VOCA

An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.

Categories

Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

Minister Truss demonstrates lack of aviation knowledge #ozaviation

 Minister Truss demonstrates lack of aviation knowledge

The disallowance motion on Part 145 is to be commended and is just the first part of the process to rid the industry of improper regulations and show the proper power of the Parliament/ Senate.

The effect of Parliament supporting was is showing up as a corrupt process, through their approval of an avgas/ avtur fuel levy [Four years and $89.9m] to complete the regulatory project – on top of the $250m already expended, has not been stopped.

There is a further two years under the avgas/ avtur levy which was to stop after four years – now at six years and counting.

The prior effect on the process is discussed here.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The voting on this disallownce motion should be noted:

DIVISION:AYES 34 (4 majority) NOES 30 PAIRS 5
AYES NOES PAIRS
Bilyk, CL (teller) Bullock, J.W.
Cameron, DN Collins, JMA
Conroy, SM Dastyari, S
Di Natale, R Gallacher, AM
Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR
Lambie, J Lazarus, GP
Lines, S Ludlam, S
Ludwig, JW Madigan, JJ
Marshall, GM McEwen, A
McLucas, J Moore, CM
O’Neill, DM Peris, N
Polley, H Rhiannon, L
Rice, J Siewert, R
Singh, LM Sterle, G
Urquhart, AE Wang, Z
Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS
Wright, PL Xenophon, N
Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ
Bushby, DC Canavan, M.J.
Cash, MC Colbeck, R
Day, R.J. Edwards, S
Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C
Fifield, MP Heffernan, W
Johnston, D Leyonhjelm, DE
Macdonald, ID Mason, B
McGrath, J McKenzie, B
Muir, R Nash, F
O’Sullivan, B Parry, S
Payne, MA Reynolds, L
Ronaldson, M Ruston, A
Ryan, SM Seselja, Z
Smith, D Williams, JR
Brown, CL Scullion, NG
Carr, KJ Sinodinos, A
Lundy, KA Abetz, E
Milne, C Back, CJ
Wong, P Brandis, G

_______________________________________________________________________________

Some comments by regular posters in the other forum are below:

Terminalfrost is offline Report Post Reply
Old 22nd Mar 2015, 10:13   #25 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bankstown
Age: 45
Posts: 25

The issues put simply part 2

The Part 145 MOS says that if you want to carry out “Specialist Maintenance” you can provided you have procedures in place to qualify and authorise your employees.
Q.can a non- authorised employee carry out specialist maintenance?
A.no

When CASA added non specialist tasks to the list of specialist maintenance regime it required all Maintenance Orgs to qualify and authorise their LAMEs for those tasks if they wanted them to be able to continue to perform and certify them – because as we all know if something is deemed to be special is is outside of the normal training for a LAME.

Q. Can a LAME carry out and certify for a task if their AMO has made a provision in their exposition ( approved by CASA) that that task is specialist maintenance, and the LAME does not hold an authorisation for that maintenance.
A.No

Now here’s a funny one – I understand that one big airline, that shall remain nameless has included in its exposition that cabin furnishings in general and seat covers and cushions included ARE specialist. Thereby requiring their LAMES to meet the qualification requirements before they can certify. The really funny bit is that apparently they have deemed that the qualification required to be held before an authorisation is able to be issued is a Cert III in automotive and marine trimming technologies, which is about a 12 month full time course.

How many LAMEs at that airline have this? My guess would be about ” donut” !

Q.Can a LAME at the said airline replace a soiled seat cover or cushion at a line check or transit without having the qualification and training?
A. No

Q. Is that hilarious?
A. Yes

Terminalfrost is offline Report Post Reply
Old 22nd Mar 2015, 17:50   #26 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
The Senate apparently thinks it knows more about aviation safety than the expert regulators.

Folks,
The sad truth of the matter is that “expert regulators” are very thin on the ground within CASA.

Interestingly, one of the larger branches of the ALAEA is within CASA, I wonder what they had to do with such an imperfect piece of regulation.

As with so much of the “reform program”, the final output bears little relation to the original intent, and nowhere is this more true than with the “Maintenance Suite”, which is absolutely nothing like EASA regulations, or the recommendations of Byron’s expert panel, or the regulations from anywhere else, for that matter.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled is offline Report Post Reply

 

And what did the Minister say??

Labor shoots down aviation safety regulation

Media Release WT082/2015 19 March 2015

Last night Labor bowed to union pressure and walked away from the long-standing bipartisanship approach to aviation safety—voting in the Senate to disallow a regulation put forward by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to improve safety arrangements in aviation maintenance.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss said the regulation would have allowed specialists to carry out prescribed maintenance tasks, as they do now. However, instead of union engineers (the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association) signing maintenance certification, specialists would undertake the task.

CASA’s advice is that the specialist maintainer is the most qualified, appropriate and competent to sign-off on maintenance works that they have completed.

“Labor’s decision to vote down the safety regulator’s considered position signals a dangerous departure from a long-standing commitment from both side of politics to allow the experts to determine safety issues,” Mr Truss said.

“The Government and Opposition have for many, many years supported the principles of an independent aviation safety regulator that is free from political interference. The Senate apparently thinks it knows more about aviation safety than the expert regulators.

“In one fell swoop, Labor’s reckless opportunism has now made aviation safety a political football.

“Adding to the dismay and exposing Labor’s base irresponsibility, the specialist maintenance changes that formed the basis for this regulation were initiated, developed and first implemented when Labor was in office.

“Labor has taken sides in a union dispute as to which workers should have responsibility for patching the paintwork and installing the carpet on an aircraft.

“Labor’s veto of this measure sets back modernising Australia’s aviation safety maintenance and means that we are out-of-step with major aviation industries in the US, Europe, Canada and New Zealand.

“Aviation safety is not—and must not be allowed to become—an industrial or political issue. It must be above party politics and it certainly should never be about what union a person undertaking specialist aviation maintenance pays membership to.

“This Government continues to believe in an independent aviation safety regulator allowed to implement safety improvements when it believes they are necessary.

“While Australia’s aviation safety record is world renowned, continuous improvements need to be made.

“Labor is now in dangerous uncharted territory, casting aside independent aviation safety advice in favour of political point-scoring and doing the bidding of their union mates.”