Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB
Thread Starter
Mr Skidmore unmovable on ADSB
I have been informed that Mr Skidmore has just appeared at Senate Estimates and confirmed he will not budge on the ADSB mandate coming in next February for all IFR aircraft.
Clearly he is going to ignore the request from AOPA and others that the mandate be delayed until 2021 similar to NZ.
Of course this mandate which CASA has costed at over $30 million for GA is not addressing any existing safety issues
My advice remains. Anyone involved in attempting to make a living out of Aviation in Australia should get out as soon as possible otherwise losses will be staggering.
Mr Skidmore was given a 5 year term and will unlikely be supporting cost reducing reforms.
Can someone post a link to the video of the hearing?
Clearly he is going to ignore the request from AOPA and others that the mandate be delayed until 2021 similar to NZ.
Of course this mandate which CASA has costed at over $30 million for GA is not addressing any existing safety issues
My advice remains. Anyone involved in attempting to make a living out of Aviation in Australia should get out as soon as possible otherwise losses will be staggering.
Mr Skidmore was given a 5 year term and will unlikely be supporting cost reducing reforms.
Can someone post a link to the video of the hearing?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
It makes me feel sick to watch that video.
It's obvious the CASA board has not been able to communicate to the Director the damage that this totally unnecessary mandate will do to Australian aviation.
Or maybe he doesn't want to listen.
Remember the mandate was not driven by CASA or an existing safety issue but by the boffins at Airservices who possibly wanted to win an award for being first to force this on industry in the world .
And as noted elsewhere to maximise their own profits and bonuses they have only put in a handful of ground stations compared to the US .
Remember in the US even in 2020 no ADSB mandate below 10,000' in E and G if more than 30 nm from class B. Means most GA aircraft will not require the expense .
It's obvious the CASA board has not been able to communicate to the Director the damage that this totally unnecessary mandate will do to Australian aviation.
Or maybe he doesn't want to listen.
Remember the mandate was not driven by CASA or an existing safety issue but by the boffins at Airservices who possibly wanted to win an award for being first to force this on industry in the world .
And as noted elsewhere to maximise their own profits and bonuses they have only put in a handful of ground stations compared to the US .
Remember in the US even in 2020 no ADSB mandate below 10,000' in E and G if more than 30 nm from class B. Means most GA aircraft will not require the expense .
Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th May 2016 at 10:52.
Thread Starter
The mandate will clearly reduce safety as many pilots I have spoken to are taking their aircraft out of the IFR category as they can't afford the cost.
And everyone was invited to the meeting. I didn't get a special invitation but I will be there.
Mr Skidmore mentioned that the decision was made years ago. Yes. That was when GA was told the units would be subsidised from the savings made by AsA removing the SSR units. Then went back on that but left the mandate. Quite dishonest however that's how I found the Canberra system works.
And everyone was invited to the meeting. I didn't get a special invitation but I will be there.
Mr Skidmore mentioned that the decision was made years ago. Yes. That was when GA was told the units would be subsidised from the savings made by AsA removing the SSR units. Then went back on that but left the mandate. Quite dishonest however that's how I found the Canberra system works.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 5th May 2016 at 10:55.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to clarify, that the Deputy Prime Minister (via his office staff) organised for this meeting, Friday 6th May 2016, offering to attend with the Minister for Infrastructre & Transport and the Chairman of the CASA Board, to engage with industry. At no time did they indicate that DAS Skidmore would be in attendance.
The video included above, clearly demonstrates the unwillingness of the DAS to accept that the 2017 compliance position on ADSB is unreasonable. The DAS states that CASA is willing to engage with industry, yet remains defiantly set with his determination to maintain the 2017 date.
So much for industry consultation and consideration. Yet another example of the blind and mlndless manner in which the regulator is destroying our industry?
CASA GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK MANUAL
SECTION 2.4.5 - The aviation industry is a key stakeholder in CASA
As a key stakeholder in CASA the general aviation industry calls on CASA to extend the ADSB compliance to 2021, providing the industry with a sensible pathway to compliance.
The video included above, clearly demonstrates the unwillingness of the DAS to accept that the 2017 compliance position on ADSB is unreasonable. The DAS states that CASA is willing to engage with industry, yet remains defiantly set with his determination to maintain the 2017 date.
So much for industry consultation and consideration. Yet another example of the blind and mlndless manner in which the regulator is destroying our industry?
CASA GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK MANUAL
SECTION 2.4.5 - The aviation industry is a key stakeholder in CASA
As a key stakeholder in CASA the general aviation industry calls on CASA to extend the ADSB compliance to 2021, providing the industry with a sensible pathway to compliance.
Last edited by aviationadvertiser; 5th May 2016 at 12:03.
Good luck. I'm afraid the only way forward that will actually work is to form a "Tiger Team" from PM & C with a mandate to rewrite the Act.
The rewritten Act would:
1) Require that the aviation industry be fostered and grown.
2) Mandate international standards and prohibit home grown concoctions of regulation where an international standard is already available.
3) Require rigourous cost/benefit studies with mandatory industry participation.
4) Remove regulatory infringements from the criminal to administrative courts and require education, legal action being a last resort.
5) Break up CASA into a regulator and a separate enforcer. Enshrine the independence of the ATSB an d prohibit "agreements or MOUs" between the ATSB and anyone.
6) Remove the entire "show cause" pantomine and require strict rules of evidence.
…and, and, and……
Then allow existing CASA staff to apply for positions in the new organisations.
The rewritten Act would:
1) Require that the aviation industry be fostered and grown.
2) Mandate international standards and prohibit home grown concoctions of regulation where an international standard is already available.
3) Require rigourous cost/benefit studies with mandatory industry participation.
4) Remove regulatory infringements from the criminal to administrative courts and require education, legal action being a last resort.
5) Break up CASA into a regulator and a separate enforcer. Enshrine the independence of the ATSB an d prohibit "agreements or MOUs" between the ATSB and anyone.
6) Remove the entire "show cause" pantomine and require strict rules of evidence.
…and, and, and……
Then allow existing CASA staff to apply for positions in the new organisations.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mr Skidmore mentioned that the decision was made years ago. Yes. That was when GA was told the units would be subsidised from the savings made by AsA removing the SSR units. Then went back on that but left the mandate. Quite dishonest however that's how I found the Canberra system works.
If my memory serves me correctly, the GA subsidy, which would have been plenty given the low cost of todays units, was scuttled mainly by a group of extremist activists. I am sure you know exactly who.
The SSR replacement then had to go ahead. We all lost out.
The very same people who have their Cherokee 6 or whatever that are going to take them out of IFR would have been covered.
Pity the deal was scuttled and I recall several well known identities on this forum crowing about their success.
But that's not a sufficient reason to press ahead with a stupid decision, namely implementation before it happens in first world aviation nations.
Sunny....all good BUT...
Letting old CAsA trough dwellers back into the new agency would only allow a coterie? group to form to get to work and upset the new apple cart.
New Agency, NEW blood required. NEW aviation oriented blood NOT ratty reg, process driven paper shufflers, who claim the punitive approach is all. Just ticks on the paperwork doesnt mean its been properly done or safe.
OUT with the old, I say. Having been a player in the old monumental cock-up should be an automatic disqualification.
And as for the Skidmore attitude re ADSB...needs to be dragged out of the office, just leaving his mark on CAsA .....his skidmark on the floor.
Letting old CAsA trough dwellers back into the new agency would only allow a coterie? group to form to get to work and upset the new apple cart.
New Agency, NEW blood required. NEW aviation oriented blood NOT ratty reg, process driven paper shufflers, who claim the punitive approach is all. Just ticks on the paperwork doesnt mean its been properly done or safe.
OUT with the old, I say. Having been a player in the old monumental cock-up should be an automatic disqualification.
And as for the Skidmore attitude re ADSB...needs to be dragged out of the office, just leaving his mark on CAsA .....his skidmark on the floor.
It's fairly clear cut really.
Skidmore has made it clear that they ignored the fact that the decision will result in un-necessary costs to GA. Whether the Government decides to hold them accountable and action this is the question.
The suggestion that the costs will be more if we wait for the US date was laughable.
Skidmore has made it clear that they ignored the fact that the decision will result in un-necessary costs to GA. Whether the Government decides to hold them accountable and action this is the question.
The suggestion that the costs will be more if we wait for the US date was laughable.
Mr. Skidmore, did Plasma TV's get cheaper or more expensive when everyone went out any bought one?
Skidmore has not shown enough engagement in the detail of his job to deserve to keep it.
Try asking any private industry CEO on one of the 2-3 major projects in progress in his / her company and you would get a response with perfect detail.
Skidmore's performance at the Senate shows that he does not have sufficient grasp on his job. Its time he went. He has just demonstrated lack of a minimum competence in his role.
https://youtu.be/-417SpL4CAM
Try asking any private industry CEO on one of the 2-3 major projects in progress in his / her company and you would get a response with perfect detail.
Skidmore's performance at the Senate shows that he does not have sufficient grasp on his job. Its time he went. He has just demonstrated lack of a minimum competence in his role.
https://youtu.be/-417SpL4CAM
In the Senate video Skidmore indicates that he is not attending the Tamworth meeting today.
This is from the letter from Benjamin Morgan.
If Skidmore was engaged with industry and the minimum level for competency of his role he would be aware of it and attending - invited or not.
If Skidmore had a functional relationship with his Chair consistent with minimum competency for his role (its the CEO's role to manage the relationship with his chair, not vice versa) , then he would be aware of the meeting and be attending, if for no other reason than to provide support for his Chair. So he fails here too.
Skidmore is not up to the job. Its time to go.
This is from the letter from Benjamin Morgan.
In attendance, representing the government will be;
The Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby Joyce
The Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester
The Chairman of the Board, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Jeff Boyd.
The Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby Joyce
The Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester
The Chairman of the Board, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Jeff Boyd.
If Skidmore had a functional relationship with his Chair consistent with minimum competency for his role (its the CEO's role to manage the relationship with his chair, not vice versa) , then he would be aware of the meeting and be attending, if for no other reason than to provide support for his Chair. So he fails here too.
Skidmore is not up to the job. Its time to go.
Originally Posted by Akro
If Skidmore was engaged with industry and the minimum level for competency of his role he would be aware of it and attending - invited or not.