[Peetwo]

 

OAR TASWAM review - "Nothing to see here, move along"


This AM an elephant was sighted over Hobart Skies parked at approximately 8,500 feet... - WTF?  

Oh I get it now... Read this 43 page, glossy, arse-covering, load of bollocks from, Electric Blue and the Bus Driver Sir A's rubber stamp, the CAsA Office of (NFI) Airspace Regulation and you'll get the picture... :

Aeronautical Study of Hobart 2016

Description: Draft Aeronautical Study of Hobart 2016

Download aeronautical_study_of_hobart_2016.pdf (2.4 MB)

Date modified: 29/08/2016

12. CASA RECOMMENDATIONS

CASA applies a precautionary approach when conducting aeronautical studies and therefore the following recommendations are made:

Recommendation 1:

The existing airspace classification and architecture (apart from the one CTA step lower limit change, which is already the subject of an airspace change proposal) should remain unchanged.

Recommendation 2:

CASA should continue to monitor aircraft and passenger movements and incidents at Hobart over the next 24 months to determine whether the trend for growth continues. An aeronautical risk review should then be conducted if necessary.

Recommendation 3:

To improve efficiencies and predictability, taking into account PBN requirements Airservices should continue redesign work for flight routes into and out of Hobart, make improvements to existing Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures (TIFPs) and introduce STARs into Hobart.

13. NEXT STEP

Stakeholders are requested to provide feedback on the review to oar@casa.gov.au no later than 30 September 2016. CASA will consider feedback received to be public information and will normally attribute feedback, however requests to remain anonymous will be considered.

 
To summarise here is that happy little chappy from Tassie, via the Oz...  

No-change ruling ‘courts tragedy’ at Hobart airport

• Matthew Denholm
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 31, 2016
  

Tasmania correspondent
Hobart
https://plus.google.com/100836856169595508198
@MatthewRDenholm
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/5f91ca65ef3233adc982dc00ae6da579/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Australia’s air safety regulator has decided against any serious change to Hobart’s air space, prompting claims it is courting tragedy and continuing a cover-up over Tasmania’s $6 million radar system.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority yesterday released the findings of a review of Hobart’s airspace, ordered after stories in The Australian about failures in the state’s radar system, known as TASWAM. The Australian last year revealed TASWAM was not being used to control aircraft to the ground but only as an extra tool for tower controllers providing “procedural separation”, which relies on visual observation and communication with pilots.

CASA responded to criticism, and a projected 30 per cent to 40 per cent increase in passengers over the next five years, by ordering an Office of Airspace Regulation review of Hobart airspace.

The report released yesterday rejects calls by pilots and Airlines of Tasmania for TASWAM to be used as they believed it was intended: to guide aircraft to the runway, rather than to 8500 feet as occurs now. Instead, it recommends continuing with local air tower controllers using procedural sep­aration below 8500 feet, calling this “appropriate”.

Aviator Dick Smith last night said it seemed CASA was continuing a “cover-up” of TASWAM and would not act until there was a death.

Hmm...well that was predictable...




MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

 
These & other questions??

Today the good RRAT Estimates crew released the following statement and QON index link:

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Index of Questions on Notice: (PDF 111KB)

In the 44th Parliament, the committee set 17 June 2016 as the date by which answers to questions on notice from the Budget Estimates 2016-17 hearing were to be returned. Following the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament with effect from 9.00am on 9 May 2016 for the federal election, unanswered questions on notice lapsed.

Following the opening of the 45th Parliament, on 31 August 2016, the Senate agreed that answers be provided by 14 September 2016 to all legislation committees relating to all questions taken on notice by the committees’ predecessor committees with respect to the 2015-16 additional estimates and the 2016-17 budget estimates, and which remained unanswered at the beginning of the new Parliament.

  
Referring to the QON index there are not many questions but what are there are very interesting in light of recent developments at Fort Fumble and with the realisation that Senator Fawcett has been doing much behind the scenes... :

20/262/Aviation and Airports/FAWCETT/ASSR

Senator FAWCETT: The ASRR, some of the updates you provided online, particularly your speech in Canada about some of the progress and things moving forward—can you give us an update against each of the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth report, just as to where you are at and your time frame for implementation.

Mr Skidmore: We can certainly give you an update with regard to the government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report and what our implementation is on those.

---

21/260/CASA/XENOPHON/ADS-B

Senator XENOPHON: What proportion of general aviation would have implemented ADS-B, do you think? Can you take that on notice.

Mr Skidmore: Can I just correct—the mandate is for IFR aircraft. That encompasses a number of operators and a number of systems; it is not just general aviation. In regard to the exact numbers of those who have implemented ADS-B in the general aviation space, I would do not have those numbers with me.

Senator XENOPHON: Would you take that on notice.

Mr Skidmore: I can take that on notice.  

---

22/261/CASA/FAWCETT/Sector Risk Profiles

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put my questions on notice, given the time constraints. Mr Skidmore, the industry has been very positive about sector risk profiles. I would like an update on where CASA's view is with that process, who you have got working on it and what resources you are investing in it. It appears to be a good way of collaborating with industry.

Mr Skidmore: I will take that on notice, and thank you very much for those comments.

---

23/263/ CASA/FAWCETT/ASSR

Senator FAWCETT: I know what the government response was. I am interested in where you are at and where your time frame for implementation is going, particularly around the issues that you are obviously aware of—48 paragraph 1 parts 61 and 141, the things that are concerning industry, but I am also interested, for example, in how well the industry complaints commissioner is functioning in the way that Forsyth envisaged to get quick turnaround times. I would appreciate some actual facts and figures around number of complaints, times for resolution, what the outcomes were and how many have had to go back to the board member to indicate that CASA has taken a view that perhaps the independent expert, the board member, did not think was going to be appropriate.


Mr Skidmore: We can certainly do that. The terms of reference for the ICC were amended to be 'report directly to the board.' That was one of the aspects of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review that we have implemented. We can give you more figures in regard to the ICC process and the complaints. 

  
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

 
These & other questions??

Today the good RRAT Estimates crew released the following statement and QON index link:

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Index of Questions on Notice: (PDF 111KB)

In the 44th Parliament, the committee set 17 June 2016 as the date by which answers to questions on notice from the Budget Estimates 2016-17 hearing were to be returned. Following the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament with effect from 9.00am on 9 May 2016 for the federal election, unanswered questions on notice lapsed.

Following the opening of the 45th Parliament, on 31 August 2016, the Senate agreed that answers be provided by 14 September 2016 to all legislation committees relating to all questions taken on notice by the committees’ predecessor committees with respect to the 2015-16 additional estimates and the 2016-17 budget estimates, and which remained unanswered at the beginning of the new Parliament.

  
Referring to the QON index there are not many questions but what are there are very interesting in light of recent developments at Fort Fumble and with the realisation that Senator Fawcett has been doing much behind the scenes... :

20/262/Aviation and Airports/FAWCETT/ASSR

Senator FAWCETT: The ASRR, some of the updates you provided online, particularly your speech in Canada about some of the progress and things moving forward—can you give us an update against each of the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth report, just as to where you are at and your time frame for implementation.

Mr Skidmore: We can certainly give you an update with regard to the government response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report and what our implementation is on those.

---

21/260/CASA/XENOPHON/ADS-B

Senator XENOPHON: What proportion of general aviation would have implemented ADS-B, do you think? Can you take that on notice.

Mr Skidmore: Can I just correct—the mandate is for IFR aircraft. That encompasses a number of operators and a number of systems; it is not just general aviation. In regard to the exact numbers of those who have implemented ADS-B in the general aviation space, I would do not have those numbers with me.

Senator XENOPHON: Would you take that on notice.

Mr Skidmore: I can take that on notice.  

---

22/261/CASA/FAWCETT/Sector Risk Profiles

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put my questions on notice, given the time constraints. Mr Skidmore, the industry has been very positive about sector risk profiles. I would like an update on where CASA's view is with that process, who you have got working on it and what resources you are investing in it. It appears to be a good way of collaborating with industry.

Mr Skidmore: I will take that on notice, and thank you very much for those comments.

---

23/263/ CASA/FAWCETT/ASSR

Senator FAWCETT: I know what the government response was. I am interested in where you are at and where your time frame for implementation is going, particularly around the issues that you are obviously aware of—48 paragraph 1 parts 61 and 141, the things that are concerning industry, but I am also interested, for example, in how well the industry complaints commissioner is functioning in the way that Forsyth envisaged to get quick turnaround times. I would appreciate some actual facts and figures around number of complaints, times for resolution, what the outcomes were and how many have had to go back to the board member to indicate that CASA has taken a view that perhaps the independent expert, the board member, did not think was going to be appropriate.


Mr Skidmore: We can certainly do that. The terms of reference for the ICC were amended to be 'report directly to the board.' That was one of the aspects of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review that we have implemented. We can give you more figures in regard to the ICC process and the complaints. 

 

And the answers :

A first for Murky & his motley crew -

I believe that in the history of M&M's tenure as the secretary of the DoIRD, that the Estimates QON have never been answered on or prior to the due date. Well surprise, surprise we have a first with the Estimates AQON being on time and on budget...

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Index of Questions on Notice: (PDF 111KB)

In the 44th Parliament, the committee set 17 June 2016 as the date by which answers to questions on notice from the Budget Estimates 2016-17 hearing were to be returned.

Following the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament with effect from 9.00am on 9 May 2016 for the federal election, unanswered questions on notice lapsed.

Following the opening of the 45th Parliament, on 31 August 2016, the Senate agreed that answers be provided by 14 September 2016 to all legislation committees relating to all questions taken on notice by the committees’ predecessor committees with respect to the 2015-16 additional estimates and the 2016-17 budget estimates, and which remained unanswered at the beginning of the new Parliament.


20
Aviation and Airports Division
PDF 11KB
14/09/2016

21-23
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
PDF 26KB
14/09/2016

 

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: The ASRR, some of the updates you provided online, particularly your speech in Canada about some of the progress and things moving forward—can you give us an update against each of the 37 recommendations of the Forsyth report, just as to where you are at and your time frame for implementation.

Mr Skidmore: We can certainly give you an update with regard to the government response to the Aviation

Safety Regulation Review report and what our implementation is on those.

Answer:

The most recent update on progress with implementing the Government’s Response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review will be available on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development website in September 2016, once approved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. A copy will be provided to Senator Fawcett and the Committee.

---

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: What proportion of general aviation would have implemented ADS-B, do you think?

Can you take that on notice.

Mr Skidmore: Can I just correct—the mandate is for IFR aircraft. That encompasses a number of operators and a number of systems; it is not just general aviation. In regard to the exact numbers of those who have implemented ADS-B in the general aviation space, I would do not have those numbers with me.

Senator XENOPHON: Would you take that on notice.

Mr Skidmore: I can take that on notice.

Answer:

CASA and Airservices Australia are only able to capture data about aircraft that file Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans and annotate they are ADS-B capable on the flight plan, not how many airframes in the general aviation sector have implemented ADS-B to date.

However, the flight plan data gathered between 1 November 2015 to 1 May 2016 indicates approximately 78% of IFR flights at all levels were ADS-B capable.

Note that many general aviation aircraft only operate to Visual Flight Rules, so not all of general aviation is subject to the ADS-B IFR mandate of 2 February 2017.

---

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to put my questions on notice, given the time constraints. Mr Skidmore, the industry has been very positive about sector risk profiles. I would like an update on where CASA's view is with that process, who you have got working on it and what resources you are investing in it. It appears to be a good way of collaborating with industry.

Mr Skidmore: I will take that on notice, and thank you very much for those comments.

Answer:

CASA considers that Sector Risk Profiling (SRP) is an effective risk management tool to assist the aviation industry in developing an understanding of the effects of risks in order to maximise their aviation safety performance. SRPs that have already been developed are in the areas of aerial application and aerial mustering.

In 2016 CASA expects to publish SRPs in aerodromes, small aeroplanes, large aeroplanes and offshore helicopter transport. The SRPs in helicopter emergency medical services and aerial ambulance sectors are expected to be published in 2016-17.

The profiles are developed by a team of subject matter experts drawn from CASA’s operational areas that collect and analyse relevant data. The data and other additional information are reviewed collectively by CASA and representatives from the relevant sector prior to finalising the SRP.

---

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: I know what the government response was. I am interested in where you are at and where your time frame for implementation is going, particularly around the issues that you are obviously aware of—48 paragraph 1 parts 61 and 141, the things that are concerning industry, but I am also interested, for example, in how well the industry complaints commissioner is functioning in the way that Forsyth envisaged to get quick turnaround times. I would appreciate some actual facts and figures around number of complaints, times for resolution, what the outcomes were and how many have had to go back to the board member to indicate that CASA has taken a view that perhaps the independent expert, the board member, did not think was going to be appropriate.

Mr Skidmore: We can certainly do that. The terms of reference for the ICC were amended to be 'report directly to the board.' That was one of the aspects of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review that we have implemented. We can give you more figures in regard to the ICC process and the complaints.

Answer:

During 2015-16, and as at 20 May 2016, the ICC has:

•  resolved 142 complaints taking an average of 13.4 working days from receipt to completion. The 142 complaints are made up of 55 ‘simple’ cases taking an average of 1.3 working days to resolve, 78 ‘standard’ cases taking an average of 17 working days to resolve and nine ‘complex’ cases taking an average of 56 working days to resolve.
  

•  made 15 recommendations across nine complaints, with 14 recommendations being accepted by the relevant CASA Group. The Board has not advised
  the ICC of any resolutions they considered inappropriate or that required further investigation.
  
  

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Sod the QoN. Some brass tacks please.

You don’t hear much about the CASA Ethics committee, an Aleck run crew; or, their doings. Precious little and not often in fact. But it exists. Only spoken of in whispers; those who actually dare to make complaint need keep very quiet until the dust settles and the complaint is tossed out.

If and it is a very big IF, there is to be any visible sign of ‘real’ CASA reform, driven by Senate persuasion, an examination, in depth, of some of the decisions and ruling made by this committee is essential. The power and control this small body has is as scary as the total lack of accountability, to anyone, for its actions, or lack thereof.  

The ignored and maligned Senate recommendations from Pel-Air and the ASRR provided a good platform for inquiry; but IMO, it is time for an ‘in depth’, public examination of how CASA is actually run and by whom.  It is a frustrating topic, due to a lack of hard information. Many of the IOS believe that the workings of this committee and their decisions should be made available for scrutiny and independent peer review, if not to the public then at least to the Minister.

IOS reckon if a ‘responsible’ minister ever found out what goes away behind closed doors, he’d have a fit, lest the paying public ever discovered how one of most expensive departments manages the ‘ethics’ of their operatives.  

Of course, it is all rumour and whispers at the moment; however, as Aunt Pru likes to mention, there ain’t smoke without fire. Maybe there will be slow day at Estimates and a couple of questions could be asked, by way of general inquiry into the working of this shadowy panel. We can only hope.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

RRAT Supplementary Estimates 17/10/2016 - CASA.

P2 - IMO the CASA session was more about the paradigm shift and what wasn't said or asked. From the moment Carmody walked in with real purpose and without the usual FF entourage, who followed discretely in the rear some 30 seconds after Carmody had taken his seat, you could tell this was going to be short, sharp with Carmody displaying complete control of the session - personally I loved it as a prelude to the Harfwit grilling...

Still working on you tube videos from last night's fascinating sup estimates session and of course the Hansard is still days from being released. However I must pay respect to Senator O'Sullivan who it appears has seamlessly jumped into the very big shoes of the Heff as Chair of the RRAT Legislation committee.

Although Bazza may not be quite as colourful, as the Heff, he certainly will not be an easy touch and has already developed his own fan base from his advocacy efforts and concern with the CASA embuggerance of Jabiru aircraft...  

This respect for Bazza is highlighted by the number of views and comments on the PAIN Jabiru a/c Estimates segment:

texNoz3 days ago
Reading between the lines, it's looking like some outside influence on CASA is trying to shut down Jabiru. Whatever happened to "looking after your own"? Barry O' Sullivan is my new political hero.

---

 

Anthony Sibary8 months ago
How good is it to see an elected Public Official doing what they are elected to do and that is represent their constituents! The media is very quick to rubbish them at every opportunity...Good on you Senator Barry O'Sullivan.

I am not going to post all the videos on this thread but will go to the individual Alphabet threads. However I thought it worth posting the first of three CASA vids as the body language etc. of the participants IMO speaks volumes, with Carmody front and centre ruling the roost.(Ps I also love the fact that Dr A is in the 2nd row with the other CASA minions and I get the distinct impression Carmody has no time for him)

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Supplementary Budget Estimates 2016-17

Monday, 17 October 2016

Daily summary

Here is the summary of today's proceedings in Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s Estimates
The committee met from 9.00am until 11.00pm
The committee called:

• the department and agencies of the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio, including Infrastructure Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the Corporate Services Division, Infrastructure Investment Division, Aviation and Airports Division and Surface Transport Policy Division.

Some areas of interest that the committee covered in the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio included:

• Infrastructure Australia’s priority list and cost-benefit analyses undertaken on various projects;

• The difference between Infrastructure Investment Division’s forecast 2014-15 financial year expenditure compared to the actual 2015-16 expenditure and what programs accounted for that difference;

• The restructuring of Airservices Australia’s employment base, and systems ensuring that this restructuring does not impact aviation safety;

• Airservices Australia’s response to the Australian National Audit Office’s recent report regarding the Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSky Australia program, with particular focus on probity and value for money expenditure.

CASA Part 2 & 3 cont/-

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Contemporaneous notes;

(Or; scribble on the back of several beer coasters).

I believe we may safely elevate O’Sullivan to the IOS roll of honour along with Sterle, Xenophon, Fawcett, Nash, Williams, Gallacher, and several other worthies.  The man is every bit as terrifying and, perhaps a little more lethal than the inestimable ‘Heff’.  O’Sullivan is one of a dwindling breed of politician, a man of good will, good conscience, rock solid, honest, astute with the best interests of the Australian people at heart. The Senate committee continues to impress and inspire. Bravo.

Not even practiced, rehearsed, top deck scripted pony-pooh can be relied on as an effective defence against the committee. Halfwit for example; clearly schooled, nearly brainwashed into reiterating and espousing the ‘cover story’.  Fully armed with reams of carefully workshopped documentation to prove his risible arguments.  No matter, the well briefed Senate crew simply take the purple tie Muppet to pieces. Specious, carefully manufactured, polished dialogue, blown to bloody rags by men of ‘goodwill’; and the ANAO of course.

We need to study Hansard before getting into the details; but FWIW, some early impressions are worth mentioning. ATSB is yet to perform, the clock beaten by extended sessions, so we must wait a short while longer for that.

CASA were, as expected, only on stage for short time. It was my first ‘Wingnut’ experience and I must say I rather enjoyed it.  Far too early to form any sensible impression; but, would I have a beer with him? Yes, I believe I would. He very neatly smacked the AOPA bottom, agreed to ‘consider’ extending the ADSB timeline and generally managed the whole thing very neatly and very professionally. The really truly interesting parts are best seen on the video; one stand out was the casual manner in which a real live professional was wheeled front and centre to discuss ‘matters aeronautical’ and impressed. A stark contrast to the usual mumbling, stumbling nonsense we have come to expect from the CASA second row; well done that man. A few more like him and there may yet be hope for the CASA.  An interesting sidebar was the faces relegated to the second row, smacked arses all round. MTF when the Hansard appears.

That’s about it; my notes (those I can read) and the video will flesh out the bare bones. ATSB to follow in due course.

Toot - MTF – toot.

[Peetwo]

The semantics of aircraft in the lounge room.

It depends which team you support how you regard last nights Estimates session with CASA. When we have the Hansard and video it will be a lot easier to pick out the bones, but one major topic for the BRB will be the way in which ‘responsibility’ for the dreadful safety state of our airports has been passed about like a parcel.  Old ‘Shifty’ Tique & Co. played a merry tune to go with the parcel passing.  Carmody was so quick to unload it he almost shoved Halfwit under the Senate bus (MTF).

For the lay person, the easiest thing to understand will be ‘buffer zones’ and the lack thereof. Essentially ‘tis but a ‘fenced off’ no building area, either side of the runway, precisely designed to prevent exactly the kind of accident we witnessed last week in Melbourne. The UK, USA and most ‘grown up’ aviation nations have these areas; for what must now be, to all, blindingly obvious reasons – Australia does not.

Where CASA took their lame defence was to what are known as Pans-Ops (PO). ICAO produce these and Australia does comply. What PO provide is an obstacle free area from the runway end out to a specified distance. The area is known as ‘the splay’. The splay widens progressively at a predetermined angle to that distance; like a fan if you will, laid out on the ground. There are maximum heights for man made structures within the fan, so to maintain a minimum clearance in the vertical (obstacle clear gradient).  Simply put, you may place a two story building at mile from the end of the runway, or; a ten story building at five miles within the ‘splay’ area. So ‘obstacle clear’ flight paths and buildings may coexist; and, provided the aircraft can maintain the gradient prescribed, in theory, all is well. This is where CASA deem their ‘safety’ responsibility to end.

Consider the Melbourne crash; the aircraft’s problems did not manifest within the ‘splay’ but within the aerodrome confines, without the protection of a ‘buffer’ zone, inevitably the aircraft crashed into whatever was ahead of it. Be it the DFO, the Freeway or a residential area, there is no protection afforded for either aircraft or the public from behind or outside of the minimum prescribed splay area; starting at the runway end.

The runway used by the crash aircraft is some 1500 meters long; the aircraft would be safely airborne and accelerating toward the splay within 1000 to 1100 meters, normally the remaining runway distance is travelled in a matter of seconds and the aircraft enters the ‘safe’ obstacle clear splay; even with an inoperative engine, given clear space the aircraft should obtain a safe height using the obstacle clear distances within that area (pilot responsibility). But the crashed aircraft did not enter the ‘splay’; whatever went wrong happened behind the ‘splay’ and the flight path was, quite legally, obstructed. Whether or not 500 meters of obstacle clear (buffer) area, to the side of the runway would have produced and different result is, as yet, hard to determine; but, given that time and distance the aircraft may well have accelerated to a speed which allowed a climb. This is why ‘buffer’ zones are mandated in other countries. If you are keen, take a look at the aerial view of Archerfield, then imagine you are in a single engine aircraft. Normally, the aircraft is airborne and climbing away within about 60% of the available runway; then engine failure. The right procedure is to land ‘straight ahead’ or as close as possible to straight.  Measure off two thirds of any Archerfield runway, then work out (roughly) the glide distance needed to land ahead, from about 60 feet and see where you finish up – mostly in Mrs. Smith’s front parlour; that’s where. Just in time for tea.

That is as close to describing the ‘problem’ for non aviation folk as I can get; and I’ve probably offended the ‘purists’, using a thumb nail dipped in tar to outline the situation, but that’s Ok. When Hansard do their thing we will take a closer look at just who is responsible for what; but CASA have made it clear they are, so far as they are concerned – off the hook.

Toot – MTF – toot.

Hansard to follow...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Budget Estimates 2017-18: CASA

Senate Estimates: Daily program & ANAO into M&M's stable -



Here is the link for next week's RRAT Committee Budget Estimates.. :

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (PDF 136KB)           
        

     

Update: 23/05/17

Slight change in today's proceedings with AMSA appearing first before Murky's Aviation & Airports division - PDF 57KB .

The Fawcett factor on closing airport safety loops...

Two bob’s worth of disgust please.

Why is it; that every single fatal accident involving public transport ends up this way? The expensive official inquiry, for no return on investment. The demands for change translated into onerous rules which serve only the ‘regulators’ purpose. The obfuscation of fact. The disavowal of any or all official responsibility. Lockhart has never been honestly examined. The ATSB were muzzled, the coroner if not misled was certainly confounded, the inquiry bamboozled; all to cover the simple fact that CASA could and should have been sanctioned for allowing the situation to develop to the point of impact. This is a common thread running through each and every one of the ‘fatal’ accidents from Advance to Monarch, from Seaview to Pel-Air. It is, IMO, time it was stopped. Regulation by the cartload is simply there to provide safe prosecution of the predetermined outcome; strict liability supporting.

It is a disgraceful situation. Perhaps the Essendon event and the Senators conscience will provide a different, more enlightened result. Time will tell, but first we need a ‘proper’ report from the ATSB – before the turn of the century. But lets be clear about this, very clear. Within 9 seconds at 150 meters from a runway centre line an aircraft hit, at 150 feet, a building (for whatever reason). That building should never have been allowed to be there; someone has manipulated the rules, someone has nodded at the safety aspects and someone has authorised the many shifts in the operationally available dimensions of that runway to suit a purpose. Those people are, in part, responsible for the building being there. Either way, someone needs to be treated the way a ‘civilian’ would be who had played fast and loose with the interpretation of the ‘regulations’, to cynically suit a commercial purpose and place the lives of those shopping there in clear and present danger, advertising to encourage people to come there. (Ugh). All very slick and clever, except there are now five men to add to the list of those  who will not be celebrating their next birthday with their families at home. Shame, shame, shame.

Wow Martha - wudja look at all them tall buildings.



[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-3ehNrXYAEhoVS.jpg[/img]

After following and monitoring the firmly non-partisan RRAT committee in Estimates and aviation safety related inquiry for nearly a decade, IMO the real 'tell' that the committee has not yet succumb to bureaucratic 'nothing to see here Senators' pressure comes in the form of Senator Fawcett stepping in to question the Murky Mandarin & his 'Aviation & Airports division' minions.

Excerpt from Senate RRAT committee 'Additional Estimates' Hansard 27/02/17:

 Senator FAWCETT: Thank you for your comments. Obviously it is very early days yet in terms of the investigation of this particular incident. I just want to take you back if I can to the broader principles. You would be aware that we have discussed on a number of occasions since 2011 and 2012 I think issues around airport planning, particularly the NASAG process. I believe you discussed that or mentioned that earlier. The NASAG process, as we have discussed multiple times before, deals with noise; it deals with protection of airspace, particularly the PANS-OPS airspace, and obstacles that may protrude into that. But what I am seeking from you is an indication as to whether or not now you will go back and revisit what we have discussed on a number of occasions, which is the unique Queensland public safety area legislation, where they look at the zones on runway ends to make sure that there is no construction that would prevent a place for a pilot who needed to make a forced landing to have the ability to do that.

In the past you have said that is outside the scope of NASAG, and we have raised multiple times the fact that Queensland does do that with some airports—not all. And we have seen both state government planning, whether it be Jandakot or Archerfield or other smaller council-operated airports around Australia, where construction of residential and commercial properties has been allowed quite close and in the zones where traditionally air crew perhaps would have considered that that was their option if they had a problem that required them to make an emergency landing. So, I am really just looking for an assurance that you will now go back to those discussions that we have had over the last six years or so to look not just at the PANS-OPS and the noise but also at the areas the pilots may need for forced landing areas.

Mr Mrdak : Certainly, Senator, and before you arrived I outlined to the committee—and I will ask my officers Mrs Macaulay and Ms Spence to outline this—that we had been working with Queensland on a draft guideline and guidance for jurisdictions in relation to runway end safety zones and to runway public safety zones generally around airports. That work has now progressed. This tragedy obviously has taken place, but the next NASAG meeting was due to consider the issue. There was a meeting in November which considered it. There has still been some reluctance by some state planning authorities in relation to these issues, but quite clearly the Commonwealth has sought to progress this for many years as part of a suite of NASAG guidelines and guidance material, which you and I have discussed at length over the last few years. I will ask Mrs Macaulay to give you an update in relation to the public safety zones...

.. Senator FAWCETT: Secretary, I would just make the comment that messaging is important but at the end of the day what the Australian people expect is that governments who are responsible for aviation regulation will find a way to work with state and local governments so that the outcome is not just messaging but is consistent—safety. And I raised Jandakot before as a case where we see those concerns around the encroachment for the airport. But I just wanted to get an assurance that you have taken on board—I know the department's position is that CASA provides a safety input into master plans. We discussed probably 18 months ago at estimates Archerfield and the role that CASA played there in signing off on the shortened runways but did not take into account their own requirements and operators in terms of factoring for grass strips, wet strips, climb-out gradients with engine failures et cetera at the gross weight that the operators are currently able to operate at. So, they correctly said that it can be safe but that would require the operators to operate it with lower payloads and hence it would not be as commercially viable.

The discussion we had at the time was that that safety consideration by CASA needed to consider the operations as they are in terms of the capacity of the airport and the current aircraft operating there and make sure there is no detriment to that, as opposed to just saying that yes, it can be safe if you reduce the scope of your operations. That is not in the intent of either the lease or the original legislation surrounding the use of Commonwealth airports.

Mr Mrdak : I agree.

Senator FAWCETT: So, is that an assurance that yes, you are revising how CASA take their role?

Mr Mrdak : We have certainly for some time been looking closely, and I think CASA's engagement in the process is much improved over the last couple of years over what it has been in the past.

Senator FAWCETT: And my final question is: could you perhaps look at providing the committee with a briefing on where you are up to with the NASAG process and what you are looking to take to the next meeting so that we get some visibility into that before it just becomes a fait accompli that is delivered?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly. We would be very happy to arrange that through the committee secretary.

Note: Here in pictures DF's body language speaks louder than words, he refers directly to M&M and gets him to 'agree' that CASA may have contravened the original spirit and intent of the Airports Act by providing deficient safety advice on proposed (DRAFT) Airport MAPs...  

Division 5 of the Airport Act states:

Division 5—Obligation to use airport site as an airport

31  Obligation to use airport site as an airport..etc            

My interpretation of the above Fawcett v Mrdak exchange is that it is 'agreed' that the airport operational environment, before the lease agreement was drawn up, represents the 'spirit & intent' and therefore the benchmark for the lessee 'obligation to use the airport site as an airport'.

In the Essendon case this places M&M and his CASA minions in the awkward situation of having to explain why it is approval was given/not given/ignored for the airport operator to have several iterations/changes (see Ventus post #219) to the operational length (TODA/TORA/ASDA/STODA etc), runway width/splay dimensions etc.; of RW17/35 since the original lease agreement was signed in 2001...

Update prior to CASA appearance.

I note that the outstanding CASA QON (113&114 from Additional Estimates) were finally answered last Friday... :  

113-119

Civil Aviation Safety Authority: PDF 59KB 26/04/2017 questions: 113 & 114 answered on 19/05/2017

---

Definitely much, much MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

CASA Estimates hearing in pictures -    

113-119

Civil Aviation Safety Authority: PDF 59KB 26/04/2017 questions: 113 & 114 answered on 19/05/2017

---

First in relation to airport development, aviation safety and the Essendon DFO accident (above references):

And a Senator Fawcett follow up (to above), this time addressing Carmody directly:

Lots MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Carmody hour comes to the Senate -   

Have been monitoring the 'Other Committee Activities' webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...Activities



A couple of weeks ago I noticed that Carmody Capers and his dodgy ass front row finally answered the QON from the 'Oversight of CASA' public hearing - accept once again the bloody links didn't work...

However after a quick WTD? email to the RRAT Secretariat the link aberrations have been fixed - thank you Maxy...  

Email chain:

Dear RRAT Committee Secretariat,
I realise that the Secretariat has (more than likely) knocked off for a well earned break over the Xmas festive season - HO HO HO and Happy New Year...;-)
However I was just inquiring if at the first opportunity it would be possible to fix what would appear to be broken URL links off the 'other committee activities' webpage - see here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...Activities

Answers to Questions on Notice

• Answers to Questions taken on Notice by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority at a public hearing on 19 November 2018. Answers received on 20 December 2018.
  

• • Approach to Market for the provision of Stakeholder Satisfaction Research dated November 2017 - (PDF 2104KB)
    
  • Colmar Proposal for CASA Stakeholder Satisfaction Research (17/017) dated 8 December 2017 - (PDF 19594KB)
    
  • CASA Evaluation Minute Report in relation to the procurement for the provision of a Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey dated 20 December 2017 - (PDF 866KB)
    
  • 2017 Industry Survey - Sample development dated 22 February 2018 - (PDF 1677KB)
    
  • CASA Stakeholder Satisfaction Research dated 1 August 2018 - (PDF 2281KB)
    

I would also like to make an inquiry in advance (of 2019) for the committee to request from the 'Department of Infrastructure, Regional development and Cities' for an update to the CAPs (corrective action plans) addressing the deficiencies/non-compliances identified in the November 2017 ICAO audit - reference:

ICAO ICVM Australia FR CAP: Where the bloody hell is it? 

Ref: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/i...t_full.pdf

Note the following text from the - FINAL REPORT OF THE ICAO COORDINATED VALIDATION MISSION IN AUSTRALIA (9 to 13 October 2017): 

---

5. FOLLOW-UP ACTION 

5.1 In accordance with the MOU agreed to between Australia and ICAO, Australia replied in a letter dated 23 February 2018 that it had no comments on the draft report and also reiterated its commitment to develop its CAPs accordingly. 

5.2 According to the MOU, the State undertakes to submit its updated CAPs directly on the USOAP CMA online framework (https://www.icao.int/usoap) within 45 days after receipt of this final report. 

5.3 The CAPs should provide specific actions and estimated implementation dates, as well as a responsible office for taking action to correct the deficiencies identified in the findings. Further guidance on how to develop effective CAPs is outlined in the “Guidance for States on Developing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs)”, which can be found in the “CMA Library” of the online framework. 

5.4 ICAO will provide Australia with feedback on the acceptability of the proposed updated CAPs. If any proposed corrective actions do not fully address the associated findings, the State will be notified accordingly. 

5.5 If no CAP is submitted, ICAO will contact Australia to determine the reasons for not providing a CAP and report its findings to Council.
 
Considering that one of the significant findings of the ICAO ICVM audit team included this under the AGA (Annex 14):

AGA:

Ensure that the State has a coordinated mechanism to ensure full and effective implementation of the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) at aerodromes, including arrangements to prohibit any building developments which could create an obstacle to aircraft operations.
   
Which highlighted a repeated ICAO significant identified safety issue from the 2008 ICAO USOAP audit of Australia:

---

 
This significant safety issue should have been proactively addressed by the supposedly fully compliant Australian Annex 19 SSP more than 6 years ago. This deficiency in the SSP was recently identified in a seriously delayed ATSB investigation: ref- http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-30-...ml#pid9476

ATSB finds no application of safety principles

The ATSB carried out an investigation four years later in 2013 into the procedures of these decision-making processes. This was done as a response to a REPCON report received in September 2012 (P2 comment - bizarrely the ATSB REPCON database doesn't appear to go back to 2012??) expressing concerns a proper safety case was not conducted on the proposal. The ATSB’s Final Report concluded that whilst the procedure was compliant with the Airports Act 1996 and the Regulations, it “did not require the application of risk management principles to the Department’s consideration”. This was highlighted as a safety issue.

IMO this not only highlights major deficiencies in Govt departmental and agency processes but also highlights serious flaws and lack of transparency of our supposedly fully ICAO compliant Annex 19 SSP...  ref: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/s...ction.aspx

Again Merry Xmas + Happy New Year
 
Kind regards...P2

---

Dear P2,

 
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  We are working to get those links back up and working as soon as possible. In the meantime I would be happy to provide those documents to you via email if you would like.

In regards to the CAPs update, that is a matter for the Committee and as such I will have to get back to you.
 
Kind regards,
 
Max Stenstrom| Administrative Officer

---

Dear Max,

Thank you for responding. I am happy to wait for the links to be fixed.
As for the CAPs update, when is the committee next due to meet?

Regards...P2 

---

Dear P2,

 
Those links should now be functional.
 
The Committee will meet during the next sitting week which commences 5 February 2019.
 
Regards,
 
Max Stenstrom| Administrative Officer

And indeed the links are now functional:

Answers to Questions on Notice

• Answers to Questions taken on Notice by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority at a public hearing on 19 November 2018. Answers received on 20 December 2018.
  

• • Approach to Market for the provision of Stakeholder Satisfaction Research dated November 2017 - (PDF 2104KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en)
    
    
  • Colmar Proposal for CASA Stakeholder Satisfaction Research (17/017) dated 8 December 2017 - (PDF 19594KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en)
    
    
  • CASA Evaluation Minute Report in relation to the procurement for the provision of a Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey dated 20 December 2017 - (PDF 866KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en )
    
    
  • 2017 Industry Survey - Sample development dated 22 February 2018 - (PDF 1677KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en)
    
    
  • CASA Stakeholder Satisfaction Research dated 1 August 2018 - (PDF 2281KB https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee....pdf?la=en)
    

 Hmm...how come some of those links are redacted? 

Example:

---

---

Not sure if anyone else noticed but this concept of CASA being subject to a customer satisfaction survey was first bandied around back in the 2003 HofR committee inquiry 'Making ends meet': ref - SBG post #169 https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...16#pid9716

Recommendation 26

7.92 The committee recommends that the Department of Transport and
Regional Services:

- Conduct an annual confidential client satisfaction survey to test
industry’s satisfaction with the services that the Civil Aviation
Safety Authority delivers, and assess compliance with its
service charter; and
- Publicly report the results of these surveys, ensuring that
confidentiality is maintained.

As you can see the committee recommendation was that the CASA 'confidential client satisfaction survey' was meant to be administered by the DoTARS?

However the bureaucrats representing the Govt of the day responded/obfuscated/ignored this recommendation with this:

Response:

The Government agrees that industry satisfaction surveys have the potential to assist
in assessing an organisation's compliance with its service charter. However, it would
be inappropriate for the Department to undertake the confidential survey role
proposed by the Committee. Owing to the protection of personal information
requirements under the Privacy Act 1988, the Department is unable to obtain personal
details of CASA's clients. Annual surveys would also pose a significant
administrative burden on the Department's resources, and on industry.

Although the Department does not undertake the survey role proposed by the
committee, the CASA Service Centre conducts client feedback surveys which are sent
to all Air Operator Certificate and Certificate of Airworthiness holders at no less than
6 monthly intervals. The results of these surveys are used in performance reporting in
CASA's Annual Report.

 
Fifteen + years and counting and this is how much we have progressed - UDB! We're all doomed...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

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

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

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

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

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

Now let's spot the disconnect between the autocratic, 'law unto itself',  make work, trough gouging world of the CASA Iron Ring and the reality of trying to make money from a regulatory embuggered industry....  

Ref:

A hopeful Hansard -  

Audio link: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...1145-1.mp3

CHAIR: All right. Let's make it easy. Before we go to that, I just want to throw a quick one at you, Mr McMillan and Mr Schofield. We have had a lot of conversation around the alleged pilot shortage, to which we commissioned some work to be done through the Parliamentary Library to inform the committee of what's going on. The information came back saying, 'No, there's no pilot shortage,' but with subsequent conversations with the airline industry, the evidence is absolutely at the other end.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: The result was that the take-up of traditional advertising for vacancies for pilots hadn't changed They didn't pick up any trend in that: 'Last year there were 10 ads and this year there are 20.' There were 10 ads last year and there were 10 ads this year. I think what challenged us was whether that was the only pathway for recruitment.

Mr McMillan : The truth is always somewhere in the middle, Senator.

CHAIR: That's why I'm going to give you the opportunity to tell us.

Mr McMillan : We categorise it not as a pilot shortage but as a pilot training blockage. That might sound like a euphemism, but, at the end of the day, we've got to roll back five years. We've had aviation regulatory reform that's been going on for 23 years and it's not finished. Some of its been okay; some of it's been appalling. In the pilot training area, it's been an absolute disaster. There's a whole heap fewer pilot training centres in Australia than there used to be. Many of them are foreign owned and they're only training pilots for their own operations elsewhere and the number of training establishments has shrunk considerably. Australia's population is growing. You could only think that the same percentage of people want to be pilots. I think what's happening is that the sausage machine has shrunk so small that it's very hard to get a training place. We would say that, from Alliance's perspective, as many people are out there wanting to be pilots. As a company, we are always training ahead. We train eight pilots at a time. We bring them in. We seem to be a good place to work. There are all the different places around Australia to go and live. There is a whole range of different training techniques and things have come in that are far smarter than they were 10 years ago. Some of the regulatory requirements that we have to meet in this country are absurd. That's a separate argument for a separate place. There were no safety issues; there wasn't a number of accidents or anything. But the unintended consequence of what CASA have done with some of their regulations has caused this issue, particularly in Australia.

CHAIR: We are a very long way back.

Senator PATRICK: I presume, because we've also heard evidence in other inquiries, that there used to be a whole bunch of training entities in GA, and GA has also been killed off by those regulations?

Mr McMillan : Correct.

CHAIR: I just wanted to get your view on the record. Thanks very much.

MTF?- Yes MUCH...P2 

P9_K9 - Second the motion - (Choc frog for good work) - just a little more to follow - HERE.  

[Peetwo]

CASA Senate Supp Estimates QON?? 

Via the RRAT Estimates webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat

P2 comment: Some of the QON are interesting, especially the written QON from the Greens Senator Larissa Waters which again look like they've been written by Civil Air...

Q0066: Senator Patrick https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber66

Q0101: Senator Carol Brown https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber101

Q0122: Senator Waters https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber122

Q0123: Senator Waters https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber123

Did CASA ensure that Airservices complied with its internal Safety Management System requirements when changing the separation standards / separation assurance? Specifically:
Was an ESIR submitted detailing the incorrect applications of standards / separation assurance?
Were the correct environmental assessments carried out regarding any potential noise impacts of the change of procedures?
Was a Temporary Local Instruction issued regarding the changes?
Were the training impacts assessed for the changes made?
Was an internal PIR carried out to determine if other errors had been made in the implementation of the NPR airspace changes?

Q0124: Senator Waters  https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber124

Q0125: Senator Waters https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber125

Have industry concerns raised in 2016 regarding hold/push downs on the proposed SID/STARs for the NPR airspace been addressed?
Are the current VNAV profiles the most energy efficient for airline operators, and based upon ICAO CDO recommendations?
Do the current VNAV profiles produce an increase in noise versus airline preferred altitudes due to a lower, slower and hence ''dirtier,'' noisier, and higher engine power requirements? What are the safety implications?
Has CASA assessed the safety implications of utilising the current inefficient VNAV profiles? What was the result?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA Senate Additonal Estimates AQON - 

Via the APH website:

16. CASA - Ongoing investigation of pilot.pdf

19. CASA - Termination administrative action.pdf

20. CASA - Knowledge of REX engineer investigation.pdf

22. CASA – REX Engineer.pdf

24. CASA - Date made aware of REX engineer case.pdf

43. CASA - Single engine aircraft capability in Adelaide.pdf

45. CASA - Medical conditions - Aviation safety reports that reference COVID vaccination.pdf

47. CASA - Medical conditions - Details on report incident of fuel supply to engines being cut.pdf

49. CASA - Medical conditions - Reported incidents due to transient ischaemic attacks.pdf

119. CASA – Brisbane Airport - Routes covered under Airspace Change Proposals.pdf

20. CASA – Brisbane Airport - List of Airspace Change Proposals received by CASA.pdf

121. CASA - Brisbane Airport - Airspace Change Proposal stakeholder consultation.pdf

122 - CASA - Awareness of Airservices approach at Brisbane Airport.pdf

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Fact, Fiction and Twaddle.

Dunno 'bout the rest, but I reached for the bucket about 90 seconds into the Spence 'prepared' read out, which went on for about five endless minutes. Tough to listen to, but, we persevered. But the bit that really got the Mickey Bliss taken was the Mono-Hand/ Spence twaddle about the Fire Fighters and the Blackhawk helicopter, borderline legal madness and smokescreen,  combined with a total lack of any operational reality - in short - Bullshit.

I will only post two of the many comments received relating to 'Restricted' category air frames and the use thereof for special purposes; from a couple of folks who actually 'know' what they are talking about.

1_ I agree. Restricted category aircraft carry PAYING participants (passengers) every day in Australia with an outstanding safety record. 

If the argument is that we would be putting firefighters at greater risk by transporting them via one of these aircraft, then I’d want to see the information leading to this conclusion. If the issue is merely legislative, I can’t understand why firefighters would be any different than members of the general public. If it’s an issue of consent, give the firefighters the option of opting out and going via alternative transport. 

---

2_ I watched the whole CASA performance, particularly , in my opinion, the obfuscating rubbish talked by Monahan. I feel sorry for the CASA CEO, whom I have known since she joined the Commonwealth Public Service.

The CASA evidence was largely hogwash.

In 1998, the way the CASR rules were put in place, firefighters travelling in a Restricted Cat (CASR 21) aircraft were NOT PASSENGERS.

They were classified as "informed participants", just as persons having a "warbirds" flight are NOT travelling as passengers, but informed participants.

A "passenger" is somebody travelling as a passenger in an aircraft operating under a Charter or RPT (to use old but well understood terminology) AOC covering the carriage of said passengers.

An informed participant is a person over 18 who has been briefed in advance of the fact that the aircraft involved does not meet civil Certificate of Airworthiness standards, and is still prepared to voluntarily travel on the Blackhawk or whatever.

Monahan was further talking bulldust about FAA rules, firefighters and similar do travel in Restricted Cat. aircraft, we established the same operational result here by a different and far more simple legal route -- namely, the concept of an "informed participant".

This situation has been entirely created by CASA, by insisting firefighters are "passengers".

In short, the reformed regulations put in place by the Howard Government, under Ministers John Sharp and Mark Vaile in 1997-1998, (the policy doc. was "Soaring into Tomorrow) enable the use of ex-military aircraft for a wide range of purposes.Including carrying firefighters in then ex-US army UH-1 helos, Hueys.

CASA and the manufacturers hated the idea, of course buying a Huey for $1.00 from the US Army, instead of fundamentally the same aircraft, but with a civil Certificate of Airworthiness, from Bell for (then) $4.5m was not popular with Bell.

Bottom line --- the present situation has been deliberately created by CASA knowingly subverting Cth. Government policy.

The immediate solution, enforce Liberal/National policy as reflected in CASR 21 and related legislative documents in 1998, and fire any CASA person who tries to prevent same.

And brook no confected legal obfuscation from CASA.

However, for those who care to do the research; there is plenty of data on the helicopter and some of the accident events. Before leaping to 'conclusion; please consider the operational uses and - the accident rate for all chopper operations.

Wiki

Task and Purpose

Popular Mechanics.

A last observation - after you watch the current Estimates session; watch the difference an 'informed' questioner can make to spurious argument, designed to baffle Senators who, through no fault of their own. know no better than to tumble into the CASA morass of legal mumbo jumbo.

That's all; there's a glass on the bar with my name on it - time to take care of important business - darts,  with the Kiwi's.

[Peetwo]

CASA Budget Estimates 2023-24: Some AQON?? 

Previous reference: Senate Estimates QON: Chalk & Cheese (Miniscule MIA??)

This week Miniscule Dickie King has actually ticked and flicked off on some more answers to the 379 overview QON from Budget Estimates. Included in the answered list were a couple of typical sublime examples of bureaucratic word weasel confections from from Fort Fumble..  

QON 267:

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

1. The CASA Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey was sent to select stakeholders recently, this only went to 6,600 of an estimated 118,000 stakeholders, what is reasoning behind this?
2. On what basis were the 6,600 stakeholders selected?
3. On what basis were the estimated 111,400 excluded?
4. What date was this decision made?
5. After suspending the 2020 survey when it was made public, did you resume getting feedback?
6. What opportunities were given for the wider community to provide feedback?
7. Regarding the close call of two Qantas 737's in Sydney on April 29, did you work with Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Airservices Australia (ASA) on this matter to determine the cause of the matter?
8. What course of action has been taken to ensure this does not happen in the future?
9. Was human error or staff fatigue a factor in the incident?
10. Were staff shortages in air traffic control a factor in the incident?
11. In the view of CASA what was the cause of the incident?

Answer:

1. The 6,600 stakeholders were a random stratified sample of stakeholders within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) database. This methodology was recommended by our research provider and is consistent with the sampling methodology used for the previous 2 surveys in 2018 and 2020.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. The decision to use a stratified random sample was first made for the 2018 survey following a recommendation by the independent research provider. This approach was also recommended when the new independent research provider was appointed on 20 April 2020.
5. Yes. The survey was published on CASA’s website on 8 April 2021.
6. Wider community feedback was not sought as part of the survey. However, consistent with previous surveys, feedback was sought from targeted stakeholders and associations that considered feedback from their members and broader aviation community.
7. CASA has been advised that Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating this incident and is available to support ATSB if needed.
8. Pending the outcome of a formal investigation, CASA is satisfied that Airservices is initiating actions to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence.
9. CASA awaits the outcome of the formal investigation to understand possible contributing factors to this incident.
10. CASA awaits the outcome of the formal investigation to understand possible contributing factors to this incident.
11. It would be inappropriate for CASA to speculate on the causes of this incident and will await the outcome of the formal investigation by ATSB.

    

QON 271:

In response to concerns raised with me by stakeholders, I ask CASA to address the following questions raised:

1. I reference the designation of air routes and airways by CASA. Under the Airspace Regulations 2007, s15, CASA is obliged to review any designations of air routes and airways at least every five years. However, in Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023 (QoN 72), CASA declared that:
''On 30 May 2013, CASA ceased designating air routes and airways, as Australian air routes are better described in Airservices Australia's Designated Airspace Handbook.''
2. How were these reviews conducted in the past?
3. As per Civil Aviation Act 1988, Section 9A, CASA is required to protect the environment, including communities, from the effects of and associated with the operation and use of aircraft. What noise minimisation criteria were being considered by these reviews when they still occurred?
4. I understand part of the reason CASA ceased designating air routes and airways, was the introduction of performance-based navigation (PBN) technology, which allows for more flexible and efficient aircraft operations, reducing the reliance on traditional air routes and airways. As a result, CASA shifted its focus towards implementing PBN procedures. Is this correct?
5. How does CASA fulfill its obligations to review and assess PBN procedures against Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 these days?
6. What reviews has CASA conducted and will conduct of the PBN procedures in place in Brisbane?
7. I note that the current Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS), includes an explicit explanation of what is meant by ''Environment protection'' in Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 - it says:

''Environment protection: Meaning, as far as practicable, that airspace should be administered in a manner that contributes to the protection of the environment, including for example the minimisation of noise, gaseous emissions and other environmental issues. If it will have a significant impact, CASA will consider the application of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.''

How does CASA translate this stipulation of the AAPS into its day to day operations?

8. On CASA's website, its Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) explains the review process for Airspace Change Proposals (ACPs):

''Stakeholder consultation: We will also review evidence that appropriate stakeholder consultation has occurred.
If appropriate, we may also conduct our own consultation or instruct the proponent to conduct more.''

When asked about the two crucial ACPs for Brisbane (from 29 October 2018 and 26 August 2019) in QoN 72 (Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023), CASA declared that:

''CASA did not conduct its own consultation on this ACP, as Airservices undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken. ... CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise.''

We now know that the consultation was viewed by members of the community as inadequate. The following concerns have been raised by community members:
The noise forecasts were flawed.
The community engagement was inadequate.
It employed misleading statements to dupe communities.
And this has been confirmed by three independent reports from the ANO, BAPAF, and Trax International.
They all suggest that Airservices' did not do their homework and produced a majorly flawed flight path design.
It only took Trax 3 months to identify 49 recommendations for improvement in something Airservices took 13 years to get right.
And now we also hear that people are so distressed by their exposure to the excessive flight path noise pollution that Airservices received 15,406 complaints since the new flight path architecture launched.

On what basis can CASA have been ''satisfied'' in 2018 and again in 2019 with both the flight path design and the ''evidence that appropriate stakeholder consultation has occurred?''


Answer:

1 - 2 - 3. Through the commencement of the Airspace Act 2007, the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) assumed responsibility for the designation of air routes and
airways on 1 July 2007. On 30 May 2013, CASA ceased designating air routes and
airways and therefore no explicit review of the previously designated air routes
and airways was required by s15 of the Airspace Regulations 2007. CASA had not
conducted a review of designated air routes and airways prior to 30 May 2013 and
therefore, noise minimisation criteria were not considered.

4. No, the introduction of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) technology was not
part of the reason that CASA ceased designating air routes and airways. The reason
was that the designated air routes and airways were no longer representative of all
air routes available to pilots and it was not a requirement for pilots to follow the air
routes or airways. CASA determined that no effective purpose was being served by
it designating the air routes and airways. There was nil operational effect of
ceasing to legislate the air routes and airways since the routes, although incomplete
and non- compulsory, remained available for optional use.

5 - 6. CASA’s regulation of the use of PBN procedures is limited to enabling the safe use of
PBN procedures and it does not direct the use of any specific Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) Terminal Instrument Flight Procedure (TIFP) at Brisbane. CASA
has not reviewed and does not intend to review any specific RNP TIFP procedure
used in Brisbane against subsection 9A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

7. As the airspace administrator, CASA determines the airspace architecture, which is
generally defined in terms of airspace class and the dimensions of airspace
volumes, but not the flightpaths to be used by airspace users within that
architecture. CASA considers the environmental impact of its design choice as far as
is practicable, but given those choices relate to the airspace rather than flightpaths
no issues are generally identified.

In keeping with CASA’s obligations under subsection 9A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and
with particular regard to the relevant provisions of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement
2021, CASA administers airspace as far as practicable in a manner that contributes to the
protection of the environment. Where it appears that a proposed airspace solution may
have a significant adverse impact on the environment, CASA considers its obligations under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In making these
assessments, CASA may utilise information provided by the proponent of an airspace
change proposal.

8. Please refer to Committee Question Number 73 (SQ22-000441) from the 2022-23
Budget estimates.

4
Regarding ACP045-18 (29 October 2018) CASA stated:

CASA did not conduct its own consultation on this ACP, as Airservices Australia (Airservices)
undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the
documentation Airservices provided to demonstrate adequate consultation was
undertaken.

The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced
Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA
concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no
changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise.

The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise
minimisation.

Regarding the amendment to ACP045-18 (26 August 2019) CASA stated:
CASA did not conduct its own consultation for the amendment of ACP045-18, approved on
26 August 2019, as Airservices undertook consultation with airspace users and the
community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to
demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken. During Airservices’ Stakeholder
Engagement Program, CASA requested that Airservices conduct further consultation with
specific airspace user groups.

The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced
Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA
concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no
changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise.
The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise
minimisation.

Attachments
A: Committee Question Number 73 (SQ22-000441) from the 2022-23 Budget estimates

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA (some) AQON BACK??

It would appear that EWBs has cracked the whip (just a little bit) - Via the RRAT Supp Estimates 2023-24 webpage:

302.-CASA-Aviation-Safety-Advisory-Panels-ASAP-Technical-Work-Group-report-into-LAME-shortage.pdf

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:
1. In response to Question on Notice 159 of the 2022-23 Supplementary Budget Estimates
you stated that the was no evidence that there are insufficient Licensed Aircraft
Maintenance Engineers, and only said that there were anecdotal reports suggesting delays
due to limited supply. This is in direct contradiction to the evidence in the Aviation Safety
Advisory Panel’s ASAP Technical Work Group’s second meeting report in 2020 which stated
that there is a shortage, especially in rural and regional areas. If there’s no evidence now,
what has changed in those three years?
2. Has CASA actually taken on board the work of the advisory group and implemented
recommendations from the working group to ensure that Australia has sufficient access to
LAMEs to support the aviation industry?
3. Why is CASA not acknowledging the evidence from the working group and admitting that
we do have a problem with LAME availability in Australia, and working with industry to find
a solution before we see more safety incidents as a result?
4. Has CASA engaged with other departments to try and improve training pathways for
LAMEs?
5. What is CASA doing to improve the number of LAMEs that are available to service
Australia’s fleet of planes?
Answer:
1. CASA’s response to Committee Question Number 159 (SQ23-003424) from the 2022-23
Supplementary Budget Estimates hearing was not saying that there was no shortage of
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs), but that all CASA has received was
anecdotal evidence. This includes the second meeting report of the Aviation Safety
Advisory Panel’s (ASAP) Technical Working Group (TWG) for maintenance personnel
licensing.

CASA is acting to help address the shortage of LAMEs through the development of the
modular licensing initiative. This initiative will make it easier for people to obtain a
licence or return to the profession after a long absence. It will also assist foreign licence
holders seeking a qualification to work in Australia.
2. Yes.
3. Refer to the answers to questions 1 and 2.
4. Yes.
5. Refer to the answers to questions 1 and 2.

303. CASA - Emergency service agency personnel allowed on ex-military aircraft

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

1. Does the regulation authorise the carriage of emergency service agency personnel on the
aircraft?
2. The people of New South Wales effectively own an ex-military Chinook helicopter along
with the 737 Fireliner, Marie Bashir and several smaller aircraft to respond to emergencies
within the state. During the 2022 floods impacting a wide area of Northern NSW, the NSW
Rural Fire Service requested the operator of their contracted Chinook at the time to support
uplift and delivery of vital supplies to members of the public stranded by flood waters. This
request was made to CASA under the relevant regulation available to authorise ex-military
aircraft to carry emergency response cargo. In order to reduce increased stress during times
of emergency response, would CASA consider pre-approval of the relevant authorisation
rather than waiting until a crisis has developed?
3. In overseas jurisdictions, and here in Australia, ex-military aircraft are a very important
element of the aerial firefighting capability required to protect the public during heightened
risk fire seasons over the coming years. Significantly, in the USA specialist support and direct
firefighting personnel are able to be carried on ex-military aircraft – why is this key
capability not allowed in Australia, yet I can go out today and book an adventure flight in an
ex-military jet that is up to 65 years old?

Answer:

1. The majority of the civil firefighting fleet are certified to civil airworthiness standards
and are approved to operate under Part 133 or 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety
Regulations. These aircraft can carry passengers including firefighters.

Highly modified aircraft that do not meet civil certification requirements, and ex-military
aircraft that are not designed to meet civil certification standards can be permitted to
operate for a particular special purpose operation, such as firebombing via a Restricted
Category Type Certificate (RTC).

All civil aviation regulators impose additional controls to mitigate inherent risk when
aircraft, including military surplus aircraft, are operated in a civil role. This includes
restricting people who can be carried on the aircraft to crew members, or a person who
performs an essential function in connection with the special purpose operation for
which the aircraft is certificated. Carriage of emergency service personnel purely for the
purposes of transportation is not permitted.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) utilises the same assessment criteria as the
FAA to certify military surplus aircraft in Restricted Category. This assessment criteria
applies internationally aligned controls to mitigate the risks associated with operating
these aircraft. The United States, Canada, and New Zealand all restrict the carriage of
people on military surplus aircraft.

CASA is reviewing the carriage of persons by non-air transport operators and is actively
consulting with stakeholders on this issue. This will include consideration of carriage of
persons on a restricted category aircraft. CASA needs to determine what alleviations
from the current rules can be applied whilst maintaining a level of risk that is acceptable
to all stakeholders, including firefighters.

2. In the case of the Chinook operated by NSW Rural Fire Service, this aircraft has been
certified by the FAA in Restricted Category to include transportation of cargo under
certain conditions. CASA would consider this cargo transportation role in any future
application received from NSW Rural Fire Service for CASA to approve operations using
the Chinook. CASA has powers to grant exemptions from compliance with requirements
of the regulations in exceptional circumstances, including emergency response. CASA is
confident that it has the ability to respond swiftly to facilitate such exemptions for
operators as the need arises, as it did with the Chinook operated by the NSW Rural Fire
Service.

3. Unlike Australia, in the United States an aircraft may be operated for certain purposes
by or on behalf of a state government entity as a public aircraft. Although public aircraft
operations must comply with certain general operating rules, including those applicable
to all aircraft in the National Airspace System, most other civil certification and safety
oversight regulations do not apply to their operation. Accordingly, many aspects of
public aircraft operations are not subject to FAA oversight. Under these arrangements,
oversight of the safe operation of a public aircraft operation is the responsibility of the
state government entity under whose auspices those operations are conducted, not the
FAA.

Without a public use declaration and the assumption of liability by the state government
entity, ground based firefighters are not able to be carried in Restricted Category aircraft
under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) in the USA1
.
An amendment to the Civil Aviation Act would be required to introduce a comparable
system in Australia, subject to identifying an appropriate constitutional basis.
As noted in the answer to question 1 above, CASA is currently consulting with
stakeholders on the possibility of allowing firefighters to be carried on Restricted
Category aircraft in certain circumstances.

In the United States a bill has recently passed the house, that directs the FAA to within 18 months to produce
a rule that requires ground-based firefighters being transported to and from the base of a “wildfire” for
wildfire suppression to be categorised as “essential crewmembers”, thereby permitting their carriage in
Restricted Category aircraft. Notably this bill does not permit the carriage of ground-based firefighters in exmilitary aircraft that have been modified for firefighting. This Bill is now before the US Senate for review and
debate.

304. CASA - Drone incidents at airports

305. CASA - Drone incidents reported to CASA on 18 and 27 April 2023

306. CASA - Working conditions and staffing issues of CASA employees

308. CASA - Hire or reward practice

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

1. Are there any concerns around CASA’s test for ‘hire or reward’ is out of line with the
Standards and Recommended Practices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and
other aviation jurisdictions in the world?
2.Was the introduction covered in the notices of proposed rulemaking and economic impact
statement?

Answer:

1. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) interpretation of the concept of ‘hire or
reward’ closely aligns with the use of that concept, and similar formulations, by other
leading aviation countries and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

2. The test of hire and reward was not introduced by the new flight operations regulations.
That concept had been part of the previous regulatory framework and the new
regulations did not alter its meaning.

However, the new regulations did make changes to the definition of the kinds of
passenger carrying operation which can be regarded as private operations. This meant
that some operations which had been conducted as a private operation under the old
regulations could no longer be conducted on that basis under the new regulations.

CASA published extensive guidance about these changes which led a number of
operators to approach CASA seeking exemptions to allow them to continue operating
flights as private flights. Given the significant number of operators effected, CASA
decided to issue an exemption to facilitate continued operation of these flights while it
reviewed the position further.

309. CASA - Process of filling Board appointments and the Chairs involvement

388. CASA - Freedom of Information Figures

391. CASA - Incidents mentioned in SQ23-003791

MTF...P2