Mr Hawke certainly excelled himself with this bureaucratic gem! 30+ years of slicing, dicing, polishing, massaging, buffing and spin doctoring experience comes to the fore and is plainly obvious in this very prim and proper glossy release. The last time I vomited this much was when I was 16 and drank 8 Westcoast Coolers and as many Bundy Rums, nasty, just plain nasty!
You know, call me lazy, call me an IOS, call me a sceptic but I couldn’t be bothered highlighting here the total deficiencies, inefficiencies and just plain old horse shit contained in that document. But of great humour was the CASA spin, the performance measures (complete load of poo) and the ‘delays being managed’ including percentages, oh my god, you have to be kidding us right? That’s a newbie – ‘managed delays’, priceless. I mean the executive clowns couldn’t manage to extract their snouts away from the CASA troughs for 5 minutes let alone achieve anything else worthy of mention. If they consider Certificate Management Teams and the completion of the 12 year re-write of the crap SPM to be a success then our industry is in worse shape than even the most diehard critic realizes.
No wonder Truss wants to add two more turd polishers to the CASA board, imagine what next years glossy statement of achievements will look like with six spin doctors wielding their government trained pens? It will be epic, it will be like watching man land on the moon again, or watching the first Wright Brothers flight all over again, or taking a flight in a test aircraft with Chuck Yeager!
Heck, for all we know they may even use Sky Sentinel to form the template for next years document? All that is then needed is a robust printing company (anybody from the GWM know of one?) to snap up that tasty contract and you will have a few super dollars tucked away for a retired and rainy day. Tsk tsk
Now, the infamous soft white paper was at least useful and would burn nicely. But this new shiny stuff is of no practical value whatsoever. When it was published I thought, Oh ho, here’s a bit of fun, there has got to be some howlers within which can be strung together, for the amusement of the fellahin, the hoi polloi and the IOS. Nope – sorry: by page 14 I was slightly nauseous; at page 15 reaching for a bucket and I lost my lunch at the end of page 16. After a short recovery I gamely cherry picked between pages 77 and 102, but alas, the feeling of nausea and ennui returned. Hence the search for a more practical application.
The ATSB report was at least bearable and worthy of some attention; the ATSB troops will try to wright the ship and will, with qualified leadership revert to a world class safety authority. But, if Truss swallows any of the CASA rubbish, his advisors need to be fired or handed over to the AFP for perpetrating serious fraud. Never has a printed document revealed the absolute hopelessness of attempting to recover an expensive department to a point where it can be useful. The bare faced deception now published at great expense, the complicity of those who wrote it and the perfect arrogant contempt for government, industry and the taxpayer beggars belief (or reinforces it). Gods help the next DAS who turns up with less than a SWAT team, and a bus load of new faces, to start again.
Quote:
CJ# 247 –”But of great humour was the CASA spin, the performance measures (complete load of poo) and the ‘delays being managed’ including percentages, oh my god, you have to be kidding us right?”
Quote:
CJ # 247 –”If they consider Certificate Management Teams and the completion of the 12 year re-write of the crap SPM to be a success then our industry is in worse shape than even the most diehard critic realizes. (my bold).
Someone should tell the senior Truss, caveat emptor, very very heavy emphasis on caveat. Guilty by association is still on the statutes.
Quote:
Wiki – Caveat emptor is Latin for “Let the buyer beware” (from caveat, “may he beware”, the subjunctive of cavere, “to beware” + emptor, “buyer”).
Last edited by Kharon; 4th Nov 2013 at 07:23. Reason: Insert picture of Minnie at the rifle range – shotgun working fine.
‘Back to the future’-ARRT review & former DAS directives
Ok’ back to the future’ with reference to the year 2007 and the Byron regime..…why?? Well from the time the ARRT review was released and with a change of government to around 12 months later Byron started a right angle diversion in FF policy. And then the current DAS made it a complete 180 degree turn by 2010…err why and how was this allowed to happen??
Under Mr Byron’s guidance CASA is adopting a risk based approach to its policies and regulation with particular emphasis on passenger transport activities CASA’s framework for regulation seeks to ensure that policies and regulations are necessary, clear and cost effective, and that they address risks, establish safety outcomes, implement Government policy and are aligned with international standards.
Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework Date of Directive: 18 June 2007 To: Shane Carmody Action Officer: Not Applicable Title of Addressee: Not Applicable Directive No: 001/2007 Response Required: Immediate Effect
Directive
This Directive replaces CEO Directive 016/2004, which is hereby repealed. It updates CASA’s Guiding Principles for the development of the regulatory framework and proposed aviation safety regulations.
Guiding Principles
Regulatory policies
• The aviation safety regulations must take into account CASA’s Classification of Civil Aviation Activities policy and the priority given under the policy to passenger-carrying activities. • Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary. They are to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks that cannot be addressed adequately by non-regulatory means. Each proposed regulation must be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety. • If a regulation can be justified on safety risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources. The regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder high levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth. • Where appropriate, the aviation safety regulations are to be aligned with the standards and practices of leading aviation countries, unless differences are required to address the Australian aviation environment and these differences can be justified on safety risk grounds. Where the standards and practices of the leading aviation countries vary, CASA will align its regulations with those that effectively address the safety risks in the most cost-effective manner. • Wherever possible, the aviation safety regulations must be drafted to specify the safety outcome required, unless, in the interests of safety, and to address known or likely aviation safety risks, more prescriptive requirements need to be specified. • The aviation safety regulations must be drafted to be as clear and concise as possible.
Regulatory framework
• Wherever possible, the aviation safety regulations are to be developed within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs, together with appropriate guidance material. • Manuals of Standards (MOSs) are to be developed only where there is a clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to specify standards that for the purpose of clarity and effective administration should not be contained in the regulations. • The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the contribution it makes to aviation safety. • A MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating advisory material and other information.
All CASR Parts and MOSs are to be developed and maintained using the Guiding Principles stated above.
Signed
Bruce Byron Chief Executive Officer
You will notice that this directive superseded a previous 2004 directive (016/2004) so for direct comparison here is a copy of that directive:
Quote:
Directive 16/2004 Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework
DATE: 24 November 2004 TO: Bruce Gemmell
SUBJECT: Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework
TIMING: Immediate Effect
Directive: This Directive is issued to establish guiding principles for the development of the regulatory framework and to provide clear guidance for the development of proposed aviation safety regulations.
Aviation safety regulations are to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks. Each proposed regulation is to be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety.
Wherever possible, the CASRs are to be drafted to specify the safety outcome required, unless, in the interests of safety, and to address known or likely aviation safety risks, detailed requirements need to be presented.
Wherever possible, aviation safety regulations are to be developed within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs, together with appropriate guidance material.
Manuals of Standards (MOSs) are to be developed only where there is a clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to mandate standards that for the purpose of clarity should not be contained in the Regulations.
The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the contribution made to aviation safety.
A MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating advisory material and other information.
All proposed CASA Parts and MOSs are to be assessed against the guiding principles stated above.
Bruce Byron AM Chief Executive Officer
Interestingly enough (also from sub 18A) you will see a rather familiar document that is also not in the FF Policy Notices webpage?? This document replaced the original CEO-PN001-2004and is familiar because the current (at least I think it is still current) version was introduced by Mick Quinn as part of a massive tabled documents file at the PelAir inquiry (Additional Documents item 1). {Note: the three versions have grown from 4 to 10 to 11 pages but by far the biggest but subtle change to policy was in the 2009 version by the current DAS.}
But I diverge…So questions: We have the previous 2 versions of the DAS/CEO directives for Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework, so where’s the Skull’s version?? And why oh why did the policy initiatives along with the ARRT review recommendations get dropped, shelf-wared..whatever?? Surely it can’t just be that we had a change of government..or could it?? And why isn’t any of the DAS/CEO directives recorded in the FF Policy Notices webpage??
Either way Senators (and by default) Minister bring on ASAP…
Recommendation 13 6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes. …and I would suggest you scrap the Labor white elephant paper and refer to the ARRT review and the previous DAS directives for a blueprint of the way forward for RRP (my two bobs worth).
CASA is out of touch with the aviation industry
Here is some pprune views on the material that CASA claims to be “….moving us forward…”
This certainly needs a Senate re-take and re-make.
_____________________________________________________________
What will be his response be to the casa annual report??
Will there be a response to the Senat, not just the specious comments in this report??
You know, call me lazy, call me an IOS, call me a sceptic but I couldn’t be bothered highlighting here the total deficiencies, inefficiencies and just plain old horse shit contained in that document. But of great humour was the CASA spin, the performance measures (complete load of poo) and the ‘delays being managed’ including percentages, oh my god, you have to be kidding us right? That’s a newbie – ‘managed delays’, priceless. I mean the executive clowns couldn’t manage to extract their snouts away from the CASA troughs for 5 minutes let alone achieve anything else worthy of mention. If they consider Certificate Management Teams and the completion of the 12 year re-write of the crap SPM to be a success then our industry is in worse shape than even the most diehard critic realizes.
No wonder Truss wants to add two more turd polishers to the CASA board, imagine what next years glossy statement of achievements will look like with six spin doctors wielding their government trained pens? It will be epic, it will be like watching man land on the moon again, or watching the first Wright Brothers flight all over again, or taking a flight in a test aircraft with Chuck Yeager!
Heck, for all we know they may even use Sky Sentinel to form the template for next years document? All that is then needed is a robust printing company (anybody from the GWM know of one?) to snap up that tasty contract and you will have a few super dollars tucked away for a retired and rainy day. Tsk tsk
Last edited by Cactusjack; 3rd Nov 2013 at 21:49.
The ATSB report was at least bearable and worthy of some attention; the ATSB troops will try to wright the ship and will, with qualified leadership revert to a world class safety authority. But, if Truss swallows any of the CASA rubbish, his advisors need to be fired or handed over to the AFP for perpetrating serious fraud. Never has a printed document revealed the absolute hopelessness of attempting to recover an expensive department to a point where it can be useful. The bare faced deception now published at great expense, the complicity of those who wrote it and the perfect arrogant contempt for government, industry and the taxpayer beggars belief (or reinforces it). Gods help the next DAS who turns up with less than a SWAT team, and a bus load of new faces, to start again.
Someone should tell the senior Truss, caveat emptor, very very heavy emphasis on caveat. Guilty by association is still on the statutes.
Last edited by Kharon; 4th Nov 2013 at 07:23. Reason: Insert picture of Minnie at the rifle range – shotgun working fine.
Here is what I mean, quote from the ARRTreport:
So what exactly did the authors mean by…“Under Mr Byron’s guidance..” ?? Well after some digging around I was able to track down a Byron directive (which surprisingly was not listed on Fort Fumble’s Policy notices webpage) from submission 18A of the 2008 SenateInquiry into the Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and related matters
:
Development of Regulations and the
Regulatory Framework
Date of Directive: 18 June 2007
To: Shane Carmody
Action Officer: Not Applicable
Title of Addressee: Not Applicable
Directive No: 001/2007
Response Required: Immediate Effect
Directive
This Directive replaces CEO Directive 016/2004, which is hereby repealed. It updates CASA’s Guiding Principles for the development of the regulatory
framework and proposed aviation safety regulations.
Guiding Principles
Regulatory policies
• The aviation safety regulations must take into account CASA’s
Classification of Civil Aviation Activities policy and the priority given
under the policy to passenger-carrying activities.
• Aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary. They are to be developed on the basis of addressing known or likely safety risks that
cannot be addressed adequately by non-regulatory means. Each proposed
regulation must be assessed against the contribution it will make to aviation safety.
• If a regulation can be justified on safety risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA
resources. The regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder high levels of participation in aviation and its capacity
for growth.
• Where appropriate, the aviation safety regulations are to be aligned with the standards and practices of leading aviation countries, unless differences are required to address the Australian aviation environment and these differences can be justified on safety risk grounds. Where the standards and practices of the leading aviation countries vary, CASA will align its regulations with those that effectively address the safety risks in the most cost-effective manner.
• Wherever possible, the aviation safety regulations must be drafted to specify the safety outcome required, unless, in the interests of safety, and to address known or likely aviation safety risks, more prescriptive requirements need to be specified.
• The aviation safety regulations must be drafted to be as clear and concise as possible.
Regulatory framework
• Wherever possible, the aviation safety regulations are to be developed
within a two tier regulatory framework comprising the Civil Aviation Act
and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs), supported by advisory
material that details acceptable means of compliance with the CASRs,
together with appropriate guidance material.
• Manuals of Standards (MOSs) are to be developed only where there is a
clear requirement, on the basis of safety, to specify standards that for the
purpose of clarity and effective administration should not be contained in
the regulations.
• The content of proposed MOSs must also be assessed against the
contribution it makes to aviation safety.
• A MOS must only contain such standards as are clearly authorised by a
particular regulation and must not be used as a vehicle for promulgating
advisory material and other information.
All CASR Parts and MOSs are to be developed and maintained using the Guiding Principles stated above.
Signed
Bruce Byron
Chief Executive Officer
You will notice that this directive superseded a previous 2004 directive (016/2004) so for direct comparison here is a copy of that directive:
Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework
DATE: 24 November 2004
TO: Bruce Gemmell
SUBJECT: Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework
TIMING: Immediate Effect
Directive:
This Directive is issued to establish guiding principles for the development of the regulatory framework and to provide clear guidance for the development of proposed aviation safety regulations.
All proposed CASA Parts and MOSs are to be assessed against the guiding principles stated above.
Bruce Byron AM
Chief Executive Officer
Interestingly enough (also from sub 18A) you will see a rather familiar document that is also not in the FF Policy Notices webpage?? This document replaced the original CEO-PN001-2004 and is familiar because the current (at least I think it is still current) version was introduced by Mick Quinn as part of a massive tabled documents file at the PelAir inquiry (Additional Documents item 1). {Note: the three versions have grown from 4 to 10 to 11 pages but by far the biggest but subtle change to policy was in the 2009 version by the current DAS.}
But I diverge…So questions: We have the previous 2 versions of the DAS/CEO directives for Development of Regulations and the Regulatory Framework, so where’s the Skull’s version?? And why oh why did the policy initiatives along with the ARRT review recommendations get dropped, shelf-wared..whatever?? Surely it can’t just be that we had a change of government..or could it?? And why isn’t any of the DAS/CEO directives recorded in the FF Policy Notices webpage??
Either way Senators (and by default) Minister bring on ASAP…
Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
…and I would suggest you scrap the Labor white elephant paper and refer to the ARRT review and the previous DAS directives for a blueprint of the way forward for RRP (my two bobs worth).
ps And swallow your pride and talk to the Kiwis!
Last edited by Sarcs; 4th Nov 2013 at 18:16.
Share this:
Like this:
Related