Source: http://www.bladeslapper.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6116&sid=b05e99dc4266deb821110c01a3d415f2&start=440
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 19:58:56
Document Index: 723397437

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 61', 'arts 61', 'arts 141', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 48', 'art 142', 'art 142', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61', 'art 61']

Australian Helicopter Industry Association - Page 23 - Bladeslapper
It is currently Tue Sep 26 2017, 19:58
Postby hand in pants » Wed Nov 11 2015, 22:50
Very well said Evil.
Have you posted this on the casa farcebook page.
Postby Evil Twin » Wed Nov 11 2015, 23:26
hand in pants wrote: Very well said Evil.
Don't do farcebook, however feel free to re-post
Postby AHIA » Thu Nov 12 2015, 19:28
Aviation industry groups wary over CASA revamp on rule changes - Creedy
The Australian Award Winning Aviation Editor, Steve Creedy, wrote the following in the Fri 13 Nov '15 edition:
Aviation industry groups wary over CASA revamp on rule changes
CASA director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore is working on a revamp of controversial rule changes. A Civil Aviation Safety Authority move to put more resources behind revamping controversial rule changes and set up an advisory panel representing key aviation groups has been cautiously welcomed by the industry.
CASA director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore announced this week that a 26-member taskforce would work fulltime on addressing issues with controversial rule changes that have troubled the industry. Mr Skidmore also invited aviation groups to nominate members to take up positions on the advisory panel, which will work with the taskforce to sort out the problems.
The authority said the taskforce would begin work immediately, reviewing transition arrangements and prioritising responses while making sure safety issues are addressed. It would ensure the regulations did not impose unnecessary costs or impede the ability to participate in aviation or future growth.
Flight training organisations have been given a 12-month extension to August 31, 2018 to the switch to new rules.
The moves come after The Australian Aviation Associations Forum issued a strongly worded statement expressing concern at the slow pace of reform and the ongoing cost of new impositions from new regulations. The forum warned that recently introduced CASA regulations were threatening the viability of the industry, particularly general aviation, with millions of dollars needed to be invested with no particular safety gains.
It singled out Civil Aviation order 48.1 and Civil Aviation safety regulations parts 61 (pilot licensing), 141 (recreational, private and commercial pilot training) and 142 (integrated and multi-crew pilot training and checking) as areas that urgently needed addressing.
The new taskforce will examine Parts 61, 141, 142 and 64 (unlicensed personnel authorisations) and the advisory panel will comprise TAAAF members as well as representatives from flying schools, public transport, tertiary education, mustering sectors and training schools.
Mr Skidmore said he would implement “real solutions to the issues’’ as quickly as they could be delivered.
“CASA has already addressed many concerns that have been identified in the new licensing regulations but I understand more needs to be done,” Mr Skidmore said. “This is a priority and that’s why I need a dedicated team of people within CASA working fulltime on the issues. “Just as importantly we need advice and guidance from the aviation community to prioritise actions and verify that successful solutions have been found.
“The advisory panel will meet formally as required and at other times I expect its members to be in close contact with the CASA taskforce as work progresses.’’
TAAAF chairman Greg Russell welcomed the new developments as “almost in line with the key issues which we put to them’’. He believed the moves were a sign that the CASA board was exercising more influence on the organisation. “Yes, we’ve said some things that needed to be said but I think there’s been a pleasing response so far. There’s more work to do though,’’ Mr Russell said.
But Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell was less convinced. “CASA’s policy words have been good for some time,’’ he said. “It’s increased action on the Forsyth recommendations and new senior managers under the CEO that we need.’’
CASA says 98 issues have so far been raised about new rules and more than half have been addressed. It said the move to extend the deadline for parts 141 and 142 would give it more time to provide the industry with more guidance materials, sample manuals and example syllabuses.
AHIA - Our thanks to Steve.
Postby LVDT » Thu Nov 12 2015, 21:04
CASA Form 61-9 PIC
Secure below a certified passport quality photo in the space provided.
Do NOT use staples or glue to secure your photos.
I am wondering if a nut and bolt will suffice? Answers on the back of a grain of rice please.
Postby Skywork » Thu Nov 12 2015, 22:39
CASA, lets pat ourselves on the back and tell everybody who does not know the situation on how wonderful we are, for out of the 98 issues raised so far, that by the way CASA has caused (by the way of implementation of the new Regs) we have addressed, by the way of issuing a temporary instrument ( in which the new regulations were written to get away from issuing instruments) or extending the deadline out another year or so because we as a government regulator cannot seem to work out on how to fix the situation or more to the point we are to arrogant to admit our complete balls up of the whole affair.
As a side note we at CASA here would like to inform the public that it is still safe to travel, as if any company in Australia that has and AOC or a maintenance approval runs there operation in the way we have, written, implemented or ignores our request to tidy their paperwork in the arrogant way that we have acted , CASA will closed them down immediately.
Postby LVDT » Fri Nov 13 2015, 21:16
What a mess - pages and pages of drivel directed at folks as though they are complete and utter morons.
CASA trying to show that they actually know something about aviation - that would be a first!!
I am guessing that to administer all these changes will need about 3 times as many people who are currently employed.
And where are you going to find these people that actually understand what they should be doing?
Ladies and Gentlemen - I present - "The Wheel"
Postby AHIA » Mon Nov 16 2015, 21:28
AHIA will report on task force's development when known
AHIA which took a firm stand against the stalled legislation has been asked to work with CASA (yet again).
Putting aside the past train wreck; AHIA will soon be able to tell you about the leadership and structure of the new group; and hopefully some thoughts on time lines. It is a massive job, involving several thousand pages of CASA advisory and guidance material.
Any Part 61 changes will no doubt required legislation now in draft to be checked over.
If you want to be kept up-to-date, then we can include you on our current data online base (just over 4,000 at present).
Your contact info will be totally confidential.
Just ask - email: robsrich (at) bigpond (dot) com.
Postby AHIA » Mon Nov 23 2015, 03:27
Measuring CASA's performance ─ aviation community survey
Message forwarded from CASA DAS to AHIA (and others).
CASA is listening to the aviation community and we need your help to find out more.
I encourage you to complete our survey, which can be accessed from the homepage of the CASA website, or by visiting:
www.casa.gov.au/MOP
This activity is a key part of CASA’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which recommended CASA conduct industry surveys every two years to measure the health of the relationship.
We are keen to find out what you think about your interactions with us and measure our performance over time. In particular, we want to learn more about your experiences in complying with and understanding the regulations, applying for and renewing licences, as well as being audited.
This information will provide a benchmark, so that we know where we have to focus our efforts to strengthen the relationship.
Please forward this email to your colleagues and friends in the aviation community so that their views can also be considered.
Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety
Postby hand in pants » Mon Nov 23 2015, 20:08
Did your survey Mr Skidmore.
Doubt it will help, your organisation didn't come out looking very good from my point of view.
Fix your organisation by getting rid of the lawyers and use some people actually "in" aviation, not people dicking around the edges of aviation. Use people who use the drivel your lawyers produced and called regulations.
Part 61 "manual of confusion" is over 500 pages and that's just on flight crew licencing, Jesus, what were your people thinking. And this new stuff is supposed to be easier to follow.
Please tell me what was wrong with CAR5
Postby AHIA » Fri Nov 27 2015, 00:51
Re: The Australian – Aviation – Steve Creedy – Fri 17 Nov ‘15
CASA restructure: regulator cuts divisions in revamp
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is streamlining its operations into three groups in a bid to improve its regulatory services and promote better interaction with the aviation community.
Staff were told yesterday of the restructure, which comes after the authority has been under fire recently for not moving more quickly to fix regulatory changes that have upset sections of the industry. CASA has also been criticised for being slow to adopt government-endorsed recommendations from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.
The changes are due to take place by the middle of next year and will collapse six existing operational groups into three under the broader headings of stakeholder engagement, aviation and sustainability.
The changes are designed to address recommendation 21 of the ASRR, which proposes that CASA change its organisational structure to a “client-oriented output model’’. The review panel said it was struck by the number of industry concerns about communication and specialist guidance, many of which appeared to relate to the authority’s structure.
It determined that many of these issues could be resolved with a more transparent organisational structure and management focus on specific industry sector operations.
The three main sections proposed by yesterday’s restructure will see six groups consolidated into three with legal services remaining separate.
It is understood the standards, operations and airspace/aerodrome sections will be consolidated into the aviation group. Aviation group functions will include entry control, surveillance, regulatory services and standard setting as well as regulatory development and implementation.
The stakeholder engagement group will include safety, education and promotions as well as functions now in the office of the director, such as media relations. The authority said this would join communications functions into one area to ensure the information it issued was “consistent and delivered effectively’’.
Corporate services and some functions of the industry permissions section will go into the sustainability group.
Materials released to staff said job cuts were not anticipated beyond senior management.
CASA boss Mark Skidmore said an important goal of the restructure was to reduce the time people and organisations spent dealing with the regulator.
He said he understood the way CASA interacted with the industry needed to improve “at all levels’’ and the restructure was a vital step in renewing the authority.
“CASA has been consulting widely and often over the past year and now is the time to start delivering real change,’’ he said.
“Part of this real change will be the introduction of more online services to streamline the application, processing and delivery of as many services as possible.
“The restructure will be done in stages between now and the middle of 2016 so regulatory and safety support for the aviation community is not disrupted.
“These changes will streamline CASA’s senior management and give all staff a clearer focus on CASA’s goals and their own tasks.”
Meanwhile, CASA will push ahead with controversial fatigue- management rules, despite trenchant opposition from some parts of the industry, but it confirmed a previously flagged delay to May 2017, to give operators more time to transition to the new rules. The change to Civil Aviation Order 48.1 has been supported by airline pilots but attacked by associations representing some operators.
Regional Express estimated earlier this month the changes would cost it more than $4 million annually and could make some routes unviable, while umbrella group The Australian Aviation Association Forum urged CASA to withdraw CAO 48.1.
CASA admitted this week that consultation with the aviation community found “both CASA and air operators needed more time to make a smooth and safe transition’’ to the new rules.
Operators who had completed the transition by October 31 would need to submit amended operations manuals or a fatigue risk management application by that date, it said.
Postby hand in pants » Fri Nov 27 2015, 04:01
Once again CASA is shuffling the deck chairs. Same people, same jobs, different business card. How much will they spend changing signs, letter head and everything else all for no gain/effect.
The problem is the unworkable rules. Come on Mark, see it for what it is, a bunfight NO ONE can understand.
Go back to CAR5. If you still feel the need to change the rules, get them right and educate the industry and your own people before you introduce them.
And you're going to push ahead with the changes to Part 48. No one wants it as it is unworkable, complicated, and doesn't help with safety. Already the dead line has been pushed back till 2017 because it's too complicated to understand and implement. We've told you that, but as usual, we don't know anything about aviation, so you are going to shove it down our necks with the usual "learn to live with it" attitude.
Thank you so much for f#%k up my industry. You turd.
Postby Evil Twin » Fri Nov 27 2015, 09:41
Quite right HIP. The regulator has ballsed it up well and truly, solution pretend to do something while doing absolutely nothing at all. As you said, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
COME ON AHIA, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO MORE THAN TALK ABOUT IT????!!!! In the words of Monty Python from the Life on Brian "This calls for immediate debate"
Talk is cheap, take action!
Postby AHIA » Fri Nov 27 2015, 11:09
Are you following threads on Bladeslapper and 'rune on the dark side??? If you are then you may have missed something. We are trying our absolute best to keep our members and industry informed and motivated.
There are currently five online surveys underway at present; most to do with CASA's performance. Sadly, our research has shown people are no longer responding, as the level of trust is so low. We are fatigued beyond description - and being asked to say again why it will not work time and time again - some having also to dozens of meetings, briefings, working groups are forming a very toxic view of the regulator. In some cases it is so bad; many have just have given up - look what happened to the technical people.
If you have not received an answer to your question; then you are not a member; or I have stuffed up my email data base.
AHIA actions are very specific - we gave CASA no option and offered to withdraw from the Part 142 process. Later, fortunately, most of the flying schools sent our letter, as published here, and told them we would no longer play ball and the Part 142 process could not proceed.
To folks reading this and are not members, then PM me and I will try and get you the best updates.
It is hoped by Friday next week - there will have been an announcement from greater powers than us - on the future of this regulatory rescue effort now being swamped (or screened) by a massive restructuring effort!
Sorry to grumble Evil Twin - but lets not take our eye off the ball.
AHIA Events Organiser.
PS: North Pole reports Santa is fitting anti-missile system to Rudolf's antlers, and an infra-red filter mask on his nose. Expected problems flying into Canberra.
Postby Evil Twin » Sat Nov 28 2015, 12:10
*sigh* My eye is very acutely focussed on the ball.
Surveys... What good are surveys in stopping the flood of crap rolling down the hill from CASA? This kind of bull5hit is purely a diversionary tactic from CASA. The longer they can keep us all in a holding pattern with this crap the easier it will be for them and anyone further up the chain in the ministry of transport and industry for that matter to announce "We've come to far to go back now." There are a number of businesses that have done their very best to comply with the changes that will, understandably, support the continuing 'progress' as the costs incurred thus far will have been substantial. There are also those that will be waiting with baited breath to steal the jump on the rest of the industry as they will be compliant and others not. Unfortunately THAT is the reality of the aviation industry and it's willingness to kick the competition out of the nest to ensure the biggest slice of the pie.
I get what you are trying to achieve by this. However, what do CASA have to fear from AHIA, you have no mandate to stop, reverse, prevent or change anything. Have you taken legal advise as to challenging or bringing a class action against CASA? Have you lobbied or sought audience with the Minister to present the case for the opposition i.e. the Industry you are representing in order to ensure that the minister is availed of all of the facts and not just the distorted, untruthful and self serving views of CASA and skidmark? For crying out loud CASA are still pushing CAR 48.1 as it is required to improve safety in aviation when that is absolutely transparent boll0cks.
Why is there not a very public campaign being waged to inform the travelling public of the failure of the aviation regulator to act in their best interests. The public are a fickle beast however, when well enough educated they do have the energy and sometimes the tenacity to start the process of change. Anyone would think that there has been a total news blackout of this subject as the media, as much as I despise them, have done nothing. With such a newsworthy subject and one with the potential of ongoing 'news updates' they would be foaming at the mouth to get involved. Is it that they are blissfully ignorant or is it more likely that, this particular barrow isn't being pushed hard enough for fear of retribution from the regulator? That same regulator that exists to serve it's industry and protect the public from dangerous practices.
How are CASA justifying that implementation of Part 61 when it is the most poorly thought out and evaluated piece of legislation in decades? The introduction was delayed until Sept. 2014 as the initial introduction date was unworkable. Nothing appeared to have changed during the delay period and almost immediately had to introduce instruments to allow multiple facets to continue operating. The whole concept of Part 61 was to remove the widespread use of instruments that were required to allow certain operations to be carried out e.g. Firefighting ops. This kind of cr@p you couldn't make up, and yet we seem to be powerless to stop it.
I am not alone in getting very frustrated over this debacle...
Postby hand in pants » Sun Nov 29 2015, 01:48
Again, well said ET.
I do think that the AHIA is trying. And doing a reasonable job. I do think that the media has to be told about what is going on, and I mean mainstream media, not just the Australian newspaper. Why isn't Alan Jones/Ray Hadley talking about this? They are into everything else.
I must admit, I'm at my wits end, trying to get information from Part 61 just frustrates the bejeus out of me.
On that note, I'm looking at the flight test report form for NVFR. It lists an item number, then a MOS ref, then a description. Where the hell in the MOS are you being referenced to , I can't find anything relating to the item number or the description.
Postby AHIA » Thu Dec 3 2015, 19:56
Interesting article in The Australian newspaper by award winning aviation writer, Steve Creedy, The Australian, issue Fri 4 Dec ’15 (Aviation Section). Thanks Steve and best of luck in your new job! We will miss you. Rob Rich – AHIA.
Regional airline groups furious over CASA reforms
The aviation regulator came under renewed attack this week as members of regional airspace councils revealed they had written to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to express their anger at the lack of consultation by the authority’s Office of Airspace Review.
The letter, signed by the members or conveners of Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committees (RAPACs) around Australia, came as some industry groups expressed scepticism about a restructuring announcement last week by Civil Aviation Safety Authority boss Mark Skidmore.
Noting they were members of industry’s longest established consultative forums, RAPAC representatives signing the letter said they had sent it because they did not believe a critical response submitted directly to the OAR “would ever see the light of day’’.
The RAPACs are particularly concerned about changes that mean aircraft operating into uncharted airports where there is no discrete common traffic advisory frequency must now use the VHF area frequency also used by en-route air traffic controllers to talk to airlines flying at high levels.
They worry about the potential added frequency congestion and jamming on the area VHF due to broadcasts from a large number of non-charted aerodromes underneath commercial aircraft flight paths and have also expressed concerns about procedures under the amendment.
The letter accused the OAR of attempting to frustrate attempts to discuss the issue at some state RAPACs and of trying to limit the influence of the consultative groups. It said the concerns of RAPAC members remained unaddressed.
“Over the last 18 months a serious gulf of mistrust has developed between the RAPACs and management of the OAR due firstly, to a reluctance by OAR management to consult with stakeholders and, secondly, an attempt, regarded by many as deceitful, to limit the scope of the RAPACs,’’ it said.
“Lack of consultation for at least the past 15 months the RAPACs have made many attempts to convey to CASA through the OAR, their concerns about three unintended consequences of a change in communications in G airspace via Aeronautical Information Package amendment number 75 which was made, apparently, without any stakeholder consultation.’’
The relationship further deteriorated in August when CASA was accused of trying to revise the RAPAC terms of reference without prior notice to members. The letter said an email sent to 11 industry conveners allowed just 16 days for comment and claimed that the role of the groups would be unchanged.
“This immediately raised suspicion and, on close inspection, it was discovered that the above statement was incorrect and that proposal, in fact, had changed the RAPAC role considerably,’’ it said. “In summary therefore, it would be difficult to imagine a management less suited to an open constructive and effective stakeholder relationship than the current leadership of the OAR.’’
The RAPAC concerns come as CASA is heading towards a restructure and is grappling with rising anger about the need to fix flawed regulatory reforms. It also faces criticism about the pace at which it has adopted recommendations by the Aviation Safety Regulation Review chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth.
The restructure is due to take place by the middle of next year and will collapse six existing operational groups into three under the broader headings of stakeholder engagement, aviation and sustainability.
In addition to the restructure, Mr Skidmore recently announced the appointment of a 26-member task force to work fulltime on addressing problems with rule changes and set up an advisory panel, due to meet on December 16, representing key aviation groups. The restructure announcement was cautiously welcomed by industry but there was criticism about the lack of detail.
Australian Helicopter Industry Association president Peter Crook said the association welcomed the restructure “subject to there being tangible and workable outcomes’’. The AHIA has told members to withdraw applications for new training credentials under the new system until problems are fixed.
“Because of the slow pace of the Regulatory Reform process, confidence in CASA is at a very low level,’’ Mr Crook said. “Over the past two years the AHIA and other Associations, individually and collectively via The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, have identified the major issues and concerns of the industry. We have given reasons why these concerns exist and offered potential solutions.
Little or no action has been taken on these suggestions.’’
Mr Crook said the Part 61 taskforce needed to act quickly and issues addressed as a matter of urgency. Another critic of CASA reform, The Aerial Application Association of Australia, also welcomed the restructure as a good idea but noted CASA’s problems continued.
“Poor execution — including Friday’s announcement that included no detail — poor planning and seeking to fix problems that don’t exist by imposing costs that can’t be afforded are not the way forward,’’ AAAA chief executive Phil Hurst said. “CASA continues to confuse words with actions.’’
Mr Hurst questioned how the Part 61 taskforce would differ from previous ineffectual efforts to fix the disputed rules and said the industry needed urgent exemptions before Christmas. There was also no movement on “discredited” flight and duty times rules or any effort to fix the damage caused to maintenance training in Australia, which he said had contributed to the closure of three apprenticeship training organisations.
“The great danger CASA is now facing — board, senior management and staff — is that a restructure will become code for delay and that the few Forsyth report recommendations being half-heartedly ticked off will be allowed to wither on the vine,’’ he said. “CASA needs real energy, leadership and action more now than ever before in recent years.”
Several aviation organisations are preparing for the next federal election and Mr Truss on Wednesday released an update of the government’s response to the Forsyth review in which he urged industry to work with CASA.
A CASA spokesman said issues raised at RAPACs that did not directly relate to airspace or airways procedures were always directed to the relevant areas in the authority for review and appropriate action. He said RAPACs were informed of the results but many issues were referred to other forums to get the view of the broader aviation community.
The spokesman also signalled that Mr Skidmore would start a review of all CASA’s consultative mechanisms to ensure they were effective and efficient. End quote.
Postby Evil Twin » Thu Dec 3 2015, 22:14
Is this happening today? If so what time can we expect to see it here?
Postby AHIA » Fri Dec 4 2015, 01:12
Just gotta wait a little. Deputy Prime Minister may say something? But I suspect it may be on 15 Dec '15, the day prior to Part 61 Trask Force meeting for the first time. Another mob tip toeing around in the tulips, is still not saying much. So enjoy the weekend.
Postby Eric Hunt » Fri Dec 4 2015, 01:34
Reminds me of a Peter Cook (no, not you Peter Crook) movie called "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer". He was the new PM of the UK, and he was elected because he said he would consult the populace about any new rule or law.
He did this by holding a referendum for every little potential change, day after day, until the people got so sick of him asking their opinions, that they just said "Fkcu it, just do whatever you want, but stop these incessant surveys!"
Naturally he then became a tyrant and exerted his own will, and the public could do nothing about it because they had pulled out of the consultation process.
Postby hand in pants » Fri Dec 4 2015, 08:17
I was just wondering, casa said all this new crap called part 61 would be at no expense to the industry, so who do I send the bill to for the three extra HFRs I have to do, the currency flying for low level, sling, fire fighting and the other things I still don't know about.
I'm sure skiddie is on a pretty good wage, I might as well have him pay for it.