[Peetwo]

Perhaps opportunity knocks?? - GOOD CATCH HITCH!! - 

From this week's LMH:

"...The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is in the throes of reviewing the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia’s Transport Sector) Bill 2024. This is a bill that is still before parliament, but the review is all about making sure the security regulations are appropriate and updated. And, that they are risk-based. That caught my eye when I read that: risk-based. One of those security regulations is the demand for Aviation Security Identification Cards (ASIC) for general aviation aircrew when using airports that have regular public transport. If the regulations are genuinely risk-based, then it follows that the Federal Government believes that general aviation pilots are a risk to aviation security, and furthermore, that they have to be background checked every two years or aviation security is at risk. Really, it doesn't take long for that logic to whither and die under the searing rays of scrutiny. If general aviation pilots were a risk to aviation security then the government would be plagued with incidents and it would be all over the news. It's not. You see, the ASIC doesn't stop qualified pilots from carrying out any form of terrorism; it's the pilots themselves that do that. And the fact that nothing is happening is proof positive that ASICs are not needed, just as they aren't required in just about every other country in the world. The parliamentary committee is taking submissions right now. Perhaps we need to open our mouths..."

This is the description and TOR for this Joint Parliamentary inquiry:

Review of the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024

The Minister for Home Affairs, Hon Tony Burke MP, wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) on 13 January 2025 to refer the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia’s Transport Sector) Bill 2024 for inquiry and report.

The Bill is part of the implementation of a reform agenda in response to the Independent Review into Australia’s Aviation and Maritime Transport Security Settings.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to update and strengthen the [i]Aviation Transport Security Act 2004[/i] (ATSA) and the [i]Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003[/i] (MTOFSA).

Key elements of the Bill include amendments to either or both Acts to:

• amend the definition of ‘unlawful interference’ to capture a broader variety of acts, including cyber security incidents, and attempts as well as successful acts
  
• impose reporting requirements for cyber security incidents
  
• provide for the introduction of ‘all-hazards’ security obligations into both legislative schemes, by authorising regulations to be made relating to security programs and plans, minimum security standards that must be met, security assessments and annual reporting
  
• introduce system testing requirements for maritime security controls, and ‘vulnerability testing’ in both the aviation and maritime sectors
  
• update provisions relating to ‘test weapons’ to allow the Department to use new test weapons reflecting current and emerging threats
  
• broaden and align provisions across both Acts for the issuance of security directions by the Department of Home Affairs
  
• enable the establishment of a non-compliance ‘demerit points scheme’ for the aviation sector
  
• amend definitions of ‘port’ and ‘security regulated port’ to ensure that security regulation includes infrastructure, operations, assets and anchorages as part of port facilities.
  

The Bill includes other technical and administrative updates to the ATSA and MTOFSA.

The Committee invites submissions to the inquiry by 13 February 2025.

Further information about making a submission to a parliamentary committee is available here.


Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
PO Box 6021
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 2360
pjcis@aph.gov.au

Plus from the Transport Security review:

In the final report, the review made 26 recommendations and 66 sub-recommendations across five key themes:

• Update legislative and policy frameworks to enable iterative, risk-based and scalable regulation.
  
• Increase integration of intelligence and data analysis for the CISC as the regulatory body.
  
• Improve partnerships between the CISC and industry through better communication and engagement.
  
• Re-design of compliance processes and enforcement strategies.
  
• Raise, train and sustain appropriate transport security capability for both the CISC and industry.
  

LMH makes a good point in favour of scrapping the ridiculous ASIC card requirement for GA pilots but is there anyone left out there that is willing to take on the time and political advocacy effort to bring this to the attention of the numpty Senators and MPs?? - 

Sandy's submission - 

Dear Committee Secretary,

In regard to the Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) and the requirement for General Aviation (GA) pilots to maintain this expensive imposition.

I would ask the Committee to enquire from Home Affairs;  since inception of the ASIC has it delivered any safety benefits by virtue of preventing any unlawful acts around any of the many airports where it is required? And is it thought that it would be difficult for a criminal with no ASIC to obtain access to most airports?

The validity of this card is only two years, and for each renewal the pilot has to provide birth certificate and all details to prove one’s identity and visit a designated Post Office, or authorised place for photo and personal identification. The ASIC cost is about $300, plus time and travel for each renewal, a particularly onerous task for the many GA pilots who live in the bush.

The ASIC, brought about by 9/11 to counter what is I think proven to be a non existent problem, is thought to be, by virtually the whole of the GA community, an overreach and a painful waste of time and money.

In reality the ASIC requirement is:-

1/.  Against the safety of operations around airports because it deters pilots without the ASIC from visiting those ‘security controlled airports.’ There are hundreds of these airports which serve small towns like Winton QLD.

There are plenty of pilots whose ASIC has run out or don’t have a current ASIC for whatever reason, including a reluctance to spend money for no practical purpose.

2/. Against safety because more GA pilots being on those airports will have experienced eyes to assess untoward behaviour in the extremely unlikely, and remote possibility, of such activity. 

3/. Against safety and the well being of our GA industry because those without the ASIC may put off taking their aircraft to airports for maintenance due to their lack of an ASIC. Most maintenance bases are at ‘security controlled’ airports. This also means loss of business to those towns. 

I ask the Committee to revisit the Government’s own 2014 Forsyth Report and recommendation to delete the ASIC for GA pilots, and please also refer to the Wheeler report as it bears on this question.

Wheeler noted that the ASIC security investigation is only current at the time of issue, there being little or no interdepartmental follow up of incidents that might inspire security concerns about ASIC holders. Wheeler also noted that it’s a crime if an ASIC holder does not advise the authorities if one has committed, or been prosecuted for a crime and doesn’t report same promptly. An ASIC holder bent on nefarious purpose is hardly likely to obey this stricture in my opinion.

As to the practicality and real life experience of flying around Australia, a very experienced commercial charter pilot and pilot instructor (now retired, was Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor at a busy city airport) confided to me that the original ASIC card was obtained and served this person for the next some eighteen years. This demonstrates, and from personal experience, that the actual level of practical field surveillance of the ASIC in detail is extremely low.

Please inform me of the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations, I’m hopeful of a commonsense outcome because GA is an important industry that has been hampered by regulation churning and other unnecessary and expensive requirements from CASA resulting in loss of flying schools and maintenance jobs and businesses.

Thanking you for your invitation to make a submission. I am available at short notice by phone if Senators wish me to elaborate.

Kind regards,  Sandy Reith

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FWIW -  : Add Estimates Program for Betsy's minions    

Via the APH website:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

2024-25 Additional estimates

Program

Monday, 24 February 2025 

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts

Tuesday, 25 February 2025

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Program (PDF 186KB)

MTF...P2 

PS: FWIW some interesting AQON are finally being tabled...

[*]Question
The announcement of initiative 40 to review the Airports Act 1996 by 2030 via a comprehensive review is welcomed.
Are there any decisions that could occur in the interim prior to 2030 when the review is to be finalised, that could undermine our federally leased airports across Australia?
[*]Answer
Please find answer attached
Download question with answer
Answer Attachment

• 146. Initiative 40 of the Airports Act 1996.pdf
  

Answered Date
15/01/2025

---

[*]Question
1. Who makes decisions about general aviation businesses on site at our Federally leased sites?
2. Who is the regulator of Federally Leased Airports?
3. What role does the Department see itself in terms of the regulating federally leased airports?

[*]Answer

Please find answer attached
Download question with answer

Answer Attachment

• 147. Australian Government leases.pdf
  

Answered Date
05/02/2025

Answer:
1. The relevant Airport Lessee Company for each federally leased airport makes decisions around subleasing arrangements with the respective tenant, including arrangements for general aviation businesses on the airport site. These commercial decisions are made in the context of requirements under the Airports Act 1996 (the Act), associated regulations, and the airport lease for the respective airport site. 2. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts regulates federally leased airports in line with requirements under the Act and associated regulations, and the airport lease for each airport. The department performs these regulatory functions in line with the Statement of Expectations and Statement of Intent—Transport Regulation. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is the decision-maker for a range of matters under the Act, including matters such as approving, or refusing to approve airport master plans and major development plans. The department provides advice to the Minister in relation to decisions under the Act.
3. Refer response to question 2.

Hmm?? -  "Statement of Expectations and Statement of Intent—Transport Regulation"
That would be this: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/statement-of-intent-transport-regulation-february2024.pdf
What a cop out...

---

[*]Question
1. What is the process within the Department to assess a Major Development Plan MDP?
2. What Departmental oversight occurs on the processes or outcomes between the Airport Leasing Company (ALC) and the Airport Building Controller ABC?
3. Does the Department audit the applications between any of the ALC and their respective ABC to ensure that compliance is maintained?
4. How would the Minister of the day have any oversight on the processes or outcomes between the ALC and the ABC if the Department does not have any oversight?
5. Are these costs ever audited?
6. What is to stop the ALC and ABC from colluding to negate the need for a MDP?
7. Are the ALC's allowed to develop the land at the airport?

[*]Answer

Please find answer attached
Download question with answer

Answer Attachment

• 148. Airport Leasing Company (ALC) and the Airport Building Controller (ABC).pdf
  

Answered Date
03/02/2025

---

[*]Question

1. In the Moorabbin Airport Masterplan for 2021, the Department was made aware that multiple aviation tenants who were either unable to obtain a lease from the airport or unable to obtain a lease longer than 5 years.
2. How does the Department ensure that ALC are in fact providing for the use of Airports as an airport and having regard to 'actual and anticipated future growth'?
3. How does the Department regulate what is occurring on federally leased airport sites?

[*]Answer

Please find answer attached
Download question with answer

Answer Attachment

• 150. Moorabbin Airport Masterplan.pdf
  

Answered Date
05/02/2025

[Peetwo]

Review of the Transport Security Amendment Bill 2024 - Inquiry Update.

Via the APH:

Submissions

1 Mr Sandy Reith (PDF 194 KB) 

2 Canberra Airport (PDF 3734 KB) 
3 Australian Logistics Council (PDF 212 KB) 
4 International Forwarders and Custom Brokers Association of Australia Limited (PDF 235 KB) 
5 Department of Home Affairs (PDF 617 KB) 
6 Mr Clinton McKenzie (PDF 286 KB) 

7 Shipping Australia (PDF 302 KB) 
8 Australian Airports Association (PDF 2994 KB) 

No announcements of upcoming public hearings as yet but this inquiry could be kyboshed by the calling of an election, so standby...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Review of the Transport Security Amendment Bill 2024 - Public Hearing 20/02/25

Via APH YouTube channel:

Australian Airports Association (AAA)

Submission link: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=776488

Opening statement:

Mr Westaway : Thank you for this opportunity to appear today. The Australian Airports Association represents over 340 airports across Australia. This includes our major international hubs and regional and small aerodromes. We also have 150-plus corporate members which support aviation nationwide. Our members are essential in connecting communities, facilitating trade and tourism and supporting livelihoods. Today, 40 per cent of Australians interface with a local airport annually, which we think is an important point.

The AAA supports strength in our aviation security. However, we have genuine concerns about the Transport Security Amendment Bill 2024 which remain unaddressed, and we detailed these in our considered submission. The AAA notes the inadequate consultation process by the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre, or CISC. Whilst we appreciate the pre-election cycle that we now all feel like we're in, only two formal consultation phases with industry have actually occurred. The first allowed for minor feedback, and legitimate concerns were overlooked. The second, a first-pass impact analysis, was a rushed process. There was just a week for stakeholder response before the bill came before parliament.

Regulatory duplication caused by CISC's proposed all-hazards security framework remains a significant issue. Contrary to CISC's claims, comparable international frameworks do not adopt such a model for aviation security. Examples from the UK, the USA and the EU that the CISC used in their submission touched on natural hazards in passing or were focused on critical infrastructure but not aviation security. Australian airports already manage natural hazards under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. CASA's manual of standards, MOS, part 139 requires aerodrome emergency management plans to align with the International Civil Aviation Organization's, ICAO, annex 14. Meanwhile, ICAO's annex 17 governs aviation security and does not integrate natural hazards. This is a further example of unnecessary regulatory duplication, a disappointing constant across Australian aviation today.

Compliance costs are a major concern for us. By the CISC's own estimates, implementation costs could cost our sector nearly $1 billion over the next decade. This is an additional expense for airports across Australia, particularly for our small regional airports, who will find it very difficult to absorb these costs. In 2023-24, our major airports had over 97 million passenger throughputs while our regional and rural airports had a little over 18 million passenger throughput movements. These costs will inevitably be passed on to the flying public. Further increasing travel expenses in a disproportionate way will impact regional and rural aviation harder.

Finally, while security is paramount, pushing legislation without due consideration is problematic, and we believe it's actually bad public policy. The AAA recommends a minimum 24-month compliance timeline, rather than the proposed one year. This is to ensure effective implementation without the unintended consequences.

In conclusion, the AAA urges the committee to refine this bill to eliminate regulatory duplication, ensure a proportionate risk based approach and mitigate the cost burdens.

Qantas | Virgin Airlines | Airlines for ANZ

ANZ submission link: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=776498

Department of Home Affairs

DoHA submission link: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=776480

Hansard link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus.../&sid=0000


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FWIW - Additional Estimates - D.I.T.R.D.C.A: 24/02/25

Hansard link: 24 February 2025 - Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts (HTML & PDF)

Additional/Tabled docs:  Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts

Courtesy of the APH YouTube channel, who have now cut out all of the tedious editing etc required to put together the estimate video segments...

ASA:

However the APH team are yet to get to CASA, so here you go (FWIW)...  

Hmm...the RAOz/CASA v Coroner issue has much MTF it would seem...  

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Listen – carefully.

Then listen again: it is not a long journey; from 0400 minutes to about 08.30 minutes. Lost inside the words is the true focus of the CASA used car salesman; as dictated by the iron ring. Consider:-

“looking at generally how CASA acquits itself from oversight responsibilities”

“We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out.”

Aye; its a slim line; but, IMO it sums up the entire CASA 'mind-set'. There's no hint of 'assistance' directly from CASA to reduce the number of accidents; there's no push to ensure tht ATSB are obliged to investigate; there is even less of an appetite for developing ways and means to provide any form of 'safety' improvement. This is a matter which one day, may, just, maybe result in a light aircraft lost in IMC colliding with a aircraft carrying 'for hire and reward' one dark and rainy day mid way through a legitimate IMC approach. Slim chance, I'll grant you, long odds.– But why not reduce the odds even further? Prevention has always been much better than cure.

Perhaps its time CASA stopped creating and inventing regulations which cover their arse and adopt world best practice and take an active interest in generating a 'real' safety culture, rather than one which only ensures 'their' safety; through the fear of 'getting done over'. 

Toot-toot.

PS. Obliged to mention - this short (much abridged) missive provided at the behest of some very serious aviation expertise and a very cranky BRB after carefully considering the Coroners report. Unanimous vote - Spence must go and take the salesman with her. We hope the door don't hit anyone on the way out.

[Peetwo]

FWIW: Betsy's minions and Aviation in Estimates??

Via YouTube:

Summary, election coming cues racked...'err nothing to see here!'

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Cor blimey REX:- (again?).

First cab off the rank is a huge 'Thank-you' to the ever efficient, unfailingly polite, ever helpful 'back room crew' who took the time to provide the sessions on the 'You-Tube' channel. Much obliged. The 'support' provided to Estimates is a credit to them all and their management team; wish all departments had the same approach to their work – on behalf of the public.  Cheers.

So; Observations, comments and just a soupçon anger. I like to set up a screen in the workshop to listen and watch the Estimates video, that way I can work during the 'discussion'. This afternoon – I watched this one:- REX sale/ Corporate.

The vast differences between the good (Secretariat) and the Betsy's 'drones' is stark. What a surly, arrogant crew they are. Who is this Betts character anyway? Had he spoken to me in the manner he addressed the good Senator McKenzie; he'd have a lovely time at the dentist soon afterwards. Rude, and discourteous about sum it up; no tie and that ridiculous lanyard? He'd last about seven minutes in any other world. Apology and attitude adjustment required; he is, when all said and done only another a public servant, not the bloody Messiah. Disgraceful.

Always had a liking for Sterle; before we developed the Albo syndrome of providing spoiled children with more lollies and excuse clauses; he would team up with the Likes of Heffernan, Fawcett, Xenophon etc and give the public servants something to think about. Then came the tragic mark down on the election ticket and since then he's been IMO, a stranger to himself. No matter, he's no match for Sen. Mackenzie.  Wow!! I don't know how she does it; but for a while now, she has not missed a target; even when pushed, shoved or misled. This is what a Senator should be; a full day's work for a full days pay. Bravo Sen. Mack. Remember -

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

FWIW - Last Estimates for Betsy and his minions?? -

Corporate session, via YouTube:

For those interested - HERE - is the Hansard for the full session. Plus go - HERE - for the tabled docs.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Timing and simple arithmetic.

In the latest offering from Buckley – HERE – (long read) there are, without doubt, some valid points raised. One point of interest is the referral to the 'Robodebt' bun fight, which ended needing a Royal Commission to sort out. Should you have a few spare, idle moments, 'Google' that one word, then roll down the page and count the number of government agencies who have 'published' reports related to the event , on the first page; then seek out 'independent' commentary on same. They exist, but you need to look to find 'em.

The RC into Robodebt, in essence, happened because of the sheer weight of numbers involved and (of course) the dollars and, by extension votes. It was a matter of public interest therefore it became a matter of political interest (just a bit) and it cost millions of tax payer dollars (lots of) up front. Behind the 'spend' there was another impost; government employees hired to do 'other' work were seconded to the 'defence' - which left primary work on the desk.

In short, it was an expensive operation in time, money and productivity loss. It begs the question; can one person raise the ante to a level where the government de jour would feel inclined to invest in another Royal Commission on the grounds that Buckley has been 'unfairly treated'. The odds are not good; indeed, a better bet would be that every effort is made to keep the lid firmly fastened on this small can 'o worms. Even if the genie got out of the bottle, look back no further into history than the 'Pel-Air' final report from a Senate inquiry to gauge the 'real' changes effected. Does Buckley have a cat in Hell's chance of a RC?

Short answer, no. Long answer NO ducking way.

And yet – IMO – there exists a slim chance; a long shot, probably in the mission impossible class, but worth a thought or two. Consider; If, big one (huge) Buckley was a 'one off' – the only aviation business operator, pilot, aircraft owner, or maintenance organisation that had been 'handled' by CASA then we could all say Buckley was a rogue operator and CASA have done well to weed him out of the game. Amen and good-night Vienna.

But he ain't Robinson Crusoe is he? No by a long march he ain't. Standing alone, pilloried, he 'don't signify'. IF; collectively, from Qantas down to Joe Blog's flying academy in Kickinatinalong, to the Wup-Whoop spanner twister academy, there was cohesive, collective shout for real reform and ICAO standard of governance; then perhaps, just maybe, there would be hope, not only for Buckley but for this nation's aviation businesses.  Gods know, it is desperately needed. No bets taken; the 'book' is locked away...

There, my two bob, spent as pleased me best..Toot toot..

[Peetwo]

Bring back Sic'em'REX!! - 

Reference SBG...

The SS Ley v real 'Numerology'.

If you have been silly enough to consider betting the house or the kid's school fees on 'the opposition' making even one skinny improvement to the plight of GA or the engineering fraternity; now is time to stow those tickets away. Just tuck 'em away somewhere, back of the cupboard and wait for better prospects of change in the distant future. The very notion of the SS Ley being able to be even noticed by minuscule 'King' let alone having any sort of 'impact' on any form of aviation in this land is ludicrous. The under-story Juorno's tag of 'Flip-Flop' is not only accurate, but very, very valid.

' Wiki' – neatly paragraphed the 'essential' nature of this 'Flip-flop' track record is quite explicit (read properly}in defining the inability to complete a task or be a 'true' leader' of this once proud nation. To be a 'camp cook', a waitress, an ATCO (failed) or a 'commercial' pilot requires a certain degree of 'practicality', determination and willpower to complete. They are all 'career positions; the mind-set required is totally different to that required to be an 'accountant' or 'taxation' master, nor even an effective politician.

Aviation should discount any claim to 'hope' of Ley even remembering being a 'commercial pilot' or cook or cleaner or ATCO or anything else that matters. Experience of 'other' peoples lives is not a bad thing; many of us have 'worked' (when needs must) or tried out alternative jobs. It is terrific experience and goes a long way toward 'rounding' a work ethic. We've all done work which paid 'the bills' and kept us 'on track' (and eating) on the road to our chosen profession; but – was there a 'need' for Ley to even mention being a shearers cook? No, is the 'short' definitive answer. Hell, I've cooked for shearers; stock men, miners, wranglers, climbers and sailors – when it was 'my turn'. None of it is on my resume – not applicable to the position sought is it!

Holds a– 'CPL - So what'. Just holding CPL is a something of nothing; it is, essentially, simply the basic qualification needed to transition into 'the profession' – I note there is no 'rating' attached; which indicates 'no further interest' in 'working' within the industry. Has a line pilot's job ever been held: where, with whom, total command hours, medical still valid? Ley ain't one of the troops and it is disingenuous to claim to be.  In short - hold a 'CPL - So what?

Any notion that the new 'leader' can, let alone will challenge King should be flushed away with the last beer. We must now rely on Fawcett (he can't in conscience keep stepping away), Joyce; McKenzie, McDonald and a couple of others now must be depended on, with 'tough thumbs - hold the dyke' lest aviation disintegrates due lack of care, attention and support under the weight of the King/ Spence (and Co.) version of 'the way to go'.

Aviation like many other self funded, innovative, productive, employing, tax paying, revenue generating industries is being crushed out of existence through neglect, the cost of doing business, the half baked CASA and DOIT bureaucratic arse covering, waffle, 'unworkable' ideals, hubris and in many cases sheer purblind ignorance; all of that, and being completely removed from government control, suggestion or appeal. Will the SS Ley steam into that minefield? You know the answer......

IF, government continue to insist on the 'hands off' criterion but perhaps recognised the industry pleadings for 'sanity' and 'clarity'; and, ICAO compliance; and, there was just a flicker of will to 'assist' - there is a simple, effective solution available. To wit:- sack Spence and hire an aviation 'Boss' who can bring in and enforce the changes so desperately needed. Get shed of the Muppet running ATSB and watch the revenue start to tick over. Two letters, two strokes of the ministerial pen and just like that 75% of the industry noise has gone.

Only my opinion of course; but as the numbers indicate, we can't struggle along like this for much longer – Engineering in all manner of trouble (mostly due to the regulations) Flying Schools closing and training standards now 'piss potical (mostly due to the regulations) Secondary airport charter operations reduced to a trickle' (mostly due to the over regulation, changes to same and charges for 'service' and leases) etc. etc. Ley the CPL holder is going to fix this? Don't think so; no Sir I just don't.

Toot – toot....

Speaking of SS_Ley flip, flopping get a load of this flim flam from 2017, subject matter - Angel Flight?? - 

Ms LEY (Farrer) (16:56): I rise to discuss matters concerning aviation safety and to submit to the parliament a view that Australia needs new safety standards for community service flights conducted on a voluntary basis. Many who live in rural and remote Australia, as I do, are familiar with Australia's best known charity medical air service, Angel Flight, operating since 2003, an organisation that coordinates non-emergency flights flown by volunteer pilots to transport country passengers to medical appointments, usually in capital cities.

In the last six years, there have been two fatal flights, the most recent being on 28 June near Mount Gambier, in which the pilot and two passengers were killed. In August 2011 another flight crashed near Nhill in western Victoria, again with no survivors. I will resist commenting on the causes of the accident earlier this year, as its circumstances are subject to an ongoing Aviation Transport Safety Bureau investigation. At the end of 2013, the ATSB released its report into the 2011 accident and found as follows:

… the pilot probably encountered reduced visibility … due to low cloud, rain and diminishing daylight, leading to disorientation, loss of control and impact with terrain.

This was a clear safety message about the risk of such flights made by pilots without high instrument flying proficiency and recent night experience.

In 2014, CASA released a discussion paper in which it sought to toughen regulations for community service flights. The paper argued:

As community service flights become more widely used, the variable pilot qualifications and aircraft certification and maintenance standards become significant potential risk factors.

It canvassed 10 administrative and/or operational options, noting that too heavy a regulatory hand would mean the cost of compliance would effectively rule such flights impossible. At the time there was strong resistance to change from Angel Flight and from regional communities, and the proposed changes were shelved. However, following the latest tragedy, CASA announced that it will re-examine standards for flights like Angel Flight. That is a good thing. As a general aviation pilot, with a commercial licence I earned in 1980 and having had a career as a bush pilot and still flying myself across the big distances of western New South Wales, I am the very last person to wish for additional regulation on pilots, and it gives me no pleasure to call for change within a charitable organisation that has at its heart and soul the volunteering, giving spirit of so many country people. But a passion for flying and a love of helping people are not sufficient without adequate safety standards.

Most people are familiar with charter flights that leave their local regional airports from time to time—small planes that come and go from out-of-the-way places—and they would consider that the Angel Flight used by their family member is covered by the same rules and regulations. I believe they'd be surprised to know that this is not the case. Operators of charter flights must have an air operators certificate and conform to a far higher standard than regular private flights. Much of this standard is frustratingly bureaucratic, but at its heart is the critical imperative of aviation safety. In the case of a charity flight, the relationship that would exist in a private flight doesn't exist. The members of the public are unsuspecting. There is an element of vulnerability about their circumstances, particularly when children are involved. This may introduce a degree of operational pressure. The level of competency of pilots flying the trips may be as high as or higher than that of those who fly regular public transport routes, or it may be lower than the level of an average pilot.

I have criticised CASA many times over the years, but their 2014 discussion paper should be revisited. Their preferred option—an approved self-administering aviation organisation—would allow this sector to regulate itself. Changes must be made, and I do believe a way forward can be found so that our volunteer pilots can continue to help support country people's access to medical services.

 

Hmm...

Compare that to this...

&..this:

Or even this from Senator McDonald:

&..who could forget:

MTF...P2