[Gobbledock]

Nobody special

So that is the mysterious ‘Henwood’? Nothing special by any account, nothing  impressive and nothing noteworthy. Hoody has trotted out another ‘woman’ to face the camera, showing his support for the females of this world and garnishing support from the fem movement. Body language is an interesting subject. I also read some of her  previous ‘reports’. I would hazard a guess and say that she is yet another opinionated narcissist getting a rush from so-called power she has at her fingertips under the Act. She comes across as a bull-dyke with her masculine voice, stoic face, no make-up and male Investigator attire. It’s pretty obvious who the dominating alpha male is in her relationship with her partner. I did note at the beginning she paid attention to straightening the ATsB cap, proudly promoting her sponsor and trying to ensure the alphabet soup agency is imprinted in our mind. I was however surprised that the canary yellow hi-vis vest wasn’t proudly displayed, as per Hoody S.O.P’s? Perhaps they couldn’t find one that fits her??

Overall Dear Henwood, a poor performance but obviously one that you will watch over and over with family and the sisterhood as you no doubt recorded your 30 seconds of TV fame. Your score is 1/10. I give you one point for the not-so-common surname.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

From AOPA Oz Facebook page..

CENTRE ALLIANCE MOVES TO STOP ANGEL FLIGHT WINGS BEING CLIPPED: Disallowance Motions to be lodged to protect Community Service Flights

17 FEBRUARY 2019

Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick has flagged that the party will move next week to disallow new regulations that make it more difficult for a charitable entity such as Angel Flight to organise community service flights.

Angel Flight is a charity which coordinates non-emergency flights to assist country people accessing specialist medical treatment that would otherwise be unavailable to them because of vast distance and high travel costs.

"These flights are often used to take remote and country residents to and from the city for treatments like chemotherapy. These regulations will put these sorts of flights, and the medical treatment they enable, at risk," said Rex.

The new regulations, tabled in the House of Representatives on Thursday, place non-standard flight qualifications and aircraft maintenance requirements on these flights. They also, for no apparent safety reason, prohibit the use of helicopters.

"CASA is an organisation that sadly seems to pride itself in the amount of regulation it imposes on pilots and aircraft operators, rather than working in partnership with industry to achieve safety outcomes," said Rex. "This red-tape growth has served to kill off general aviation over the past decade. General aviation is an essential service for regional and remote areas and is the breeding ground for airline pilots. Australian airlines are already suffering from pilot shortages, these new regulations will only add to the shortage."

The Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport heard evidence on Thursday from the CEO of Alliance Airlines that Australia's Pilot Training Regulation "is about 5 inches thick and the Kiwis is probably half a centimetre". He went on to say that "we have often asked why we just can't pick up the legislation that the New Zealanders have adopted". Asked what the CASA response was, he said "CASA just doesn't care". He testified that every country surrounding Australia has adopted the New Zealand legislation and they all send their aircraft to New Zealand for overhaul and repair.

"CASA's regulation growth disease is now being imposed on Angel Flight," said Rex. "While I recognise the need for high safety standards for community service flights, these new regulations will only make these flights safer by virtue of the fact that there will be fewer flights."

CASA licences private pilots and regulates aircraft maintenance standards so that private flights are safe. The only difference between a private flight with a passenger and a community service flight is that the reason for a private flight is likely to be more optional than a community service flight.

Angel Flight takes requests from health professionals, assesses whether the requested flight is within its capabilities, fully briefs the passenger on the flight arrangements and the risks, has the passenger watch a video explaining the service and then asks them to acknowledge that they understand the risks as presented to them. Angel Flight also has their own self-imposed minimum standards for pilots and aircraft.

"CASA is trying to fix something that isn't broken. It has acknowledged that while there have been two recent accidents with community service flights, neither of them would have been avoided if these new regulations were in place."

It should also be noted that these new regulations were rushed. They did not go through CASA's usual consultation processes. "These proposed changes should have been work-shopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before the new regulations were issued," Rex said.

"It is my view that the Parliament will now have to do the work of CASA, starting with questions at Estimates this week, but it is likely that the RRAT Committee will have to more properly examine the changes."

Rebekha Sharkie MP will move a disallowance motion in the House next week to put CASA on notice. Senator Patrick will also move a disallowance in the Senate when it returns in April.

https://rex.centrealliance.org.au/…/cent...e-moves-…/

*** SHARE THIS POST ***

NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

[Kharon]

A quiet evening whimsy.

Been in the stable all day, at the workbench, restoring an ancient (and I do mean old) Grandfather clock; it is thing of great beauty and some wonder. The craftsmanship is superb and I have learned a few new ‘shortcuts’ from the old masters (cheats if you like) – clever fellahs. They of course used the ‘animal hide glue’ which, in itself, is an art form. Totally absorbing – anyway; the glue is setting nicely and the clamps and cramps are all square; so nothing to do but watch the glue dry - with an Ale to keep me company, while a gentle, cooling breeze stirs the dust motes into patterns in the evening sunlight – perfect.

Stray thoughts slip into and out of focus; some humorous enough to warrant a chuckle, some frivolous and whimsical, some down right scary and others which seem to tug at a string ringing a deeply seated small bell. AOPA, Angel Flight and CASA is one such bell and it keeps on ringing. Idly, without too much mental effort I allow the whole story to unfold without any questioning or examination – “just the facts Ma’am”.

Looked at prosaically, it seems to be a veritable storm in a tea cup – commonplace enough occurrence. Yet it has stirred up political shit storm; a conga line of politicians all ready to knock seven bells out of the CASA. What could be the motivation for this sudden swell of ‘political’ interest? The easy answer is that with an election just around the corner every vote will count; a cynic would be content with such an answer, for it certainly ticks the top row of boxes. But, I wonder – dare we push the thinking out a little further than it all being a shallow vote getter. There’s a BRB argument which will run the whole night. But, not tonight.

Here’s the thing – I’ve met and ‘chatted’ with a few of the parliamentarian stripe; many seem to have a deep understanding of the ailments affecting matters aeronautical. Many have a story or two to tell and those took no pains to hide their contempt of both ATSB and CASA, not that they ever will publically acknowledge that. Furry Muff – rice bowls, constituents, party line and ‘other’ business to take care of first. Perhaps AF is the perfect storm, the tip of the arrow which allows things unspoken of to emerge. Who knows – certainly not I. But it is an interesting proposition for quiet evening whimsy. And yet.

The argument falls down in round 1. If you put aside the never ending wrangle over the regulatory disaster; the government sanctioned autocracy and ministerial protection racket – what’s left on the table? Accidents, or near accidents is what. There is an incredible number of ‘potential’ aviation disasters which have been ‘glossed over’. Why then have the politico’s not dived into those potential disasters and whipped up public concern for ‘safety’? Let’s face it – Neither Qantas nor Virgin can fly without fuel (they wish), that little show at Mildura was a close enough call for anyone. Rex courted disaster with an innocent coal loader, Virgin ran about the country side with a seriously defective aircraft for a while; etc. Nary a fart in the general direction of ‘public safety concern from the political heavies after any of those very close shaves. Then we arrive at the Essendon DFO accident.

It all leaves me wondering why the ‘Conga line’ of politicians are running red-hot and panting to oppose one of the most fatuous, inutile, emotional smoke screens ever mounted by an autocracy which will move heaven and earth (not Hell – the boss won’t allow it) to avoid reformation of the Air Navigation Act and righteous inquiry into the absolute pigs ear they made of the ‘new’ regulations. Huh?

Aye, 'tis all passing strange to me – however; my glass is empty, the whimsy has waned and, there’s dinner to eat – best get a refill. “Let’s eat” the dogs most beloved command – strange; you never have to teach a dog about that. Heigh Ho.

Toot - toot

[Gobbledock]

OF DICKS AND GOBBLES

I did a fair amount of relaxed reading today; looking at our Act, along with the British version and of course New Zealand’s version. NZ words it pretty well. Their charter is detailed and covers, in part, economics of industry as a consideration. It’s worth a read and is too big to cut and paste here.

Dicks recommendation to changing the wording of the Act is as follows;

“CASA must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation that is consistent with;
(a) Maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation
industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector
(b) The need for more people to benefit from civil aviation

I’m happy with that. It’s an improvement and a huge step forward.

To add a little more seasoning; here is MY VERSION;
 
“CASA commits to achieving the highest level of safety in air navigation that is consistent with;
1. Maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation
industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector;
2. The need for more people to benefit from civil aviation;
3. Partnering with industry when considering the needs or changes to the safety, economical, and technological structure of the current and future Australian aviation system.

In short, there must be a change to the way Aviation is viewed by the Australian Governments bureaucracy, CAsA. We are not illegitimate criminals seeking to break the law of the Commonwealth at every breathing minute. There must be a change to the Act and strict liability. The CAsA machine has outlived its purpose. It is a dinosaur, a Cold War relic that does not measure up today’s standards on any continent. The likes of Carmody and Aleck have, and are, destroying a vital element of Australia. They do it without remorse, without recompense, without reason and without accountability. It must stop now!

By contrast, and for those that do not know, as an aviation industry, who are we?Well, we are;
- business owners,
- law adhering safety professionals,
- sons, fathers and grandfathers,
- safety focused,
- entrepreneurs,
- taxpaying, wealth creating, industry growing contributors to the Australian economy
- reformers, innovators, repairers, leaders,
- generous, self sacrificing, loyal and reasonable

Yes, that is who we are. We are contributors to what is Australia. We deserve the respect, support and acknowledgement of being exactly that. As Dick has mentioned, to exit the 1960’s and move forward into the future the Government must CHANGE THE ACT!!!

[Cap'n Wannabe]

From Senator Rex Patrick's fb page..

ANGEL FLIGHTS UNDER THREAT

So, you’ve just found out you have cancer. You’ve caught it in time though. There’s a good chance that a course of chemotherapy will deal with it. The problem is, you live in Ceduna and there is significant cost involved in flying to Adelaide or considerable time and uncomfortableness (noting chemo can be quite disruptive) in driving there and back, a 14 hour round trip, multiple times.

That’s where Angel Flight comes in. They have a register of pilots who donate their time, and indeed their own money, to help regional and remote residents get to and from appointments by air. Angel Flight takes requests from health professionals, assesses whether the requested flight is within its capabilities, fully briefs the passenger on the flight arrangements and the risks, has the passenger watch a video explaining the service and then asks them to acknowledge that they understand the risks as presented to them. Angel Flight also has their own self-imposed minimum standards for pilots and aircraft.

Government agency CASA is trying to fix something that isn't broken by introducing new regulations that will effectively stop Angel Flight from carrying out its operations. Angel Flight has acknowledged that while there have been two accidents with community service flights (out of 46,000 flights), neither of them would have been avoided if these new regulations were in place.

It should also be noted that these new regulations from CASA were rushed. They did not go through CASA's usual consultation processes. These proposed changes should have been work-shopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before the new regulations were issued.

My colleague Rebekha Sharkie MP and I will move a disallowance motion in the House and Senate respectively so that the Parliament is forced to properly consider the new regulations.

[P7_TOM]

Good on ya both.

Patrick & Sharkie – “My colleague Rebekha Sharkie MP and I will move a disallowance motion in the House and Senate respectively so that the Parliament is forced to properly consider the new regulations.”

Patrick – “These proposed changes should have been work-shopped by industry and the submissions properly evaluated, and a safety risk analysis conducted and released, before the new regulations were issued.”

'Bout time someone caught on. Not only – but also. Two of the silliest, damaging, no safety merit ‘laws have by-passed ‘the parliamentary system’; sailed through - unhindered. Part 61 for example and 135 for another; when you actually work through those two steaming piles – try Part 142 (Qantas tearing their hair out) and CAO 48.1. corporate crew spending more time working out whether they are in compliance than flight planning – go figure……The parliamentary rubber stamp at work because everyone is too busy to bother debating important rule changes; rules which affect an industry, public safety and the GDP.

At least Patrick et al are having a go, I wish ‘em well. Their problem is which ‘expert’ to believe and finding the time required to delve into the unholy mess CASA have left in the wake of a $400, 000, 000 feeding frenzy and a thirty+ year life of ease while the likes of Weeks parcelled up a thing like Part 61.

The incumbent minister is tied (securely) to his CASA appointed minder. The fact that the ‘minder’ only repeats that which is spoon fed to him, in small pieces, by the inner sanctum of CASA don’t bear thinking about – perhaps it’s time Fawcett weighed in and gave Patrick a helping hand, and Sterle worked out how to shut the fool O’Sofullofit down – life is too short Glenn.

Wow! A new glass has just been placed in front of me – must be time for the IOS v BRB grudge match to start, it’s two rubbers each and the game is best of three. Best I find my darts, put away the lap top and limber up. Cheers.

[Peetwo]

Latest on CASA embuggerance of Angel Flight - 

From Ben Morgan, via AOPA Oz on YouTube:

I note that today the Rebekha Sharkie 'disallowance motion' notice was tabled in the House of Reps...  

Ref: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...%2F0000%22
 

Notice given for Tuesday, 19 February 2019

      *1    MS SHARKIE : To move—That the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, made under regulation 11.068 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 on 12 February 2019 and presented to the House on 14 February 2019, be disallowed.
              ( Notice given 18 February 2019. Instrument will be taken to have been disallowed unless disposed of within 15 sittings days, including today. )

Finally CASA are to appear at a spillover hearing on Friday:

---

IMO one of the best bit of news for Friday's spillover hearing with CASA is that apparently Barry Obfuscation will be otherwise engaged...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Miniscule McDo'Naught WOFTAM amendment to the Civil Aviation Act - Part II

Reference:

Senate thread reference:

A hopeful Hansard -  

Addendum to last:  Answer to QON addressed to Norton White at 15/02/19 Senate Spring Hill public hearing (see: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...d54d50078a )

Judicial decisions requiring urgent legislative attention

In this paper we outline:

• two judicial decisions that have, in the opinion of the aviation industry, had significant and
unintended consequences on air operators and require urgent legislative attention; and
• our recommendation as to how the Commonwealth Government can remedy the issues
created by these decisions.

1. Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 2

---

This case concerned the prosecution of Outback Ballooning, a hot air balloon operator based in Alice
Springs, under sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT)
(the NT WHS Act).

A passenger was unfortunately killed when her scarf was caught in an inflation fan as she was boarding
the balloon. The NT Work Health Authority alleged that Outback Ballooning breached its duty of care
under the NT WHS Act through its failure to eliminate or minimise risks to embarking passengers.
The question before the High Court was whether or not the NT WHS Act was inconsistent with the
Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act 1988 (which imposes its own very specific regulatory regime
conformably with the Chicago Convention for the safety of air navigation) and therefore inapplicable.

The Court, by majority, found that sections 19 and 32 of the NT WHS Act are not inconsistent with the
Commonwealth civil aviation regime. The effect of this decision is that aircraft operators and airlines
are now subject to both:

• Commonwealth laws in relation to aviation safety; and
• State and Territory laws (including occupational health and safety laws).

Aviation safety worldwide depends on uniformity. This is recognised by the Chicago Convention,
which sets out international standards and practices for the safety of civil aviation. Australia is a
signatory to the Chicago Convention. The importance of international uniformity in safety standards
for civil aviation is recognised in the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act, which by section 11 requires
that CASA perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Chicago Convention. The High Court
majority decision undermines Australia’s obligations pursuant to the Chicago Convention and also
uniformity of safety standards. State and Territory Workplace Safety Regulators, unlike CASA, are not
obliged by legislation to act in a manner consistent with the Chicago Convention.

The risk of subjecting air operators to a multitude of non-uniform laws was addressed by Justice
Edelman in dissent:

“…it would be surprising, confusing, and potentially dangerous if the Civil Aviation Law were
to have the effect that the rules of the air on a flight from Darwin to Melbourne, via Sydney,
could be regulated not merely by the comprehensive and uniform rules policed by the
Commonwealth Civil Aviation Safety Authority ("CASA"), but also, depending upon the
airspace, by separate and different rules policed by the Work Health Authority and its
inspectors in the Northern Territory, or regulators in New South Wales and Victoria.”

Justice Edelman argued that an exclusive civil aviation regime is necessary to achieve a uniform
national safety regime and rules of the air.

The decision is also likely to add to costs for air operators who will be required to comply with up to 9
sets of safety laws (that may not be consistent) and deal with safety regulators in each State and
Territory in addition to CASA. The maximum penalty for a corporation for a breach of workplace health
and safety legislation can be up to $1.8 million in Western Australia and $1.5 million in other States
and Territories.

Recommendation: As this is a decision of the High Court, it can only be rectified if the
Commonwealth Parliament amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) to include an express statement
of legislative intention that the Civil Aviation Act and its Regulations are intended to cover the field in
respect of the safety of civil aviation.

2. Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd (2012) 207 FCR 357

---

In Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd, CASA cancelled Caper’s AOC on the basis that Caper
was providing regular passenger transport (RPT) when its AOC only permitted charter and aerial work
operations. Caper appealed to the Federal Court.

The case turned on the classification of air operations as either charter or RPT under regulation 206 of
the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (the Regulations):

• Charter operations are defined in regulation 206(b) as:

(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than
carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals;
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of
passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the
accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally.

• RPT operations are defined in regulation 206© as: transporting persons generally, or
transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules
to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places
between terminals.

Caper’s AOC authorised charter flights between Darwin and Bathurst Island. Caper had an
arrangement with a tourist operator (AAT Kings) who chartered Caper’s aircraft for AAT’s tours from
Darwin to Bathurst Island. Only people on the AAT tour were permitted to travel on the aircraft. The
flights operated to fixed schedules between fixed terminals and persons seeking transport on the
flights were referred by Caper to AAT. CASA cancelled Caper’s authorisation to conduct the flights on
the ground that the flights were, in reality, RPT flights and not charter flights.

The Federal Court looked at the concept of ‘closed charters’ in Regulation 206(b)(ii) and found that
the words ‘persons generally’ referred to the general public, so the test for a closed charter was
whether or not travel on the flight was offered to the public at large. In other words - if the flight was
available to the general public then it was an RPT operation.

The Court found that the Caper air operation was available to the general public because the
advertised offer of the flight, albeit bundled with the tour, was made to any member of the public who
wished to join the tour.

This decision had significant ramifications for the use of charter flights to access remote locations for
tourism flights as well as essential services such as regular medical appointments. It created confusion
over the classification of operations which had long been operated safely as charter flights. The fact
that these operations now required RPT authorisation meant that many could not meet the stringent
regulations governing RPT operations and had to withdraw flight services.

The distinction between charter and RPT operations will be removed from the Civil Aviation Safety
Regulations 1998 when the new Part 119 (which deals with the issuing of Air Operator’s Certificates
to Australian operators) and the suite of regulations that set the minimum acceptable standards for
large aeroplanes (Part 121) and small aeroplanes (Part 135) come into effect into effect in 2021. These
regulations include a new classification of operations as Air Transport Operations, dispensing with the
distinction between charter and RPT and creating a single standard for carriage of passengers and
cargo for hire or reward.

CASA has stated that the new regulations are intended to provide graduated requirements
proportionate to the risk.

Recommendation: It is critical that CASA consults and works closely with industry on the
development of the Manual of Standards for the new classification to:

• ensure appropriate levels of regulation apply to each type of flight operation; and
• avoid adverse impacts on air access to remote communities.

In light of the above Norton White recommendations it is a 'passing strange' coincidence that today our absolutely useless, NFI, non-identity miniscule McDo'Naught has seemingly rushed through a total wet lettuce amendment to the Act...  

 

5CIVIL AVIATION AMENDMENT BILL 2019

Mr McCormack (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development), pursuant to notice, presented a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to civil aviation, and for related purposes.

Document

Mr McCormack presented an explanatory memorandum to the bill.

Bill read a first time.


- 10:57:49 AM
Mr McCormack moved—That the bill be now read a second time.


- 11:00:36 AM
Debate adjourned (Ms O’Neil), and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.

  

Comments in reply to BM's AOPA Oz FB post...  

Gary Gould - “So the government intends to ensure that all future rules created by the Regulator will be regulated by a new rule as put forward by this proposed Bill” Brilliant! Sir Humphrey would be proud.

---

Ian Tucker - Looks like a press statement written by CASA spin doctors ....“Australia has an outstanding aviation safety record thanks to our strong regulatory framework and the excellent work of CASA" ..... Should read "despite CASA" . May be a good first step but given CASAs recent underhanded introduction of unnecessary regulation of Community Service Flights they will give lip service to any requirement to consider the economic impact of any future regulation. Don't trust CASA !!!

---

Tony Cleeton - Oh another review. Yawn. It’ll have the same outcome and nothing will change!

---

Peter Phillips - Trouble with CASA as they are a law onto their own! Mates for mates protecting each to keep their cushy useless jobs! Corruption is rife right thru out our Govt!

---

Ian Carfrae - Too little too late

---

Stan Nowakowski - What gobbledegook is this?

---

Steve Curtis - Empty skies are safe skies.

---

Randal Mcf - More fake government news I feel

---

Steve Fenech - In the very best (worst) traditions of Yes Minister the muppets at CASA have again succeed in covering their arses and ensuring their ongoing irrelevance to an already overburdened industry. Well done (not), scumbags.

And for Lead Balloon's (aka Creampuff; aka Clinton McKenzie) take on the DPM's WOFTAM announcement...  

Civil Aviation Bill 2019 - We’re Saved!

---

Don’t fall for it, Dick!

The Bill is here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...gml%2Edocument)

If it does get passed in its present terms, it will do one thing and one thing only. It will add this to the end of section 9A, with my holding:
Quote:

(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)©, CASA must: 


(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and

(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.

Subsection (1) would continue to say, with my holding:

Quote:

In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

It doesn’t matter what wonderful things you add to 9A, if they are all subject to subsection (1). It is subsection (1) that is trotted out by CASA to justify whatever damage CASA wants to inflict. You could add a subsection (4) that says CASA must simplify the regulatory structure, but if it, too, were “subject to subsection (1)” there will remain the ‘out’: “This complexity is in the interests of the safety of air navigation (just because CASA says so), and that’s the most important consideration.”

Note also that in any event the new subsection applies only to developing and promulgating standards but not to, for example, the making of an instrument imposing conditions on pilots’ licences effectively banning them from conducting community service flights. 

And what is the difference between an “economic” impact and a “cost” impact? 

What about the social impact of, for example, strangling community service flights? Or the social impact of strangling Australia’s capacity to train sufficient pilots to meet local demand? 

It is in my view the usual political stunt leading up to an election.

Please don’t fall for it, Dick.

  
And LeadSled in reply:

Quote:


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon 

Don’t fall for it, Dick!

It is in my view the usual political stunt leading up to an election.

Please don’t fall for it, Dick.

Lead Balloon,


I can assure you, Dick has not fallen for it, he is absolutely ropeable ----- because NOTHING has effectively changed.

As for any "consultation" ---- this in no way even goes close to what was agreed by Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese, with Dick's help.

In my opinion, McCormack has been as thoroughly captured by the "Department" and CASA as any Minister ever has.

This is the "reform" you have when you are not having reform.

Tootle pip!!

PS: This the first reading, if this ever see the light of day after the election, I will be most surprised.

MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

How can we support AOPA?

The two main vocal advocates to stand up to the machinations of CAsA and it’s foolishness ate Dick Smith and Ben Morgan. I was wondering if AOPA would consider making their trademark polo neck shirts available for non-members to purchase, with some of those profits going towards potentially fighting CAsA or funding candidates in upcoming elections and so on?? There are a number of us non-engineering dudes and dudettes that would be proud to display the logo and support the cause.

Gobbledock

[Peetwo]

AOPA Oz's Chris Smyth has got a point? -    


Via aopa.com.au:

AOPA AUSTRALIA'S CHRIS SMYTH PONDERS IRRATIONAL CASA REGULATION REGARDING COMMUNITY SERVICE FLIGHTS



Right now in the USA, residents of Nebraska are being impacted by record flooding. This has rendered road transportation impossible. A large relief effort is now underway – assisted by the general aviation private pilot community.

CNN is currently reporting that private pilots in Nebraska are providing flights to stranded residents affected by the flooding. These flights are being funded entirely by a Go Fund Mecampaign. The campaign is giving private pilots, who are ferrying stranded residents, the funds to cover fuel, aircraft hire and other costs. Even pilots with relatively low hours are ferrying passengers across the floodwaters, helping support what is becoming known as ‘the Nebraska GA Airlift effort’.

The Nebraska GA airlift is a pertinent example of the aviation industry’s community spirit and the genuine utility of general aviation aircraft and pilots. At a time of crisis, the Nebraska community have been gifted a vital lifeline from a sector of the community that are often desperately fighting for the protection of airports and aviation infrastructure.


Appreciative passengers on a GA community service flight in Nebraska, USA. Image Source: CNN

Image Source: CNN

However, when similar crisis situations develop in Australia, private pilots cannot help in the same manner without breaking the law.

In Australia, flood-relief community flights of this type would not be legal. Under the current CASA regulations, private pilots cannot advertise upcoming flights on public forums (such as Facebook and other social media channels) and they must share the cost of any flights with passengers. Pilots cannot be reimbursed for their flights by a third-party – such as a crowd-fund campaign.

Why can’t qualified Australian general aviation private pilots with current licences, current medicals and airworthy aircraft use their skills, qualifications and aircraft to provide the community with desperately needed transportation at times of crisis?
The Australian aviation regulator, CASA, has got it wrong and things need to change.

As I write, the Northern Territory island community of Groote Eylandt and residents of Borroloola are being evacuated ahead of Cyclone Trevor, which is expected to make landfall later tonight. It’s the biggest pre-cyclone evacuation in the Northern Territory’s history. The evacuation is being conducted by the Australian Air Force.


The Groote Eylandt community being airlifted to Darwin, Northern Territory.

Tropical Cyclone Trevor is a category four cyclone and will leave a massive path of destruction in its wake. The wind damage will be bad enough, but the flooding that follows, due to the significant rain from the monsoonal trough, will compound the situation significantly.  Trevor is expected to impact areas right across the NT, from the Gulf of Carpentaria as far as Alice Springs. There will be widespread flooding. Communities will be isolated.

Tropical Cyclone Trevor’s Forecast Path

Braving the high-winds, rain and flooding is one thing, but it’s the weeks of isolation and the clean-up that the affected communities need to brace themselves for. It will take a great deal of government and community support to repair the expected damage that the wind and rain will cause.

In the wake of Cyclone Trevor, why shouldn’t private pilots be able to donate their time and aircraft to members of the NT community stranded in a crisis? Why can’t the wider Australian community support these flights via a crowd-fund campaign?

The value of the Australian General Aviation industry simply isn’t being realised. It’s being held back because of out-of-date regulation. Now more than ever Australia needs general aviation regulation reform.

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Chinese takeover of Australian aviation - 

Via 2GB:

---

‘It’s happening everywhere’: China buying Australian flying schools

8 HOURS AGO
ALAN JONES
 

China is buying up Australian pilot training schools.

Virgin Australia is currently in talks with a Chinese conglomerate to open a flight school in Tamworth for both Chinese and Australian pilots.

Businessman and aviation expert, Dick Smith tells Alan Jones he’s seeing continued Chinese ownership across the entire Australian aviation industry.

Mr Smith claims “it’s happening everywhere” with a Bankstown flying school the latest to be snapped up by a Chinese company.

The entrepreneur says there is already a shortage of airline pilots across Australia because “our training industry is nearly completely destroyed” and fears Australian pilots will be shut out of foreign-owned flight schools.

Mr Smith says many of these Chinese owned flying schools are failing to train Australian pilots, claiming “they’ll say an Australian pilot can comply but if you look it’s just about all Chinese pilots.”

Click PLAY below to listen to the full interview

https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-bre...tyle=cover

CEO of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Ben Morgan tells Ben Fordham local businesses simply can’t compete with Chinese overinvestment.


“Australian aviation has now become uneconomic and the future for flight training in this country is one that will be controlled by Chinese national businesses.



“Australia is for sale. Throw the ‘For Sale’ sign up and invite your Chinese interested parties.”


Click PLAY below to hear the full interview

https://omny.fm/shows/ben-fordham-full-s...tyle=cover

---

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Arghh!  - Duck this for a game of soldiers; it’s Pony-pooh.

Steam ON GD crank it up………….>

I’m not altogether certain if this ‘whisper’ is accurate or not. But, FWIW I hear that the Chinese pilots only ‘qualify’ to a very basic standard – restricted PPL – which is about the bottom of the ladder – then they only train to qualify for their Chinese qualification, nothing whatsoever to do with 'Australian' license after that.. The reason being touted is  that the Australian ‘standard’ is so out of touch with reality that they have no use for the qualification – as it don’t signify in their world as worth the trouble. Say’s it all – if true; as stated – a whisper.

I actually like the Chinese; second generation Australian Chinese are amongst the best folk we have here – G’day Bill and the kids. But, they do look after their own, rightly so IMO. If the Chinese government are prepared to directly address their own needs; and, Australian flying schools want to sell – due to the total lack of government support, in any form; and, allow CASA to decimate the few shreds of what used to world class ‘Australian’ pilot standards; then I say good luck to ‘em. What CASA have done to the morale and health of aviation in this country is diabolical. Safety in the air translated into safety from prosecution. It is bullshit; government supported, tax payer funded bullshit.

While I’m at it – there is no real shortage of ‘senior’ pilots. I could in a heartbeat put together a crew of half a dozen – about 100,000 hours of experience amongst them, who could fill in many gaps in the ranks. No one wants them. It is particularly galling when check and training shortages are a real fact of life; lots of ‘kids’ to train – but the CASA whisper mill and audit threat keeps some very experienced aviators unemployed and almost unemployable.

I say well done the Chinese government; shame on the Australian government for hiding their fat heads in the sand and ignoring what the experts in the industry have been saying for the last two decades.

Reform the bloody disgusting regulator; get someone in to run the show who actually knows what must be done; clean out the parasites and follow the NZ example. Believe me, it will in both the long and the short run save this nation embarrassment, time, trouble and money.

Hire some real professionals – get it sorted and make the Australian flying industry ‘respectable’ again.

Rant over – but, FDS, how much longer can we bump along the bottom like this.

Aye, it makes me cranky.

Toot (slightly exasperated) toot.

[Kharon]

Ben Morgan - talks to Credlin.

Bravo Ben, thank you Sky News.

HERE.

[Peetwo]

Ben Morgan - talks to Credlin - Youtube version.

Via AOPA Oz: 

[Kharon]

Bluff, Bullshit and Rhetoric.

I thought AOPA had called for full steam; damn the guns and were gearing up for a full frontal attack. Perhaps there is a cunning plan:-

Before the dance begins, it is usual for the orchestra to play a couple of introductory bars; perhaps that is what we are hearing. It is to be hoped that the boys don’t get bashful and the ladies go all coy; that would spoil the fun of the thing. It’s almost like a brawl – you are either in it to win it; or you need a taxi. I reckon Morgan has kicked off a dust up; and, like it or like it not, the gauntlet has been picked up. You can only depend on bluff and bluster for so long. Real fighters don’t do much in the way of ‘rhetoric’ – they get it done as fast as possible. CASA is, despite the bad press, a serious heavyweight contender and victorious veteran of many serious punch-ups; get tangled up with ‘em you’ll find out, fairly smartly, that hair pulling and bitch slapping don’t matter a hoot. It’s a slugfest: and, if you believe bringing a knife to a gun fight is a silly idea; then you must consider your options carefully. Taking on CASA as a publicity stunt is one thing, although not recommended for long term well being. You have to mean it and you need facts to back up your call; even then, you’ll need a sponsor, a support network, a shed load of the green stuff and a good medical team in the wings.

Taking on CASA with a bowl of rice pudding is like try to shove a wet noodle up a Tigers posterior orifice –

Toot – toot. - (Well, I'm over it - ain't I).

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight Embuggerance Update - 12/04/19.

Reference:

Senator PATRICK: Just so everyone is aware of what I've tabled, it's the Angel Flight
flight request documentation.

ACTING CHAIR: We're happy to table that.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. It has a fact sheet, instructions, guidelines for referrals,
medical clearances, passenger guidelines, waivers and a release of liability. I'm
informed-and I have no reason to doubt this-that, before you can jump on one of these
flights as a person seeking to fly to Adelaide to have chemo, you also have to have
watched a video that takes you through the process and talks you through the risks of
what it is you're getting into. The duty of care thing is, in some sense, negated by the
fact that you have someone who has had to sign up to a waiver, read through the fact
sheet and watch a video. They're going in with eyes open.

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 then 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.

Finally the AQON for Q127 addressed to CASA at the Additional Estimates has been tabled: 

Download question with answer 
Answer Attachment 

• QoN127 Attachment.pdf
  

Answered Date 
10/04/2019

---

Still pinching myself that St Carmody & Co. are honestly trying to pass that load bollocks up as justification for the attempted embuggerance of Angel Flight - UDB!  

Here is the Oz Flying summary on that insult to intelligence...  

 

Community Service Accidents: the CASA Data
11 April 2019
Comments 1 Comment
    
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week presented data to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) that it says supports its claim that community services flights are a greater risk than regular private flights.

According to the data tabled, for the period 2008-2017 there were four community service flights (CSF) that resulted in accidents from a total of 17,750 flight hours, resulting in an accident rate per 10,000 hours of 2.25.

The figures for private, business and sport aviation across the same period show 537 accidents in 3.5 million hours, a rate of 1.53 per 10,000 hours.
"[CASA] has compared Community Service Flight (CSF) data with that for the private and business flying sector using material from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)," CASA said in its reponse to a question from the Centre Alliance's Senator Rex Patrick.

"CASA has undertaken this analysis separate to the ATSB investigation process. The data and analysis is not derived from the ATSB investigation [ATSB investigation AO-2017-069], which is still in draft. The greater accident rate of CSF raises the issue of managing the safe operation of these flights that may carry passengers unaware of the apparent elevated risk.

"Assessment of the accident and incident rates for CSF and private/business/sports (excluding gliding) over the past 10 years (2008 to 2017) indicates:

• the CSF accident rate is 1.5 times higher than that for private/business/sports
  
• the CSF fatal accident rate is 5.4 times that for private/business/sports."
  

Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani has disputed CASA's statistical analysis.

"CASA has relied on BITRE data," Pagani told Australian Flying. "They didn’t start collecting CSF data until 2014, with no definition as to what that meant. CASA defined that term only this year.

"In the three years they rely upon (2015-17) there were only an average of 46 respondents to the [BITRE] survey. In those years alone we averaged 273 aircraft being active for us. We have given all our flight numbers to CASA and updated them several times.

"We have also sworn to them in our affidavit in court."

Angel Flight is disputing the veracity of the CASA analysis on several grounds, one of which is the total number of flying hours used to arrived at the risk rate.

"They [CASA] know we have done 46,000 flights," Pagani said. "To attribute to us 17,500 hours over nine years is laughable ... clearly done to fudge the figures."

Angel Flight's statistical analysis found that there is no significant difference statistically between fatal accidents in CSFs and regular private flights. However, it does concede that there is a significant variation in all accidents, but cautions against interpreting the data as meaning that Angel Flight is more unsafe because it doesn't take into account the context.

The statisticians that compiled the analysis also found that the CASA data includes a mis-match in time period between the CSF and the regular private flight figures, which may potentially put the conclusions in error.

Angel Flight has indicated that they will progress legal action to have CASA's new CSF regulations struck out, and the new rules are still subject to disallowance motions in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. However, these motions will have to be resubmitted in the new parliament.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Me0MpKo.99

MTF...P2 

Ps 2 x AQON where the subject matter was the AF embuggerance: 

QON 126 Download question

QON 128 Download question

[thorn bird]

Well I guess it will be fun if K runs a book on who buys a new luxury car when all the dust settles after this.
Wingnut looks like a BMW man to me.

[P7_TOM]

Nah! Commode in a Beemer? No way, not with an arse that size – never fit, even if he could get his head in the door. A Benz stands a chance – but why would he sully his cool by driving? There are Com Cars available 24/7 for the high rollers. One can push a button on a smart (encrypted) phone and have a driver plus an immaculate government vehicle at your location within minutes. Eat your heart out Uber. To talk about a Skoda mentality driving a Beemer is sacrilege. Don’t ya know SAFTEY is paramount! Can you imagine the ‘in’s and out’s’ of any Commode driven ‘bingle’? The whole might, judicial and political influence of CASA would be evoked to convince all and sundry, that the blind fellah, legally crossing at the lights was a danger to navigation. And yes, CASA could make it stick. Commode don’t drive – he can’t see but 10 yards ahead of his ego.

Hah – Beemer indeed. Thorny, let’s us have an Ale so you can have a reality check – you silly boy……..

[Peetwo]

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia

---

AOPA AUSTRALIA SPEAKS WITH PRIME7 FROM TOWNSVILLE

Over regulation of Australia’s aviation industry is driving broad declines in general aviation charter and flight training which is placing enormous pressure on regional RPT operators. Add to this the uncontrolled rises in airport access costs as a result of airport privatisation - all conspiring to drive up the costs of air travel to record highs.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AOPA Oz comes out firing on proposed Gong Stack - 

Via AOPA Oz:

FROM ENERGY AUSTRALIA EXHAUST STACK
May 22, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan reports.


The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia will attend the next NSW RAPAC meeting on Tuesday, 28th May 2019, to put forward it’s opposition to the proposed Energy Australia Tallawarra B Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) and associated exhaust stack, which if approved will be erected just 2.57nm NNE of the Wollongong Illawarra Regional Airport (YWOL) emitting a high-temperature gas plume that will breach the OLS and impact circuit operations.

A background investigation by AOPA Australia has found that Energy Australia has an alternate engineering solution that would satisfactorily mitigate the risk to aviation safety, yet has resolved to install a cheaper and faster to build Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT), rather than a more environmentally friendly Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT), which would capture the 5420C exhaust plume and convert the energy into electricity.

The proposed OCGT and exhaust plume has been assessed by CASA and Airservices Australia to negatively impact the safety of circuit operations at YWOL when using RWY 16/34, which require operations to the east of the airport to avoid rising terrain on the west and south side, creating a situation where aircraft will be required fly through the gas plume during the crosswind leg or downwind turn (RWY 34), or during the downwind leg or base turn (RWY 16), exposing pilots to a gas plume with turbulence.  The proposal will also negatively impact the RNAV-Z (GNSS) RWY16, requiring the published minima to be raised to accommodate the OCGT facility.

AOPA Australia is greatly concerned with the gas plume turbulence modelling used to support the proposal, worried that it has not adequately taken into account the increasing utilisation of light sport and recreational aircraft types at YWOL that are more significantly affected by light and moderate turbulence that can result in loss of control.

Just two years after the Essendon Airport tragedy, it appears that history is about to repeat itself, with clearly incompatible development being prioritised ahead of the safety of the aviation community.  Profits ahead of aviation safety – or just plain stupidity?



Summary of AOPA Australia’s concerns;

1. AOPA Australia is aware that Energy Australia has a suitable engineering alternative that would entirely eliminate all safety risks to aircraft arriving, departing or circuiting YWOL, yet has determined to build a cheaper solution that negatively impacts on aviation activities;
   
2. We are concerned that CASA appear to be making safety compromises that are focused on achieving financial outcomes for Energy Australia, placing the safety of aviation users behind the interests of profit.  CASA’s primacy is to protect and safeguard aviation;
   
3. The proposal clearly degrades aviation safety standards at YWOL, directly affecting the safe conduct of aircraft arriving and departing, forcing the creation of non-standard circuit operations;
   
4. The exhaust stack plume clearly violates the YWOL OLS and represents an obvious hazard to safe aviation;
   
5. We are concerned that the exhaust plume turbulence modelling conducted to support the proposal did not adequately take into account the increasing utilisation of light sport and recreational aircraft types at YWOL that are more significantly affected by light and moderate turbulence, that can result in loss of control;
   
6. We are concerned that the proposal has been consulted between CASA, Airservices Australia and Energy Australia for several years, yet there has been no genuine consultation with aviation community stakeholders; and
   
7. We are concerned that this proposal should be afforded full national RAPAC and industry consultation, as it’s approval sets a national precedent.
   

---

WE NEED YOUR HELP
AOPA Australia members are invited to download our letter of support, sign, scan
and return by email to: mail@aopa.com.au.   All letters of support must be received no later than 10am, Tuesday 28th May 2019.

MTF...P2 

Ps A relevant AP thread post reference - 

Non-compliance with ICAO Annex 14 - Part III.