[Gobbledock]

DEPARTMENT OF MUSHROOMS AND INCOMPETENT TROUGH SWILLERS

Thanks P2, you sure know how to poke the Gobbledock bear. And here is the moneyshot;

“The Parliamentary Library, who I have the greatest respect for, wrote back to us on 28 March and said: 'Short answer: claims about pilot shortages have been made widely for the last 10 to 15 years.'—yes, we've heard that—'There is no evidence that a shortage currently exists in Australia or overseas.”

And there you have it. These overpaid, under qualified, obsfucating carbuncles have absolutely no idea. This is the greatest admission of a disconnection from reality you will see. A bunch of archaic overpaid bureaucratic pen pushers sitting in plush offices and listening to only the words CAsA and the Murky Mandarins spin.

Dear Fu#kwits,

Get away from your mahogany desks and take a stroll in the real world. I know I know, it may be a little bit scary, but if you travel in groups you will be safe.

Tick Tock

P7 - "Choc Frog GD."

[Peetwo]

Budget Estimates QON: Overdue miniscule 4G AQON?? 

Amazingly after making this post on miniscule 4G's popular thread - Point of difference: A captured Minister vs a Minister in charge? - the Dept AQON started rolling in - see HERE. -   

So from an aviation safety agency (i.e the 'Three Stooges') perspective here is where we are at; via @AuSenate  :

ATSB QON:

---

182
Barry O'Sullivan
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Identification of drones
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Answered
22/05/2018

---

Senate Estimates -  ATSB MH370 related AQON: 

Overdue No
Asked Of Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Proof Hansard Page/Written 58
Portfolio Question Number 246
Question

Mr Hood: There was also a program management board that oversaw the expenditure of the funds, and we had the processes and funds audited by KPMG. In terms of all the audit reports and the moneys in and out, that's certainly available if you'd like that. 
Senator PATRICK: Maybe it's worth tabling the KPMG report. 
Mr Hood: I'll take that on notice to provide that.

Answer
The ATSB’s financial statements are audited annually by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). For the financial years 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17 the ANAO gave the MH370 program particular attention. The audit closing letters for each of these financial years is at Attachment A. In the 2016–17 closing letter ANAO specifically references MH370 advising:

We have concluded that ATSB’s revenues and expenses incurred for the search of flight MH370 are materially stated and have been disclosed appropriately in the financial statements.

KPMG, the ATSB’s internal auditor, also completed a ‘Health Check’ of the MH370 program in early 2016. This report is at Attachment B. The report acknowledged the governance structures in place including a Program Board with a representative from the Department of Finance. The report included some business improvement recommendations which were addressed.

Attachments

 Attachment A – ANAO Financial Audit Closing Letters

 Attachment B – MH370 Health-Check Report, KPMG, February 2016
Download question with answer 

Answer Attachment 
183 Attachment.pdf

Answered Date 
06/08/2018

---

Overdue No
Asked Of Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Proof Hansard Page/Written Written
Portfolio Question Number 366
Question

1. The ATSB has repeatedly said the satellite data shows MH370 was in a rapid and increasing rate of descent at the end. Larry Vance points out that in such cases, such as Swissair 111, the aircraft gets pulverised into two million smallish parts. How does the ATSB explain the fact that the flaperon and the flap were largely intact; there was nothing big or intact enough to be even recognisable as a flap or flaperon on Swissair 111?
2. Does the ATSB think the flap and flaperon fell off due to "flutter" in a high speed dive?

  1. If so, why was there no flutter damage to the leading edges?

4. Captain John Cox, a leading air crash investigator, says this of the satellite data when it comes to the speed of descent:The ATSB takes BFO data and derives a vertical profile between the 6th and 7th arc. This is very high (almost too high) indicating a extremely steep descent. However the 7th exchange is a "Power Up" exchange and the vertical information is not as accurate. Looking at the 1st Arc exchange, which was also a "Power Up" exchange the vertical date was determined to be spurious or so inaccurate it was not considered valid. If during a "Power Up" exchange the vertical data is less accurate then the 7th Arc exchange must be viewed with the same concern. Therefore, the vertical BFO derived data is less credible than other data points. This would support Larry's theory and weaken the ATSB position.

1. 1. Is Captain Cox wrong, and if so, why?
      

Answer
1. The ATSB has never performed analysis nor published any information in relation to the speed that the aircraft may have impacted the ocean surface. The analysis performed by scientists from the Defence Science Technology Group (DST Group) of the metadata associated with the final two satellite communications between the aircraft and the Inmarsat ground station concluded that the aircraft was in a high and increasing rate of descent over the eight second time period between the two transmissions.

The analysis by the ATSB and other members of the MH370 Search Strategy Working Group, which includes Inmarsat, Thales, Boeing the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of UK and National Transportation Safety Board of the USA, concluded it is most likely these final two transmissions were triggered by fuel exhaustion of the engines and a restart of the aircraft’s auxiliary power unit and would have occurred when the aircraft was still at an altitude of between 20,000 and 30,000 ft.

Boeing simulations (documented in MH370 – Search and debris examination update available at: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5771773/ae-2014-054_debris-update_2nov2016.pdf) of the aircraft’s unpiloted glide behaviour after fuel exhaustion indicated that it is likely that the aircraft performed a series of phugoid motions, with periods of descent at differing rates and periods where the aircraft also gained altitude in the final minutes of the flight. Given the uncertainties associated with the final minutes of the flight it is not possible to conclude a speed at which it is likely the aircraft impacted the ocean surface.

The ATSB has studied many accidents where aircraft have impacted water. The damage to the aircraft and debris resulting from the impact is dependent on many factors including the aircraft’s speed both horizontal and vertical, the attitude of the aircraft at the point of impact and the type, size and construction of the aircraft. Some accidents where there was a high rate of descent led to aircraft debris which was in large sections, including Air France flight 447 which crashed off the coast of Brazil in 2009.

2. The ATSB has never published any analysis suggesting that the flap or flaperon separated from the aircraft due to aerodynamic flutter.

3. The analysis to which Captain Cox refers in this quote was performed by scientists from DST Group and is referred to in the answer to Question 1. A summary of this analysis was included in the ATSB report MH370 – Search and debris examination update (2 November 2016) (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5771773/ae-2014-054_debris-update_2nov2016.pdf). A more detailed analysis was published by the DST Group in MH370 Burst Frequency Offset Analysis and Implications on Decent Rate at End-of-Flight (15 January 2018) (Attachment A). The summary in the ATSB report explains that the DST Group analysis accounts for all possible errors in the satellite communication metadata due to system oscillator “warm up” transients and all possible speeds and headings of the aircraft.

The ATSB made contact with Captain Cox at the time his original assessment (quoted in the question) of DST Group’s descent analysis was used in an article in the Australian newspaper and provided him with a copy of DST Group’s full published analysis. He subsequently agreed that his original assessment, used in the newspaper article, was incorrect and the ATSB understands that Captain Cox has asked the Australian newspaper to print a correction.

Attachments

 Attachment A – MH370 Burst Frequency Offset Analysis and Implications on Decent Rate at End-of-Flight, 15 January 2018

Download question with answer 

Answer Attachment 

184 Attachment.pdf

Answered Date 
06/08/2018

Airservices AQON so far:

185
Richard Colbeck
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Reactivation of VOR
Airservices Australia
Answered
22/05/2018

186
Rex Patrick
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Airservices charges
Airservices Australia
Answered
22/05/2018

---

Overdue No
Asked Of Airservices Australia
Proof Hansard Page/Written 71
Portfolio Question Number 249
Question
Mr Harfield: No. We did this morning on questions that we could have got today referencing the safety incidents from the article of 19 May. 
Senator McKIM: By the way, do you intend to provide this to the community as part of the consultation? 
Mr Harfield: Probably not this particular chart, but a chart that would depend on what we're actually trying to consult with the community on. 
Senator McKIM: I've just sent it down to my office, so it's fair to say they're going to have a look at it very soon if they haven't already. I just want to ask about safety first. We all want to see safe airports; I'm sure we can all agree on that. Can you just confirm, firstly, there were no loss of separation incidents at Hobart airport in the nine years prior to the changes? 
Mr Harfield: No, I can't confirm that. I would say that there were; however, I'll have to take that on notice. 
Senator McKIM: Could you provide that on notice to the committee, please. 
Mr Harfield: Absolutely....
Senator McKIM: Thanks for that. How does that compare to perhaps a similar period of time prior to the changes? 
Mr Harfield: Prior to the changes, we did a comparison. We had a look at the same period of time but 12 months prior. There were not the two loss of separation events or a loss of separation assurance event during that time but, as I was saying to Senator Colbeck, we did see a reduction in the number of go-arounds. 
Senator McKIM: Post the implementation of the change? 
Mr Harfield: Post the implementation. In the incidents we saw beforehand, we saw more go-arounds than we did in this period after the implementation. 
Senator McKIM: Do you have the figures for that? 
Mr Harfield: Off the top of my head, it was 27 prior and 22 after; it was a difference of five. 
Senator McKIM: So a reduction of five for the same period in the previous year? 
Mr Harfield: Correct.
Senator McKIM: Do you have the data for the same period in the previous years? 
Mr Harfield: We can do that. I don't have it off the top of my head, but we can provide that. 
Senator McKIM: Maybe going back five years, if that's data that you keep. It's your assertion that the changes have made the Hobart airport safer-is that right? 
Mr Harfield: They improved the safety of flying in and out of Hobart airport, yes.+ Expand Question

Answer

Loss of Separation

Three loss of separation occurrences were reported in the vicinity of Hobart over the nine years prior to Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) implementation.

Go-arounds

Post SID/STAR implementation:

14/09/2017 to 6/06/2018 – 21 occurrences.

Pre SID/STAR implementation:

14/09/2016 to 6/06/2017 – 26 occurrences

14/09/2015 to 6/06/2016 – 28 occurrences.

14/09/2014 to 6/06/2015 – 45 occurrences.

14/09/2013 to 6/06/2014 – 15 occurrences.

Download question with answer 

Answered Date 
06/08/2018

---

188
Nick McKim
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Internal review of the new flight paths
Airservices Australia
Answered
22/05/2018

---

Overdue No
Asked Of Airservices Australia
Proof Hansard Page/Written 73
Portfolio Question Number 252
Question
Senator McKIM: Is it your contention that air traffic control staff at Hobart were also thoroughly consulted about the change? 
Mr Harfield: The air traffic control staff would have been consulted in our normal change process that we do for any procedures or air route changes within the operation. 
Senator McKIM: All of them? Does that include all air traffic controllers or a part? 
Mr Harfield: Technically, they wouldn't be operating under their licence if they weren't deemed to be competent or understand the changes that they shouldn't be- 
Senator McKIM: No, I'm asking about the consultation. 
Mr Harfield: There's a normal change process that we have in the operations. That would have been carried out. 
Senator McKIM: I'm asking: did that normal change process involve consulting all air traffic control staff at Hobart about the change? 
Mr Harfield: It would depend on your definition of 'consultation'. I'm not trying to be-
CHAIR: Mr Harfield, it's a pretty simple question. You've got X number of air traffic controllers; you've got a change coming down the pike; you have processes of consultation. The senator's question is quite clear. 
Mr Harfield: No, no. The thing is that they would be made aware of the change, and they would have- 
CHAIR: That's not consultation. The burden of his question is consultation. 
Mr Harfield: So they would have been made aware through our normal operational change processes, and they would have had the ability to object to the change or raise any issues that they had with the change, which is our normal process- 
Senator McKIM: After the change had been made?
Mr Harfield: No, Senator. Our requirements are that we do a safety assessment and people have the ability to raise issues associated with that safety assessment, and that's our normal operational change process. 
Senator McKIM: That includes all air traffic controllers in Hobart? 
Mr Harfield: There is an ability for all controllers-the reason I'm saying that is that I can't say that all controllers were applied, but it's available to them. I'd have to take it on notice to find what the process actually was....
Mr Harfield: The normal process is that somebody from Hobart would have been involved in that. 
CHAIR: There we go. 
Senator McKIM: I understand that to be true, but 'somebody' is obviously nowhere near all of the control staff at Hobart. Perhaps I could just ask you to take on notice how many of the air traffic control staff at Hobart were consulted and the nature of that consultation. Can you take that on notice? 
Mr Harfield: Yes.+ Expand Question

Answer All eight Hobart Tower controllers had an opportunity to provide input to the change. They were initially advised in July 2016 of the implementation of Hobart SID/STARs to take effect in September 2017. Regular updates were provided on the progress of the SID/STAR design, a feedback process was established and input was encouraged and captured.
Download question with answer 

Answered Date 
06/08/2018

---

190
Nick McKim
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Alternative suggestions at Hobart Airport
Airservices Australia
Answered
22/05/2018

191
Chris Ketter
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Passenger threshold at Whitsunday Coast Airport
Airservices Australia
Answered
22/05/2018

192
Chris Ketter
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Number of arffs fire stations built in the last five to 10 years
Airservices Australia
Answered
22/05/2018

193
Jonathon Duniam
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Environmental assessment decision-making process
Airservices Australia
Answered
22/05/2018

194
Jonathon Duniam
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

From there on (through to CASA) the QON are still yet to be answered but I have been assured from the RRAT Committee Secretariat that the answers will be published over the next couple of days - 


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Budget Estimates - CASA AQON.

Via the RRAT Estimates webpage: 

Asked Of Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Proof Hansard Page/Written 80
Portfolio Question Number 236
Question
Senator PATRICK: So these photographs are of the state of a tyre for a Qantas aircraft that landed in Brisbane. It was transiting through Townsville, this was in 2016, and the log of events shows that, due to insufficient manpower available to carry out the wheel change, the aircraft was sent on: 'The tyre may continue in service without safety concerns but must be replaced at the next check.' The bottom line is that there were not enough engineers on the ground to change the tyre, so they sent the aircraft on to the next location-possibly under commercial pressure; I don't understand the reasons why. But you would I'm sure appreciate, Mr Carmody, the seriousness of having an aircraft take off with a tyre in that state, noting in extremis the Concorde, when it took off from Paris, shed a tyre which went through the fuel tanks, with a tragedy at the end of that. So I suspect you would be concerned about an aircraft that might take off with a tyre like that? 
Mr Carmody: I'm aware of the matter because it was 18 months ago. It's been referred to us. It's been referred to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and the Industry Complaints Commissioner has reviewed the matter. So it's gone through our internal processes. I will make a couple of points: I saw the document, which hasn't been tabled but which you read out, that the tyre was released. So an engineer certified that the tyre was okay. I don't know, therefore, what damage occurred on subsequent landing. I assume that's not take-off damage; that's landing damage. An engineer certified it was suitable for take-off. 
Senator PATRICK: I've talked to a number of engineers who have suggested that that sort of damage to a tyre couldn't happen on a single landing; you might get an isolated location; the point of the two photographs is they show that it's all around the tyre. But, in general, would that not concern you at all? 
Mr Carmody: I was concerned, but, as I said, the matter was raised, it went to the independent Industry Complaints Commissioner and it was reviewed. So, as far as I'm concerned, any matters have been resolved. 
Senator PATRICK: That's noted. 
Mr Carmody: There is a completely independent mechanism; it's independent of me. 
CHAIR: I appreciate that. I often have a plumber come to my house and the tap is still leaking afterwards. If that's the case, then I'd be concerned about the independence or the attention paid by an independent-
Senator PATRICK: Can I just stop, because I think there is a step in the middle that you are missing. That is that this gets investigated by CASA, and in this instance it was. There were concerns over the investigation and it then went on to the complaints commissioner. The role of the complaints commissioner is not to conduct an investigation. The complaint was that CASA had not conducted its job properly. 
Mr Carmody: So it was investigated by CASA and it was then peer reviewed by another office, so a different part of the organisation, to see whether the investigation was well founded, which we do quite often in contentious cases. We put inspectors from a different location on to review the matter so that we have a different set of eyes-an independent set of eyes. That was done in the process. Then it went to the industry complaints commissioner.
CHAIR: We could spar around all day here-I hope I don't mow your lawn, Senator-I'd like you to take on notice to supply the committee with the entire file, cover to cover: any artefacts; any photographs; any interviews, whether audio or otherwise; any files that are held, IT, however it does. You know the drill. From A to Z, supply it to the committee so that we can have a look at this. 
Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator....
Senator Scullion: Can I just get a point of clarification. For the interests of completeness, the body is slightly independent from you. So the material of the committee you are going to provide includes their deliberations as well? 
CHAIR: Absolutely. 
Senator Scullion: Just for clarification. 
CHAIR: Thank you for that, Minister-A to Z.- Collapse Question

Answer 
The information requested has been provided to the Committee under a covering letter from the CASA Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety of 8 June 2018.

---

Asked Of Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Proof Hansard Page/Written 81
Portfolio Question Number 307
Question
Senator PATRICK: I'll mention another incident as well that you are probably aware of, a TCAS incident on a Qantas flight. The aircraft arrived into Sydney on 19 November 2016. The tech crew reported that, 'TCAS: some targets displayed in wrong position last three sectors-that is, aircraft landing in Melbourne appeared 90 degrees out on final.' Are you familiar with or have you heard-
Mr Carmody: I'll have to take that on notice. I haven't got the documentation in front of me.

Answer As indicated in Committee Question number 209 the information requested has been provided to the Committee under a covering letter from the CASA Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety of 8 June 2018.
Download question with answer 

Answered Date 
07/08/2018

---

Asked Of Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Proof Hansard Page/Written 84
Portfolio Question Number 237
Question
Senator PATRICK: There's a detailed set of concerns that the federation has laid out as to what did not occur in the investigation of the tyre matter and in the TCAS matter, and hence the relation to what I've tendered to the committee. I don't know where we go from here, Chair. I'm disturbed by that and maybe they need some time to look at it and respond. Could we also get the TCAS file? 
CHAIR: I'm satisfied that Mr Carmody and his team will mull over this for a little bit, and we'd look forward to a further conversation soon and not after waiting for next estimates. When you think you've satisfactorily had a look and talked to the commissioner, you might contact Dr Thompson and we can just have a meeting for 15 minutes- 
Mr Carmody: Chair, that would be fine. I'd also be happy to provide you with a specific written response on the issues that you've raised surrounding this so you would have something formal, if that would suit the committee as well? 
CHAIR: Yes, I think that's suitable for the committee.

Answer 
The information requested has been provided to the Committee under a covering letter from the CASA Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety of 8 June 2018.

Download question with answer 

Answered Date 
07/08/2018

---

Asked Of Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Proof Hansard Page/Written 84
Portfolio Question Number 238
Question
Senator KETTER: I have a follow-up question. The issue that gave rise to the problem is the manpower shortage at Townsville Airport, as I understand it. Was that investigated as part of CASA's processes, and what was the result of that? Has that been rectified? 
Mr Crawford: That would ultimately be a matter for the SMS at Qantas. Their safety management system should follow-up on that. What we do is we review the effectiveness of their SMS. 
Senator KETTER: Sorry, I can't hear you, Mr Crawford. 
Mr Crawford: That should have been followed up with the operator's safety management system. What we do is we do surveillance on the operator; we look at the effectiveness of their safety management system. 
Senator KETTER: Is the answer to my question that- 
Mr Crawford: The issue is that, at the end of the day, we cannot determine from the photograph taken at the other airport whether that tyre was serviceable or not. We can't by looking at that photograph. But the maintenance engineer says that the tyre was safe to go, so he is saying it was serviceable. That's what we have to work with.
Senator KETTER: That's not the issue I'm raising. I'm talking about the assertion in that log that there were manpower shortages which gave rise to the fact that the tyre couldn't be changed. 
Mr Crawford: We'll take that on notice.+ Expand Question

Answer
The information requested has been provided to the Committee under a covering letter from the CASA Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety of 8 June 2018.

Download question with answer 

Answered Date 
07/08/2018

At this point in time it would appear that the Carmody 'covering letter' referred to in QON 207 to 209 is still yet to be tabled.


MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

KISS, (Liverpool type) it's the only way.

Just spent a half hour going back over the many posts relating to public safety around aerodromes. There is a lot, a serious lot of good information there, all of which has been totally ignored by our politicians. Perhaps we have been too ‘technical’ or too academic; or, is it just too difficult a subject for politicians to grasp. Perhaps we weren’t clear enough. Or perhaps the politicians are just too ducking dumb to read joined up writing; or too bloody lazy; or, just too happy to be led about by the foreskin by their ‘expert’ advice; maybe, just maybe, they are completely deceived by clever manipulation of ‘wording’. Below is a classic example:-

Senator PATRICK: Are you looking at public safety zones around Sydney Airport?

Mr McRandle: We're looking at public safety zones generally across Australian airports as part of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. A consultation process commenced a little over a week ago with the community around public safety zones. It will include all airports. Queensland has already incorporated the public safety zone approach to their airports. There are others around Australia that haven't adopted it.

Then this:-

In March 2018 the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee (TISOC) agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the draft new National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guideline—Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways.

FDS – The buildings at Essendon, those that were slammed into by a 5.7 ton aircraft, carrying a ton of fuel – (remember the fire ball) infringed the  SIDE of the runway ‘safety zones’. Not the approach and departure safety zones. You must not confuse the two. The Senators asking questions are being merrily led down a very smooth path to deception.

I’ll make it crystal clear – through manipulation and sleight of legal hand, there are building which impinge on the ‘SIDE OF RUNWAY’ safety zones. The places where shopping outlets and passenger terminal buildings are located. There are minimum runway WIDTH parameters specified - for bloody good reasons – Essendon providing the quintessential example of why. What’s next FDS – coffee and fast food outlets along the taxi-ways?.

FDS Senators – get your act together before there is mass carnage; look at Archerfield – then watch again as the aircraft which landed in a Moorabin street busts into flames. Watch the Essendon fire ball again.   You got to ask yourself – are you feeling lucky Punk?

[Peetwo]

P2 comment: K is apparently luxuriating on some remote tropical beach in the Whitsundays. Consequently he is finding it hard to get reliable mobile/wifi coverage (my heart bleeds -   )

Anyway here is a post he has been trying to put up...   

---

---

[Peetwo]

No "S" for safety in environment - Airservices Amendment Bill Committee Report. 

PDF link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...ill/Report

Some report sections of interest...   

Proposed subsection 10B – Melbourne airspace and flight paths
5.4        Item 4 of the bill proposes to replace section 10 of the Air Services Act with new proposed sections 10AA, 10A, 10B and 10C. Proposed subsection 10B relates to the specific circumstances of flight paths over Melbourne.   
5.5        A number of submitters and particularly Melbourne community groups, supported changes to the way in which flight paths are managed in Melbourne. The EMG noted in this regard that the 'noise from increasing overflights is causing significant health and amenity impacts in Inner Melbourne'. It continued:

The problem arises from several sources; from helicopters flying and hovering over Inner Melbourne; from fixed wing aircraft on training or joy flights – some as low as 500 feet – and increasingly from heavy commercial aircraft approaching Tullamarine. The cumulative impacts are huge. People's quiet enjoyment of their houses and gardens is seriously affected and many residents have voiced their concerns.[3]

5.6        However, the point was made to the committee that Airservices does not have the authority to alter airspace classification as proposed in item 4 of the bill which introduces subsection 10B.
5.7        The Airspace Act is the governing legislation for matters relating to Australia-administered airspace. Under this Act, CASA is required to determine the airspace classification system and how it is deployed.[4] Noting this, Airservices made the point that:

...the proposed amendment to the Air Services Act 1995 cannot give Airservices the authority to implement the changes for Melbourne that the Bill is seeking.[5]

5.8        Similarly, DIRDC made the point that the proposed amendment would not give Airservices the authority to give effect to a flight path plan for Melbourne (without CASA approval) or result in a prohibition on helicopters and fixed wing aircraft from flying at less than 2,000 metres above sea level over residential areas.[6]
5.9        CASA also noted that the bill's intention to declare prohibited airspace for all airspace users below 2,000 meters was 'inconsistent and incompatible with the Airspace Act and regulations' for which it has responsibility. Moreover:

The bill is also inconsistent with CASA's power to declare restricted airspace, whereby CASA must conduct a risk-based assessment to support any airspace restriction. Airservices has no powers to restrict aircraft flight outside controlled airspace and CASA has no powers to declare prohibited airspace unless such a declaration is compatible with the Airspace Regulations.[7]

5.10      Furthermore, Airservices and CASA raised the question as to whether the flight restrictions as proposed under subsection 10B would be best placed in aviation-related regulation or in another form of regulation.[8] In this regard, CASA noted that the bill's provisions appear to be predicated on the idea that Airservices can 'design procedures and airspace' that focus primarily on noise reduction. However, the current legislation (including the Airspace Act) recognises safety as the primary consideration.[9] CASA concluded that the principles that underpinned the bill were inconsistent with current legislation for this reason.[10]
5.11      DIRDC and Airservices also warned of the impact of such changes if given legislative effect. DIRDC noted that the proposed amendments would cause:

...potential safety issues, unwarranted delays due to changes in arrival and departure paths and a significant increase in carbon emissions and fuel burn as well as increasing departures and arrivals over other residential areas.[11]

5.12      CASA raised similar concerns and concluded that:

The airspace aspects of this bill do not deliver the necessary outcomes required to support aviation (safety, efficiency and equitable access), and could generate significant environmental impacts. The bill would also have a major impact on the capacity and efficiency of airports around Melbourne, with likely significant economic impacts on both airspace users and passengers.[12]

&..

Proposed amendment to the definition of 'environment'
5.26      A number of submitters argued in favour of the proposed amendments to paragraph 8(1)(d) and subsection 9(2) of the Air Services Act to require Airservices to carry out activities to protect the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas from the effects of the operation and use of aircraft, and associated effects. EMG's Mr Woodward succinctly captured commonly held views on the need for the amendment to the definition:

This includes direct and indirect effects of aircraft noise and defines the scope of those effects. There are many other communities suffering similar or even more severe noise assault across Australia, and the regulators must be held to account. The existing legislation is flawed. It provides little or no protection and redress for communities impacted by aircraft noise. This cannot be allowed to continue. There needs to be a better balance between a safe, efficient and effective air industry which identifies and recognises impacts on affected communities from aircraft noise.[25]

5.27      However, the AAA argued that it wasn't clear how the proposed amendment will result in any 'discernible benefit for impacted communities'. It noted that the considerations proposed were already taken into account by Airservices as part of its consultation processes as required under current legislation. AAA concluded that the amendment:

...will only further complicate an already complex issue, with the potential to unduly burden already limited Airservices resources and distract from its primary objective of safety.[26]

5.28      DIRDC suggested that the term 'environment' in the Air Services Act is broad and embraces a range of environmental impacts across all areas as well as addressing issues such as noise and emissions. DIRDC noted that in carrying out its functions, Airservices has long considered the environment to include the 'human and natural environment as well as built environments, consisting of community amenity and residential areas'.[27]
5.29      Rather than expanding the definition, DIRDC argued that the proposed amendment could be interpreted as narrower in scope to that provided for in the EPBC Act.[28] The Department of the Environment and Energy raised a similar concern, submitting that an explicit definition in the Air Services Act could be interpreted as inconsistent with the existing definition of 'environment' in the EPBC Act.[29] 
5.30      Airservices argued that the current definition meets the aspirations of the bill as it is already required to consider the impact of aircraft noise on communities.[30] CASA's Dr Aleck added that if environmental considerations were to be given equal weight to that of safety under the legislation, it would have serious repercussions for CASA and its remit.[31]

Senator RICE: I want to talk more broadly about how much you are actually required to control and mitigate the impacts on residents, and whether the existing legislation requires you to do that. You said that safety is your paramount concern. This legislation is actually adding community amenity and residential considerations into your legislative requirements, and there wasn't support for doing that. Dr Aleck and Mr Harfield, why do you see that as being problematic, and do you see it as being necessary?

Mr Harfield : We don't think it's necessary because we think that the definition of environment, as it currently stands in the act, covers our obligations to the community. The way it's written now is that as far as practicable the effects of aircraft operations on the environment et cetera, and we take the environment as being community impacts because of aircraft noise et cetera. We just don't think it's necessarily warranted to achieve the outcome, because we believe that's already there.

Dr Aleck : From CASA's perspective, much for the same reasons Mr Harfield suggested, we find that it's not necessary to do that, but, more problematically for us, our remit is actually narrower than Airservices'. Although we all agree this is about balancing interests—competing interests that are equally legitimate and strongly held in all quarters—we have no environmental function. We have no function that authorises us to take decisions on the basis of environmental impact. We have, quite deliberately and exclusively, a safety based function. In the process of exercising our powers in that space we're expected to take environmental considerations into account to the extent practicable—a formulation that is, I think, used in the bill as well. That means that in balancing interests there is a primary interest, an overriding interest, and the extent to which an environmental consideration is taken into account cannot weigh equally in respect of a safety matter. If legislatively that were changed, wherever that may sit, that would create a fundamental problem for what CASA's remit is all about. In the context of making legislation or engaging in the consultative processes of developing what legislation should be or what a rule should be about airspace designation there's the luxury to entertain those kinds of considerations. I think I would agree with Mr Harfield that there's probably room for improvement in that space, too, taking those considerations more broadly and more fully into account. That said, the ultimate determination, because of our functions, must be guided and directed by safety. We're not in a position to be able to balance, in an equal sense, an environmental consideration with a safety consideration, because it's not within our remit and, as I said, it was not meant to be in our remit to do that.

Senator RICE: That's from CASA's perspective. From Airservices' perspective, do you feel you are able under your current legislative remit to take noise and residents' concerns—under the heading of 'environment' that you have the power to actually be doing that? But what I hear—

Mr Harfield : The obligation is the way that you'd put it and factor those elements in in making the change. Fundamentally, once we've ensured the safety threshold is met then it's all about balancing the effects on the community with aircraft noise as well as, for example, emissions. That's one of the reasons why we try and look at more efficient flight paths to reduce fuel burn and things like that.

Dr Aleck : In balancing those considerations, which are motivated in part by an obligation as well as a goodwill attempt to get all the reasonable considerations on the table, when Airservices comes to CASA with a proposal or an expectation that airspace arrangements will be changed, our expectation and hope is that in meeting all those considerations we can grant that in a manner that is consistent with the overriding interest of safety. It's that overriding interest that may end up negating or minimising some of those other considerations that were taken into account in their consultative process.

For once I have to applaud the Dept and it's agencies for putting down what was yet another Green's led initiative to kill off aviation anywhere remotely near an urban environment, you've got to wonder how much expense was wasted in the process ...
However this Greens WOFTAM exercise also provides a perfect example of how the CASA Iron Ring conveniently slide out their Section 9A of the Act card if and when required:
https://www.casa.gov.au/book-page/purpose

Section 9 of the Act sets out CASA's functions which include the core function of conducting the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australian territory and the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory. Section 9A of the Act makes the emphasis CASA places on safety clear:

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

Under the Airspace Act 2007, CASA also has responsibilities for the efficient, equitable and above all, safe administration of Australian administered airspace. The performance of CASA's functions under the Airspace Regulations 2007is expressly made subject to section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act.

So the above is an example of Dr Aleck waving the CASA remit 'safety' trump card. Now consider the following: ref - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread...41#pid9141
 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) 


11. CASA is Australia’s safety regulator for civil air operations and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. CASA is responsible for the implementation of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS). ICAO has not developed SARPS regarding PSZs.
 
12. CASA have a role in the regulation of ICAO mandated Runway End Safety Areas (RESA). RESAs are sometimes confused with PSZs. A RESA is a cleared ground area extending from the end of the runway strip for the purpose of decelerating an aircraft if it overruns the runway. - The RESA? What about the OLS & Mr Peabody's RSW? - ref: Oversight or lack there of - Part IV - UDB!

That is an example of CASA, with slight of hand and smoke'n'mirrors, withdrawing their trump card and conveniently hiding behind the international standards card; i.e not required as ICAO says so. This is despite the fact that we have over 4000 notified differences to the ICAO SARPs - UDB! 

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

"Once more unto the breach../

AOPA are meeting the Senate Committee today. That fact, standing alone, acknowledges the efforts made on industries behalf by the AOPA crew and the hard yards done to get the call for a change to the Air Navigation Act toward the goal posts. No easy task, not only is there a fierce, unrelenting opposition to confront; there is sniping from the side-lines, from those who would see the resolution discarded and AOPA discounted. Not from any philosophical stand point you understand, but for other, less laudable motives. ‘Nuff said.

The committee is essentially made up of honest, sensible folk, we’ve seen that demonstrated over many sessions of Estimates. The AOPA argument makes perfectly good sense as does the call for the buggers muddle we call aviation law to be sorted out, simplified and made sensible, as a matter of some urgency.....

There is bi-partisan willingness to ring the changes, the present committee probably have a better understanding of the industry problems than any other and; IMO, they are not mesmerised by the ‘mystique’ or baffled by official bull-shit.

Aye well, a quiet nod to the pagan gods, a whispered prayer to Murphy and fingers crossed that today, despite the opposition, good sense and governance prevails. We shall see.

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

"Once more unto the breach../

AOPA are meeting the Senate Committee today. That fact, standing alone, acknowledges the efforts made on industries behalf by the AOPA crew and the hard yards done to get the call for a change to the Air Navigation Act toward the goal posts. No easy task, not only is there a fierce, unrelenting opposition to confront; there is sniping from the side-lines, from those who would see the resolution discarded and AOPA discounted. Not from any philosophical stand point you understand, but for other, less laudable motives. ‘Nuff said.

The committee is essentially made up of honest, sensible folk, we’ve seen that demonstrated over many sessions of Estimates. The AOPA argument makes perfectly good sense as does the call for the buggers muddle we call aviation law to be sorted out, simplified and made sensible, as a matter of some urgency.....

There is bi-partisan willingness to ring the changes, the present committee probably have a better understanding of the industry problems than any other and; IMO, they are not mesmerised by the ‘mystique’ or baffled by official bull-shit.

Aye well, a quiet nod to the pagan gods, a whispered prayer to Murphy and fingers crossed that today, despite the opposition, good sense and governance prevails. We shall see.

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

Toot – toot.

Via AOPA Oz Facebook page...  

AOPA AUSTRALIA PRESENTS TO SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The AOPA Australia along with fellow representatives of the AMROBA, SAAA, GFA and AGAA presented to the RRAT Senate Committee on the decline of Australia’s general aviation industry.
During the meeting we discussed;

1. Change to the Civil Aviation Act
2. Self-Certification Private Drivers License Medicals for GA
3. Independent Flight Instructors for GA
4. Adoption of US FAA regulations for GA flight operations

In attendance was;

- Ms Aminta Hennessy - AOPA Australia President
- Mr Marc De Stoop - AOPA Australia Vice President
- Mr Benjamin Morgan - AOPA Australia Executive Director
- Mr Dominic James - AOPA Australia Director
- Mr Ken Cannane - AMROBA Executive Director
- Mr Lawrence Paratz - Australian General Aviation Alliance
- Mr Peter Cesco - GFA President

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

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

[/url]

[url=https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/photos/pcb.1358546537609601/1358538344277087/?type=3]

---

Ben Wyndham  - A fellow Chief Pilot/CFI told me today he is quitting GA. He gives our industry sector 18 months-2years before total collapse

---

Ian Carfrae - Ben Wyndham I think he is about right. There will be a few private operations for the High Net Worth All that will be left are the Chinese owned or operated for , flying schools and a couple of airline owned operations. Private Light GA will disappear. 

CASA has planned the demise of ga, either deliberately or through ignorance. It is perfect storm of thuggish overregulation and the resultant cost blowouts.

---

Ian Tucker - Good work AOPA, keep it up, surely the message must be getting through.

---

Jonathon Grahame - Keep driving the message home - Benjamin Morgan - the local aviation industry needs the support more than ever along with the Australian public . When RPT operations in regional areas start to disappear along with aeromedical services and aerial fire bombing services it will be too late .

---

Ran Mcf - Well done to all for putting a little heat to the Government ‘s feet

---

&..

AOPA AUSTRALIA MEETS LABOR’S SENATOR STERLE
Many thanks to Labor’s Senator Sterle for his time today at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. The meeting was a great opportunity and we appreciated the Senator’s time.

We are looking forward to spending more time with the Senator in the coming weeks.

NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA double standards in oversight surveillance? -   

Finally Carmody's 8 June 2018 correspondence addressing the ALAEA complaint to the CASA ICC, in regards to the QF incident investigations, have been published:

Mr Shane Carmody, Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Correspondence to the committee regarding CASA tyre and TCAS investigations
8 June 2018
PDF 2737KB

---

---

Mr Shane Carmody, Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Attachments to CASA correspondence dated 8 June 2018
8 June 2018
PDF 15207KB

 
Not that I want to get into the why's and why for's of this prolonged series of incidents, accusations and complaints surrounding the tyre and subsequent TCAS maintenance incidents. However what struck me the most was; 1) the protracted timeline that this all occurred over; 2) the fact that here was another classic example of CASA's duplicity in oversight surveillance; and 3) these oversight deficiencies and surveillance manual inconsistencies also occurred within the CASA Sydney Regional office...  


MTF...P2      

Ps Oh..and that Scottish Git is definitely a CASA Iron Ring acolyte...

[Peetwo]

Sterlo 4 PM - 

In the Senate on Monday Sterlo made a real Australian Statesman like speech which IMO completely exemplifies the Grand Canyon difference between himself and our out of touch, self-absorbed miniscule McDo'Naut...  

Western Australia: Workplace Relations



Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (21:50): I rise tonight not on a good note, unfortunately, but I think the Senate should really listen to what I have to say. I can't believe that in this day and age I'm making this speech.

In Western Australia, roughly 1,600 workers are on an indefinite strike at Alcoa sites around the state. This has been going on for the last month—34 days, to be exact. Sixteen hundred Western Australians are attempting to ensure that their job security is there and to maintain their current conditions. That's not unfair to ask for in this day and age, surely, in a developed nation as great as this country, Australia?

But Alcoa workers from Kwinana, Pinjarra and across the region have voted against accepting a new enterprise bargaining agreement, with 80 per cent—can you believe that, Mr Acting Deputy President Smith?—turning down the company's proposal. That's a pretty strong endorsing number of those workers who don't want the agreement. But wait until I go into what is expected of them, and you'll understand. In fact, you'll probably question how come it's only 80 per cent.

Alcoa has applied to the Fair Work Commission—and this makes me want to vomit—to have workers' current terms and conditions terminated. I'm told that the hearings will commence next Monday, and I understand that the AWU are hoping to have a meeting with Alcoa before the end of this week. I urge Alcoa, for crying out loud, to sort out this mess that they've created. Right from the beginning the workers have said that they're happy—listen to this!—to meet with Alcoa management, and that that's not a problem. However, nothing has happened yet; the company won't meet with them.

This fight is about protecting job security, not just for the workers there now but for generations to come—as generations before them have been at Alcoa. Mr Acting Deputy President, you're from the great state of WA, you understand what I'm talking about. This is not a union rant; every Australian and Western Australian legislator and, in fact, the whole public should be alarmed at what I'm telling you and what I'm sharing with this chamber. These workers, some of whom have worked for the company for over 30 years—I've met a number of them—only want what is fair and reasonable. They want secure jobs and fair conditions so that they can support their families and also support and contribute to their communities, as they've done for many years.

Let me share the facts with the Senate. Alcoa is trying to rip away job security, and families depend on job security. Alcoa made a profit of $1.1 billion using bauxite which belongs to the Australian people. There is nothing wrong with profit, that's fine, and $1.1 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Have a listen to this: Alcoa's employees offered the company a three-year wage freeze—three years—which the company rejected. No-one can make this crap up! Sorry, I should haven't said that. I can't make this rubbish up. This is unbelievable! They offered a three-year wage freeze and the company rejected it. For crying out loud, I can think of how many employers would jump at that and snatch the rings off the fingers of the guys and girls as they went to sign the agreement.

Alcoa is trying to cut the workers' pay by no less than up to 50 per cent. Who in this nation would offer a three-year pay freeze and then get salt rubbed into their eyes by the employer saying, 'Not only do we want that but we want you to take a 50 per cent cut.' This is Alcoa, a greedy multinational mining company. That's what they are, and I can tell them that I haven't finished with them yet.

In 2017, the company generated a total revenue of $4,578 billion, including sales and other revenue. These figures are unbelievable! So they aren't screwing the living daylights out of just their workforce. These workers don't want a pay rise; they just want job security. Not only do they not want a pay rise, and said that they would have a wage freeze for three years, but they actually don't want to be forced into redundancies—and you would get this, Mr Acting Deputy President Smith—while there are labour hire companies and contractors on the site. What is un-Australian about a full-time employee who has been there for many, many years—or even one who has only been there for a week—who wants to save their job and offers a three-year wage freeze, just saying, 'Please, Mr Greedy ALCOA, don't march us off the job with, "Here's your redundancy," while there are contractors and darned labour hire'?

And I won't start on what I think about labour hire companies—no, I will. What a bunch of parasites the labour hire companies are. But I'll save that for another day. And I speak with authority here, because I had to deal with the grubs when I was in the transport industry. They offer nothing to the workers that they don't have to, above the grubby minimum wages that they pay them. They offer nothing in training—you know that, Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter. They offer no holidays and no long service leave. Parasites they are, in the industrial scene.

Anyway—so what did I do? After I'd visited the sights of Pinjarra and Kwinana, I met with the men and the women down there. Politicians were coming out of the woodwork! And hats off to Mr Hastie. Who'd have thought—

An honourable senator interjecting—



Senator STERLE: no, seriously—there would be a coalition member on the back of a ute, addressing workers? He knows this is not a union stoush. This is destroying a community, and 1,600 jobs so they can outsource them to contractors or say, 'You can take a 50 per cent wage cut and then you can come back in our gates, and, by the way, we're not even going to talk to you; we don't even want to know you people, even though you worked for us for years.'

So I wrote a letter to Alcoa, and I want to share this letter. It's on the web, so it's out there. I've got the 'nice Glenn Sterle' hat on, but, I've got to tell you, if I'd been on the picket line for 34 days, it wouldn't be the nice Glenn Sterle! In it I've virtually asked Alcoa: 'Please, you're making a good deal of money—and that's fine; that's great—you've been in the community, you've been in our state, extracting our resources with Australian workers. All we ask is that, while you're making money, just give the workers the decency of putting in writing, in an agreement that offers no pay rises for three years: "We won't march you off the job under the pretence of a redundancy and employ contractors and labour hire." Is that fair?'

Well, this should come as no shock. I wrote the letter and sent it off on 3 September. Today is only the 10th, and I know that that is only a week, but all these sites are shut down. The mines are shut down; the refineries are shut down. It's not as though they're flat-out busy, unless they're planning to bring in foreign workers or contractors or whatever it is. You'd think someone in Alcoa would've thought, 'We'd had better respond and just say, "Look, you're on the wrong train, mate," or, "Yes, we want to talk to our employees; you go away; we'd rather deal with them."' No—radio silence from Alcoa.

I don't even know anyone at Alcoa, except the workers. I've never met the management of Alcoa, and I've got no desire to meet the management from Alcoa, unless they come in here and apologise for shafting the living daylights out of Australian workers. That's the only reason I'd want to. In fact, I want to share this with you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This is not the case, but if Glenn Sterle was the Prime Minister, it'd be sorted very quickly, because the phone call would go through to the management under this feller, Mr Michael Parker, who I've never had the chance of meeting, who is the chairman and managing director, and I'd say: 'Mr Parker, it's the Prime Minister here, Glenn Sterle. I want you to come and have a meeting with me. Jump on the first plane to Canberra—or, even better, if you're too busy I'll come to you,' and, when I got there or he got here, the advisers and the bureaucrats would be out of the room, and his hangers-on taking their notes would all be out of the room, and we would have a man-to-man conversation about the way things happen in Australia. And I can guarantee you one thing: it wouldn't be pleasant, because how the hell can a mongrel—jeez, I could get so wound up here! How can a foreign company come in here, extract our resources—ours; they belong to the Australian people, but I'd normally have no problem with this—have 30 years of continued growth in our state of Western Australia from digging up our bauxite and exporting it around the world, and, by the same token, be frogmarching Australians seafarers off the MV Portland? I said last year and the year before that this was just the thin end of the wedge: 'Here they come to replace them with foreign workers.' And they love this model. Mr Parker, you want to cross your fingers that I never decide to go to the other side and end up as the Prime Minister, because I can tell you I would be around a lot longer than you, Mr Parker from Alcoa.

I make no apologies for this. This is disgraceful, disgusting behaviour by a foreign raider. How the hell can they go through our communities in the south-west of Western Australia, Senator Dean Smith, and say, 'Aren't we good people because we might build a set of shades over a playground or something'? I'm told that Alcoa had been a responsible member of the community, but they'd had a shift in management. The previous managers, in my eyes and the workers' eyes, were decent, working human beings who all had the same objectives at the end of the day. There was a family there to consider, trying to pay off a mortgage and put the kids through school and give them the best opportunity and hoping the grandkids would get an even better opportunity.

Well, Mr Parker, if this is the way you run your business—in fact, I would like to meet Mr Parker. Oh, I would relish the opportunity, because this man has a lot to answer for. Mr Parker, you should at least have the intestinal fortitude to pick up the phone, call your workers, call your staff, call the ones who have contributed to your company's wealth and to your pay packet. You and all your mates around you are hiding there in Melville in the three-storey building where I attended the other day. They are hiding behind the laws of this land that can take enterprise agreements away from workers and shaft them by 50 per cent to put more money into the grubby pockets of Mr Michael Parker and every one of the other mongrels on the board of Alcoa. What a disgrace.

   
Hmm...Sterlo 4 PM! - Get's my vote...


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

ALCOA = ALCRAPPA

Bravo Glenn Sterle Bravo! You’ve got to hand it to Sterlo, he has got some hair on his plums!

Now, I know he is being politically correct, good man. But had the Gobbledock been in WA he would’ve  rounded up the executive ALCRAPPA management team and shoved lumps of bauxite (my f..king Bauxite you international grubs) up your noses, arses and down your throats. Each time they squealed I would shove 50% more (there’s that magic number) Bauxite in, down and up the same cavities......

Sterlo for PM and make Australia great again!

[Ziggy]

Well, well, well,

Been away a while from the keyboard. Read AP regularly to stay up to date though.

These clowns in the bureaucratic circus of all things aviation need their arses kicked so hard for being down right disrespectful to their citizens who pay their wages. Their constant display of manipulative behavior which places the public at risk, wastes millions of taxpayers dollars and cripples the industry, continues to be an unbreakable force impeding any advancement towards common sense change. Despite mountains of evidence given to the Senate, MP's and of course, the clueless DP.
Challenging them with legitimate issues usually results in a negative outcome for the individual or company. Accountability is non-existent within the walls of the Iron Ring. With that systemic narcissistic view, change from within the Iron Ring will NEVER occur, it HAS to come from the collective voice of all. A diseased system doesn't function right and needs to be rid of the cause to do so. 


These agencies will continue unless people concerned with Aviation issues start joining conversations and/or going to meetings/conferences. Fighting virtually on a keyboard can shake em up, but more is needed.
These clowns in Canberra would read these forums daily and feel quite at ease as only a handful of people write on numerous forums.
More posts are needed to show the circus that a momentum of change is occurring. 
P2, Kharon and Gobbles would make them shake in their boots me thinks though.
More people need to post and express their views too.

The ANAO are asking for submissions regarding the ATSB. EVERYONE and their mate needs to write to the audit office. This is an opportunity not to be missed.

The ATSB need to shake in their boots, knowing thousands of people have concerns with them. I hope all who have waited for a voice take the opportunity to be heard.

At the end of my ATSB submission, I'm going to request the same audit for CASA.


The ANAO submissions will only be addressing the tip of the iceberg. 
Hitting the pavement and calling and/or meeting with local MP's, Senators etc will only strengthen the fight for fair change. 
The Alphabet soups are doing a fine job with their mission for change.
The Aviation Agencies need to hear the roar of an industry desperate for robust, sensible regulations and safety as well as fairness for all. An industry that is sick of being a host to their parasitic behavior.


Stomp your feet and flick these agencies over so their sorry arses can be exposed and real change can occur with industry chosen leaders who know what they are talking about.


Ziggy

[Kharon]

Seconds away, Round 46.

As the next round of Estimates creeps closer and as the impending serious litigation attending the Essendon accident begins with the release of the outrageous ATSB report into the meeting of a tall building and a stricken aircraft, claiming 5 lives; Aunt Pru believes  it is time to provide the Committee with some clear, definitive guidelines.

In past Estimates sessions, we have watched the committee struggling to come to grips with what has become, in the Australian system anyway, a very tricky subject to nail down. Definitive answers are scarce, responsibility a safety net with large holes, the Act nearly as slippery as those who drafted it. This, before we even get down to the ‘nitty-gritty’ of how this travesty was allowed into being. The committee cannot hope to tackle the problems and find solutions without first being able to ‘understand’ where the root causes lay. There is no better example of this than the Estimates sessions where the committee is led down the garden path to meet ‘Safety Zones’. ATSB, CASA and the DoIT all on the same hymn sheet, distracted and manipulated the committee with all manner of confusing, ambiguous, carefully alibied, guilt free pony-pooh.

In so many ways, the ATSB report into the Essendon accident is dangerously misleading. (MTF). The report skips past, with a very quick, light foot, one of the very important items, i.e. development alongside of runways. Hells bells - they almost herald the DFO as a life saver FDS.  The ATSB went to considerable lengths to parallel a ‘similar’ (‘cept it wasn’t) accident at Hayward (California) to our home grown variety. There are some rudimentary similarities; however, I digress.

The Estimates committee struggled with the concept of ‘Safety Zones’ and were, IMO, led astray by clever distraction to Runway End Zones, rather than ‘Safety Zones’. So; before the next committee outing, perhaps the Senators could find a trusted assistant to read through a thirty page document which will be of great assistance to future inquiry. The document – HERE – provides a fine exemplar of how grown up, sensible, responsible, rational people set about keeping their citizens safe from burning aircraft in their shopping centres, schools and hospitals.

Advertorial - Dear Senators, struggle no more with ‘Safety Zones’, read the American bible on airport development management – free, from Aunty Pru. Here is a sample; but wait, there’s more; this information is provided at no charge or cost to the tax payer – in the hallowed name of ‘Safety’:-

3.2.2 Safety Zones.

To depict the relative risks of aircraft accidents, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans, 2002) provides guidance for developing safety zones and the risk contours upon which they are based. The risk contours are derived from the accident location database described in the Handbook and show the relative concentrations of accidents near the ends of runways of different lengths. The safety zones are developed using this data and are created for varying runway lengths and operational characteristics, while at the same time taking into account aeronautical factors that affect where aircraft accidents are most likely to occur.

A total of seven different safety zones are shown in Figure 3-4. The choice of safety zone criteria appropriate for a particular zone is primarily a function of risk acceptability. For example, some land uses represent intolerable risks when located near aircraft operation areas and are prohibited (e.g., schools and hospitals). Where the risks associated with a particular land use are considered significant but tolerable, restrictions may be established to reduce the risk. Acceptable land uses generally require no limitations (see Table 3-2 for a list of compatible land uses).

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Seconds away, Round 46.

As the next round of Estimates creeps closer and as the impending serious litigation attending the Essendon accident begins with the release of the outrageous ATSB report into the meeting of a tall building and a stricken aircraft, claiming 5 lives; Aunt Pru believes  it is time to provide the Committee with some clear, definitive guidelines.

In past Estimates sessions, we have watched the committee struggling to come to grips with what has become, in the Australian system anyway, a very tricky subject to nail down. Definitive answers are scarce, responsibility a safety net with large holes, the Act nearly as slippery as those who drafted it. This, before we even get down to the ‘nitty-gritty’ of how this travesty was allowed into being. The committee cannot hope to tackle the problems and find solutions without first being able to ‘understand’ where the root causes lay. There is no better example of this than the Estimates sessions where the committee is led down the garden path to meet ‘Safety Zones’. ATSB, CASA and the DoIT all on the same hymn sheet, distracted and manipulated the committee with all manner of confusing, ambiguous, carefully alibied, guilt free pony-pooh.

In so many ways, the ATSB report into the Essendon accident is dangerously misleading. (MTF). The report skips past, with a very quick, light foot, one of the very important items, i.e. development alongside of runways. Hells bells - they almost herald the DFO as a life saver FDS.  The ATSB went to considerable lengths to parallel a ‘similar’ (‘cept it wasn’t) accident at Hayward (California) to our home grown variety. There are some rudimentary similarities; however, I digress.

The Estimates committee struggled with the concept of ‘Safety Zones’ and were, IMO, led astray by clever distraction to Runway End Zones, rather than ‘Safety Zones’. So; before the next committee outing, perhaps the Senators could find a trusted assistant to read through a thirty page document which will be of great assistance to future inquiry. The document – HERE – provides a fine exemplar of how grown up, sensible, responsible, rational people set about keeping their citizens safe from burning aircraft in their shopping centres, schools and hospitals.

Advertorial - Dear Senators, struggle no more with ‘Safety Zones’, read the American bible on airport development management – free, from Aunty Pru. Here is a sample; but wait, there’s more; this information is provided at no charge or cost to the tax payer – in the hallowed name of ‘Safety’:-

3.2.2 Safety Zones.

To depict the relative risks of aircraft accidents, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Caltrans, 2002) provides guidance for developing safety zones and the risk contours upon which they are based. The risk contours are derived from the accident location database described in the Handbook and show the relative concentrations of accidents near the ends of runways of different lengths. The safety zones are developed using this data and are created for varying runway lengths and operational characteristics, while at the same time taking into account aeronautical factors that affect where aircraft accidents are most likely to occur.

A total of seven different safety zones are shown in Figure 3-4. The choice of safety zone criteria appropriate for a particular zone is primarily a function of risk acceptability. For example, some land uses represent intolerable risks when located near aircraft operation areas and are prohibited (e.g., schools and hospitals). Where the risks associated with a particular land use are considered significant but tolerable, restrictions may be established to reduce the risk. Acceptable land uses generally require no limitations (see Table 3-2 for a list of compatible land uses).

Toot – toot.

P2 comment - To help the RRAT committee Senators and their minions out, please note the following extract pics.

First there is the overhead of the safety zones 1 thru 7:

 
That needs to be referred to in conjunction with table 3-2 "safety compatibility criteria". With regards to the Essendon DFO refer to the following (under I believe - 'Mixed used retail cen tres.." ) :


 
Which brings in 'conditional' factors for zones 2 thru to 5. For conditional factors refer to the following:

---

---

P2 comment - My layman's interpretation (of all of the above) would be that (in San Francisco California at least) the YMEN DFO development plan would never in a pink fit have got off the drawing board...


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sterlo to call for SI into self-administration aviation? - 



Via the Yaffa: 

• 
  

Senate Inquiry looms for Self-administration
10 October 2018

Senator Glenn Sterle last night told Australian Flying that next week he will ask the senate to instigate an inquiry into self-administered aviation.

Sterle said he was keen to have the inquiry and will talk with both the government and Shadow Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese next week.

The move comes after Sterle met with AOPA Executive Director Ben Morgan and Vice President Richard Talbot last month to discuss what AOPA says is inequity in medical standards between CASA and RAAus.

AOPA has also accused CASA of "being influenced into protecting the private business interests of the RAAus, rather than protecting the safety concerns of the greater general aviation community."

Sterle, Labor senator for WA, is the Chair of the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport (RRAT) References Committee and Deputy Chair of the RRAT Legislation Committee.
RAAus CEO Michael Linke said his organisation would be happy for such an inquiry to go ahead.

"We would welcome and inquiry into the self-administration sector," he said, "and would look forward to sitting in front of the senators to talk about the good work RAAus has done for aviation at large."

Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations (ASAOs) such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) and Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL) are currently the subject of industry consultation under CASR Part 149.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...CI3DCyI.99

MTF...P2 


Ps   - Condolences to Yaffa media with the loss of their publisher and proprieter David Yaffa - http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...dies-at-84 - RIP! 

[Peetwo]

Sterlo to call for SI into self-administration aviation? - 



Via the Yaffa: 

• 
  

Senate Inquiry looms for Self-administration
10 October 2018

Senator Glenn Sterle last night told Australian Flying that next week he will ask the senate to instigate an inquiry into self-administered aviation.

Sterle said he was keen to have the inquiry and will talk with both the government and Shadow Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese next week.

The move comes after Sterle met with AOPA Executive Director Ben Morgan and Vice President Richard Talbot last month to discuss what AOPA says is inequity in medical standards between CASA and RAAus.

AOPA has also accused CASA of "being influenced into protecting the private business interests of the RAAus, rather than protecting the safety concerns of the greater general aviation community."

Sterle, Labor senator for WA, is the Chair of the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport (RRAT) References Committee and Deputy Chair of the RRAT Legislation Committee.
RAAus CEO Michael Linke said his organisation would be happy for such an inquiry to go ahead.

"We would welcome and inquiry into the self-administration sector," he said, "and would look forward to sitting in front of the senators to talk about the good work RAAus has done for aviation at large."

Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations (ASAOs) such as Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) and Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL) are currently the subject of industry consultation under CASR Part 149.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...CI3DCyI.99

Comment in reply Sandy...

Sandy Reith • 5 hours ago

Thank goodness there’s one MP prepared to look into the administration, more correctly the maladminstration, of aviation in Australia, but the inbuilt problems of a divided approach will go against the best interests of aviation as a whole and particularly General Aviation. The obvious farcical distinctions between RAAus and the rest of GA should not be exacerbated by more layers just to suit CASA. Rather a graduated system should be embraced, a simplified version of the FAA rules would be the starting point. I hope Senator Sterle appreciates that the interlocking interests, career pathways, international recognition for aircraft personnel and engineering norms must be based on ICAO and acceptability to the US and Europe.

[Kharon]

Tick -  FDS - Tock………

It is, probably, unfair to burden readers with the ‘dreary’ details. Those are neatly trapped within the Hansard.

Civil Aviation Act 1988—
Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2018 [F2018L01415].
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 2) [F2018L01319].
GNSS Navigation Under the V.F.R. (CGG Aviation) Instrument 2018—CASA 68/18 [F2018L01396].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Air Traffic Control Licence (Airservices Australia) Exemption 2018—CASA EX141/18 [F2018L01385].
CASA 125/09 (Further Body Sample Collection Procedure – Quantisal Oral Fluid Collection Device) Amendment Instrument 2018—CASA 69/18 [F2018L01360].
Fuel Requirements Exemption 2018—CASA EX126/18 [F2018L01317].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/RB211/26 Amdt 1—CASA ADCX 013/18 [F2018L01329].

If however, you can find a sober moment to consider the implications of both ‘exemption’ and ‘amendment’ to regulations. This nation has paid an extraordinary amount of money to have the Civil Aviation Regulations ‘reformed’. One of the principal objectives of the now three decade long attempt was for 'it' to be done without the need for ‘exemption’. Since the process began, CASA have been obliged to issue more exemptions to the ‘new’, ‘reformed’ regulations than ever before – in history. Why? Well, I’m sure that any operator, worth the AOC, can find supportable evidence that the ‘new rules’ ain’t worth a cap full of cold water (I did say cap). Not only that, but ‘an exemption’ for one operator, creates an unfair commercial advantage; and, provides leverage for the authority against the exempted operator. Control, in any form, apart from across the board compliance – for all – is indicative of a system which could be viewed by some as ‘corrupted’.

$400,000,000 spent; 30 years and not complete: exemption after exemption (for the chosen few)  and still the only solution to ducked up regulation? FCOL. Adopt the FAR’s – the PNG CAR – or even the Khalistan rule set – anything but the incredible philosophical, legal minefield Australia is required to work within. I say this – operators may ‘appear’ to be ‘compliant’ – on the surface; but under the surface; bollocks. Most of the regulations, those which can be understood, are dismissed as CASA faery-pooh. The regulations are creating a very unsafe, tick-a-box, 'go along to get along' environment. With everyone holding their breath.

I’m not sure how many Ticks and Tock’s Australia has left in the kitty – plenty of warnings – ATR, Essendon, Mildura etc; etc.

Toot Bollocks, toot bollocks, toot toot toot.
(musical evening)..TOM hauled the Banjo out of storage - dogs luv it: do not ask me why.

[Peetwo]

CASA continues to rule through exemption -  

Tick -  FDS - Tock………

It is, probably, unfair to burden readers with the ‘dreary’ details. Those are neatly trapped within the Hansard.

Civil Aviation Act 1988—
Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2018 [F2018L01415].
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 2) [F2018L01319].
GNSS Navigation Under the V.F.R. (CGG Aviation) Instrument 2018—CASA 68/18 [F2018L01396].
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998—
Air Traffic Control Licence (Airservices Australia) Exemption 2018—CASA EX141/18 [F2018L01385].
CASA 125/09 (Further Body Sample Collection Procedure – Quantisal Oral Fluid Collection Device) Amendment Instrument 2018—CASA 69/18 [F2018L01360].
Fuel Requirements Exemption 2018—CASA EX126/18 [F2018L01317].
Repeal of Airworthiness Directive AD/RB211/26 Amdt 1—CASA ADCX 013/18 [F2018L01329].

If however, you can find a sober moment to consider the implications of both ‘exemption’ and ‘amendment’ to regulations. This nation has paid an extraordinary amount of money to have the Civil Aviation Regulations ‘reformed’. One of the principal objectives of the now three decade long attempt was for 'it'  to be done without the need for ‘exemption’. Since the process began, CASA have been obliged to issue more exemptions to the ‘new’, ‘reformed’ regulations than ever before – in history. Why? Well, I’m sure that any operator, worth the AOC, can find supportable evidence that the ‘new rules’ ain’t worth a cap full of cold water (I did say cap). Not only that, but ‘an exemption’ for one operator, creates an unfair commercial advantage; and, provides leverage for the authority against the exempted operator. Control, in any form, apart from across the board compliance – for all – is indicative of a system which could be viewed by some as ‘corrupted’.

$400,000,000 spent; 30 years and not complete: exemption after exemption (for the chosen few)  and still the only solution to ducked up regulation? FCOL. Adopt the FAR’s – the PNG CAR – or even the Khalistan rule set – anything but the incredible philosophical, legal minefield Australia is required to work within. I say this – operators may ‘appear’ to be ‘compliant’ – on the surface; but under the surface; bollocks. Most of the regulations, those which can be understood, are dismissed as CASA faery-pooh. The regulations are creating a very unsafe, tick-a-box, 'go along to get along' environment. With everyone holding their breath.

I’m not sure how many Ticks and Tock’s Australia has left in the kitty – plenty of warnings – ATR, Essendon, Mildura etc; etc.

Toot Bollocks, toot bollocks, toot toot toot.
(musical evening)..TOM hauled the Banjo out of storage - dogs luv it: do not ask me why.

In case anyone was wondering what "K" is banging on about, here is a link for the offending passage of Hansard: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus.../&sid=0000 (Hint: refer to documents at the bottom of the page -   )

Referring to some of those dodgy exemption instruments:

The first is the extension to the CAO 48.1 AOC transition period(s)...  

Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 2) (Cth)

F2018L01319 - Date published: 19/09/2018
Date:
19 September 2018
Cited by:
2 cases
Legislation cited:
3 provisions
Cases cited:
0 cases

I, SHANE PATRICK CARMODY, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subregulation 5 (1), regulation 210A and subregulation 215 (3) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, subregulation 11.068 (1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, and paragraph 28BA (1) (b) and subsection 98 (4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
[Signed S. Carmody]
Shane Carmody

Director of Aviation Safety
18 September 2018
Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 2)
1          Name of instrument
                 This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2018 (No. 2).
2          Commencement
                 This instrument commences on the day after registration.
3          Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013
                 Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013.
4          Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) (as amended)
                 Schedule 2 amends Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) (as amended).
Schedule 1          Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013
[1]       Paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3
omit
31 October 2018 (wherever occurring)
insert
26 March 2020
[2]       Before paragraph 4.1
insert
    4.1A     In this subsection:
                 the transition date means:
(a)       30 September 2019 — for the regular public transport operations, in high capacity aircraft, of any AOC holder to whom Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.5 applies; and
Note    A “high capacity aircraft” is defined in subsection 2 of CAO 82.0 as “an aircraft that is certified as having a maximum seating capacity exceeding 38 seats or a maximum payload exceeding 4 200 kg”.
(b)      26 March 2020 — for operations of any AOC holder that are not described in paragraph (a).
[3]       Subparagraph 4.2 (a)
omit
31 October 2018
insert
the transition date
[4]       Paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4
omit
31 October 2018 (wherever occurring)
insert
the transition date
[5]       Before paragraph 4B.1
insert
  4B.1A     In this subsection:
                 the transition date means 26 March 2020.
[6]       Paragraphs 4B.2 and 4B.3
omit
31 October 2018 (wherever occurring)
insert
the transition date
Schedule 2          Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) (as amended)
[1]       Subsection 2.2
substitute
       2.2     Subject to subsections 2.2A and 2.3, section 3 commences on 30 September 2019.
Note   The effect of subsection 2.2 is that the amendments to Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013contained in Schedule 1 of the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) (as amended)commence on 30 September 2019 for the regular public transport operations, in high capacity aircraft, of an AOC holder. But such AOC holders may opt-in earlier.
    2.2A     Despite subsection 2.2, and subject to subsection 2.3, section 3 does not take effect until 26 March 2020 for:
(a)   the operations of any AOC holder that are not regular public transport operations, in high capacity aircraft, to which Civil Aviation Order 82.5 applies; or
(b)   any Part 141 operator.
Note   Subsection 2.2A delays the effect of amendments to Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013, contained in Schedule 1 of the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. 1) (as amended), until 26 March 2020 for the operations of an AOC holder that are not regular public transport operations in high capacity aircraft, and for any Part 141 operator. But such AOC holders and Part 141 operators may opt-in earlier.
[2]       Subsection 2.3
substitute
       2.3     Despite subsections 2.2 and 2.2A, section 3 takes effect for a person in accordance with section 4.
Note   This provision enables the early opt-in process mentioned in section 4.
[3]       Subsection 4.1
insert
                 the transition date means:
(a)       30 September 2019 — for the regular public transport operations, in high capacity aircraft, of any AOC holder to whom Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.5 applies; and
Note    A “high capacity aircraft” is defined in subsection 2 of CAO 82.0 as “an aircraft that is certified as having a maximum seating capacity exceeding 38 seats or a maximum payload exceeding 4 200 kg”.
(b)      26 March 2020 for:
             (i)  the operations of any AOC holder that are not described in paragraph (a); and
            (ii)  any Part 141 operator.
[4]       Subsection 4.2
omit
31 October 2018 (wherever occurring)
insert
the transition date
[5]       Paragraph 4.3 (b), the Note
omit
31 October 2018 (wherever occurring)
insert
the transition date

What a clusterduck! I pity the poor operators that bent over backwards to meet the original transition period only to find their competitors get a free kick for a further 2 years - UDB!   

Next is yet another exemption for the more than 2 decade old obfuscated identified safety issue of amending the 'fuel and alternate requirements' regulations:

I, SHANE PATRICK CARMODY, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under paragraph 28BA (1) (b) and subsection 98 (4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

[Signed S. Carmody]
Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety
9 October 2018

Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2018
1          Name
                 This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2018.
2          Commencement
                 This instrument commences immediately after the commencement of the Civil Aviation Amendment (Fuel and Oil Requirements) Regulations 2018.
3          Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 82.0
                 Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 82.0.
Schedule 1          Amendments
[1]        Paragraph 2.1
insert
minimum safe fuel has the meaning given by the legislative instrument issued by CASA under regulation 234 of CAR, as in force from time to time.
[2]        Paragraphs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1
omit
[3]        Subparagraph 3A.1 (g)
omit
flight; and
insert
flight.
[4]        Subparagraph 3A.1 (h)
omit

  
& the exemption (Caution: Beware the legal weasel words -  ):

CASA EX126/18 — Fuel Requirements Exemption 2018 (Cth)

F2018L01317 - Date published: 19/09/2018
Date:
19 September 2018
Cited by:
0 cases
Legislation cited:
1 provisions
Cases cited:
0 cases

Instrument number CASA EX126/18
I, SHANE PATRICK CARMODY, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulations 11.160 and 11.205 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.
[Signed S. Carmody]
Shane Carmody

Director of Aviation Safety
18 September 2018
CASA EX126/18 — Fuel Requirements Exemption 2018
1          Name
                 This instrument is CASA EX126/18 — Fuel Requirements Exemption 2018.
2          Duration
                 This instrument:
(a)   commences on 8 November 2018; and
(b)   is repealed at the end of 28 February 2019.
3          Application
        (1)     This instrument applies to a person (an affected operator) that, immediately before 8 November 2018, held an AOC or a Part 141 certificate.
        (2)     This instrument also applies to the pilot in command of an aircraft in an operation authorised by an AOC or a Part 141 certificate held by an affected operator.
4          Exemption — CAR
        (1)     The affected operator and the pilot in command are exempt from compliance with regulations 234 and 234A of CAR.
        (2)     The exemption in subsection (1) is subject to the condition that the affected operator and the pilot in command must comply with the following provisions, as in force on 7 November 2018:
(a)   regulation 234 of CAR;
(b)   subparagraph 3A.1 (h) of Civil Aviation Order 82.0 (CAO 82.0).
Note   When assessing compliance with regulation 234 of CAR as in force on 7 November 2018, a court is expected to take into account Civil Aviation Advisory Publications CAAP 215‑1(2) and CAAP 234‑1(1), as existing on 7 November 2018.
5          Exemption — Civil Aviation Order 82.0
        (1)     The affected operator is exempt from compliance with subparagraph 3A.1 (g) of CAO 82.0.
        (2)     The exemption in subsection (1) is subject to the condition that the affected operator must comply with subparagraph 3A.1 (g) of CAO 82.0 using the definition of minimum safe fuel in paragraphs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1 of CAO 82.0, as in force on 7 November 2018.

This is the section referred to under the CAO 82.0:

3A       Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands
    3A.1     Subject to paragraph 3A.2, each certificate authorising 1 or more of the following operations in an aeroplane:
(a)   charter operations for the carriage of passengers;
(b)   regular public transport operations for the carriage of passengers;
©   aerial work operations for ambulance functions or for functions substantially similar to ambulance functions (medical transport operations);
                 is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island unless:
(d)   the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(e)   before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(f)    the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island, unless CASA approves otherwise in writing; and
(g)   when the flight commences, the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight; and
(h)   during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its nominated alternate aerodrome if necessary, with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.

This is interesting because the 'minimum safe fuel' definition came about due to the; (a) nearly decade old CASA project 09/13; (b) the PelAir cover-up investigation; and finally the ICAO amendment to Annex 6 in 2012. Reference ATSB safety issue (note not recommendation) - AO-2014-190-SI-10 https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...190-si-10/

Proactive Action
Action organisation:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Action number:
AO-2014-190-NSA-037
Date:
23 November 2017
Action status:
Closed
In August 2009, CASA commenced a project to review the Australian requirements for fuel and alternates (Project OS 09/13 – Fuel and alternate requirements). The terms of reference noted that the ATSB database had provided evidence that fuel quantity issues were becoming problematic, and it was proposed to strengthen CAAP 234, and to change CAR 234 in order to encourage industry to follow the contents of the CAAP. It also noted proposed amendments to ICAO Annex 6 for fuel and alternate requirements for commercial air transport operations ‘require CASA to explore this issue and identify any potential issues the proposed ICAO amendments may have within the Australian aviation operating environment’.

In addition to changes to the requirements relating to Australian remote islands (see Safety action AO-2014-190-NSA-035), this project has involved various activities in relation to fuel planning.

On 25 June 2012, CASA advised the ATSB that amendment 36 to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 6, State Letter AN 11/1.32-12/10 detailed a number of new Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) in regard to fuel planning, in flight fuel management, the selection of alternates and extended diversion time operations (EDTO). In this respect, CASA provided the following update:

CASA intends to review Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1 relating to fuel requirements. The ICAO fuel and alternate Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) are the basis of these changes and will be coordinated by CASA project OS09/13. While this project will focus specifically on passenger-carrying commercial flights the project will also be reviewing fuel requirements generally. The project will now be conducted in four phases. The first three phases will involve amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Order (CAO) applicable Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1 and Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234. The project objectives are as follows:

– Phase 1 will involve amendments to the relevant CAOs and a review of CAAP 234-1 for flights to isolated aerodromes in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass fuel and operational requirements for flights to isolated aerodromes and will also consider the provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome from a destination that is a designated isolated aerodrome. The CAAP 234-1 will also be expanded to provide guidance and considerations necessary for flights to any isolated aerodrome, in particular when, and under what circumstances, a pilot should consider a diversion.

– Phase 2 will involve amendments to the relevant CAOs and further review of CAAP 234 in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass regulatory changes related to the implementation of general fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes. This review will include the methods by which pilots and operators calculate fuel required and fuel on-board.

– Phase 3 will involve amendment to CAR 234 to specify that the pilot in command, or the operator, must take reasonable steps to ensure sufficient fuel and oil shall be carried to undertake and continue the flight in safety. In addition, for flights conducted in accordance with Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO), CAO 82 and CAR 234 shall be amended to require consideration of a "critical fuel scenario" taking into account an aeroplane system failure or malfunction which could adversely affect safety of flight. It is anticipated that the methods chosen by the pilot-in-command and operator will therefore be sufficient to meet the requirements of CAR 234 to enable a flight to be undertaken and continue in safety.

– Phase 4 will involve the publication of internal and external educational material along with conducting briefings where necessary.
and that:

The amendment to the ICAO Annex 6 standards will be considered, and where appropriate, incorporated into the relevant legislation/advisory publication. In addition it is anticipated that there will be guidance material for operators who can demonstrate a particular level of performance-based compliance. The intent is to provide a bridge from the conventional approach to safety to the contemporary approach that uses process- based methods and Safety Risk Management (SRM) principles.

The ICAO Fuel and Flight Planning Manual are reflected in the SARP to Annex 6. Inclusion of the provisions of the Amendment 36 SARPs will be captured throughout this project. The ICAO SARP becomes effective from November 2012.

CASA will endeavour to make the changes as soon as possible - subject to third party arrangements such as drafting and resource availability. However the timing of the CAR changes will be subject to a timetable that is not necessarily able to be controlled by CASA.
In January 2016, as part of the project commenced in August 2009, CASA issued Consultation Draft (CD) 1508OS – Fuel and oil quantity requirements. The CD included proposed amendments to CAR 234 and CAAP 234. The explanation of the changes stated:

Regulation 234 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) requires the pilot-in-command of an aircraft to take reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient quantities of fuel and oil for the proposed flight to be undertaken safely. The regulation also requires the operator of an aircraft to take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not begin a flight unless it is carrying sufficient fuel and oil to allow the flight to be conducted safely.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) reports have revealed incide
nts and accidents directly related to carriage of insufficient quantities of fuel. CASA proposes to address this safety issue by amending regulation 234 of CAR to provide updated fuel and oil requirements.

The current regulation 234 of CAR allows courts to consider any guidelines provided by CASA when determining whether sufficient fuel and oil were carried on a flight, which includes the guidelines provided in CAAP 234-1(1). While some of the information provided in the CAAP should be read as a requirement empowered by the current regulation 234, other information is advisory in nature. CASA intends to the make clearer the distinction between the regulatory requirements and the guidance material by transferring the requirements for determination of fuel and oil quantity from the CAAP to a proposed legislative instrument.

The CD proposed included fuel planning and fuel management requirements in an instrument, referenced by an amended CAR 234. The proposed instrument incorporated the definition of minimum safe fuel for a flight to a remote island from CAO 82.0. However, there were no other changes associated with remote islands or isolated aerodromes.

In March 2017, CASA advised the ATSB:

CASA is continuing, as part of the standards development process for the development of CASR Part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules), to consider how to address the generalities of the ‘isolated aerodrome issue’. The specific operational parts for air transport (CASR 121/133/135) and aerial work (CASR 138) will subsequently consider whether additional constraints or conditions are needed, or if alleviation is available under certain conditions. These provisions, along with the fuel and alternate determination provisions will be subject to public consultation as part of the operational part suite…

The application of ‘isolated aerodrome’ SARPs is a vexatious issue because it relies on the interaction of the various ICAO SARPs that underpin it. It is very difficult to apply exactly the requirements of one ICAO SARP whilst not applying exactly the others that support it. In this case, the isolated aerodrome SARP relies on the fuel and alternate SARPs. These provisions require, inter-alia, that an alternate be nominated in almost all cases and that fuel quantities be determined on that basis. The isolated aerodrome SARP then allows alleviation from that requirement under certain conditions, most notably, when the nearest alternate is beyond approximately 90 minutes flight time.

Australian legislation has provisions that accommodate our unique infrastructure, particularly the absence of predominately independent runways at many aerodromes supporting air transport operations. The Australian rule set also allows for flights to be conducted without an alternate under certain operating conditions, such as weather above set criteria.

In August 2017 (after receiving the draft ATSB report for the reopened investigation), CASA advised the ATSB:

As mentioned in the report, prior to this accident CASA had already commenced Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate Requirements – to develop improvements to CASA regulations and orders relating to fuel carriage, fuel guidance and isolated aerodromes policy in light of proposed ICAO changes.

On 23 December 2014, CAO 82.0 was amended to require RPT passenger carrying operations and aerial work operations for ambulance functions or for functions substantially similar to ambulance functions to meet the same remote island requirements that had applied to charter passenger carrying operations at the time of this accident.

As part of this Project, CASA extensively examined the ICAO concept of isolated aerodromes, the historical context that led to the CASA remote island policy in place at the time of the accident and reviewed these in light of technological changes and the scope of Australian aviation operations to the identified remote islands. CASA determined that the implemented policy - that all passenger carrying charter, RPT and aerial work ambulance flights must nominate and plan for an alternate for all remote island operations and that a nominated alternate cannot itself be a remote island - was more conservative than the ICAO isolated aerodrome concept.

More generically, the policy regarding when a flight can be conducted without providing for an alternate aerodrome is being examined as part of Project OS 99/08 - CASR Part 91.

   
Please not the following from AIN online:

Australia Delays New Fuel Requirement Rules
by Gordon Gilbert
 - October 11, 2018, 2:08 PM
New rules covering minimum fuel requirements for all Australian aircraft were scheduled to start on Nov. 8, 2018, but have now been extended to Feb. 28, 2019. The nation’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is providing existing aircraft operator certificate (AOC) holders and Part 141 and 142 training certificate holders more time to comply with the new fuel requirements by issuing an updated exemption.

The authority said it recognized “that many operators were only recently required to amend their expositions or operations manuals to transition to CASR Parts 141 and 142.” To this end, CASA has updated its Part 141 sample operations manual and Part 142 exposition and the annual authoring and assessment tool to reflect these changes. Between now and the exemption deadline, CASA advises AOC holders to “review your current fuel policy and, if required, update your operations manual and submit to your oversighting office.”

The rules re-introduce a 30-minute fixed fuel reserve requirement, reduce reserve requirements for day VFR operations in small piston or turboprop airplanes, require pilots to conduct in-flight fuel management with regular fuel quantity checks and if required declare “mayday fuel,” and introduce “additional fuel” that simplifies the planning requirements for fuel contingencies. The changes more closely align Australian fuel rules with U.S. standards and ICAO recommended practices.

Now note that the ATSB safety issue (not recommendation ) is apparently Closed.


Q/ How can you have an outstanding identified safety issue (not recommendation -   ) Closed when the proposed proactive action is dependent on CASA promulgating amended regulations that they keep on deferring, operator compliance with, through legislative instruments/exemptions? 

 MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA divide & conquer vs. FAA foster & promote. 

Sterlo to call for SI into self-administration aviation? - 

Via the Yaffa: 

Senate Inquiry looms for Self-administration
10 October 2018

Senator Glenn Sterle last night told Australian Flying that next week he will ask the senate to instigate an inquiry into self-administered aviation.

Comment in reply Sandy...

Sandy Reith • 5 hours ago

Thank goodness there’s one MP prepared to look into the administration, more correctly the maladminstration, of aviation in Australia, but the inbuilt problems of a divided approach will go against the best interests of aviation as a whole and particularly General Aviation. The obvious farcical distinctions between RAAus and the rest of GA should not be exacerbated by more layers just to suit CASA. Rather a graduated system should be embraced, a simplified version of the FAA rules would be the starting point. I hope Senator Sterle appreciates that the interlocking interests, career pathways, international recognition for aircraft personnel and engineering norms must be based on ICAO and acceptability to the US and Europe.

&..


SBG 14 Oct '18: http://auntypru.com/control-checks-and-balance/
or http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-143...ml#pid9419

VS

If you ever wanted a more perfect example of how a proactive regulator, while actively oversighting aviation safety, is supposed to foster and promote all sectors of the aviation industry then IMO you can't go past the following article by Jennifer Caron an assistant editor for the FAA Safety Briefing team...  

REFLECTIONS OF OUR AVIATION COMMUNITY
A Look at General Aviation Advocates



--by Jennifer Caron, FAA Safety Briefing

Just about every time that my brother and I visited our grandparent’s house, we would get a couple of those toy kaleidoscopes to play with. We’d fight tooth and nail over who would get the one with the best design on the canister, then run outside to point it towards the sun for the brightest light. Like pirates searching for treasure-laden ships, we’d stare deeply into the eyepiece, turning the cylinder in awe, as tiny pieces of colored glass transformed themselves into beautiful, symmetrical patterns before our eyes.

Convinced that some enchantment was afoot to explain these magical shapes inside the chamber, we’d break open our kaleidoscopes and discover, to our surprise, a simple collection of different shapes of glass, bits of beads, and a web of mirrors.

As we got older and somewhat wiser, we learned that a kaleidoscope is an intricate assembly of diverse parts, reflected by a prism of well-placed mirrors. These mirrors are the secret ingredient that harness the individual beauty of all the bits and pieces to create the harmonious and symmetrical patterns that we see inside the chamber.

Our general aviation (GA) community is similar to the inner workings of a kaleidoscope. It consists of different parts — different types of pilots and mechanics, on many different types of aircraft, representing different issues, needs, and concerns. Just like the kaleidoscope’s prism of mirrors, GA advocacy groups reflect and support each part of our aviation village to create the harmonious patterns that shape our aviation world.


https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing...ct2018.pdf

GA ADVOCACY GROUPS HELP CREATE THE PATTERNS THAT SHAPE OUR AVIATION WORLD.

Let’s take a closer look at these two GA advocacy groups, and all they have to offer our community.

SYMBIOSIS

AOPA’s stated mission is to protect your freedom to fly through education, resources, advocacy, keeping GA accessible to all, and supporting activities to ensure the long-term health of general aviation. Created in 1939 as the world’s largest community of pilots and aviation enthusiasts, AOPA promotes an environment that gives people of all ages the opportunity to enjoy aviation and all it has to offer.

In a nutshell, AOPA is a one-stop shop for all things GA, working to support the many facets of this industry. From private pilot to drone enthusiast to balloonist, AOPA members enjoy access to in-depth, online flight training tools, continuing education, safety resources, monthly magazines, newsletters, as well as flight planners and weather tools. You can also get advice from pilots and flight instructors (or share your knowledge with others), receive air safety alerts, and seek guidance on certification issues.


Darin and Roger Meggers — AOPA lifetime members and father-son team operators of Baker Air Service in Baker, Montana.

AOPA and the FAA work closely together to educate and provide outreach to the GA community, share information, and circulate best practices and lessons learned. A good example of this relationship is the GA Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), of which the FAA and AOPA are members. This joint government/industry committee uses a data-driven approach to analyze GA accident causal factors and develop mitigation strategies. Committee members all work together through educational programs such as the #FlySafe campaign to promote best practices and safe flying techniques.

Another important area of coordination between the FAA and AOPA is with the development of the recent Airman Certification Standards (ACS), which replaces the Practical Test Standards, and provides a single-source set of standards for both the knowledge exam and the practical test. “The Airman Certification System Working Group is the best example of the FAA partnering with AOPA,” says Dave Oord, AOPA senior director of regulatory affairs and the working group’s chair. “We work together to improve the relevancy of training and testing and to align all the components of the airman certification system so that a pilot clearly understands what’s expected of them.”

Other notable FAA/AOPA partnership programs include their combined efforts to revamp AOPA’s 2009 Runway Safety course, which proved to be AOPA’s most highly-used educational tool (more than 60,000 completions).

Along with several other industry members, AOPA supports the FAA’s Know Before You Fly safety campaign designed to give Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operators information and guidance about safe and responsible flight.

As an FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) industry member, AOPA provides courses, seminars, and webinars as part of the FAA’s WINGS Pilot Proficiency Program, which includes targeted flight training designed to help pilots develop the knowledge and skills needed to achieve flight proficiency and mitigate risks. AOPA’s Air Safety Institute (ASI) develops many of these courses that provide credit for the WINGS program.

ASI is a component of the AOPA Foundation and works to improve GA safety through educational programs for pilots and flight instructors.

“Whether you’re an AOPA member or not, all of ASI’s safety materials are free,” says Jill Tallman, instrument-rated private pilot and technical editor of AOPA’s Pilot Magazine and Flight Training Magazine. This includes their podcasts, videos, and in-person seminars on topics ranging from aerodynamics and aeromedical to thunderstorm avoidance and transition training. ASI also offers comprehensive, FAA-approved CFI renewal programs. Safety Spotlights include courses, accident case studies, real pilot stories, quizzes, videos, and publications relevant to each topic.

SYNERGY

Another key member of the GA community is the Experimental Aircraft Association, or EAA.

Founded in 1953 as “a local club for those who built and restored their own aircraft,” EAA’s mission is to make aviation easier, more accessible, more rewarding, and more fun … by embracing “The Spirit of Aviation” in all that we do.

EAA is an international aviation organization that not only caters to amateur-built, restorers, and light plane aficionados, but also fosters every aspect of aviation in our diverse community of pilots and enthusiasts. EAA’s online resources keep you informed with extensive libraries of DIY and “how to” homebuilder videos, workshops, webinars, technical manuals, along with discounts on flight planning and weather tools. There are extensive pilot resources, including EAA’s network of Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) to help with airworthiness certification. In addition, there are learn to fly videos, transition training, and forums to learn from experienced aviators.


Husband and wife lifetime EAA members, Larry and Teresa Wilhite from Senoia, Georgia.

The backbone of EAA is its network of local chapters that provide opportunities for pilots, instructors, and enthusiasts from a wide range of aviation interests and backgrounds to share knowledge, learn and discuss different ways to approach flight scenarios, promote safety, and improve decision-making skills. EAA also sponsors local fly-ins, and groups such as the EAA/IMC and EAA/VMC Clubs, which promote proficiency and safety in instrument flying.

EAA’s aviation safety programs guide members in building and flying their aircraft through FAA-accredited programs such as the EAA Technical Counselors — experienced builders, restorers, and mechanics available to assist, and EAA Flight Advisors — flight instructors and experienced aviators who help members determine if their piloting skills are matched to the aircraft they are looking to build or fly.

In addition to its safety programs, EAA hosts presentations with the FAASTeam to address the primary accident causal factors that continue to plague the GA community. Activities, courses, seminars, and webinars are available through FAASafety.gov, and many of these qualify for WINGS credit.

Partnered with the FAA in safety, EAA currently co-chairs the GAJSC, and is highly focused on reducing loss of control accidents with its Founder’s Innovation Prize annual program. EAA also promotes the #Fly Safe and the Know Before You Fly campaigns, the latter as a joint effort with the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). “EAA has a steep history of working in partnership with the agency, with the common goal of ensuring safety and enabling innovation for the betterment of general aviation,” explains Sean Elliott, EAA Vice President of Advocacy and Safety. “EAA provides subject matter expertise and collaboration in a way that truly benefits the FAA and provides a valued resource for reaching the safety goals which we all strive to achieve.”

Of particular note is EAA’s Type Club Coalition (TCC), an organization of owners and builder groups with extensive information on specific aircraft makes and models. Along with training programs and best operating procedures, TCC gives members the chance to learn from those who have already worked on similar projects. (See this issue’s Angle of Attack department for more on the TCC).

EAA offers still more opportunities to learn through its aviation education and outreach programs. Of note are the Sport Air Workshops, which are traveling hands-on help for builders, the EAA Air Academy for youth, and the Young Eagle flights, designed to introduce both adults and kids to the joys of aviation.

EAA is perhaps best known for AirVenture, its annual summer gathering of aviation enthusiasts in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Dubbed the “World’s Greatest Aviation Celebration,” this week-long event attracts more than a half a million visitors with over 10,000 aircraft. AirVenture attendees can participate in hands-on workshops, informative events, educational programs, and just the plain good fun of being with fellow aviation enthusiasts and indulging in the delights of gawking at miles of airplane eye-candy.

SHAPING YOUR COMMUNITY

Regardless of your certificate or skill level, you can benefit from the contributions that organizations like AOPA and EAA make to our multi-faceted GA “kaleidoscope” community.

Jennifer Caron is an assistant editor for FAA Safety Briefing. She is a certified technical writer-editor, and is currently pursuing a Sport Pilot Certificate.

    


MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

"Voyager, there are no bridges, one builds them as one walks."

“Our general aviation (GA) community is similar to the inner workings of a kaleidoscope. It consists of different parts — different types of pilots and mechanics, on many different types of aircraft, representing different issues, needs, and concerns. Just like the kaleidoscope’s prism of mirrors, GA advocacy groups reflect and support each part of our aviation village to create the harmonious patterns that shape our aviation world.”

That, is one the very best analogies of what is loosely known as GA. Of course in the USA, the term GA is not a derogatory term. In the USA it encompasses the entire spectrum of non airline operations; from privately owned and operated ‘heavy metal’ all the way through to the lightest, homebuilt bug smasher. All signify; not always harmonious, but very definitely considered. AOPA America is very, very good, efficient, organized and have worked hard to develop a sound working relationship with the regulator. But; it does take ‘two to Tango’ as they say. The FAA attitude to matters aeronautical is vastly different from the Australian edition; which makes discussion possible and any proposed ‘change’ has at least a fighting chance of becoming part of the fabric. The difference is stark and compelling.  

AOPA and the FAA work closely together to educate and provide outreach to the GA community, share information, and circulate best practices and lessons learned. A good example of this relationship is the GA Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), of which the FAA and AOPA are members. This joint government/industry committee uses a data-driven approach to analyze GA accident causal factors and develop mitigation strategies. Committee members all work together through educational programs such as the #FlySafe campaign to promote best practices and safe flying techniques.

Seriously – how much would this nations aviation aspirations benefit by adopting a similar system? Sure, it takes time, effort and willingness – from all concerned to arrive at any sort of agreement – always does – the difference being that in the USA – things get done; finished tidy. It seems to me at least, that there is a ‘can do/ want to do’ attitude over there; whereas in Australia, it always seems to be a one way street of ‘no – you can’t; first,  and then, even if you can, we will make it as difficult, complicated and expensive as possible. Why this is so, I’ve no idea; however, it is there – in your face, every time you need to change the colour of the bog roll in the airborne executive dunny.

The entire article – above, (courtesy of P2) is worth reading through. Then, you can return to the 99th  re hash of the no longer approved after audit of the manual you drafted two years ago, to accommodate the new aircraft type; or to include the amendment to the exemption, which used to exempt you from only using black ink.  

Hell's bloody bells!– we can’t even get AOPA into the game here. Time the minister resolved the mess; or resigned, in favour of a more able man (or even my aging, giddy Aunt Mable). Thing that really gets my back up is we pay, and pay dearly to allow CASA to blithely, with untrammeled authority, to get away with this. Aye, ‘tis the ultimate of bollocks; self inflicted, just so we can all go along, to get along. Ridiculous.

Toot – toot.