CASA Briefing Newsletter - October 2017

[Admin]

From CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody

 

I fully appreciate the words ‘regulatory reform’ and ‘regulatory change’ give rise to apprehension – at the least - amongst the aviation community. Modernising and improving the aviation regulations has been a drawn out process that has not always run smoothly. While the journey has been rough in places, 45 parts of the new regulations have in fact been made, with ten to be completed. The task of finishing this work was paused while issues with previous regulatory packages, such as the flight crew licensing suite, were addressed and new processes were put in place to manage regulatory development and transition. I can assure you that CASA has learnt lessons from the past and we are approaching the last stage of regulatory reform with a very different mindset. If the introduction of new regulations is to be successful it must be a more co-operative and streamlined process.

 

Genuine consultation is a key to successful change and the recently created Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and its supporting technical working groups are central to our new approach to regulatory reform. The Panel is structured to provide expert advice to CASA and, at the same time, ensure key leaders in Australian aviation fully understand the policies and positions CASA is taking on regulatory changes. The technical working groups will be an opportunity for subject matter experts to look closely at specific technical issues and proposals and provide advice to the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel before CASA finalises its position on regulations. Nearly 400 people have expressed an interest in contributing to the working groups and I thank everyone for their offer of assistance. We will be in touch with everyone soon with information on the next steps.

 

As we move forward with the completion of the new regulations there will be a lot of focus on the flying operations suite of regulations. This suite is made up of Parts 91, 119, 121, 133, 135 and 138 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. Work on finalising these parts has started and I expect to see timely progress. My aim is to complete the development of the flying operations and other parts by the end of 2018, although the implementation and transition will naturally take longer. I do want to bring regulatory reform to an end as soon as possible, but I do not want to overburden the aviation community with the demands of change. As in many aspects of life, success will in part be determined by getting the balance right.

 

Best wishes

 

Shane Carmody

 

Work to improve engineer licensing regulations

 

An important step has been taken in making improvements to the regulations covering aircraft engineer licences and ratings. A special technical working group is being set up to find solutions to issues with the regulations and to make recommendations for changes to the regulations and supporting guidance material. The working group will be established by the new Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, which provides CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety high-level advice from the aviation community on safety and regulatory issues. The working group will be made up of people with expertise in the aviation maintenance sector who have expressed an interest in contributing formally to the process of improving the maintenance engineer licensing regulations. This action follows the release of submissions made to the post implementation review of Part 66 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, which covers maintenance licensing. A total of 70 submissions were made to the review, with three key areas of concern emerging. These are the regulations themselves and the associated manual of standards, issues with licences and aeroskills training. The regulations were described as too complex and supporting material not easily understood, there is a lack of understanding of privileges and limitations and type training is considered too complex and difficult.

 

Find out more about the review of the engineer licensing regulations and read submissions.

 

Tick of approval for new sport and recreational regs

 

New regulations to oversee the self-administration functions of organisations in the sport and recreational sector have received official aviation community support to be made into law. A final meeting of the sport and recreational aviation standards consultative subcommittee reviewed additional changes CASA proposes to make to Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. This followed public consultation on the draft of the regulations in 2016. The subcommittee formally endorsed the regulation changes, noting a few areas for clarification or future work. CASA will now work towards having the regulations finalised through the rule-making processes and in force by June 2018. The Part 149 regulations bring a new level of recognition and uniformity to the sport and recreational aviation sector by formalising a close and collaborative regulatory relationship between CASA and peak organisations.

 

Find out more about Part 149.

 

Just approach to safety enforcement

 

CASA’s commitment to its regulatory philosophy and a ‘just culture’ approach to safety regulation has been strengthened. A new instruction from the Director of Aviation Safety to CASA staff sets out limitations on the use of information that may show a contravention of the safety rules. The instruction clarifies how information can be used when CASA makes decisions about whether enforcement action may need to be taken. Individuals and organisations found to have violated a provision of the safety rules will be given an opportunity to address and correct safety issues without CASA initiating enforcement action. Enforcement action will only be taken where there is a deliberate, willful or reckless breach of the aviation safety rules, where there is a pattern of repeated misconduct or there is a failure to take appropriate corrective or necessary protective action while identified safety issues are addressed. The new instruction puts into practical effect key elements of CASA's regulatory philosophy. Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody says: "It is vital that CASA does not simply talk about 'just culture' but actively implements those principles into our day-to-day operations and decision making. Our rational approach to 'just culture' means that where honest errors or mistakes are made CASA looks to encourage and support the efforts of individuals and organisations to make necessary improvements, correct identified problems and ensure safety risks are effectively managed in the process. Individuals and organisations with an understanding and commitment to safety need to take responsibility for addressing safety shortcomings and where they demonstrate the ability and willingness to do this CASA need not take action. Of course, if the safety rules are deliberately flouted or action is not taken to address safety issues then CASA must and will take appropriate action.”

 

Get details of the safety information instruction.

 

Stronger drone rules

 

Stronger and clearer safety rules governing the flying of drones have been introduced to better protect people and aircraft from drones. The drone safety rules have been tightened in response to community concerns about the safety of drones and the rapid growth in drone numbers. The new requirements are set out in an interim formal direction that will apply until a full review of the drone regulations is completed. Recreational drones weighing more than 100 grams must now never be flown within three nautical miles of any controlled aerodrome. In addition, recreational drones weighing more than 100 grams must not be flown within three nautical miles of non-controlled aerodromes or helicopter landing sites if it is clear aircraft are operating there. Recreational drones of all weights must not be flown above 400 feet at any location, kept more than 30 metres from people who are not involved in controlling the drone and only one drone can be flown at a time. All drones – recreational and non-recreational – must now be kept away from areas where fire, police or other emergency operations are underway unless there is approval from the person in charge of the emergency operation. Existing rules prohibiting drones flying over and above crowds and groups of people and only allowing flights during the day and within visual line of sight still apply. Drones must never be flown in a way that creates a hazard to people, property or aircraft. CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said the new drone rules make the safety requirements clearer for people flying drones and will be easier to enforce. CASA is making it easier to operate drones safely with a new dedicated website setting out the rules and safe flying tips.

 

Get more on the drone safety rules at CASA’s new drone website.

 

New graphical weather forecasts

 

Changes are being made to aviation weather forecast formats. In response to requests from the aviation community the Bureau of Meteorology is changing the format of area forecasts from text based to graphical. The new format is known as a graphical area forecast and it will be introduced on 9 November 2017. The Bureau says the new forecast formats aim to improve safety and ease of flight planning. Graphical area forecasts will incorporate an image outlining the boundaries of different weather areas, will present information in a more accessible format and will rely less on complex location descriptions in long text strings. A pilot can look at the image and quickly see which weather areas are relevant to their flight. Graphical area forecasts will be accompanied by a table which outlines surface visibility and weather, cloud, icing, turbulence and the freezing level. The 28 forecast areas currently used will be amalgamated into ten larger graphical forecast areas, using names based on region instead of the current area numbering format. Graphical area forecasts will be valid for six hours, but two consecutive forecasts will be released at each issue time, providing a forecast for 12 hours.

 

Find out more about the new graphical area forecasts, including a user guide.

 

Cable inspection details released

 

Details of the new inspection regime required for primary flight control cable terminals have been released. The inspection regime replaces an earlier mandatory requirement to replace primary flight control cables after 15 years time in service. The primary flight control cable assemblies covered by the mandatory inspections have terminal fittings manufactured from SAE-AISI 303Se or SAE-AISI 304 stainless steel with 15 years or more time in service. Cable terminal fittings with an unknown time in service must be inspected. An examination must be carried out of the entire exposed surface of each cable terminal fitting using a 10X magnifier or borescope to look for any corrosion, pitting or cracking. Any cable with evidence of pitting, corrosion or cracking on the cable terminal fitting must be replaced. Under an airworthiness directive issued by CASA an initial inspection of affected cables must be carried out before 1 November 2018. Repeat inspections will be required every 12 months. Any cables that have previously been replaced do need not need repetitive inspections until they reach 15 years time in service. CASA took action on this issue following reports of multiple cable terminal failures and developed the inspection regime in the light of feedback from the aviation community.

 

Read the cable airworthiness directive.

 

Don’t miss a seminar for pilots

 

Safety seminars for pilots are being held at sixteen locations in November 2017. Avsafety seminars are at:

 

• Cairns
   
   
  
• Jandakot
   
   
  
• Naracoorte
   
   
  
• Swan Hill
   
   
  
• Mount Gambier
   
   
  
• Parafield
   
   
  
• Coffs Harbour
   
   
  
• Port Macquarie
   
   
  
• Moorabbin
   
   
  
• Esperance
   
   
  
• Hobart
   
   
  
• Toowoomba
   
   
  
• Devonport
   
   
  
• Murray Bridge
   
   
  
• Canberra
   
   
  
• Bunbury
   
   
  

 

 

The seminars will take pilots through previous accidents and incidents to learn valuable safety lessons. There is a focus on pilot decision making, flying within your limits and hazards on arrival. Case studies of accidents and incidents covering each phase of flight will be set out, with a mix of fixed wing and helicopter events to be examined. CASA's safety advisers ensure the seminars are interactive and open, with pilots encouraged to talk about their own experiences and offer their own lessons.

 

Book your place at an AvSafety seminar for pilots now.

 

Engineering seminars on now

 

Three aviation engineering seminars are being held in November 2017. Seminars will be held at:

 

• Perth
   
   
  
• Jandakot
   
   
  
• Tyabb
   
   
  

 

 

The seminars are aimed at people in airworthiness roles such as engineers, the head of aircraft airworthiness and maintenance, continuing airworthiness management, air operators and training organisations. Topics to be covered will include the maintenance responsibilities of the registered operator, registration holder, responsible manager, aircraft owner and licensed aircraft maintenance engineer; defect reporting; tool control; and maintenance licence examples. CASA aims to support the professional development of people in safety critical roles by providing access to the latest best practice, information and resources. Importantly the seminars will also provide the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues with CASA.

 

Book your place at an engineering seminar.

 

In brief

 

Work on the independent review of the new fatigue rules is progressing well, with a report to be handed to CASA early in 2018. The review team is evaluating previous feedback to CASA on the fatigue changes, gathering additional information from representative organisations and examining a range of fatigue issues.

 

There are proposals to make changes to the manual of standards for Part 21 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, which covers certification and airworthiness requirements for aircraft and parts. Relevant Civil Aviation Orders and Australian Technical Standard Orders are proposed to be repealed and if necessary transferred into the Part 21 manual of standards. Comment by 8 November 2017.

 

CASA is currently hiring staff. Roles include flying operations, airworthiness and drone inspectors, along with a range of other regulatory positions in our offices around Australia. Applications close soon.

 

A review of airspace activity at Caboolture has found the operating environment is safe for current levels and complexity of aircraft activity. Concerns about the 12/30 runway designator should be raised with the Caboolture aerodrome operator.

 

Comment now on proposed updates to the rules for aerodrome operations. Proposals are to make Part 139 regulations more flexible and practical.

 

On 9 November 2017, changes to standard instrument departures and arrivals - SIDs and STARs – take effect. For pilots conducting a SID or STAR there is new phraseology, changes to charts and speed restrictions. Full details in aeronautical information circular H21/17.

 

CASA has responded to feedback from the helicopter sector and made changes to the requirements for helicopter aerial application endorsements. The change reduces the number of hours needed before an endorsement can be sought, subject to other requirements.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

"level of recognition and uniformity to the sport and recreational aviation sector by formalising a close and collaborative regulatory relationship between CASA and peak organisations."

 

Read CASA takeover of the private organisations who are meant to represent the interests of their members and capture of the regulator by the larger organisations.

 

The whole basis that this setup gives "the same or better safety results and CASA's direct oversight of GA" is a pack of lies and is based on wilful ignorance of the real safety statistics and bogus data.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It doesn't help when the members of the main body allegedly vote to abandon their representation, and hand the relationship over to a small company.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Carmody said "New regulations to oversee the self-administration functions of organisations in the sport and recreational sector have received official aviation community support to be made into law."

 

The reality is that the SCC was invited to a meeting where the finished product was delivered. None of the attendees were able to review the submissions to the NPRM but instead were presented with a potted summary of submissions that only seemed to reflect the views of the regulator. This hardly a good start to proper consideration by the SCC of the concerns of the aviation community.

 

Either way who is this "official aviation community" ?

 

As Mike Borgelt says this management model is based on the falsehood that desirable, better safety outcomes are achieved by its adoption. Its roots go back to when the GFA model presented to HORSCOT as an efficient safe model even though the report observed that the GFA's accident rate was twice that of GA. Now the BITRE data relied upon by regulators is so corrupted by misinformation supplied by GFA that any claims as to the safety outcomes of the GFA model are totally without foundation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Carmody said "New regulations to oversee the self-administration functions of organisations in the sport and recreational sector have received official aviation community support to be made into law."

RAA as one of the SAOs may have signed off on support.

 

The reality is that the SCC was invited to a meeting where the finished product was delivered. None of the attendees were able to review the submissions to the NPRM but instead were presented with a potted summary of submissions that only seemed to reflect the views of the regulator. This hardly a good start to proper consideration by the SCC of the concerns of the aviation community.

If the SCC you are referring to is the "Standards Consultative Committee", it's being described as the "former Standards Consultative Committee", which I would take to be playing no part in current activities, other than its files being reference materials from past discussions.

 

Either way who is this "official aviation community" ?

Practically this would be the Officials, eg Presidents etc.of the Self-Administrating organisations, the organisations being:

Australian Ballooning Federation (ABF)

 

Australian Parachute Federation (APF)

 

Australian Skydiving Association (ASA)

 

Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association (ASRA)

 

Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL)

 

Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)

 

Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)

 

Model Aircraft Association of Australia (MAAA)

 

Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus)

 

Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)

 

Whether these organisations communicated and met with the members and with each other would be the first question I would ask.

 

 

 

[phonetic]

RAA aviation deaths are tiny comparing to any other action activities, more people die riding quad bikes for recreation as example, single seat upto 600kgs should be exempt from any CASA CAO or CAR regulations, why should solo pilot only aircraft personal choice & risk be regulated to the same as GA & RPT, I understand when extra 3rd parties are as risk safety regulation should be at a higher level, the nanny state goes beyond common sense sometimes ??

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

 

see attached SCC agenda:

 

Note how the Part 149 - Implementation and transition is delivered prior to the organisations were given the chance to provide any input.

 

Remember that if there were going to be any changes to the previously proposed Part 149 arrangements, the organisations were not privy to these prior to the meeting.

 

Consequently the organisations were unable to discuss the final draft with their members and voice any representative opinion. If CASA was genuinely concerned about cost they could have emailed out the draft Part 149 with a note on any implementation issues instead of assembling everybody in Sydney at their own cost.

 

What is driving this? Following the Forsyth report, CASA undertook to Government to have Part 149 in place in 2015. Along with this and other regulatory follies Carmody is under pressure to have the commitments it made to Government in 2014 completed.

 

We will all be the casualties in this bumbling bureaucratic nightmare.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

"If the SCC you are referring to is the "Standards Consultative Committee", it's being described as the "former Standards Consultative Committee", which I would take to be playing no part in current activities, other than its files being reference materials from past discussions."

 

Correct. That meeting was the last of the SCC Sport aviation meetings and the subcommittee was disbanded right afterwards to be replaced by working groups.

 

I was on it on behalf of the Australian EAA Chapter 1308 Inc. and the subcommittee had zero meetings in the last 18 months before the recent final one and there was no email discussion about the meeting beyond notification that it would happen.

 

The meeting was on Tuesday 17th October and the agenda was sent out late on Friday 13th.

 

I didn't attend as all but an hour and a half was scheduled to be a CASA "Dog and Pony show" (see definition on Wikipedia), not only subcommittee members were invited (an attendee list was not promulgated and the implications were as many as could fit could come) so it wasn't a real meeting just more CASA fake consultation in name only so I couldn't justify spending member funds on this.

 

As Jim McDowall says not all the submissions to the Part 149 NPRM have been released and the document with CASA comments on a summary of responses was marked "Restricted".

 

"Practically this would be the Officials, eg Presidents etc.of the Self-Administrating organisations, the organisations being:

 

Australian Ballooning Federation (ABF)

 

Australian Parachute Federation (APF)

 

Australian Skydiving Association (ASA)

 

Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association (ASRA)

 

Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL)

 

Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)

 

Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)

 

Model Aircraft Association of Australia (MAAA)

 

Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus)

 

Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)"

 

Yes these plus various others including some approved persons and a member of the Honorable Order of Air Pilots which appears to be a British organisation and the representative is a former CASA employee and GFA member. Just what he and that organisation have to do with this is beyond me.

 

The Boards of these organisations see Part 149 as a way to cement their current powers and finances but aren't smart enough to realise it is a poisoned chalice which comes with onerous responsibilities and duties. These people aren't the only ones with a legitimate interest though. Any group which DOES NOT want to be a Part 149 org has a legitimate interest as do innocent third parties on the ground and all other airspace users.

 

"Whether these organisations communicated and met with the members and with each other would be the first question I would ask."

 

Ask the members? ROTFLMAO. What planet are you from? This is Australia. Only in the last couple of years has a GFA member been able to run for the Board without the written agreement of two existing Board members. It is a closed shop and with the organisation's control of information, NOBODY who isn't one of the "in" group will ever get a look in. One former GFA president was heard to say "we can't have real elections because the wrong people might get in".

 

These people have the mindset of slaveowners. Nobody should be legally compelled to be a part of any organisation. Amongst other things it transgresses on your right to free association and is no different from "no ticket, no start" which I thought was gone in this country and organisations get lazy and detached from the interests of their members.

 

Part 149 has various problems as does Part 132 for the Warbird people.

 

What happens if nobody in that branch of aviation wants to be a Part 149 organisation?

 

What happens if an existing Part 149 organisation can no longer continue to operate due to financial or any other reasons such as lack of people wanting to do the jobs?

 

What happens when somebody invents some new form of sport aviation - take a look at all the jet packs, flying motorcycles, piloted quadcopters etc on Youtube?

 

Being forced to be a member of a private body is equivalent to being forced to join the NRMA to own and drive a car and putting the NRMA in charge of licencing and rules enforcement. Or being forced to be a member of the Shell Oil Company Users Club to buy petrol with that company being the only one allowed.

 

Safety is compromised by dividing branches of aviation from each other. It is all aviation and the lessons do in most cases carry over but the flow of information is inhibited.

 

This Australian model is historically based on the GFA model. When the GFA was formed it was probably fair enough when you consider what was happening at the time in 1949. Roughly equivalent to what the first ultralight guys were doing at The Oaks etc during the mid 1970's (I have a nice video of Caversham WA - the latter part has the flying of the GCWA Slingsby T31b, in which I had my first glider flight at age 9).

 

By the early 1970's with the advent of composite structures and relatively easy availability of new gliders, the numbers were growing quickly and gliders were routinely flying hundreds of kilometers cross country and interacting with other airspace users and in retrospect the old model should have been abandoned then. It never worked as well in Australia as the BGA (British Gliding Association) model, on which it was based, anyway.

 

It may be helpful to ask, why is there even such a thing as a regulator recognising something called "Sport Aviation"? It is all private general aviation. WHY you fly has nothing to do with safety outcomes.

 

Looking at all the paperwork requirements in both RAAus and GFA nowadays can anyone legitimately say it is an improvement on GA run by CASA? GFA has mindlessly mirrored CASA maintenance (yes the flawed and widely hated in the industry system), RAAus anf GFA are busy creating more maintenance hurdles and in both organisations the accident rate is nothing short of terrible, mostly from operational causes, not maintenance.

 

Operational causes usually boils down to plane stupidity (dog fighting at low level, low flying and hitting powerlines, buzzing the strip etc or simply inability to do the right thing due to poor instruction. Not surprising as the total hours required for beginning instructional training in GFA is 80 hours. You can be a level One with 100 hours. This is ludicrous and from my conversations with my customers I know that the theoretical knowledge imparted by the GFA instructional system is close to zero. In aviation what you don't know CAN and WILL hurt you.

 

The American FAA system seems far preferable. All aviation except for FAR 103 ultralights (which aren't considered US aircraft by the FAA) is under the direct responsibility of the FAA. The various bodies such as the SSA (Soaring Society of America) and EAA have no legal powers. They advise, educate and promote. As recognised legitimate parts of aviation, safety information flows easily in all directions and there is no compulsion to join anything. People join because they feel their membership is something valuable which lets market forces act to improve the organisation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

[ATTACH=full]52321[/ATTACH]see attached SCC agenda:

Note how the Part 149 - Implementation and transition is delivered prior to the organisations were given the chance to provide any input.

 

Remember that if there were going to be any changes to the previously proposed Part 149 arrangements, the organisations were not privy to these prior to the meeting.

 

Consequently the organisations were unable to discuss the final draft with their members and voice any representative opinion. If CASA was genuinely concerned about cost they could have emailed out the draft Part 149 with a note on any implementation issues instead of assembling everybody in Sydney at their own cost.

The DAS has said SCC doesn't exist now, and this meeting was not described as a SCC meeting.

 

it was designated as a "Transitional Technical Working Group Meeting"

 

So it is covering new ground.

 

What the DAS said about this was:

 

"Genuine consultation is a key to successful change and the recently created Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and its supporting technical working groups are central to our new approach to regulatory reform.

 

The Panel is structured to provide expert advice to CASA and, at the same time, ensure key leaders in Australian aviation fully understand the policies and positions CASA is taking on regulatory changes.

 

The technical working groups will be an opportunity for subject matter experts to look closely at specific technical issues and proposals and provide advice to the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel before CASA finalises its position on regulations."

 

The Meeting's Implementation and Transition agenda item didn't mention anyting about a final draft or a decision to be made to put to the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, who would then consider the Panel's advice before making any decision.

 

I would take the agenda item to be just chewing that fat on how the procedure would would work under this new process.

 

What is critical for us is who is representing us, what did they say, did they get the latest information, when are they going to circulate that to us, what will be the tiemscale for us to respond and so on.

 

I don't think the fears you expressed are there, but with the new process in place, you could still easily be misrepresented by someone whose life skills do not include aviation regulation.

 

What is driving this? Following the Forsyth report, CASA undertook to Government to have Part 149 in place in 2015. Along with this and other regulatory follies Carmody is under pressure to have the commitments it made to Government in 2014 completed.We will all be the casualties in this bumbling bureaucratic nightmare.

There is no such thing as a binding "Forsyth Report".

 

Following a 2013 election promise by Warren Truss, when he was elected as Minister for Inffrastructure & Regional Development he set up a Panel to review Aviation Safety Regulation, and the Chairman who presented the results was David Forsyth.

 

Election proomise fulfilled - tick.

 

The Report was not a control document binding the Government to action; there was no obligation to put the documents before the Parliament for debate, and most importantly, there was no direction given through the Parliament for CASA to comply with the Panel's conclusions.

 

At best, it was a picture of the industry as of 2014.

 

So regurgitating this "Forsyth Report" as some some sort of LAW which the evil CASA should have been adhering to is a waste of time.

 

To help people better understandthe Panel process; it is used in Planning by State Governments and Councils where land development is getting out of controlor is not going according to the intent of the State (primarily due to dodgy developers). The Minister instructs a Panel to be set up; the Panel hears all the details, and makes its decisions. If the Parties don't comply with those decisions, or don't like them, the issues are resolved by the State Administration Tribunals.

 

So relying on what a Panel said, let alone what it said three years ago is not productive.

 

I wouldn't say Carmody has any obligation or commitment to Government from 2014.

 

What he does seem to have set up is a way forward, and for us the most critical part is to be involved to ensure the 400 new volunteers don't send us sprialling off track with inappropriate thought bubbles.

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Whether these organisations communicated and met with the members and with each other would be the first question I would ask."

Ask the members? ROTFLMAO. What planet are you from? This is Australia. Only in the last couple of years has a GFA member been able to run for the Board without the written agreement of two existing Board members. It is a closed shop and with the organisation's control of information, NOBODY who isn't one of the "in" group will ever get a look in. One former GFA president was heard to say "we can't have real elections because the wrong people might get in".

 

These people have the mindset of slaveowners. Nobody should be legally compelled to be a part of any organisation. Amongst other things it transgresses on your right to free association and is no different from "no ticket, no start" which I thought was gone in this country and organisations get lazy and detached from the interests of their members.

Call me dumb, but I think you are suggesting this might not have been/be happening in the case of GFA. You may have put your finger on the problem.

 

The members elect the executive, the executive meets with CASA, and if they are siging off with CASA, things which are not appropriate for gliding, that's not CASA's fault or the fault of the new DAS, that requires either getting the executives to represent what the members want, or changing the executives.

 

Maybe the same applies to RAA and the other bodies.

 

There's an old saying: "If you don't know where the target is, how are you going to hit the bullseye."

 

I don't know Shane Carmody from a bar of soap, but he's the first DAS I've heard say: "Genuine consultation is a key to successful change"

 

Another way of putting it, is you don't do a thorough consultation, then you'll miss some of the critically important items/changes and you'll leave in some of the non-workable items/changes.

 

The task is to correct your own representation if it isn't getting the correct message across for each and every different Federation/Association/Company, and for every group within each of those Federations/Associations/Companies......and in a very short time.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

There is no such thing as a binding "Forsyth Report".

Following a 2013 election promise by Warren Truss, when he was elected as Minister for Inffrastructure & Regional Development he set up a Panel to review Aviation Safety Regulation, and the Chairman who presented the results was David Forsyth.

 

Election proomise fulfilled - tick.

 

The Report was not a control document binding the Government to action; there was no obligation to put the documents before the Parliament for debate, and most importantly, there was no direction given through the Parliament for CASA to comply with the Panel's conclusions.

 

At best, it was a picture of the industry as of 2014.

 

So regurgitating this "Forsyth Report" as some some sort of LAW which the evil CASA should have been adhering to is a waste of time.

 

....................

 

So relying on what a Panel said, let alone what it said three years ago is not productive.

 

I wouldn't say Carmody has any obligation or commitment to Government from 2014.

 

What he does seem to have set up is a way forward, and for us the most critical part is to be involved to ensure the 400 new volunteers don't send us sprialling off track with inappropriate thought bubbles.

Pursuant to the Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019 (Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019) which serves as a notice to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) the Minister included completion of the implementation of the remaining parts of the Governments response to the Forsyth report:

 

4. Key Aviation Initiatives

 

 

 

I expect CASA, in conducting its responsibilities as the aviation safety regulator, to have regard to the following key aviation initiatives:

 

 

 

(a) ...........

 

(b)...........

 

©...........

 

 

 

(d) completing implementation of the remaining parts of the Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, including actively progressing regulatory reform in consultation with industry and supported by appropriate safety cases;

 

The Minister issues a report annually on the progress of implementation. The latest report shows the slippage on the Part 149 implementation which any manager worth his salt would be jumping up and down about.

 

 

 

In a classic piece of Sir Humphreyism the definition of Completed - Implementation Ongoing say it all:

 

"‘Completed —Implementation Ongoing’ refers to circumstances where the action requested by the Government has been taken, but giving practical effect to the changes requires the adoption and ongoing use of new arrangements through policies, procedures and practices, largely by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority."

 

This would seem to be what CASA has been doing with Part 149 since 1998.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Call me dumb, but I think you are suggesting this might not have been/be happening in the case of GFA. You may have put your finger on the problem.The members elect the executive, the executive meets with CASA, and if they are siging off with CASA, things which are not appropriate for gliding, that's not CASA's fault or the fault of the new DAS, that requires either getting the executives to represent what the members want, or changing the executives.

Maybe the same applies to RAA and the other bodies.

 

There's an old saying: "If you don't know where the target is, how are you going to hit the bullseye."

 

I don't know Shane Carmody from a bar of soap, but he's the first DAS I've heard say: "Genuine consultation is a key to successful change"

 

Another way of putting it, is you don't do a thorough consultation, then you'll miss some of the critically important items/changes and you'll leave in some of the non-workable items/changes.

 

The task is to correct your own representation if it isn't getting the correct message across for each and every different Federation/Association/Company, and for every group within each of those Federations/Associations/Companies......and in a very short time.

The inability of anyone to effect change in the GFA is probably why the AUF/RAA recruited so many members from the pool of disaffected GFA members. In the period since HORSCOT (1987) the gliding membership has halved whilst RAA is probably 5 times larger in membership and about the same in aircraft. When the rules of any elected body prevent wholesale change there is nothing the membership can do about it. I even made formal representations about legal deficiencies in the GFA rules to the Registrar of Associations in Victoria who basically said "piss off". Where do you go from there?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Jim, in your post #11, I'm not sure which are your words, which are the Mininster's and which are CASA's, however note the word "expect"

 

Regardless of that and any Sir Humphrey characteristics, the Statement of the DAS in earlier posts appears to be directly in line with 4(d) anyway.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Jim, in your post #11, I'm not sure which are your words, which are the Mininster's and which are CASA's, however note the word "expect"Regardless of that and any Sir Humphrey characteristics, the Statement of the DAS in earlier posts appears to be directly in line with 4(d) anyway.

It is a direct quote from the instrument - the Minister expects.

The point is the Part 149 has been wandering around in the dark for nearly 20 years and at no stage has there been a serious examination of any alternative administrative arrangement eg in the style of ELAAA. The whole process has been intellectually bankrupt from the start which demonstrates the influence of GFA sycophants who have never disclosed their conflict of interest as required by the various legislative and policy requirements of the APS and CASA. The definition of "Completed —Implementation Ongoing" in the implementation report is a repository for inaction or regulation by attrition.

 

 

[turboplanner]

When the rules of any elected body prevent wholesale change there is nothing the membership can do about it. I even made formal representations about legal deficiencies in the GFA rules to the Registrar of Associations in Victoria who basically said "piss off". Where do you go from there?

The Articles of Association allow you to fix that in several steps, but you need (a) a member up with meeting procedures and (b) a solid support group.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Turbo, you clearly haven't ever been a GFA member. The last time someone went to the AGM of the GFA and tried to change things was about 25 years ago. He was a relatively new member IIRC and went along with a bunch of his mates. I don't know exactly what happened, they may have just been ruled out of order or simply intimidated to sit down and shut up. For their trouble they were then berated and belittled in print in the magazine the next month by the President for having the temerity to try to have their say at the AGM. If any body tries something similar they would usually have to give notice. This gives the Board time to get their mates along to the meeting so the upstarts can be voted down. See below 1.

 

I do know that when the GFA was formed (personal communication with one of those at the formation) that the GFA was very worried that they could be infiltrated by people from the Regulator or from powered aviation who might want to change things so they very carefully structured the organisation to be completely resistant to any change not initiated by the management cronies.

 

The organisation had its peak membership numbers in 1983-84 at around 4500 members, maybe a little more. It now has 2700 although the numbers may be exaggerated by different counting methods/membership classes, while the population of the country has gone up by over 50%. The number of active sailplanes is around 700 and this has not changed much in 30+ years. There is a "churn" of at least 600 members a year who never re-join. The GFA can't figure out why.

 

The safety record is not wonderful. Gliders are flown on nice days so the continued VFR into IMC class of accident doesn't happen, most still don't have engines, so don't "run out of fuel" and generally operate over benign terrain away from crowded airspace. We just had 4 deaths in 3 accidents in a 20 day period.

 

The setup is such that bullying, intimidation, abuse of power and extra- legal threats can be made against members and clubs, due to the GFA having the power to simply either throw you out of the organisation, remove a club's approval (yes the grip is that tight) or take away ratings and CASA not providing for a RPL or PPL with glider rating (Gliders are legally VH registered aircraft) because of regulatory capture of CASA by GFA over the years. See below 2. They have had "moles in the Kremlin" for decades. You then cannot fly and make beneficial use of your investment in a glider. Yes all this has happened. Private bodies should NEVER have such powers. There is such a concept as RULE OF LAW after all.

 

I said earlier see below, so here it is:

 

1.I know of a gliding club where something similar happened. The cronies who ran the club had bought a couple of Chipmunks which were used as towplanes but did most of the maintenance themselves under supervision, hence there were many times no launching was available. Somehow the club found itself with some money and the cronies wanted to build a toilet block for the caravan park they were planning. A bunch of the newer members wanted a towplane that could be professionally maintained and available so they could fly. They called a special general meeting so the cronies dug up people who had not been seen for years who simply paid a current year membership, turned up at the SGM and narrowly rolled the new people who were then sent letters suspending their flying privileges. They were forced to leave and some joined other clubs. Unfortunately when it comes to GFA there are no alternatives.

 

2.There is in fact an Australian PPL (G) because otherwise Australian glider pilots cannot fly overseas in contests. Other countries aren't interested in rubbish pieces of paper issued by GFA, they want to see a government issued licence. Even if you are current in gliders and have a PPL you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get one. However when you get it it is NOT FOR USE INSIDE AUSTRALIA. I wonder if it is in fact meaningful overseas because a temporary foreign licence is usually issued on the basis of the qualification that lets you fly legally at home. This doesn't.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've had no GFA experience, but have had similar experience with a few others. The key is not to talk about correctve action publicly, because the pattern you describe occurs, whether it be a flood of previously unseen members showing up on the day, or a basket of proxies, so I can understand your feelings.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

I've had no GFA experience, but have had similar experience with a few others. The key is not to talk about correctve action publicly, because the pattern you describe occurs, whether it be a flood of previously unseen members showing up on the day, or a basket of proxies, so I can understand your feelings.

Add to that the incumbent Board get to choose when and where the requisitioned EGM can occur. It is not unknown for such a meeting to be held in a phone box in some out of the way place at 3 am where the board's travel expenses are covered by the organisation and the interested membership have to fund their own costs....... and then there is the proxy votes.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Add to that the incumbent Board get to choose when and where the requisitioned EGM can occur. It is not unknown for such a meeting to be held in a phone box in some out of the way place at 3 am where the board's travel expenses are covered by the organisation and the interested membership have to fund their own costs....... and then there is the proxy votes.

Which is why you wouldn't try it on at an EGM.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Which is why you wouldn't try it on at an EGM.

EGM and AGM treated the same:

 

and then there is this:

 

(see attachment)

 

Then you realise that:

 

 

And there is no direct election by the members of the Board!

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

I said in #17 "The key is not to talk about corrective action publicly"

 

I'm not taking it any further.