australian aviation logo

CASA publishes new regulatory philosophy

written by australianaviation.com.au | September 16, 2015

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has proposed restrictions on those operating aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines. (CASA)

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) director of aviation safety Mark Skidmore says a set of new key principles will make a “real, positive and lasting difference” to the regulator’s dealings with the aviation community.

As part of its response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR), Australia’s aviation safety watchdog has published a list of 10 key principles that will guide and direct its approach to regulation.

These included a commitment to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community, as well as taking a consultative and collaborative approach to developing policies, having safety as the most important consideration, and a risk-based approach to regulatory action and decision-making, among others.

Skidmore said the new regulatory philosophy was “clear and concise set or principles that would guide all our actions” and sharpen the focus on how and how well CASA did its job.


The director of aviation safety said CASA would, where necessary, develop new policies and procedures to give “meaningful effect to our regulatory philosophy”.

“I am committed to ensuring these principles make a real, positive and lasting difference to the way CASA operates and way we interact with the aviation community,” Skidmore said in a statement on Wednesday.

“I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities.

CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore AM (CASA)
CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore (CASA)

“To regain trust, we must earn that trust. We look forward to the opportunity to do just that, and I invite the aviation community to use CASA’s regulatory philosophy as a benchmark against which our performance is measured.

The full regulatory philosophy can be read here.

Meanwhile, CASA executive manager standards division Peter Boyd will leave the organisation on October 2.

Boyd has been been at CASA for 16 years and executive manager standards division since 2005.

Skidmore said in a memo to staff senior manager Roger Weeks would serve as the standards division’s executive manager while he considered the “best mechanism for filling this role permanently”.

“Peter has worked diligently with a very difficult portfolio of responsibilities over this time which has seen him make a significant contribution to CASA,” Skidmore said.

“As Peter moves on to his next set of challenges, I wish him all the very best and thank him for his energy, effort, unfailing good humour (often in the face of significant work pressures) and collegiate perspective.”

In late August, Skidmore had announced he was embarking on a “significant change program” as part of efforts to improve service delivery, with the changes in place by the middle of 2016.

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member today!

Comments (2)

  • Ben


    The director is able to talk the talk. Now to see if he can make the rest of the agency walk the walk.

  • Bob


    It is always good to see when a regulator is adopting to the needs since it is of benefit to all. It would be nice to see the government to “refresh” their policies in other areas as well. Example, federal leased airports need to come up with a master plan on a regular basis which needs to be approved etc. While there is nothing wrong with this, the process to come up with a draft master plan and the approval of it is a highly costly thing for federal airport owners and once the master plan is approved it does not stop there when changes at such an airport are planned. Another example is the noise regulation for airports, the so called ANEF. At Essendon Airport there is the Air Navigation Regulations 2001. It states that no aircraft with the maximum take off weight of 45.000kgs or above is allowed to operate from/to Essendon airport due to noise issues. Looking at the fact that this rule is from 2001, I wonder does the government keep up with technology and the development of it? Why does the regulation not measure in decibel rather than aircraft weight? There are many other examples where changes to laws and regulations must be made and list is too long to mention here.

Comments are closed.

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.