Up in the air

CASA seems to be continuing on a frustrating and problematic path of stalled reform. The national chemical regulator – APVMA – is grappling with a failure to meet statutory approval deadlines, outdated processes, a staffing crisis, and decentralisation to Armidale. Access to 457 Visas to fill the pilot shortage has been smashed by the unconsulted removal of ‘air pilots’ from the skills list, a shortage exacerbated by CASA’s swag of red tape otherwise known as Parts 61 and 141 and government refusing to make HECs available to all CPLs.

And to cap it off, there is little to no high level policy engagement or consultation to intercede on any of these issues.

A lot of political focus – as always – is dedicated to the Badgery’s Creek issue and while that critical piece of aviation and community infrastructure deserves attention, it should not be viewed as the only aviation game in town.

“There is little to no high level policy engagement.”

The list of current discussion papers and processes is quite long – including CASA reviews of Avmed, radio frequencies in G airspace, fatigue management and a Departmental look at Modernising the Protection of Airspace (including thankfully some very positive suggestions for low-level airspace users).

There is also the Minister’s General Aviation Advisory Group that has met once and the BITRE GA Review. Not to mention the Minister’s Aviation Advisory Council which has apparently been disbanded – but participants not informed. Or the long awaited CASA overhaul of consultation processes while the old SCC working groups continue to grind on.

AAAA has engaged in all processes and made submissions that are available from our website – www.aerialag.com.au under Resource Centre/Submissions.

But processes are not action! How broken must an agency be before senior public servants demonstrate insight and knowledge, implement pathways to continuous improvement and act decisively in cooperation with industry to deliver better outcomes?

Of course, industry recognises that processes are important and take time – including the search for a new head of CASA – but the private sector does not have the luxury of being able to simply push costs or government inefficiencies further down the line indefinitely.

Hopefully, a new head of CASA will recognise that a lot of issues – just like with the APVMA – are issues well within the purview of the executive officer and there are immediate solutions. Pulling together a small industry group to look at efficiencies within CASA would be an obvious starting point. The Forsyth Review and the whole of government policy on red tape reduction provide plenty of head of power to simply get on with it.

Small examples are often highly instructive. The current CASA form for an aerial work AOC variation (Form 1214 Part B) is largely a make-work exercise that is not compliant with either CAR 206 or Part 137. It adds another 43 sub-classifications to the already outdated nine described in CAR 206. That none of them recognise there is an activity called ‘aerial application’ with a strong head of power under CASR 137 – and which has a simplified approach to aircraft listings on an AOC, done consciously through good work between AAAA and CASA in 2007 – shows that the CASA tail still wags the dog.

Who in CASA made this decision to pad out this form and overcomplicate a relatively simple matter? Where was the manager saying ‘Isn’t there a better way’? Where was the review process to address an issue raised consistently by a peak body? Where is the drive for improvement if it isn’t coming from the top and being enforced?

It’s funny – in a perverse sense – when ‘process’ is only good when it suits the regulator, despite the outcome for industry.

While government continues to confuse unnecessary bureaucracy with action and outcomes, industry is forced to manage regulators with broken systems, inflexible policy and a lost focus on performance – all driven by neglect or worse, intent.

There is a real opportunity for Government and agency heads to stand up and be counted.

There is still power in government-approved Forsyth recommendations. There is still opportunity to turn public service innovation into a reality. And there is certainly industry appetite for partnering with government to drive efficiency and cost reduction.