Jim McDowall

A predictable response.

Turbo your moniker is interesting: "Strategy can compensate for lack of talent but talent never compensates for lack of strategy."

In retort others have made these observations:

 

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” —Sun Tsu, Ancient Chinese Military strategist

 

“However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results” – Sir Winston Churchill

 

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”—Albert Einstein

 

and best of all

 

“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out” —Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles 1962

 

So before blowing people off take a minute to think about this:

 

“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all” —Peter Drucker (the father of modern management theory)

 

 

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!

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

The AP is acting as CASA's representative. The AP enjoys the same legal protection that an employee of CASA would have in doing their job. This means that if anyone starts suing them the the resources of CASA kick in and defend.....CASA tried to change this a year or so ago but backed down, they are concerned about CASA's liability. If the proposed part 149 goes through then SAAA may be given the right to issue CofA but that will mean that the APs non longer have the CASA protection.

Perhaps the following has application:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 201.003

 

Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases

 

Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things.

 

So if the Commonwealth and CASA are not liable then the buck stops with the AP which from memory is an issue to be sorted out when Part 149 (and accompanying legislative changes) are implemented.

 

Adoption of the US FAR's en globo could sort out this entire mess.

 

 

Well put Mike - When batteries in electric cars can match the range of my car (about 900k per tank) at 110kph and the capacity to accelerate from 80 to 110 up a 10% grade I may be convinced that an electric car is a viable option. And maybe I would need to be convinced that the electricity distribution network can accommodate several million cars being charged as well as meet the other community needs but that is a discussion for another forum.

 

 

Yes, I suspect that is supposed to be hydrocarbon emissions i.e. partially burnt fuel and oil.

Not just emissions from exhaust but fuel tanks vapours via vents as well.

 

 

I haven't got many details but apparently our federal Parliament yesterday passed legislation to ban two stroke engines, including lawnmowers, whipper snippers, off road vehicles etc.As ultralights and self launching gliders are "off road vehicles" I can see trouble ahead.

Does anyone believe these idiots won't include them in the ban, all in the name of the green delusion.?

Existing two stroke engines are probably OK see:

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/bb0da7a5-6404-4890-b096-bf588fedae35/files/factsheet-non-road-spark-ignition-engines-emission-standards.pdf

 

So where do jets fit?

 

 

After 137 posts - we are arguing about how to teach a level turn???In respect of the thread title ' Shiny,New RAAus'.................

 

On my required info list is for RAAus management to detail exactly what RAAus does,(and the $ cost), to comply with CASA. Then I'd like to know what RAAus have to spend, over and above what CASA provide as a grant. I believe that we, (RAAus that is), should not be doing any extra work (for) CASA than we are paid for. I choke at the thought of doing CASA's work for them, at our cost! Do we believe that our new Board is looking at the RAAus workload,(on behalf of CASA), and is working toward having CASA pay a fair and reasonable fee for the service that RAAus provide?

No sign of the current CASA agreement on the website - is there one? If not, why is RAAus doing CASA's job?

 

 

No.Were you expecting any once the change to company form was made?

Oh, sorry. You may have missed a few of the features that the change brought with it that absolutely nobody saw coming ... well not nobody but I'm pretty close to nobody and it seems that everybody else believed the salesmen when they said trust us it'll be fine.

 

I'll put my sarcasm back in it's box now that it's had a bit of a run around. I'm sure it'll get a regular run around as we revisit the operations of the good ship RAAus ltd. as she sails her maiden voyage.

I was under no illusions about the new structure - eg members cannot direct directors etc but given the statement by RAA that :

"at the same time a priority of the Board has been to deliver the core functions of the organisation and continue to register aircraft and issue pilot certificates and this has resulted in the persistence of a budget deficit."

 

there could have been some justification for the income grab that is a bit more substantive eg some interim financials.

 

The GFA has been discussing similar issues at their latest Board meeting; for example:

 

under the subject "Inward Correspondence":

 

Response from Shane Carmody (CASA).

 

No commitment with trying to find ongoing funding. Part 149 delayed until the end of 2017 and GFA unlikely until 2018. We need to arrange a Deed for 2017/18.

 

under the heading "Vice president"

 

CASA Funding letter:

 

Done. Apply for 2017 funding. Check with other ASAC groups about their position with future funding. Board noted political implications of Carmody letter, noted that further approaches may be needed at Ministerial level and possibly CASA Board and/or Peter Lloyd level

 

AND

 

Part 149.

 

Need to decide if we want to accept part 149. Will need to develop our documentation. Waiting on final version of Part 149 to be created. Need a plan as to impacts of loss of CASA funding, and solutions.

 

It seems that GFA does not have a funding agreement for 2016/17 and the allusions to a Carmody letter (the contents of which are not discussed in the minutes) would seem to indicate that, at least for GFA, that funding stream has dried up. (see my posts earlier about S.97AB of the Act)

 

What are the political implications referred to? and who is Peter Lloyd?

 

 

The MOU tend to get signed at the end of the year - last years ended on 30 June and was signed on 5 June. But don't hold your breath on CASA funding - last year it went up 0% or $109 in cash despite all the increases in oversight that we seem to have signed up for ... and it's only $118k last year and I suspect that's less than the cost of the safety officer and the IT system changes for that role that we spent let alone the additional calls and cost of the tech office.

So there is currently no agreement (contract) in place? If there isn't and CASA is paying over the dosh then the National Audit Office should have something to say and how do we know that what we are doing meets the terms of an agreement to be signed post performance?

BTW has anybody seen any Board minutes/agendas or interim financials?

 

 

A few failed audits and your top people being recruited into CASA doesn't help, PLUS they used to pay US for the work WE do on their behalf. They take a tax on avgas.. They just reneged on the deal because they can. Nev

Do you mean that the usual MoA between CASA and RAA does not exist? In which case why is RAA still undertaking the tasks required by the agreement in the past. Surely this would result in a cost saving? They are not required by the CAO's and without an agreement there is no basis for these actions.

 

 

Don't disgree with the sentiment but my comment is about the ultimate enforceability of such an arrangement. What would probably happen is that an employee would take the CASA position and wait for RA-Aus to take action. CASA would not be a party to the ultimate action but in the intervening period any hostility may translate into negative outcomes for RA-Aus members as he/she would ,no doubt, have a number of friends willing to help within CASA.

 

 

No not at all if done right.We (a fellow YQDI flyer and myself) spoke about it to Jarod and Micheal at Tamworth and were surprised that it was met with positiveness. They said all it would take is a change to the wording in the employment contract that RAA employees sign to basically say that anyone working for RAA does so agreeing that they won't work for casa for a set time (5years should be fine) after there employment with RAA finishes.

 

It needs bringing up at the next meeting to get it put in motion. I don't think there would be too many against it.

Care needs to be taken with this - something to do with the outlawing of slavery - restraint of trade provisions are hard to enforce in employment contracts.

 

 

Have a look at the UK CAA medical declaration - most illuminating.Note the period of validity - once only upto age 70 - 3 years after that.

 

Here is the link -

 

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=form&id=7493

 

This is even more relaxed than the annual GFA or Ra-Aus certification.

 

 

Guys,

 

The ATSB report I previously referred to says it all. 6 pilot incapacitations per annum for low capacity air transport. This why the FAA and the UK CAA have elected to abandon regular medicals for recreational and non-commercial GA. The cost of this particular regulation to the community is not justified and an impediment to the growth of private aviation. I am sure if all the medical episodes discussed above happened on the road the consequences would be worse than a possible accident of a single pilot aircraft with a high probability that a road accident will involve other road users AND YET we as a community accept it and move on. Why should private aviation be burdened with this impediment of medicals when that are demonstrably incapable of identifying many medical events (eg stroke) and are based on a probability sets many of which are outdated or so broad to be of little use. Dont forget your RAMPC or Class 2 medical has a lifetime of upto 2 years- how many medical conditions can arise in that period or should we have a medical before each flight? The combined scientific evidence examined by the FAA and CAA concluded that there was very little point in medicals for private pilots.

 

 

As the RSL used to say "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". It is essential that all of us with an interest in maintaining our flying "rights" make a considered response along the lines suggested by Mike.

 

The CASR's madate 1.003 (2) " (2) An object of these Regulations is to harmonise certain parts of Australia's aviation safety law with the FARs.".

 

The FAA is now manadated to accept the aeromedical reforms passed by the US Congress. (see Aeromedical Reform FAQs | EAA )

 

I am sure, given the litigious nature of the US, that the US legislators paid high regard to safety in adopting these rules. The reticence of CASA to follow the lead of the US and Britain and create the regulatory environment similar to those jurisdictions simply illustrates the resistance to change that is endemic in the organisation.

 

The lengths that CASA will go to are illustrated by the misquoting of the UK Civil Aviation Authority General Aviation Policy Framework:

 

The CASA discussion paper says:

 

"The questions relating to third parties are as follows:

 

2.1: Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the

 

level of risk to third parties on the ground?

 

2.2: Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the

 

level of risk to commercial transport users of airspace?

 

2.3: Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the

 

level of risk to other general aviation users of airspace?

 

 

An answer of ‘yes’ to these questions

 

triggers risk assessments taking into account the criteria by

 

which probability and severity are to be measured and EASA and ICAO levels of risk."

 

In actual fact the UK Civil Aviation Authority General Aviation Policy Framework says in answer to the questions posed in 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3:

 

• If you answered yes to any of questions 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3, you must assess the level of the risks to these classes of third parties by using the following steps:
   
   
  

 

 

 

1. Conduct a risk assessment using the tables listed in Annex A and Annex B of this policy framework. Determine the level of risk to each separate class of third party (both probability and severity), taking geography and population density into account whilst making your calculations.
    
    
   
2. List the evidence relied upon in reaching the conclusions regarding risk. Also list any evidence you discounted.
    
    
   
3. If such risk is at a low level using the criteria in Annex B, the risk is acceptable.
    
    
   
4. If such risk is at a medium level using the criteria in Annex B, assess how such risk could be appropriately mitigated in a cost-efficient manner using a proportionate and targeted option.
    
    
   
5. Demonstrate using evidence that the above option will be effective and less burdensome than existing regulation.
    
    
   
6. If such risk is at a high level using the criteria in Annex B, STOP.
    
   
   The proposal/change to existing regulation is not appropriate. If a change to an existing regulation is proposed in order to remove gold-plating, proceed directly to 5.2.
    
    
   

 

 

 

After completing these steps, proceed to 2.4.

 

 

• If you answered no to 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, continue directly to 2.4.
   
   
  

 

 

 

2.4 Would the proposal/change to existing regulation involve an incremental increase in the level of risk to others not on the aircraft which are not listed above?

 

 

• If yes, describe the risk identified, assess the probability and severity of the risk using the tables in Annex A and Annex B and identify targeted and proportionate options to mitigate identified risk. Determine costs associated with targeted option, and continue to 3.1.
   
   
  
• If no, continue directly to 3.2.
   
   
  

 

 

The omission of the word "ANY" changes the discussion markedly. The CASA paper infer that ALL questions must be answered "NO" in order to proceed directly to question 2.4

 

As at least 40% of Australia's aircraft fleet is piloted by people who simply submit a declaration that they are fit to fly (Ra-Aus and GFA predominantly) and as the statistics do not support an increase of regulation in this area the underlying thrust of the discussion paper should be disregarded. For example,

 

in its report entitled "Pilot incapacitation occurrences 2010–2014" the ATSB found:

 

Why the ATSB did this research

 

Occasionally pilots become incapacitated during flight. Incapacitations can arise from different reasons. They include the development of an acute medical condition, changes in environmental conditions during the flight, or the effects of a pre-existing medical condition. The effect of incapacitation on a pilot can be restricting their flight duties for the remainder of the flight, or for single-pilot operations, a collision with terrain.

 

 

 

This research report documents pilot incapacitation occurrences in high capacity air transport, low capacity air transport, and general aviation to help educate industry about the causes and risks associated with inflight pilot incapacitation.

 

 

 

 

What the ATSB found

 

In the past 5 years, there have been 23 pilot incapacitation occurrences reported per year on average. Nearly 75 per cent of the incapacitation occurrences happened in high capacity air transport operations (about 1 in every 34,000 flights), with the

 

main cause being gastrointestinal illness, followed by laser strikes

 

. In the majority of the occurrences reported, the incapacitation was severe enough for the pilot to be removed from duty for the remainder of the flight. With multi-pilot crews in high capacity operations, these occurrences usually had minimal effect on the flight.

 

 

 

Low capacity air transport and general aviation had fewer occurrences with a wider variation of causes of incapacitation. These ranged from environmental causes, such as hypoxia, to medical conditions, such as heart attack. Furthermore, 70 per cent of pilot incapacitation occurrences in general aviation had an effect on flight operations, namely return to departure aerodrome or collision with terrain.

 

In other words 6 pilot incapacitations per annum for low capacity air transport and general aviation would be beyond the predictive capabilities of medicine.

 

In fact, the ATSB report "Accident Occurrence Statistics 2005-2014" do not record pilot incapacitation as aan accident or incident cause so the claim that "70 per cent of pilot incapacitation occurrences in general aviation had an effect on flight operations, namely return to departure aerodrome or collision with terrain." may be without foundation.

 

The foregoing is but a sample of the mis-statements that can affect the circumstances under which we are "permitted" to fly. So please take the time to respond to this discussion paper so that the weight of opinion leaves no doubt in the regulators mind that to do anything less than follow the lead of the US and hopefully the UK regulators.

 

Dont forget to copy in your local MP and your state's senators - they may be pilots.

 

Thmis

 

 

I'm not sure that ELAA have realised the duty of care obligations they will own when they register an aircraft.

Registration is not proof of airworthiness it simply records detail of ownership, type etc. (see Part 47 CASR)

 

 

Yes, it is a different requirement Jim but the CAO makes it very clear that:The aircraft must be registered

 

The pilot must hold a valid pilot certificate, and

 

The aircraft must be operated in accordance with the technical manual and the operations manual

 

You are splitting hairs here because it still has to be "registered" (the words of the CAO, not mine) and they are still "aircraft" and they are still in Australia on a register, just not "Australian aircraft" on the VH register because of an Act that predates this stuff.

 

Kaz

The point is that it is Ra-Aus's register no one elses

 

 

Jim your talking about deed of agreement I take Neil

Correct

 

 

Good luck with that, Jim.Civil Aviation Order 95.55 (Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes) Instrument 2015

 

Kaz

Under CAO 95.55 aircraft are required to be registered with RA-Aus. This is different to the requirement in the agreement which talks about RA-Aus maintaining "that portion of the register of Australian aircraft;". As RA-Aus aircraft are exempt from the CASR's (see part 200) then Part 47 does not apply and thus they are not eligible to be included on "the register of Australian aircraft" - a formal term.