Cutting the red tape

[kaz3g]

It seems the SMS requirements imposed by CASA not so long ago have now been abandoned on the alter of efficiency.

 

According to McCormick, “CASA has listened to the views of people in the flying training sector and responded to their concerns with positive action.”

 

Key changes to Part 141 are:

 

• The requirement for a safety management system will be removed. Recommending safety management systems are implemented for small, simple flying training organisations is more beneficial than mandating them.
   
   
  
• A quality assurance manager will no longer be required and the quality assurance system requirements will be simplified for operators who are limited to simulator training.
   
   
  
• There will no longer be a need to develop an exposition when transitioning to the new rules. An operations manual will achieve the same safety outcomes.
   
   
  
• To help reduce the administrative burden on flying schools, CASA will provide training course material and off-the-shelf operations manual material.
   
   
  
• A policy statement will be developed in relation to entry control processes to ensure they do not go beyond what is legislatively required.
   
   
  

 

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

A very interesting move indeed - step away and let the lawsuits go directly to the directly negligent.

 

Might work, might not.

 

 

[Oscar]

Not necessarily a reason for universal rejoicing. This could add weight to the judicial idea that recreational aviation is 'an inherently dangerous sport' and until the ramifications of that are teased out and evaluated, I think we should be cautious. I can certainly see some potential downside in terms of insurance rates and airspace access, just for openers.

 

And as Turbs has said, it removes the defence for training organisations that they have operated according to the mandated standard so any situation potentially becomes a candidate for litigation.

 

This could well turn out to be a case of 'be careful about what you wish for'..

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think the positive is the decision by CASA to provide suitable material on request for incorporation into operations manuals and to support it with training aids.

 

This should substantially relieve costs especially for smaller schools and ensure greater consistency between them.

 

Kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

This is a solution to the" endless piece of string" that it replaces. Flying is inherently dangerous for fools. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is a solution to the" endless piece of string" that it replaces. Flying is inherently dangerous for fools. Nev

.....and now any mistake where you meet the negligence test is the price tag - the good old "It's safe" days were over long ago.

 

 

[storchy neil]

like I said some were before duty of care will bite us some day

 

what I don't get is these are our rules and regs we are the ones breaking them how in the hell is CASSA to blame

 

CASSA now want us to abide by our rules and regs and you poor little soles are crying sooks

 

as several people have found out our rules were written so as to confuse and be manipulated by people

 

RAA appointed l2 l3 duty off care rest with them

 

as some off you sooks found out when you were grounded all hell broke loose didn't it

 

some off you are flying planes that do not comply by our rules yet your l2 has signed them out as airworthy who is accountable you are not your l2

 

you are not a l2 I am just a pilot but you should know according to our rules

 

scenario like a leaking fuel tank on a flying school plane for over four years

 

in this case the l2 should be banned and fined

 

flying school on the do not call list

 

flying school plane instirments not working that are fixed to plane

 

l2 fine and banned

 

flying school on do not call list

 

plane that does not have motor installed correctly to manufactors specs

 

owner fined

 

l2 l3 fined and banned

 

but your horror I did not know that as the l2 l3 was to keep it airworthy

 

but your horror how was I to know that is how it was to be mounted your horror

 

do your regs state that as the owner of said plane it is your resposability to make sure it is airworthy

 

but your horror we need to change the rules so as lame l2 l3 l4 are accountable

 

now sooks start crying cause this is coming and not before time

 

it is our fault that we have let this shit get to this

 

neil

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I'm not a sook. I'm prepared to be accountable for my own actions, although I would like any court I was taken to be smart and fair, which I know is a lot to hope for.

 

We are being red-taped to death, part of the trouble is that well-meaning regulations can get to be enforced by fools and bullies.

 

By far the most dangerous thing I do in flying is forced on me by "safety " regulations, and CASA are to blame.

 

So I reckon CASA should be restricted to wherever fare-paying passengers are involved, and not where student pilots and other people like Storchy are involved because they know enough, or should know enough, to look after themselves. For example, they can stop using an aircraft which is not maintained to their standards. Who can fault them for this?

 

...Bruce

 

 

[M61A1]

like I said some were before duty of care will bite us some daywhat I don't get is these are our rules and regs we are the ones breaking them how in the hell is CASSA to blame

CASSA now want us to abide by our rules and regs and you poor little soles are crying sooks

 

as several people have found out our rules were written so as to confuse and be manipulated by people

 

RAA appointed l2 l3 duty off care rest with them

 

as some off you sooks found out when you were grounded all hell broke loose didn't it

 

some off you are flying planes that do not comply by our rules yet your l2 has signed them out as airworthy who is accountable you are not your l2

 

you are not a l2 I am just a pilot but you should know according to our rules

 

scenario like a leaking fuel tank on a flying school plane for over four years

 

in this case the l2 should be banned and fined

 

flying school on the do not call list

 

flying school plane instirments not working that are fixed to plane

 

l2 fine and banned

 

flying school on do not call list

 

plane that does not have motor installed correctly to manufactors specs

 

owner fined

 

l2 l3 fined and banned

 

but your horror I did not know that as the l2 l3 was to keep it airworthy

 

but your horror how was I to know that is how it was to be mounted your horror

 

do your regs state that as the owner of said plane it is your resposability to make sure it is airworthy

 

but your horror we need to change the rules so as lame l2 l3 l4 are accountable

 

now sooks start crying cause this is coming and not before time

 

it is our fault that we have let this **** get to this

 

neil

Any chance of getting this in English?......keyboard broken?

[turboplanner]

I'm not a sook. I'm prepared to be accountable for my own actions, although I would like any court I was taken to be smart and fair, which I know is a lot to hope for.We are being red-taped to death, part of the trouble is that well-meaning regulations can get to be enforced by fools and bullies.

By far the most dangerous thing I do in flying is forced on me by "safety " regulations, and CASA are to blame.

 

So I reckon CASA should be restricted to wherever fare-paying passengers are involved, and not where student pilots and other people like Storchy are involved because they know enough, or should know enough, to look after themselves. For example, they can stop using an aircraft which is not maintained to their standards. Who can fault them for this?

 

...Bruce

CASA should not exist at all; for example is there a CASA equivalent for horse sports?

 

When something is directly controlled by a Government Department, as in the days of the Department of Civil Aviation, any controls and regulations must pass through both houses of Parliament and that requires the involvement of several hundred people [note for the media and its haters: not at the whim of the Prime Minister or Premier of the day]. So that gives the people involved all over the Country plenty of time to ask for an appointment with their local Member of Parliament, and put their concerns.

 

This of course makes the politicians do what they were elected to do.

 

When Governments set up separate bodies to manage something at arms length, it is usually by that body granting exceptions to the ACT, subject to conditions.

 

The exceptions start out small, but expand exponentially over time without the measured checks and balances of the Parliament until there is just a mess where no oe know what's legal and what's not. You can't go to the Act because that doesn't show the exceptions, and you can't unravel the exceptions.

 

Occasionally the bodies make decisions which re-involve the Government directly in risk and then the politicians don't like it at all.

 

 

[storchy neil]

turb so did CASSA write our regs

 

bruce it is our red tape that will shut us down neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

Storchy, to avoid a hair splitting competition I'll avoid an aviation example and after seeing ads with people walking along on barrels, we'll call our sport Barrel Rolling (BR)

 

BR gets going, becomes widespread and then there's a series of accidents cost implications and a few other things and the Government decided to set up a Department of BR with its own Minister to manage it.

 

The BR Act is gazetted and everyone knows the rules because they are simple and straightforward. So this would be about the time we had a Department of Civil Aviation and Minister of Aviation and were probably the safest flying nation in the world.

 

BR becomes more complicated and occupies more government time so the government decides to set up an Instrument/Body to administer BR

 

So CASBR is formed and giver a set of Powers to administer the Act, with some authority to make exceptions to the clauses in the ACT.

 

At this stage BR has been free to all but after three teenage deaths CASBR meets and decides BR will be limited to over 18 year olds.

 

The under 18 year olds form an association and show that the actions were exceptions and demand to be allowed to BR

 

CASBR decides that it will allow under 6 to 18 year olds to BR subject to them adhering to a set of rules (which CSBR hurriedly scribbles, and wearing yellow jackets)

 

They object to wearing yellow jackets but CASBR says they wear them or they don't BR - at this point they have lost the involvement of parliament to prevent a silly rule, or to cancel it.

 

The original Act specified that the barrels had to be of wood construction, and 600 mm diameter,

 

By this time BR Associations have been formed all over Australia, and an FNQueensland group requests that steel barrels be accepted because wood rots up there in the hot air.

 

CASBR accedes to this but having called in a barrel specialists, says they may use steel but must fit an automatic speed brake to avoid downhill accidents

 

An under 6 group hits CABR for discrimination pointing out that no one under 6 has ever died BR. CABR allows them to BR subject to coming up with a set of safety rules, and carrying water ballast, and makes this conditional on them joining the under 18 Associations for supervision.

 

So you can see the progression of complication, and really, unless the politicians decide to have a look over the fence, by this stage they will not really know what is going on.

 

So the long answer to your question Storchy is that several stages of people from the Government down are now writing rules where once only the vote of two houses of parliament resulted in rule.

 

 

[storchy neil]

turbs take the bloody red and blue pill not the blue and red pill

 

question was did CASSA write our regs neil

 

seeing I am not aloud to name people or places

 

where is the LAME L2 L 3 that done an inspection on a G A PLANE and did not inform the owner that the prop was out of time very interesting

 

LAME said your problem you own the plane your have to make sure it is airworthy neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK Storchy - no pills - who is CASSA?

 

 

[storchy neil]

yes turbs who is cassa glad ya got pills right see some people pull you up on a stuff up:victory:

 

now casa did not write our regs a group of people wrote them so as we have the freedom of flying

 

but some imbersiles decide that we don't have to abide by our rules and start making their own rules

 

example putting on different props on 24 reg planes making some l2 unaccountable

 

now our own ops manual states that all mods on 24 reg must be factory approved all parts must be fitted to the manafactors specification

 

now when casa start to make us abide by our rules and regs and be accountable for our own stupidity don't blame the bloke with the big pen

 

he will scratch us of his list and that wont be hard to do if we continue on the path we have been traveling

 

more has to be done on checks and proceadors so as our planes don't become an fixture in the shed

 

while I do have an axe to grind over what happened to me I will continue to stire the pot as it can happen to you neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

I will continue to stire the pot

Good on you, keep stireing that pot, there's not enough of it these days.

 

 

[Yenn]

Who ever thought that pollies could do a good job, because there were a lot of them and had to be agreement. Tony Abbot just created a Dame and a Sir, without any concensus. As far as I am concerned Dames and Sirs are as good as OA's necause the pollies have degraded the Order of Australia, by giving them to American and Indonesian Generals.

 

I believe General cosgrove is deserving of any high honour, but for the ex Governor general to be a Dame degrades the Dame value.

 

As far as red tape goes, a friend of mine told me that when he was renting houses out they had to be checked for safety of the cords controlling window blinds. They had a government appointed blind cord inspector. Shouldn't be too much trouble to pull the wool over his eyes.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You probably picked a bad example there Yenn; a substantial number of children have been strangled by the type of blind cords we have been fitting since the '70's or so, mostly fitted by the householder. In our case this was specifically pointed out by the supplier, and there is a minimum height above the floor. When you rent a house to the Federal Government it does go through a safety inspection, which I suspect is done by your "blind cord inspector" who is looking at key things like safety guards, ventilation, exposed wiring and so on.

 

 

[M61A1]

You probably picked a bad example there Yenn; a substantial number of children have been strangled by the type of blind cords we have been fitting since the '70's or so, mostly fitted by the householder. In our case this was specifically pointed out by the supplier, and there is a minimum height above the floor. When you rent a house to the Federal Government it does go through a safety inspection, which I suspect is done by your "blind cord inspector" who is looking at key things like safety guards, ventilation, exposed wiring and so on.

I think his point is, even if you do supposedly need legislation in regard to blind cords, there is something very wrong with the management system if you need an appointed inspector solely for blind cords. If you must have an inspector, surely they could be trained to assess the whole house, not just blind cords.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That was my point, that was why I used "blind cord inspector" in inverted commas; they don't exist.

 

Many aspects of the house are assessed during the visit. One of the assessors appears to have been having a joke.

 

 

[M61A1]

That was my point, that was why I used "blind cord inspector" in inverted commas; they don't exist.Many aspects of the house are assessed during the visit. One of the assessors appears to have been having a joke.

Given our current state of over-regulation, such a title would not be at all surprising. I certainly hope it was a joke.

 

 

[kaz3g]

You probably picked a bad example there Yenn; a substantial number of children have been strangled by the type of blind cords we have been fitting since the '70's or so, mostly fitted by the householder. In our case this was specifically pointed out by the supplier, and there is a minimum height above the floor. When you rent a house to the Federal Government it does go through a safety inspection, which I suspect is done by your "blind cord inspector" who is looking at key things like safety guards, ventilation, exposed wiring and so on.

Hi Turbs

 

You are totally correct about kids and the long blind and curtain cords being an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately, women who are victims of domestic violence use them as hanging points for suicide, too.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hopefully they will go out of fashion; the blind types that use them aren't all that attractive anyway. Something for an Industrial Designer to start work on.

 

 

[planesmaker]

I do believe the aircraft owner is responsible for having the aircraft maintained properly. Want to own and fly? Get an education about your responsibility and read the operations and tech manuals.

 

Tom

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Owner ultimately responsible for condition of aircraft but hobbled to rules made by people that have never touched an aircraft.