successfully sue EASA. The strength or weakness of government bodies with that sort of immunity depends on the quality of their management and the maturity of the political system. We seem to be sadly lacking in both. However, for all that, I have been involved in the Type Certification of eight aircraft types in Australia, under DCA, and CASA; and in that specific area, though the job is a large on and takes considerable time, the performance of our regulatory authority has, overall, improved. There is much more devolution to industry now, than ever before.

 

2. We NEED CASA. Do not imagine for an instant that deregulation would improve the situation. What it would do, is completely destroy whatever aircraft manufacturing industry we have. A de-regulated industry is analogous to an internal combustion engine whose governing control has just broken; it will either increse in speed until it destroys itself, or it will stall. The current RAA registration debacle is an example of exactly this; the RAA was an ineffective regulator, so the importers ran amok. Now we have a considerable degree of chaos. Anybody who is familiar with control-loop theory will be well aware that to be effective, the control-loop must respond with the least possible phase lag. An example of this is a cruise control in your car, that takes 30 seconds to wake up to the fact that the speed has altered. So it then applies full throttle, and 30 seconds later the car is going flat out; so it shuts the throttle completely. In engineering terms, a governor (in the sense of a Watt governor, for example) that is "sticky" in its action, leads to the engine "hunting". If the response lag is too great, the flywheel will burst or the engine will throw a rod. The tension on the governor spring is the most critical adjustment on any engine-driven piece of machinery.

 

The aircraft manufacture industry works the same way; the problem with so-called "free market regulation" is that it acts with far too much time-lag. By contrast, aircraft type certification is one of the very few forms of control that acts before the event - so it is extremely effective. When CAO 101.55 was introduced, we saw a period of stable growth, with Jabiru, Skyfox, etc all manufacturing and selling adequately safe aeroplanes so the whole recreational aviation scene blossomed. CASA was in there, with the type certification process, for all of them, after the somewhat dubious start of CAO 95.25. That was fine, until the importers got into the act with sub-standard products which they managed to market at fraudulent weights. The governor spring was allowed to slack off - and for a while this looked like accelerating the growth rate - but

 

eventually something breaks, so we have aircraft grounded all over the place.

 

3. Aviation is international. Australia is a signatory to the ICAO convention. The aircraft design standards enforced by CASA are INTERNATIONAL standards. The methods required to show compliance are also INTERNATIONAL. CASA actually does this part of its function better than many other national airworthiness authorities. People who have no working experience in this side of the industry, would do us all a service by shutting up - or learning how it all really operates.

 

4. Yes, there are big problems with CASA's day to day interaction with the aviation industry, in the areas of surveillance of maintenance organisations and small airline operators - and its handling of the CAR 35 / CASR 21.M situation. It is trying to apply EASA style regulatory practices to an industry that is too small and too dispersed for that to work. A lot of the problems here are the direct result of the findings of the Morris enquiry ("Plane Safe'), in which Morris stated that CASA's function is that of a policeman. OK, maybe we do need a body that performas that function in aviation - but it should NOT also be the body that writes the rules. The Police do NOT write the law of the land. Neither should CASA write the Aviation regulations. There needs to be an independant body to do that, that does not give a damn about CASA's liability, but looks at what is necessary to make the machine that is the aviation industry, work as efficiently as possible, in the interests of all Australians. We got a bit of a taste of that, under John Sharpe, with the Review of Regulations 1996; and as a result we got Parts 21 thru 35 of the CASRs - and that in turn led to a truly bilateral airworthiness agreement between Australia and the U.S.A. - it got Australia into the world aviation market. This has resulted in a substantial growth of parts manufacturing in Australia. It is one of the reasons why GippsAero managed to sell Airvans outside Australia. This is starting slowly, but it is growing. It can do so only because the world-wide aviation market is sufficiently regulated to be fairly stable.

 

However, certain people hijacked the review of regulations around 1999 / 2000, and it has pretty much gone sour since. CASA is currently doing damage that is, unfortunately, irreversible. We will not see another CAR 35 system; we'll see something different. Almost certainly, more expensive. So the wheel turns - or perhaps more appositely, the propeller turns; it never goes through the same piece of air again. Progress is more like a spiral staircase - we go round and round, but each time is a bit different to the last. What is very apparant now, is that the people in charge do not understand the broader picture.

 

CASA is a boiling pot of factions - there are the unions, the lawyers, the airworthiness surveyors, the FOIs, all pursuing agendas of their own. Empire-builders all over the place; corporate management people who know nothing whatever about what makes aviation tick And, in the back room, a few professional engineers trying to do their job without being assassinated by the other factions before they can make use of their superannuation. Well did Morris state that CASA, in about 1990, was in a state of civil war. DCA was the employer of choice, in the 1960s and 70s; it was a real point of achievement to be able to get a job there. Trouble was, about 12,000 people had maged to do so - more than one public servant for every aircraft on the Civil Register. It was cut way back, to under 1000 people, in the early '80s; and there were too many ex-RAAF officers who simply used it as a means of extending their service retirement benefits. So it stopped being a centre of excellence, and as a result it became a political football. The morale went through the floor; and it had reached critical temperature by the time of the Morris enquiry.

 

It needs to be re-cast as a centre of excellence. At the moment, it's anything but; and our politicians are the ones at fault.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I hadn't noticed anyone asking for de-regulation - they'd be nuts if they did.

 

A parallel to some of the deregulation we are stuck with today is another branch of the same Department - the road transport industry where negative aspects of the deregulation which occurred were not fixed by going back to prescriptive regulation, but by making additional laws and penalties which are confusing most of the participants, so you have maybe 40% of new trucks going into the market in an illegal condition primed to provide a perfect case is something goes wrong.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I hadn't noticed anyone asking for de-regulation - they'd be nuts if they did.A parallel to some of the deregulation we are stuck with today is another branch of the same Department - the road transport industry where negative aspects of the deregulation which occurred were not fixed by going back to prescriptive regulation, but by making additional laws and penalties which are confusing most of the participants, so you have maybe 40% of new trucks going into the market in an illegal condition primed to provide a perfect case is something goes wrong.

Right at the start of this thread, that's exactly what was being asked.

The nub of the problem is that neither the Pollies nor the CASA management recognise that what aviation in this country needs, is the recognition that the functions set out in S9 of the Civil Aviation Act,

 

9 CASA’s functions

 

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

 

(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;

 

(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;

 

(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges; by means that include the following:

 

© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

 

(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;

 

(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing);

 

(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;

 

(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety-related decisions taken by industry management

 

at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;

 

(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety — related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;

 

(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

 

are not all suitable to be performed by the one organisation, especially when that organisation has to consider its liability at every breath. Function 9©, 9(g) and 9(h) fall under the heading of "adjusting the governor spring tension"; whereas the rest of it is essentially what a police force does.

 

 

 

So in MHO, these three aspects need to be removed from CASA and put under a separate body whose function is clearly recognised and set out in its charter, to be to make whatever adjustments are needed from time to time to keep the aviation industry running safely and efficiently. Then CASA's job is simply to see to it that the industry follows those rules.

 

 

[metalman]

Right at the start of this thread, that's exactly what was being asked. The nub of the problem is that neither the Pollies nor the CASA management recognise that what aviation in this country needs, is the recognition that the functions set out in S9 of the Civil Aviation Act,

9 CASA’s functions

 

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

 

(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;

 

(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;

 

(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges; by means that include the following:

 

© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;

 

(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;

 

(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management plans and testing);

 

(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;

 

(f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety-related decisions taken by industry management

 

at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;

 

(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety — related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;

 

(h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

 

are not all suitable to be performed by the one organisation, especially when that organisation has to consider its liability at every breath. Function 9©, 9(g) and 9(h) fall under the heading of "adjusting the governor spring tension"; whereas the rest of it is essentially what a police force does.

 

 

 

So in MHO, these three aspects need to be removed from CASA and put under a separate body whose function is clearly recognised and set out in its charter, to be to make whatever adjustments are needed from time to time to keep the aviation industry running safely and efficiently. Then CASA's job is simply to see to it that the industry follows those rules.

It'll never happen, it makes to much sense!

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Good stuff Dafydd, are you going to use those postings as a basis for a submission to the review? I hope you do.

 

Yes I sure would like less regulation rather than more, but the worst of the matter is CASA acting in fear of litigation.

 

Fear of litigation can make people do crazy things. I read of how an injured person was left on the railway tracks because the bystanders were afraid that moving an injured person could lead to them getting sued. Well this seemed far-fetched to me, but then I had first-hand experience of something similar. A young couple had come off their motorbike, he was nursing a broken lower arm-bone and she was limping. It was 40 degrees with no shade on the side of the road, and I drove them to the local casualty, after being told by a bystander that I probably would lose my house for this action.

 

In the US, I read of how an estate was advised to destroy the deceased's home-built plane rather than sell it.

 

So I reckon I should repeat the request I made to my local member and make a submission that CASA should not be at risk of being sued when doing their job. Surely CASA itself won't object to that change.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... these three aspects need to be removed from CASA and put under a separate body whose function is clearly recognised and set out in its charter, to be to make whatever adjustments are needed from time to time to keep the aviation industry running safely and efficiently. Then CASA's job is simply to see to it that the industry follows those rules.

All excellent stuff Dafydd, but can you imagine this government being seen to add yet another authority to the bureaucracy?