General aviation may soon be subjected to a classic piece of bureaucratic bastardry: the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) could become mandatory. So far, pilots who haven't needed to go into security-controlled airports didn't need an ASIC, but they did have to have an Aviation ID (AVID) issued by CASA. In a discussion paper released last December, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) asked for feedback on a number of options about what to do with the ASIC. One of the options tabled was to remove or integrate the AVID into the ASIC, given that only 300 AVIDs have been issued. We've known for some time that the Australian Transport Security Act has demanded pilots undergo security checking, so if the AVID is removed the only way a pilot can comply with the Act is to get an ASIC ... whether they need it or not. It seems that's what DIRD wants, betrayed in the discussion paper with this line:
"If airside ASIC display requirements were to reduce, a corresponding increased reliance on AVIDs may in effect draw away from some of the benefits delivered by the ASIC scheme, such as the background checking standard delivered under the AusCheck framework."
What is not mentioned in the DP anywhere is the option for the AVID to stand in for a red ASIC, which is the most logical, economic and fair option. There is, however, some consideration being given to reducing the physical areas on the ground in which ASICs are needed. There's more to come on this, probably before the end of the year.
And by the end of the year we should just about have finished going through the new CASR Part 91 draft released this week. Part 91 is all the general rules we need to abide by when operating aircraft, so you can imagine this is a big document. So, genuine thanks to CASA for publishing a list of amendments, which will make it easier for us to see what is changing, and for including a Manual of Standards.
On the downside, Part 91 still includes the hideous statement about strict liability, despite assurances that steps were being taken to relieve us of this prejudice. According to CASA, they are "reassessing the penalties in the Civil Aviation legislation, in the course of which the categorisation of certain offences as strict liability offences will be considered." So what happens to the shiny, new Part 91 if some of these offences are reclassified? Do we burn the new legislation and start again?
Part 66 has come under fire from the maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) people for causing one of the industries great unintended consequences: it has lowered the standard of maintenance training. According to their association, AMROBA, apprentices coming out of CASA Part 66 schools don't have the spanner skills of those coming from the TAFE system, but the TAFEs are shutting down because they can't get funding. Consequently, Part 66 has put the industry in a more precarious position than it did before. Operators aren't happy, and some are even saying that work done by Part 66-trained engineers often has to be redone.
On the plus side, Matt Hall is on track this weekend with another real chance to score his first race win in the Red Bull Air Race series. He was looking for all money like a winner in Budapest, but the knock-out format worked against him, and even though he was third fastest in the Round of 8, didn't qualify for the final. In typical Matt fashion, he's taking his performance as an indicator that he's doing a lot right, and it's full steam ahead for Matt Hall Racing at Ascot on Sunday. Sooner or later he's going to crack one, and although the British pilots will be fired-up to win on home soil, our man cannot be written off.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
(modified at 15.41 14 August to remove an incorrect statement!)