[Peetwo]

LMH catching up on St Carmody at Estimates. -   

Reference:

If not; why not?

I have just sat through, paying attention, to the CASA Friday special video in the Senate. I have – so help me. I even watched and listened carefully to St. Carmody; by Gad he’s good.  

Mark you, when the minister is carefully managed, spoon fed and watered by St. Carmody’s very own personal aviation specialist, on loan to whichever pathetic specimen of human kind wears the Emperor’s new clothes; an overwhelming sense of confidence must be expected. Hell, with that sort of entrée and backing; you could sell the hanger cat to the public as the next ducking Messiah. So long as the minister is ‘in the loop’ and as dumb as a hammer – you are on a winner. Why would St. Carmody (the self righteous) even break wind, let alone tremble when a couple of stray Senators start asking easy, uniformed questions?

One of the more alarming elements of the whole thing is that St Carmody (ordained preventer of accidents) has either a very slick understanding of ‘statistics’ or has someone on tap who can not only make statistics jump through hoops; but is capable of making those hoops. Remarkable results – to order.  For instance hours:-

Let us examine this ‘safety’ myth that total hours can, in any practical way, relate to the safety of not only CSF operations, but ‘private’ operations in general. I have a good mate who has many thousands of hours in command of a fairly hefty jet transport – which routinely does long haul international flights; top of his game, all flight checks passed and he is bloody good at commanding the aircraft. Would I trust him to fly my family in a single piston engine, propeller driven aircraft, at night to a strange port? No I bloody well would not. Why? Well, he ain’t current for a start and not in the groove for seconds, nor does he have the toys, horsepower and systems support he has learned to rely on in his normal daily work. There is however a young lady of my acquaintance who does very little else except nurse an aging single engine aircraft about the country side, often after sunset, with very limited basic equipment and very few options in so far as power, redundancy or systems backup; yet I would, without a second thought allow my nearest and dearest to travel with her. Why?

One pilot is in current practice with the operational environment the other is not. The young lass could, perhaps get the jet started but that would be the end of it – my mate could probably get the aging beast started; and, relying solely on past experience even manage to fly a circuit or two. But, in an equal race – neither could do the others job. They are simply worlds apart. My mate has not been near an aging single engine aircraft for 30 years; our young lady has never flown a heavy transport. QED?

Yes, an extreme case study – but since when did ‘hours’ signify safety? Angel Flight could (IMO) resolve this silliness quite easily. A pilot data base which would qualify or disqualify a NVFR/IFR or VFR operation on the basis of current in-practice minimums, in compliance with the Regs. A training course which certified that AF pilots have undertaken a course entailing ‘CFIT’/ Weather avoidance analysis, flight planning, fuel management and ‘risk mitigation’ etc. Even had a ride along with a qualified person to ensure that ‘standards’ were met across the operational board. Simple enough to arrange and do. This would provide ‘evidence’ of competency, recent experience and disqualify those who were not ‘currently qualified’ from conducting AF operations until they were. Small expense incurred – occasionally – to provide a venue; lots of experienced folk willing to assist – on a voluntary basis.

No wonder Sen. Patrick say’s “I can’t quite see it” when referring to this cockeyed CASA notion of how ‘safety and statistics’ support their claim that the ‘Little Wings’ version is OK and AF is a setting up an increased level of danger to those who travel. Bollocks.

Even more remote from reality is the CASA take on ‘engine hours’ and aircraft maintenance. Ask any commercial pilot about ‘fit’ aircraft. When do most ‘mechanical’ problems appear – after maintenance. Which aircraft operate and fly the best? Those which ‘fly’ often is the answer. Which is the mechanically and systems malfunction worst aircraft they ever flew – the one which has been in the shed for a twelve month is the answer.

CASA and in particular St. Carmody continue to display their complete disassociation from the realties of working aircraft, pilot fitness for the scheduled operation and sound operational practices.

St. Carmody and his acolytes may be familiar with ‘theory’ but the view from the Ivory tower is limited; the answers are down in the grass roots and basic tenets; not in some academically dreamed up notion of a legally arguable ‘safety’ case. Practical reality; not a sound legal defence against litigation. But Hells Bells, they can’t even get the legal/medico stuff right – as the USA attorney’s are about to point out. The Mt Hotham incident should be the can opener; the Essendon DFO the worms inside that can. Will CASA get a spanking for operational ineptitude? I hope so; for it is well deserved and long overdue. It I were ‘the minister’ I’d be worried more about that and the fall out afterwards than supporting some half arsed waffle stating that sick folk getting a ride to treatment are at more risk than the same folk going shopping – in the DFO – having been given a cost shared ride into town. Pure, unadulterated, political arse covering BOLLOCKS.

Will anything ever change? Yes is the resounding answer – the revised Act, as presented, has, in legal terms imposed a more onerous, retrogressive set of requirements than the one to be replaced. Don’t believe me though – just read it, very carefully – then watch Hansard video 1 and see the smug, satisfied smirk on the wizened face of Jonathon (where’s my marbles) Aleck when it is mentioned. But please, do read the amendment to the Act – ask a legal friend to explain it – and pray to your gods of choice that amendment gets thrown out, into the garbage, where it belongs. A bonus would be the scrawny arse of Aleck following it.

But enough – I’ve only just seen the ‘vision splendid’ once; however, I can assure you, I will watch it all again  MTF? Damn straight there is……..

Toot- Toot.

The Dictatorial, deluded world of Carmody Capers - 
Still waiting on the Hansard but after a technical glitch (now rectified by the good crew at ParlAV -   ) I have now completed the Fort Fumble Estimates video segments in five parts.

My first takeaway from watching the recordings is that the total and utter rubbish emanating from both Carmody Capers and Dr Hoodoo Voodoo Aleck is so full of weasel word rhetoric and disconnected, illogical spin'n'bollocks as to be a perfect script for a comeback series of 'Yes Minister' -  

Listening to an obviously much more relaxed Wingnut I kept of thinking of how many times the un-elected career bureaucrat kept saying it was his decision, my decision...I..I..I..etc..etc..(cough..vomit.. ), till in the end the DASictorial Carmody utters the words that we now all come to expect from these power freak aviation safety Mandarins...        

See from 11:20 here: https://youtu.be/6K9s8wIA9cQ

Now why does that sound oh so familiar  - FFWD to 01:38 : 

Update - Hansard: 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Mr Carmody : That's fine. I understand everything you've said. I would make the point, however, that as a director of aviation safety my responsibility is to keep Australians safe. They're the decisions I make, which the government has empowered me to do and wants me to do, based on the evidence that I have. I've made those decisions and it's up to the parliament. If the parliament wishes to disallow, I understand that process completely.

Senator PATRICK: And I'm a senator who wants to make sure that people who rely on these flights to get medical treatment also do so safely, but there's always a balance to be had here and I'm just not sure it's right.

Mr Carmody : There is certainly a balance, and this is—

Senator PATRICK: We can make it completely safe by banning everyone from flying, and there will be no accidents.

Mr Carmody : That's certainly not our intent. That is why, as you know, I listened to what was said with rotary-wing and said it was not my intention to limit the field; my intention was to make sure these activities occur. But we are in the precautionary space. I cannot prevent two accidents that occurred—I cannot do that. What I can do is raise standards to prevent the next accidents occurring. I can't do any more with organisations like Angel Flight than encourage them to raise their standards. I cannot get them to do anything else, because they are not subject to my regulatory oversight. I can only encourage them to raise their standards. I've done that.

Senator PATRICK: You gave every one of their pilots a licence.

Mr Carmody : With respect, they would say they are not their pilots.

Senator PATRICK: Okay. Sure. I'm done, Chair. Thank you very much for your time, Mr Carmody.

Mr Carmody : My pleasure.

ACTING CHAIR: Just to follow up what Senator Patrick said: I think the reason we are both concerned about these regulations is that we've heard from the general aviation sector over a long period that they feel they are being squeezed out of existence by the level of regulation they face. As Senator Patrick said, we could make things a lot safer if everybody stopped flying, but I don't think that's where any of us want to be...

LMH must have had a quiet moment while at the Avalon Airshow?

Via Oz Flying: 

Senate grills CASA over Community Service Flights
27 February 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    
The senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) Legislation Committee last Friday put CASA's new community service regulations under the microscope in a supplementary session of senate estimates.

Senator Rex Patrick and Acting Chairman Slade Brockman sought clarification from CASA CEO Shane Carmody over the new regulations, focusing on the difference between a normal private flight and one organised by a community service organisation such as Angel Flight.
In answering some of the questions, Carmody said that statistically a community service flight (CSF) was "four to five times" more likely to have an accident or incident than a normal private flight, and offered to provide grounded evidence at the next RRAT session marked for 2 April.

Carmody also stated that the new limitations of 400 hours total time, 250 hours in command and no Night VFR were aimed at raising the standards and pointed out that the CASA restrictions were still not as rigid as those applied by some Angel Flight organisations in the USA,
However, Carmody also agreed with Senator Patrick that the new regulations would have only minor impacts of the operations of Angel Flight in Australia.

Senator Patrick took particular issue with the ban on Night VFR operations, querying what made a CSF any different from a normal private flight

"I'm just trying to understand why, where you have someone who is qualified to fly night VFR, I can go to that person and say, in a private way, 'There're two of us in the plane; how about we split the cost of this journey?', Senator Patrick asked.

"I can pitch in for the fuel, pitch in for some of the maintenance costs and pitch in for whatever other costs might be involved in the flight. But my colleague who is ill—with the same pilot, the same aircraft and, in this instance, where someone is assisting with the cost of the fuel—can't do that. I just wonder how you differentiate between—I'm probably less valuable than that person!—two people in exactly the same circumstances from a safety perspective?"

"In that last accident case, I think the drift into night VFR was a consequence of late appointments and what have you," Carmody replied. "Sometimes this happens in the community service flight sector, where someone is flying into the city for an appointment. The appointment gets delayed, something happens and then they're under pressure to get back.

"In this case I think it was a drift into night VFR, but they ran out of time. The pilot would be saying: 'I'm still qualified, so I'll fly in night VFR. I've been flying all day but I'll keep on flying.' We're looking for human factors, decision making, to say, 'Maybe I shouldn't fly night VFR.'"
Senator Patrick also tabled the Angel Flight documentation that showed people accepting CSFs were required to sign a waiver, read a fact sheet and watch a video, which the senator believed negated the duty-of-care factor and showed that passengers were going to into the flight with "eyes wide open", which led to the following exchange.

Mr Carmody: What the document doesn't say is that, in Angel Flight's case, for example, according to our statistics, there's a significantly higher risk of accident or incident flying with Angel Flight than flying privately.

Senator Patrick: I'm going to ask you to table evidence that grounds that statement.

Mr Carmody: We have done our calculations, which have led us to our conclusion. I'm not sure that, even though we've done our work, everyone will agree with it. I'm quite happy to table it or quite happy to do it on notice.
Senator Patrick: That's fine.

Senator Patrick later put CASA on notice that he was expecting to see the statistics CASA was relying on to make their case and how the new regulations would make CSFs as safe as normal private operations.

"Can I just tell you the strategy that my party has done in terms of lodging a disallowance. We have lodged a disallowance in the House. It's really just to send a signal so that people can be prepared and present their case. I will do the same in the Senate when it returns on 2 April.
"I don't want to disallow something, but you've got to make your case. You are the safety authority. You are introducing a regulation that you say is centred on safety. I can't quite see it as it stands. You have now basically said it comes down to the statistics. You are concerned that Angel Flight have more incidents than private pilots [private operations].

"I want to see those statistics and see how these regulations would have altered those statistics to get them back to the place we are with normal pilots' licences."

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...vyel99i.99

Still shake my head over the completely unchallenged load of weasel worded lies and bollocks that emanated from St Carmody's lips in that session - UDB! 





MTF...P2