[Peetwo]

Sic'em'Rex Airport Security DM outcome?

Although yesterday evening the inevitable occurred with Senator Patrick's DM being voted down, I do believe the good Senator may have actually kicked a goal with the Minister being shamed into working a deal with Spud Dutton and the ScoMo Government -   
 For those interested you can read the Hansard segment - HERE - from page 108; or watch the following Youtube vids (minus the embarrassing performance of Senator KK and the insipid performance of both Senator Mckenzie and Liberal Senator Reynolds): 

Ps GOLD Star to Senator McDonald -   

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (19:15): I rise in my right of reply. I thank all senators for their contribution tonight. I am pleased to hear that there's a change in mood from the government in relation to this. What I heard the Nationals senators say is that there will be no cost throughout the COVID period for security— that's actually already been announced—but that they will move to a model where there is nondifferential pricing right across Australia. If you go back to my recommendations in the original Senate inquiry that we did in the last parliament, you'll find exactly that recommendation in there, where we looked at airport security from a national perspective. I'll just make the observation, because I would like this put to a vote, that politics is about positioning. It's not about policy; it's about positioning for the right policies. I think work across the last month or so, as this motion's vote came to a final point, has forced the government to do something. I think all in the chamber can take some credit for forcing a change. I will move the disallowance and ask that it be voted upon. I accept that there is an offer of future change that appears to be on the table, but the government will have to follow through with that.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Boats, busses, trains and planes.

It never fails to amuse me when I hear thick headed politicians banging on about how transport security is essential to 'aviation safety'. Why is it air travel creates such anxiety amongst these folk?

One may step onto a cruise boat with hundreds of people who have not been 'security' screened, get onto a crowded inner city bus with dozens of people who have not been subjected to 'security' checks; how many people a day get on and off trains – none screened, no identity checks, back packs, suitcases, brief cases, parcels and all the claptrap dragged around the country side – all day every day.

Yet to board an aircraft – to go anywhere, there is a whole profitable industry working away to keep you safe from a tube of toothpaste, a bottle of shampoo or an attack with nail clippers.

The whole thing is either mad or corrupt. Same as 'safety briefings' imagine getting on the Manly ferry and having to listen to the speel about where the life jackets are; or how to launch a lifeboat, or how not to land on your arse when the boat docks and the gangway is moving.

Compare that to the carnage, daily on our roads; then tell me where our 'safety' dollar would serve us best. Some folk have a funny idea of what 'danger' and 'risk analysis' really is. Bored to tears - just saying:-

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Senator Rex and Senator McDonald kick a goal for regional aviation -    

Totally agree "K", every time the mystique of airport security issue comes up the BRB and AP have well and truly uncovered the non-fiction from the fiction on yet another publicly funded bottomless trough - eg: 

Update: Airport security disconnections. & Chester under siege on Airport security & safety - Part III
   

"..Whistleblower Allan Kessing says passenger screening is a “useless facade”, and intelligence gathering needs resources..."

I'd love to see the security risk matrix applied by Spud Dutton and Co to justify spending 100s of millions of taxpayer dollars on creating a smoke'n'mirrors charade that public safety/security is enhanced by putting in place security screening at all regional airports that have RPT services with aircraft above a certain capacity -   


Ref: https://auntypru.com/first-principals/

Compare that to the farcical situation where the DFO shopping complex still exists as a public safety risk alongside two active runways at Essendon Fields airport and you can understand PAIN_Net members cynicism on this issue - 

However putting aside the absurdity of the airport security issue, which has the potential to be the final nail in the coffin of many regional airports, I do believe that the good Senator's Rex and McDonald have made the best of a bad situation - 

Via the Senators FB pages:

Senator Susan McDonald
13 May at 19:56 ·

*A WIN FOR REGIONAL AIRPORTS*

I'm very proud to announce that the Nationals in the Senate today negotiated changes to ensure regional travellers don't face disproportionate cost increases associated with beefed-up security measures coming into place next year.

National security requires a national cost solution, and it was unfair for regional communities to be expected to bear big jumps in airfares.

We agreed that passenger security must be paramount, but we stood firm for regional Australians who already pay more to fly. Now added costs associated with added security will be less for regional flyers.

Townsville Airport Cairns Airport Rockhampton Airport Mackay Airport Mount Isa Airport

Senator Rex Patrick
13 May at 20:52 ·

WE DID IT! BIG WIN FOR REGIONAL AIR TRAVELLERS

After two years of pressure, culminating in a disallowance motion tonight in the Senate, the Government has committed to implementing a new approach to airport security charges which will see Australians pay “a non-differential charge” for airport security screening, no matter what destination they depart from.

It has been a long and intense campaign and I particularly thank those of you who signed the petition, which was tabled in the Senate today before the change was announced.

One Senator described my actions as ‘taking a sledgehammer to a walnut’, but if that’s what it takes then that’s what I’ll do.

In May 2018 the Government announced that it was increasing security screening requirements at regional airports and that $50M had been set aside to pay for any new equipment required. However, there was no funding to cover the ongoing operating costs of the equipment, which for many airports was more than $1M per annum. Local councils, who own most regional airports, would have to recover this cost from airlines who would have to recover it from passengers.

People flying from Whyalla to Adelaide would have had to pay an additional $52 for each flight to cover the costs. People flying from Port Lincoln to Adelaide would have had to pay an additional $10 to $20 per flight.

Both QANTAS and REX had indicated that the new charges would call into question the viability of a number of regional air routes around the country, including a number in SA.

In the face of a regulation disallowance voted on in the Senate tonight the Government capitulated and will develop a new approach that will see the same charges for all Australians.

This is a big win. I thank you all for your support.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

For the record - 

Better late than never...  

---

---

 Examination of Security Controlled Airports Regulations

Background Information - Legislative Instruments

• Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019
  
  
• Submission from Corporate Air. Received 11 May 2020. 
  

Additional Documents

• Report from  the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication, titled ‘Passenger security screening enhancements – case studies on financial impacts at six regional airports’, dated May 2020, provided to the committee on 6 May 2020.
  

Tabled Documents

• Opening statement of the Department of Home Affairs, tabled at a public hearing in Parliament House, Canberra, on 7 May 2020
  
  
• Opening statement and addition information of the Armidale Regional Council, presented to the committee at a public hearing in Parliament House, Canberra, on 7 May 2020
  

Answers to Questions on Notice

• Question taken on notice at a public hearing in Canberra on 7 May 2020 by the Armidale Regional Council. Response received 7 May 2020.
  
  
• Question taken on notice at a public hearing in Canberra on 7 May 2020 by Corporate Air. Response received 11 May 2020.
  
  
• Questions taken on notice at a public hearing in Canberra on 7 May 2020 by the Department of Home Affairs. Response received 11 May 2020. 
  

Public Hearing

• Thursday 7 May 2020, Parliament House, Canberra 
  

- Program   

- Transcript 

---

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Spillover hearing 09/06/20: Aviation & Airports Division.

Spillover hearing

Tuesday, 9 June 2020

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

Program for 9 June 2020 (PDF 146KB)

Watched this session and in amongst the usual bureaucratic waffle & piffle there are some interesting passages -   

 Watch from about 14:15 - HERE - and/or read the Hansard - HERE.

The verdict is still out on the new(-ish) Dept Secretary Simon Atkinson, the next couple of months will no doubt tell a story - 

You can read the Secretary's opening statement on pages 3 to 5.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Libraries, past and present. (Passing thought department).

For millennia a library was considered to be an essential item, one of 'civilisations' achievements. The internet is a great tool for beginning research; but (IMO) a visit to one of great libraries for research, where you can actually find many books on a topic, and as many points of view, is a great thing. But it takes time and some determination to gain an insight into any topic you care to delve into. Mankind has been 'at it' for quite a while now.  But I digress.

There is a Parliamentary library; on 'the net' – HERE -. As usual, it takes a little patience to winnow the wheat from the chaff; particularly in relation to matters aeronautical. But, I'd bet a beer that an hour spent digging about in the tomes (skipping pages like 'newspaper clippings etc) will benefit anyone who is interested in seeking an explanation of how Australian aviation has slithered into the pits.

For example – the cost of aviation fuel at the bowser compared to the spot market price; without the added, much hated tax on the same. Start in 1993 and track the indecent amount of money siphoned off to pay for today's regulatory debacle. It is a remarkable tale. Nearly every faerie tale writ finished with “The End”. Time this particular story had a similar fate. Why do CASA need so much money?

Toot – toot...

1993 - “Also, on this matter of the supervisory or safety functions of the authority, Bosch argued that there was an unequivocal case for that to be classed as the public interest and that it should be funded out of consolidated revenue. The government agreed with that; there was no ambiguity about it. It said, `Yes, we accept the findings of the Bosch committee'. A couple of years later, when the financial irresponsibility and deficits were mounting, the government said, `We are going to walk away from that'. The proposition we have at the moment is that there will be a recovery of 50 per cent of the regulatory costs this financial year and 100 per cent in the next financial year, 1994-95.

P7 - P2 - Challenge - Find the Bosch Report - Choc frog in it

[Peetwo]

The origins of the MOAS bottomless bucket??

P2 - Challenge - Find the Bosch Report - Choc frog in it

You're right Ol'Tom a complete copy of the report is impossible to find off the online Parliamentary library website...  

However there is a reference link - see HERE - from the National Library of Australia for which you can loan an electronic copy if you are a library member. I know that is not quite the same thing as obtaining a full electronic copy of the Bosch Report but I have referred the matter to my other sources and will let you know Ol'Tom how I get on -   

In the meantime while trolling Google for various connections to the Bosch Report, I did come across several references and extracts from that report. One of those references was from a CASA submission (refer sub 75 - HERE) to the 2000 Productivity Commission inquiry titled Cost Recovery by Commonwealth Agencies.

P9...
 

1993 - “Also, on this matter of the supervisory or safety functions of the authority, Bosch argued that there was an unequivocal case for that to be classed as the public interest and that it should be funded out of consolidated revenue. The government agreed with that; there was no ambiguity about it. It said, `Yes, we accept the findings of the Bosch committee'. A couple of years later, when the financial irresponsibility and deficits were mounting, the government said, `We are going to walk away from that'. The proposition we have at the moment is that there will be a recovery of 50 per cent of the regulatory costs this financial year and 100 per cent in the next financial year, 1994-95.

Remembering that this submission is approaching 20 years old, the following is a quote from the submission which IMO perfectly highlights how multiple Governments and indeed the CASA Iron Ring have obliterated and spun around the original findings of the Bosch Report to their own self-interest/self-aggrandisement/self-survival/self perpetuating (make work) bottomless MOAS trough - : 

Cost recovery has been a feature of the provision of aviation regulatory
services since 1956. The first in-depth approach to develop a policy for
recovery of aviation fees and charges was the 1984 Report of the
Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, known as the Bosch report
after its Chairman, Mr Henry Bosch. The review considered all Government
aviation costs of which the costs generated by the safety regulation function
was only a small component. This component was specifically addressed by
the review and their conclusions (Chapter 19 of the Bosch Report) are
attached (Attachment 1). In summary, the Bosch Report recommended that
the Government continue to fund the standards setting and compliance
functions of the regulator and to increase the level of cost recovery for
aviation safety regulatory services, achieving full cost recovery over a ten
year period.

Attachment 1 (Chapter 19) should be required reading for those who are interested in the historical context of the now 30+ year Regulatory Reform Program and how that program has led to the almost complete decimation of the once vibrant flight training and General Aviation sectors of the industry.

(Refer to sub-para 2 'Views put to the inquiry' (from page 243 to 246) and reflect on the current situation - how things have changed - NOT!)

This was the summary and recommendations of the committee Chaired by Henry Bosch:

Now compare that to to the last paragraph of the CASA Iron Ring submission to the Productivity submission...

CASA has prepared a draft Regulatory Reform Plan for consideration by the

Minister. The objective of this Plan is to rewrite the Regulations and Orders
with the development of appropriate clear and concise aviation safety
regulations which reflect best practice in aviation regulation. This significant
programme of development work is currently scheduled for completion in
September 2002. The existing Fees Regulations will become obsolete with
the advent of the new aviation regulations and a new listing of regulatory
services attracting a fee will be developed and identified in the Fees
Regulations. This process will take account of the review by the Regulatory
Services Division of what regulatory services should be provided by CASA
and what the appropriate fees should be.

Hmm...no comment - 

MTF...P2 

ps Also from the submissions it is interesting to read the Airservices Australia submission - see HERE - which in summary is basically a defensive submission in reply to assertions/criticism by industry stakeholders in the submissions - eg. :

[Peetwo]

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark …"

Educated, independent, responsible individuals with considered opinions on the state of aviation safety in Oz in recent times have been voicing their concerns in various media formats, all of which points to the overwhelming hypothesis that something is rotten in the state of Denmark...    

Examples:

Dr Gates to the SMH Editor:

Dear Ed

With all the cuts to QANTAS announced today because of the big reduction in passenger numbers,  it’s time to review staffing levels and salaries of government departments and agencies involved in aviation, a commensurate cut!

Do we really need all those ‘fat cats’ at the top in CASA and the ATSB (on enormous salaries) to be there, or are they a protected species?  And what about all those air traffic controllers sitting around waiting for a plane?  The only exceptions to the rule are the specialist firefighters who need to be there, regardless.

Sandy to Dan Tehan MP:

Dear Dan,


On February 19th four experienced pilots were killed in a mid air collision near Mangalore. 

This is not the first time that aircraft have had avoidable accidents due to our poorly managed, outdated, inadequate and improperly designed airspace, prerogative of the ‘independent‘ AirServices Australia With the CV induced absence of airline traffic now is the time to make real improvements in our airspace management. 

The whole aviation industry including General Aviation (GA) has been hard hit by the various measures to keep Australians safe from a rampant corona virus. 

Now, more than ever, it is imperative that Government brings in some urgent reforms for GA which it can accomplish with little or no expense. Reforms that are so obvious it should not be difficult to order the agencies to action those measures that can help to regrow GA, apart from making our airspace safer for GA and airline traffic alike.  

Having written and spoken with you on several occasions about the opportunities that exist to grow jobs and businesses in GA, I feel that there’s got to be the understanding that action is required. The Prime Minister talks about reducing red tape. Government could act now to put life back into GA and reverse the over regulated decline of this important industry. 

Car driver medicals for all private pilots, the same successful standard that has been In place now for some thirty years in the Australian low weight aircraft category (and similarly private flyers USA). This is a hugely anomalous area of splitting GA that has induced thousands of private pilots to the low weight category and distorted the whole industry. 

Relief from the Aviation Security Identification Card, a biennial $300 police check which to our knowledge has never been subjected to any cost benefit analysis. This is a measure that was brought about by the ‘911’ attacks but there is no similar ID imposition in the USA. This is an expensive impost that is resented greatly throughout GA because we can see that it has little or no value. Moreover for those of us that have been flying professionally, or privately, for up to fifty years or more it is disgraceful that we are treated like potential terrorists. Pending a proper analysis, Government should immediately increase the validity period in line with a timeline and or licence category. 

Flying training is the backbone of all aviation, we have lost hundreds of flying schools due extreme, unnecessary and hugely expensive CASA requirements. Independent instructors as the successful USA model will allow a resurgence of training especially, important for country centres to re-establish their flying schools. 

Airports, including those made over to local governments, are under threat of closure and inappropriate development in many places. Private airfields like Tyabb and Drouin in Victoria are being hounded by Councils, Central Coast airport in NSW also under attack and they need support 

If there was ever a time for Government to make some necessary changes and assist the aviation community it is right now. Plain commonsense with leadership must prevail if Government is to have credibility with the aviation community. 

Lastly we will not be satisfied to wait on yet another Parliamentary (Senate) inquiry when the last one, Forsyth 2014, has had no appreciable effect, in reality GA is in steeper decline. 

Please make representations on my behalf to Minister Michael McCormack and the Prime Minister. 

Regards,

Sandy

Dr K.I.K academic paper published in MDPI Aerospace open access journal:

Naweed, A.; Kourousis, K.I. Winging it: Key Issues and Perceptions around Regulation and Practice of Aircraft Maintenance in Australian General Aviation. Aerospace 2020, 7, 84.
 Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...-00084.pdf or https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/7/6/84

..It is of note that CASA approached this matter with a change management mindset, attempting to achieve a consensus from the regulated parties. The management of change, as a systematic
approach/methodology to enable change at an individual and organisation level [9], has also been
promoted by CASA for safety management purposes in the wider aviation industry [10]. Past CASA
attempts to impose regulations or dictate mandatory actions did not have the expected result, as
compliance was found to be problematic. An extensive industry consultation process was employed
for this purpose during 2018−2019 [11]. Tailoring of maintenance regulations (framework, oversight,
and practice) for the GA aircraft was a topic on the industry’s “wish list” from this consultation. This
finding has also confirmed the feedback collected by CASA from their previous interaction with the
GA sector.

Eventually, CASA decided to introduce a new set of maintenance regulations that mirrored the
United States (US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules for GA aircraft, with these outlined
in CASA’s consultation accompanying documents [11]. The FAA rules’ approach was by far the
preferred industry choice, recording a 78% acceptance rate [11]. The decision to follow the FAA
regulations for GA aircraft is not consistent with the CASA’s overall regulatory structure and
philosophy, as the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) largely follow/mirror the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) rules. This triggers questions on the underlying reasons
that provoke this type of change as well as what challenges may manifest as part of transitional
effects...

And from Dick Smith via the UP: 

Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...3#pid11363


Finally from the Commonwealth Ombudsman in reply to Glen Buckley: 

Conclusion of phase 1 of my investigation

On 23 June 2020 this Office sent a concluded view to CASA as follows:

The entry into force of the 1 September 2014 compilation of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) removed the former CAR 206(1)(a)(vi) related to flying training organisations (FTO) from CAR 206.
CASA’s ruling Franchise AOC Arrangements (the Ruling) issued on 21 February 2006 refers explicitly to its application to commercial operations conducted for CAR 206 purposes. CAR 206(1)(a)(vi) referred to flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate.

With CAR 206(1)(a)(vi) removed from the CAR, I note CASA’s view that the policy objectives reflected in the Ruling have remained applicable to the conduct of FTO activities under the post August 2014 regulatory regime, irrespective of the explicit reference to CAR 206.

The Ruling was not amended to reflect that legislative change from 1 September 2014 meaning that the CAR and the Ruling were no longer aligned in material ways.

Conceptually, I accept CASA's view that the Ruling may reflect broader policy considerations.

Nevertheless in my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it. This gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely, prevent detriment from occurring.

In the circumstances, it is my concluded view that CASA should have made a concurrent amendment to its Ruling at the entry into force of the 1 September 2014 compilation of the CAR because of the practical effect of the change to those relying on the regulatory regime.

Thank you for your advice that CASA will amend the Ruling to confirm the intent of the breadth its application.

Please note that this is the Ombudsman’s opinion and CASA may disagree with it, or parts of it.

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...port-1.pdf

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

QON from the Greens -       

Refer from approx - 42.39: 

Okay now refer to the following QON for the Greens to the Dept aviation safety agencies ASA and CASA:

---

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf

Question on notice no. 227
Portfolio question number: 227
2019-20 Additional estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. What efforts have been made by ASA to consult with the community and affected
stakeholders regarding the design and implementation of new and amended flight
paths for the Sunshine Coast Airport? In particular, What consultation was done?
When? What consultation material was produced and distributed? By whom? Where
were consultation meetings held? How were the locations chosen? Which ASA staff
attended the meetings? What opportunities were provided for the community to ask
questions outside the formal consultation meetings? Is ASA satisfied that the
consultation program met its statutory obligations regarding consultation and its
Communication and Consultation Protocol? I understand that ASA was asked to
investigate why many households in affected communities did not receive
consultation material. Has that investigation been undertaken? What was the outcome,
and what actions were taken in response? What action has ASA taken to respond to
criticisms made by the Airport Noise Ombudsman in relation to poor consultation
practices around the flight path changes proposed for the Hobart Airport?

---

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf

Question on notice no. 228
Portfolio question number: 228
2019-20 Additional estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. The TIEA submitted by ASA to CASA and the Minister does not include any
assessment of the impacts of the announced decommissioning of runways 18/36, and
intensification of use of runway 13/31. Does the ASA propose to submit a revised
TIEA that addresses those significant changes? If so, when? If not, why? The TEIA
does not reference any flight volume scenarios past May 2020. Will a further
assessment be done to account for changes? If so, when? Has ASA investigated a
range of potential flightpaths, or only those proposed in the TEIA? Did ASA invite
any parties, including the public, to nominate alternative flight paths in their
submissions? When assessing potential flight paths, to what extent did ASA have
regard to concerns about public perception raised by the Sunshine Coast Council,
rather than aviation safety, impacts on quarrying activities, or minimisation of
environmental impacts? Was the TEIA prepared in accordance with ASA's National
Operating Standard for Environmental Management of Changes to Aircraft
Operations? In particular, was the TEIA presented to the Minister / Department at an
early enough stage to allow for discussion of options? To what extent is ASA
responsible for assessing environmental risks, such as that presented by flyrock from
the Yandina quarry or the risk to migratory species of flightpaths over significant
wetlands? Why has ASA not restricted use of the shortened curve approach (crossing
the coast at Marcus Beach, over Lake Weyba) to severe weather, as recommended?
Why has ASA designed a Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) on a Required
Navigation Performance (RNP) procedure path which will consistently align all RNP
capable jet aircraft as they make a turn on arrival directly over the quarry site at
approximately 1500 ft?

---

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf

Question on notice no. 229
Portfolio question number: 229
2019-20 Additional estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. CASA has previously advised the public that a quarry site at Yandina Creek had
been subject to a Danger Area application in 2014, but found to pose no threat to
aviation safety at the Sunshine Coast airport. However, documents released under FOI
indicate that no application was ever made or assessed. Following an investigation,
the Queensland Coordinator General asserted in a report that CASA "thinks that the
[Sunshine Coast] airport operations should close during blasting sessions" at the
quarry. Does CASA concede that no Danger Area application was received? Does
CASA intend to take any action to correct the public advice that the quarry had been
assessed and determined not to be a Danger Area? Is it CASA's view that the
Sunshine Coast airport should close during blasting operations at the Yandina Creek
quarry? If not, what was the basis for the Coordinator-General's assertion?

---

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf

Question on notice no. 230
Portfolio question number: 230
2019-20 Additional estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. CASA has proposed to manage the risks posed by the proximity of the quarry to
flight paths by including a plume symbol on the Visual Terrain Chart, but not to avoid
overflights. When determining mitigation measures, did CASA consider the Regular
Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft operations from only the existing north-south
aligned 18/36 runway, or general aviation traffic under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) ?
Was CASA satisfied that the condition regarding the plume symbol was sufficient to
mitigate the risks from the quarry? The assessment documentation refers to the quarry
being 5 nautical miles from the aerodrome, which minimises risks of damage to
aircraft at the aerodrome from flyrock. Does the distance from the aerodrome have
any significance when assessing the risk of damage to aircraft flying over the quarry?
Given the potential risk to overhead aircraft of flyrock from hazardous activities like
blasting, was the quarry operator ever advised to apply for a Restricted Area
declaration? If not, why? The Joint Experts in the quarry operators' planning appeal
recommended an exclusion zone for airspace around the quarry with a 2nm radius up
to an altitude of 3,000ft. Was this information provided to CASA / OAR? If CASA /
OAR received a copy of the Joint Experts' recommendations, what action was taken
in response to the recommendation? Has any independent assessment been made of
blasting impacts and suitable vertical dimension limits for the quarry? If so, who
undertook the assessment/s and what was the outcome of the assessment/s? If no
assessment was made, why not? Does CASA or OAR have any relationship with Mr
Guselli, expert witness for the quarry operator, that could give rise to an actual or
perceived conflict of interest? What consideration has been given to minimising the
risks posed by the quarry by re-designing the flight path? Why has this option not
been pursued?

---

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf

Question on notice no. 231
Portfolio question number: 231
2019-20 Additional estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. What is the current status of negotiations to develop a Blast Management Protocol
for the quarry? Who has been consulted? Has CASA received a copy of a Blast
Management Protocol for review? What is the anticipated timeline for finalising the
Protocol? Will an aeronautical study be undertaken to inform the final Blast
Management Protocol?

---

https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf

Question on notice no. 232
Portfolio question number: 232
2019-20 Additional estimates

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. On 30 May 2019, the airport leaseholder, Palisade, published the Airport Master
Plan 2040 announcing the closure of the existing 18/36 runway. That runway was
cited as an additional safety mitigation measure in 2013, and the 2014 EIS
recommended that the runway be retained as an alternate to address operational
efficiency problems and mitigate safety implications posed by blasting activity. Given
the proposal to allow RPT jet flights to directly overfly the quarry on approach to
runways 13 and 31, has CASA reviewed the implications of closing runway 18/36 or
undertaken any fresh risk assessment? The Airspace Change Proposal for the airport
lodged in July 2019 and related EIA did not refer to the proposed decommissioning of
runway 18/36. Why did CASA accept the proposal? Has advice been sought from
CASA regarding Code E aircraft being parked on the southern apron to the east of the
current terminal building, encroaching into 18/36 runway? If so, who sought the
advice? When was the advice sought? What advice was provided? Has advice been
sought from CASA about separation distances between parked Code E aircraft,
taxiways and the runway centre line in relation to the eastern end of runway 13/31? If
so, who sought the advice? When was the advice sought? What advice was provided?

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Senate back at work??



Senator Sheldon, via the Senate: 

---

COVID-19: Aviation Industry

[img=44x0]https://www.aph.gov.au/api/parliamentarian/168275/image[/img]Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (20:02): Tonight I want to draw to the Senate's attention the state of the aviation industry, an industry that has been decimated by the global health pandemic only to be kicked in the guts by the absolute failure of the government to provide a national aviation plan. The grounding of flights was the right call, but it was not a market failure; it was a government decision. When they made that decision, they appear to have made one other: to abandon the industry.

Virgin, a full-service airline, was forced to practically bleed out while the government refused to take an equity stake—a financially viable and sensible decision that would have given certainty to thousands of Australian workers and would have provided a return to the taxpayer—only for the government to turn around and play favourites with the Deputy Prime Minister's mates at the majority foreign-owned Rex airlines, a company, disproportionately pumped up with untied government grants and relief money, turning around and buying Virgin planes on the cheap. All the while, the missing minister, Michael McCormack, has been using the excuse that Virgin is majority foreign-owned to deny it funding support.

Then there is the story of the 6,000 workers at dnata, a company that the government retrospectively excluded from the JobKeeper support program. Workers—many of whom worked for Qantas—who never chose who ultimately owned their company and who have paid a lifetime of tax, were cruelly abandoned by a government that could have supported them with the stroke of a pen.

And now there's Qantas. Alan Joyce has taken Scott Morrison and the Australian taxpayers for fools. The whole point of the government's taxpayer funded JobKeeper program was to preserve links between employers and employees. The community's expectation is clear: the funding from JobKeeper should be used to keep jobs; to preserve, as far as possible, the status quo. Letting Qantas take millions, and hundreds of millions, of dollars in taxpayers' money without any obligation to its workforce, or to the country, is an act of sabotage of the national interest. Today's announcement—the pending outsourcing, sacking and replacement of 2,400 ground, baggage and cleaning jobs—is an evil act of corporate bastardry.

I heard today the words of Jim Metropolis, a leading hand on the international ramp at Sydney Airport. He has worked for Qantas for 34 years and amongst his family they have 100 years of service. He said: 'We are gobsmacked. My phone has not stopped ringing since about 12 o'clock. People are ringing—worries about mortgages, kids, bills. I put in 34 years and now it's gone. It's like a piece has gone from all of us.'

Alan Joyce and the board are using COVID as an excuse, not just to sack these workers but to replace them with outsourcing companies like Swissport. Swissport is a company that treats its staff so poorly they were discovered to be sleeping under baggage carousels because they could not afford the fuel for a round trip home between shifts. Is this the future the shareholders and taxpayers of Australia want for the workers and families of Qantas? Well, it is not one that I want. I join the Transport Workers' Union today in calling for Alan Joyce to resign as CEO. And if that fails then the board should be replaced, because, let's be clear, today's decision is not getting Qantas through the crisis. The work still has to be done. It's just going to be done by companies who pay starvation wages and structure their rosters in a way that forces aviation workers to sleep in terminals and in their cars. The government shut down the skies. It has the responsibility to work with all the shareholders and all the stakeholders in aviation to build a national plan for all Australians, not just a privileged few.

 

---

7 years and counting??

Reply to Rod Lovell on Twitter : 

---

7 years and counting?? #auspol #avgeek #reformcasa
@M_McCormackMP @SenMcDonald

Quote Tweet

Rod Lovell
@RodLovell1
· Aug 24
Nick Xenophone (2013).
"The Government establish, as a matter of urgency, the role of Inspector‑General of Aviation Safety, with the necessary powers, resources and expertise to oversee and independently review the activities of CASA, the ATSB.

Over 7 years later - still nothing.

---

It is worth reflecting (7 years later) on the NX additional comments to the PelAir committee report:

Who guards the guards themselves?
1.1 I would like to acknowledge the many submitters to this inquiry, and in particular the individuals who were involved in the incident itself. Their information and testimonies were invaluable to the committee and I appreciate their contributions, particularly in light of how distressing it was for them to relive the accident.

1.2 As the committee states, this inquiry was not an attempt to re-examine the circumstances of the ditching of Pel-Air VH-NGA, or to conduct an aviation accident investigation. Instead, it focussed on the reporting standards and activities of the ATSB and CASA in relation to the ditching, and general governance, transparency and accountability issues.

1.3 However, what is clear from this inquiry is that, while the pilot of the flight did make some erroneous decisions, he essentially became a scapegoat for serious regulatory failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB.

1.4 I strongly endorse the comments made by the committee in its report. The evidence given by Mr McCormick of CASA and Mr Dolan of the ATSB was both shocking and disturbing.

1.5 What at first seemed a fairly straightforward inquiry, instead turned up evidence of withheld documents, poor reporting standards, institutional blindness and what appears to be CASA's undue and potentially dangerous influence over the ATSB and its investigation processes. It is clear to me that both agencies have been allowed to operate to a sub-par standard with little knowledge or intervention for too long.

1.6 The details of the ditching and subsequent report are complex and technical. However, the core of the issue is that the ATSB produced a report into the ditching over 33 months after the incident that, contrary to world’s best practice and the ATSB’s own standards, did not even touch on the systemic or regulatory environment in which the pilot was operating. Instead, it focussed primarily on the pilot’s actions. It did not examine the organisation for which the pilot was working, or the systems, procedures or environment in that organisation. This is despite the fact that a CASA Special Audit of Pel-Air after the ditching discovered serious regulatory breaches, and an internal CASA report (the Chambers Report) found significant failures in CASA's oversight of the operator. While neither of these documents were provided to the ATSB in a timely manner (the Chambers report was not released to them until after the inquiry had commenced), the ATSB's investigation should have discovered these problems. That there was no indication of this in the report is a serious concern.

1.7 Further, among the many documents provided to the committee by the ATSB and CASA, the committee discovered the following email, from an ATSB officer to Mr Dolan and Mr Sangston. It reads (bold emphasis added):

We were discussing the potential to reflect the intent of our new MoU that describes the 2 agencies as ‘independent but complementary’. We discussed the hole CASA might have got itself into by its interventions since the ditching, and how you might have identified an optimum path that will maximise the safety outcome without either agency planting egg on the other agency’s face.

Right now, I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support. If we were to contemplate an exit strategy, or an ‘out’, then CASA would need to recognise that it is ‘in’ something in the first place. This is my take on how I see their position at the moment.

When the aircraft ditched, both the flight crew and the operator stopped their Westwind Aeromedical operations. CASA coached and guided the operator very well as they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pel-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn’t happened to the flight crew. While they may not have been the ‘Aces of the base’ they were following the relevant procedure provided by both CASA and the operator. This is an opportunity for CASA to follow the same approach with the flight crew as they have done with the operator.

...

As we discussed yesterday, following the ditching, everything went (metaphorically) ‘up in the air’. CASA has done a good job in realigning Pel-Air while it was still in the air so that it returning to earth with a much better take on how to manage this risk. Unfortunately, they took action on the flight crew without first contemplating their end-game. If they re‑frame their pre-emptive action with the flight crew to show that they had managed all the levels of safety management simply by putting the pilots’ permissions to fly on hold until they had found the problem and remedied it, then they would look far better than if they tried to prosecute the probably indefensible and hardly relevant.

We will be telling this story in our final report (if not earlier so why not make the most of this opportunity for both agencies to publicly work harmoniously, in a parallel direction?[1]

1.8 It is important to note that 'this story' never made it into the final report, or into any other arena. This email clearly indicates there was a belief inside the ATSB that CASA had 'got itself into a hole', and that the ATSB’s priority was avoiding conflict between the two agencies, rather than holding CASA to account. Indeed, the ATSB's report makes no mention of the officer's concerns, and does not even hint at the whole 'story' outlined in the email.

1.9 It also makes it clear that, at least initially, the focus of the investigation was on systemic issues, and that the ATSB officer believed CASA's actions against the pilots were premature and unnecessary. Why the emphasis of the report changed is open to conjecture.

1.10 The report itself is of such a poor standard that many believe it could be considered a breach of Australia's international obligations under the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Annex 13 guidelines for accident investigation reporting.

1.11 Without distracting from the excellent work of the committee's report, I believe it is important to draw attention to two issues that the committee, due to time restraints, was not able to examine more closely.

1.12 Firstly, I believe relationship between CASA's Bankstown Office (responsible for the oversight of Pel-Air and run at the time in an acting capacity by the author of the "Chambers Report") and Pel-Air's management in terms of probity, transparency and impartiality deserves further scrutiny.

1.13 Secondly, I believe it would have been beneficial to publicly examine whether the "demonstrably safety-related" actions taken by CASA against the pilot by CASA were appropriate, reasonable and consistent with other such enforcement. I believe these two issues deserve further consideration.

1.14 Both of these issues could have cast some light on why the ATSB's focus shifted from systemic and human factors to the behaviour of the pilot.

1.15 Beyond the ATSB report itself, the committee also considered the regulatory environment in which such flights operate. As discussed in the committee report, there are significant industry concerns about the low safety standards for aeromedical operations, which come under the category of 'aerial work'. This category includes activities such as crop dusting and aerial surveys.

1.16 One of the significant issues in relation to the ditching was whether or not the pilot should have chosen to divert to an alternate destination due to the weather at Norfolk Island. The committee report discusses Mr McCormick's response to whether CASA should provide guidance in these circumstances, and whether the drafting of a new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation would address this.

1.17 The committee report stated that CASA has drafted Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 135, which may assist in dealing with this issue. However, CASA's website information on CASR 135 states:

A passenger transport operation is a transport operation in an aircraft involving the carriage of passengers, whether or not cargo is carried on the aircraft. A passenger transport operation does not include, cost sharing operations, aerial work operations or an operation for the carriage of passengers in an aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness other than a standard certificate of airworthiness.[2]

1.18 Further, the CASA website on CASR 136 indicates that Emergency and Medical Services Operations will remain under the category of aerial work.[3] Therefore, it seems that even though CASA has drafted the guidance under CASR 135, it would not have applied to this flight then or indeed in the future. Further, the guidance only states that alternates need to be provided for, not under what circumstances pilots must choose to travel to those alternates.

1.19 It is also important to note the committee's discussion of the ATSB's Canley Vale report. This incident (also a medical flight) tragically resulted in the deaths of both the pilot and the nurse onboard. The ATSB's response to this accident was similar to its report into the Pel-Air ditching. The ATSB also made it very clear in its report that it did not consider CASA's failure to oversee the operator appropriately as relevant. The validity of that view is, I believe, a direct parallel to that exposed by this inquiry for the Pel-Air ditching and equally alarming.

1.20 The committee also recommended the establishment of an expert independent panel to oversee the ATSB's investigations and reporting. Given the circumstances raised in this report, I believe there is merit in expanding the role of this panel to oversee the performance of both CASA and the ATSB as a whole. There is currently no system to measure the activities of these agencies in an objective manner, and the need for expert oversight and monitoring has been made abundantly clear.

1.21 It is my view that the panel should instead take the form of an Inspector‑General of Aviation Safety. Such a body would have the appropriate resources, expertise and powers to oversee the ATSB and CASA to a greater degree. The current Inspector-General of Taxation would be an excellent model to follow as an independent office aimed at conducting systemic reviews and providing recommendations to government.

Recommendation 1

That the Government establish, as a matter of urgency, the role of Inspector‑General of Aviation Safety, with the necessary powers, resources and expertise to oversee and independently review the activities of CASA, the ATSB and other relevant organisations to an appropriate level.

1.22 Ultimately, this inquiry has exposed serious and significant flaws in Australia's aviation safety systems. The general industry attitude towards both the ATSB and CASA is incredibly concerning; it is a mixture of fear, suspicion, disappointment and derision.

1.23 It is my view that CASA, under Mr McCormick, has become a regulatory bully that appears to take any action available to ensure its own shortcomings are not made public. This poses great risks to aviation safety, and the safety of the travelling public. Equally, the ATSB—which should fearlessly expose any shortcomings on the part of CASA and other organisations to improve aviation safety—has become institutionally timid and appears to lack the strength to perform its role adequately. Both agencies require a complete overhaul, and I believe it is only luck that their ineptness has not resulted in further deaths so far. There is an urgent need for an Inspector-General of Aviation Safety, entirely independent of the Minister and his department, to be a watchdog for these agencies.

1.24 In the end, this report raises many questions. But if we wish to bring about change and improve aviation safety, we will clearly need to look beyond our inept regulators and ask: who will guard the guards themselves?

Hmm...and what's changed exactly??


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Budget Estimates in October - 

Via the RRAT committee webpage:

---

2020-2021 Budget estimates

Program

Monday, 19 October 2020

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding Communications–Senators Ruston and Duniam

Tuesday, 20 October 2020

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding Communications–Senators Ruston and Duniam

Wednesday, 21 October 2020

Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding Environment–Senators Ruston and Duniam

Thursday, 22 October 2020

Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding Environment–Senators Ruston and Duniam
Program for 19 to 22 October 2020 (PDF 145KB)

Friday, 23 October 2020

Cross Portfolio Murray Darling Basin Plan Matters-Senator Birmingham

 Program for 23 October 2020 (PDF 135KB)

---

Not sure if it actually adds up to much but in aviation circles there is actually some additions and a notable omission - the Hooded Canary Avery -  to this COVID-19 year of Bureaucratic O&O'ing of Budgetary Estimates...

---

---

Also on the Can'tberra bubble front apparently BM (AOPA Oz) and KC (AMROBA) virtually met with a Department Deputy Secretary last Thursday afternoon:

---

AOPA AUSTRALIA TO MEET DEPUTY SECRETARY, MS CHRISTINE DACEY, 2PM THURS 15th OCT

AOPA Australia will today meet with the Deputy Secretary, Ms Christine Dacey, of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, to discuss a range of industry concerns with the management of Australia's aviation regulations.
Attending the meeting;

- Mr Benjamin Morgan, AOPA Australia CEO
- Mr Ken Cannane, AMROBA Executive Director

---

I guess we will eventually find out what was discussed and what the potential outcome will be -   

Next Oz Flying picks up on a major industry stakeholder concern from the Federal Government's Aviation Issues paper:

---

 

 

Aviation Paper fuels Airport Closure Fears
12 October 2020
Comments 0 Comments

A Federal Government issues paper on the future of aviation in Australia has canvassed the option of giving more power over airports to state and local governments, reigniting concerns over closures of local and regional airports.

The paper The Future of Australia's Aviation Sector: Flying to Recovery was released on 1 October and calls for submissions on a number of challenges facing the aviation industry in immediate and post-COVID eras.

Within the paper is the outline of a Five-year Plan for industry recovery, which also contains three government policy objectives.

" ... this Issues Paper seeks stakeholder feedback on policy options to achieve the Government’s aviation policy objectives," the paper states, "focusing on three main areas:

1. "Reducing the regulatory burden to reduce costs for aviation businesses, encourage greater competition and local investment, and lower prices for Australian travellers – while ensuring our regulatory objectives are met
   
   
2. "Greater local decision making by ensuring state, territory and local governments have the flexibility and autonomy to determine local aviation priorities,and respond to the changing needs of their communities
   
   
3. "Targeted assistance for critical strategic aviation infrastructure and services to improve connectivity and essential service delivery."
   

It is the second objective that has the general aviation community worried. Many regional airports were handed over to local council control under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) that started in 1958. Since then, many councils have either struggled with the cost of operating the airport or have expressed a desire to redevelop the land for housing.

Handing more control to the councils is being seen as a trigger to accelerate closures.

Geoff Breust is a former CEO of both Regional Express and Kendall Airlines. He is also the convenor of the Regional Airport Users Action Group.

"The suggestion to provide local government (as owners of airports) with 'flexibility and autonomy', ability to develop 'local aviation priorities' and 'respond to the changing needs of their communities' is a strong indicator of a push to remove the Commonwealth further from any responsibility or accountability for regional and local airports and by definition, continued cost-shift to local authorities," he believes.

"Further, the paper talks about these airports as being businesses. They are not and this is a fallacy that has been promoted by state and local governments for years. Regional and local airports are community assets just the same as the roads that connect regional and local communities both intrastate and interstate.They are essential infrastructure for our national economy.

"Australia continues to lack effective infrastructure to provide the foundation for our industries – especially agriculture, mining and services and potentially manufacturing in the future. To suggest such infrastructure, including airports, be relegated to local/regional considerations with the potential for undesirable outcomes (including closures) based on inappropriate priorities, undermines the whole basis for the development of the industries seen as the life blood for our future

"Accordingly, the Commonwealth and the states have a direct responsibility for that infrastructure and its funding. The current ad hoc funding programs must be replaced with a funding regime for development and major maintenance which recognises the needs and priorities on a national basis.“

Australian Airports Association Chief Executive Officer James Goodwin told Australian Flying that his organisation backed the idea of greater automony for local governments, but warned that the Federal Government needed to promote a consistent approach to decision making.
“Every community and every airport have different needs, issues and priorities," Goodwin said. "It’s important for state, territory and local governments to be given the power to make decisions based on the needs of their local communities and airport passengers.

"However, the Federal Government is responsible for aviation regulation and it’s important there is a consistent national approach when it comes to matters such as aviation safety, security screening, airport land use protection and flight paths.

“The Federal Government is not going to give up this responsibility, nor should they."

When questioned on the finer points of the objective to hand more power to the state and local governments, a spokesperson for the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications said that the policy objectives did not actually represent any policy.

"The issues discussed in the paper do not represent Australian Government policy and no decisions have been taken on any of the matters canvassed," she said. "Stakeholder views will be key to informing any future decisions on policies and reforms."

The full issues paper is on the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications website.

---

Finally (also Dept, Fed Govt and airport related), via the SMH:

---

'Potential criminal offences': Police investigate airport land sale

By David Crowe and Katina Curtis
Updated October 16, 2020 — 5.19pmfirst published at 3.37pm

Federal police have launched an investigation into a Commonwealth deal that sparked a damning audit over a $32.8 million payment to billionaire political donors for land near the new airport in western Sydney.

The investigation is seeking to identify "potential criminal offences" in the federal government decision to buy the land for almost 10 times the value of similar land in other deals.


Land near the Western Sydney Airport was bought for more than $30 million, while a similar parcel of land cost just $3 million.CREDIT:WOLTER PEETERS


The Australian Federal Police confirmed the investigation on Friday after weeks of political dispute over the purchase of the land from Liberal Party donors Tony and Ron Perich's Leppington Pastoral Company.

The 2018 purchase of the land next to the Western Sydney Airport, dubbed the Leppington Triangle, came under scrutiny from the Auditor-General after the government valued it at just $3 million less than a year after buying it for $29.8 million, plus $3 million GST.

The Auditor-General found federal officials did not act ethically by concealing price comparisons. Infrastructure Department officials did not tell Paul Fletcher, the urban infrastructure minister at the time and the key minister responsible for the airport, the sale price for the 12 hectares of land.

The Auditor-General also found officials met the landowners in coffee shops with no record of the discussion, while phone conversations were recorded in an ad hoc manner.

The Infrastructure Department has separately appointed an independent investigator and an auditor to examine the deal and the conduct of officers within its Western Sydney Unit, which managed the purchase.

"The AFP can confirm it is conducting an investigation to identify potential criminal offences relating to issues identified in an ANAO report into the sale of land to the Commonwealth at Badgerys Creek," an AFP spokeswoman said in response to a question from The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

"This investigation remains ongoing, and it is too early to speculate on potential outcomes, so no further comment will be provided."  

Infrastructure Minister Michael McCormack, the cabinet minister responsible for the land deal, conceded last month the amount was "over the odds" but told radio station 2GB the price would seem a "bargain" in the future.

Labor infrastructure spokeswoman Catherine King said the opposition would use Senate estimates hearings in the coming week to ask officials about the transaction.

"We need to get to the bottom of what has happened with this dodgy deal - a dirty deal that has been done not so dirt cheap," Ms King said on Friday.

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

St Commode's (aka Colonel Sanders -   ) last HURRAH at Senate Estimates - 

Via Parlview:

MTF...P2 

ps via the 20/20 thread, the buck stops with you Mick Mack - :
 

IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE this week; please take a moment to read – THIS – from the erudite, articulate 'Lead Balloon' on the UP forum.

We will ensure it gets delivered to the Senate RRAT crew; it may provide a pathway to sanity and a clear line to the committee actually achieving some kind of result; even at the glacial speed they move at. If yesterday's pathetic effort is what we may expect in the anticipated 'inquiry', then that committee needs all the help it can get.

[Peetwo]

On the Senate 'Notice Paper' for today - 

Via APH: 

---

Senators Sterle and Sheldon: To move—That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2021:

The future of Australia’s aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post-pandemic, having particular regard to:

(a)the importance of Australia’s aviation sector in supporting the economic and social wellbeing of all Australians;
(b)the immediate and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on all aspects of the Australian aviation sector;
©the immediate and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on all sectors that rely on aviation (e.g. tourism);
(d)the adequacy of government industry support and procurement and programs for the social and economic well-being of workers for all sections of the aviation industry to survive the downturn caused by the pandemic;
(e)the immediate and long-term employment landscape within Australia’s aviation sector;
(f)what policy and practical measures would be required to assist the industry to recover in the medium term; and
(g)any related matters.

---

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Don't get me wrong.

I like Glen Sterle as a bloke and his approach to not only 'transport' matters but in general the well being of the country – 'fair-dinkum' is about right: but, and without malice.

Glenn has not quite, but nearly grasped the parallels between the trucking industry and aviation, of which there are many. It costs big bucks to put a 'rig' on the road, houses are mortgaged to lease such a thing – a 'good' prime mover cost about the same or more than a ten seat piston aircraft. The cost of setting up a road haul business is about the same as an aviation business until the 'approval' to operate costs kick in. Truck 1 costs for approval to use as a business say 10 - aircraft start at 100 and keep your fingers crossed.

That before the engines can be started; then you need drivers – 'truckie' with a big rig ticket – pennies to send out – 'airframe driver' thousands before the first return is made on the investment – repeated once a year, every year. It only 'costs' once to train a 'truckie' it costs repeated significant sums to keep a pilot 'compliant'. The list goes on – and on. Before you get anywhere near the impost of 'fatigue' and medical and the whole box and dice.

It is my opinion that the 'cut-throat' games played between those who 'contract' rigs and those who contract air companies is on a par – but mathematically – trucks carting freight make a significantly increased % margin of profit - compared to that of an aircraft. Yes, just like in trucking, there are always those prepared to operate in  the 'profitless prosperity' arena.

Trucking is tough, high risk, expensive business; same-same for air operators; slim margins and long weary hours – but I wonder – how would the trucking blokes cope with a set of rules on a par with aviation – the mind boggles. But then they are united and do have political support; aviation political support may be basically viewed as the aviation industry left standing bare arsed, tied to a pole on Oxford St,  Mardi Gras night.

Truckies ain't terrified of the RTA – aviation wets itself when the heavy mob roll up. Oh, and the average non airline pilot is paid a bloody sight less than a 'drover of many horses. We can live with that:-

(d) "the adequacy of government industry support and procurement and programs for the social and economic well-being of workers for all sections of the aviation industry to survive the downturn caused by the pandemic;

The best support that any government could give would be to reduce and rationalise the bloody fool regulations which restrict the industry; its going to cost a King's ransom to even get the boys and girls back into the air – it is no a simple matter; should be; but it ain't, not by a bloody long march it ain't. A driver can hop into a rig tomorrow and be 'earning' – not too many pilots can do that; not many at all. Want to get aviation up, running, rolling and productive, then take the ducking handbrake off.

That's it – just a plea for someone, somewhere to actually 'see' the aviation gamble for what it truly is. About now, labour needs all the working class support it can gather – most pilots are, essentially working class folk. How about it Albo? Wanna help a few working stiffs to a better deal?

Now, double 16, a 12 and a 4 should win me a round of drinks – Click.

[Peetwo]

Senate Estimates - CASA QON etc. 

From the RRAT Estimates we finally have the QON (with some AQON) from the Budget Estimates 2020-21: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat

Hint: To find QON you maybe interested in click on 'more options', then for example put in RRAT committee, then either portfolio or agency (eg CASA), then Estimates round ie 2020-21 Budget Estimates, then 'search' and away you go - 

From the CASA QON/AQON, finally (maybe) a real game changer - the Rev is back?? -  

Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,

Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October 2020
—
Senator STERLE: If you could let us know who they are on notice as well, that would
be helpful. I have a final couple of series of questions. I want to talk about the search
for a new Director of Aviation Safety, the CASA CEO. Could you tell us what
involvement, if any, you have in the process of selecting the new CEO-yourself
personally? Mr Atkinson: Yes, I'm a member of the panel. Senator STERLE: Who is
the panel? Mr Atkinson: It's probably best if we take that during CASA. It's the chair
of CASA- Senator STERLE: You can tell us so that we don't have to come back to it
tomorrow night at 11 o'clock or something. Mr Atkinson: I can get the information.
It's just factual as to who the other two members are. Senator STERLE: That would
be good. To the best of your knowledge, how many times has the secretary been on a
panel searching for an independent CEO? Mr Atkinson: I understand that last time the
secretary was on the panel. Senator STERLE: The last time. Any other time before
that? I've seen about five of them come and go. I'd be interested to know if you know
if the CEO has been on every selection panel for the last five? Mr Atkinson: The
secretary? Senator STERLE: The secretary, sorry. Mr Atkinson: I can find that out.
It's also a matter of fact.

Answer —
The 2020 Director of Aviation Safety (DAS)/CEO Recruitment Panel consists of
Board Chair Mr Tony Matthews, Board member Ms Elizabeth Hallett, Department
Secretary Mr Simon Atkinson; and independent member Mr David Forsyth AM. The
same approach has been in place for the past three CASA CEO recruitment processes,
with Mr Mike Mrdak in 2017 and 2014 and Mr Michael Taylor in 2009.

Also from Senator Sterle:

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October 2020
—
Senator STERLE: Has the department dealt with any ministerial correspondence on
the decision for you to be on the selection panel? Mr Atkinson: Not that I'm aware of.
Senator STERLE: I will get you to take that one on notice too. If there has been any,
you could table that too. Are any officers within the department candidates for the
job? Mr Atkinson: I'd have to take that on notice as to whether I could comment on
that. Senator STERLE: Okay. Mr Atkinson: It's the subject of an ongoing recruitment
process. Senator STERLE: I don't need to know their name, Mr Atkinson. I just want
to know if there are any. You can tell us that. Mr Atkinson: Could I please take that
on notice to check whether there's- Senator STERLE: I'd rather you answered it, but if
you could take that on notice and come back to us by after smoko that would be good.

Answer —

1. The Department has found no record of ministerial correspondence in relation to
the CASA CEO recruitment process.
2. This is a matter for the recruitment panel at CASA.

---

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October 2020
—
What involvement, if any, do you have in the process of selecting the new Director of
Aviation, the CEO of CASA? Is it the normal practice in the portfolio for the
Secretary to sit on selection panels for CEO's of independent agencies? Have you
done it with any other agencies since you were appointed Secretary? At whose
instigation was your participation? Have you had any discussions with the Deputy
Prime Minister, any other Minister or their respective offices regarding this issue and
in particular the suitability of any particular candidate? Have you received any
representations from Dick Smith or industry participants on this matter? Has the
department dealt with any Ministerial correspondence on it? Are any officers within
the Department candidates for the job? If so how many? Do you agree there might be
an appeared conflict of interest in your involvement, especially if the selection
process involves considering applicants that are your direct reports? On how many
and which occasions did Dr Kennedy, Mr Mrdak and Mr Taylor participate in such
processes?

Answer —
1. The Secretary is on the recruitment panel.
2. It is normal practice for CASA. No.
3. CASA’s Chair of the Board.
4. The Secretary did not have any discussions with Ministers or their offices about his
participation in the process or candidates during this process.
5. The Department has found no record of correspondence from Dick Smith, other
industry participants or ministers in relation to the CASA CEO recruitment process.
6. This is a matter for the recruitment panel at CASA.
7. No.
8. The same approach has been in place for the past three CASA CEO recruitment
processes, with Mr Mike Mrdak in 2017 and 2014 and Mr Michael Taylor in 2009.

And from Sen McDonald to CASA (yet to be answered):

Senator Susan McDonald: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 20 October

2020—

CHAIR: Can I turn to investigations? I have brought with me the most recent
complaints that I've had with CASA; I couldn't bring all the boxes. I want to ask you
about investigations that you're carrying out. I'd like to understand how many that you
have on foot and I'd like to understand, on average, how long they're going for. I'd
imagine it might need to be a question on notice. Mr Carmody: It might well need to
be a question on notice. We have a coordinated enforcement program within the
organisation. We have what I'll call investigations on inquires on foot all the time. I'd
prefer to take that on notice and give you a number of how many are around at each
given time. CHAIR: I would appreciate that. I've got one fellow here, a private
operator, who says that he's been under investigation for two years. I've got another
one who complained of the process of investigation. I have numerous cases of
investigations being carried out in a manner that I don't think is reflective of what are
private individuals operating private aircraft, so it would be good to get that data. Mr
Carmody: I would be happy to give you the numbers...

Then from Sen Patrick (with answer from Dr Aleck ):

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 20 October 2020
—
Senator PATRICK: In terms of an AAT review, a person effectively has a right to go
to the AAT? Dr Aleck: They do under part 149. They did not before. Senator
PATRICK: Under part 149, you say they have a right to appeal or seek a review by
CASA? Dr Aleck: That's right; either party-either RAAus or the party who launched
the review-can challenge CASA's decision in the AAT. Senator PATRICK: On
notice, can you direct me to where that regulation stems from? I don't expect you to
do it now. Dr Aleck: I can do it on notice. I don't have the regs in front of me. Senator
PATRICK: That would be helpful.

Answer —

Under Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) Part 149, an
Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) is required to have
rules and procedures relating to the internal review of decisions made by the ASAO
[CASR 149.290(1)(e)]. In formulating those rules and procedures, the ASAO must
have due regard to the principles of procedural fairness. [CASR 149.290(2)]

A person who is dissatisfied with an ASAO’s decision to refuse to issue an
authorisation or to issue an authorisation in terms different to those applied for; or
vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation (other than at the person’s request); may
apply to the ASAO for an internal review of that decision in accordance with the
procedures specified in the ASAO’s exposition. On review, the ASAO may affirm,
vary or set aside the decision [CASR 149.605].

If a person is dissatisfied with the decision of the ASAO on internal review, the
person may apply to CASA for a review of that internal review decision [CASR
149.610]. On review of the ASAO’s internal review decision, CASA may decide to:

 affirm the internal review decision;
 vary the internal review decision;
 set the internal review decision aside and substitute a new decision; or
 set the internal review decision aside and remit the matter to the ASAO for
reconsideration in accordance with any directions or recommendations of CASA
[CASR 149.630(2)]

CASA’s decision on review of an ASAO’s internal review decision is reviewable in
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal [CASR 201.004].

---

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 20 October 2020
—
Senator PATRICK: In relation to that part 149-delegation, I guess you'd describe itcan
you provide guidance on whether an authorisation holder can have their
authorisation suspended or cancelled on the basis of a suspected breach of RAAus's
exposition? Mr Carmody: I might have to take that on notice, unless I have somebody
who can answer the question. We might take it on notice. It's probably a bit technical.
Senator PATRICK: Sure. There's some general confusion in and amongst industry. I'll
ask this as well: in the case of some incident, under the rules with our air investigation
authorities there's no self-incrimination. Is that the case in respect of RAAus? Mr
Carmody: My understanding is RAAus investigates its own accidents at this stage,
and ATSB investigates them if it wishes to. But I'm not sure of the applicability of the
ATSB Act to RAAus. Senator PATRICK: Can we get some clarify around that,
please- Mr Carmody: Certainly.

Also of interest from Greens Senator Larissa Waters on Sunshine Coast Airport:

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October

2020—

Having regard to CASA's obligation to prioritise air safety, please explain why CASA
was satisfied that the airspace design for the Sunshine Coast Airport (SCA) was not
compromised by future blasting activity at Yandina Creek quarry? Why was a
comprehensive formal risk assessment undertaken of risks to aviation safety from the
new runway arrangements from blasting operations at the Yandina Creek quarry? In
response to a previous QON (SQ20-000234) , CASA said that it had not received an
Airspace Change Proposal relating to the Yandina Creek quarry. However, risks
associated with the quarry were identified by the Queensland Coordinator General.
Why has CASA not assessed these risks outside the ACP mechanism? Does CASA
undertake any proactive assessment, or is consideration of safety issues only triggered
in response to an ACP from a proponent? Correspondence between CASA and the
quarry proponent's lawyer between November 2013 and September 2014 did not refer
to the ACP process. Why was the proponent not advised to lodge an ACP to allow the
safety risks to be assessed? When the Federal government loan of $181M was being
assessed, was any request made for an ACP to be lodged? In response to a previous
QON (SQ20-000237) , CASA advised that its advice had not been sought regarding
aircraft parking or separation distances for Code E aircraft in relation to the SCA.
However, FOI documents show that SCA sought feedback from CASA on 9 July
2018 regarding design drawings, and CASA responded on the same day saying they
would be "happy to informally peruse the designs and hopefully find any/some
glaring oversights to lessen post construction issues." (FOI0176) . Did CASA
"informally peruse" design drawings for the SCA runway proposal? If yes, was any
feedback provided to SCA following that perusal?

---

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October

2020—

When determining mitigation measures relating to Yandina Creek quarry, did CASA
consider the Regular Passenger Transport aircraft operations from only the existing
north-south aligned 18/36 runway, or general aviation traffic under Visual Flight
Rules? CASA proposed a condition requiring a plume symbol to be included on the
Visual Terrain Chart, rather than a prohibition on overflights. Why was CASA
satisfied that this condition was sufficient to mitigate safety risks associated with
plumes from the quarry? The assessment documentation refers to the quarry being 5
nautical miles from the aerodrome, which minimises risks of damage to aircraft at the
aerodrome from flyrock. Does the distance from the aerodrome have any significance
when assessing the risk of damage to aircraft flying over the quarry? Given the
potential risk to overhead aircraft of flyrock from hazardous activities like blasting,
was the quarry operator ever advised to apply for a Restricted Area declaration? If
not, why? The Joint Experts in the quarry operators' planning appeal recommended an
exclusion zone for airspace around the quarry with a 2nm radius up to an altitude of
3,000ft. Was this information provided to CASA? If so, what action did CASA take in
response to the recommendation? Has any independent assessment been made of
blasting impacts and suitable vertical dimension limits for the quarry? If so, who
undertook the assessment/s and what was the outcome of the assessment/s? If no
assessment was made, why not? Does CASA (or the Office of Airspace Regulation)
have any relationship with the quarry operator's expert witness, Mr Guselli, that could
give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest? If so, how has the conflict been
managed? What consideration has been given to minimising the risks posed by the
quarry by re-designing the flight path? Why has this option not been pursued?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sterlo's aviation inquiry update - submissions

Via RRAT webpages: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...idAviation

---

The future of Australia’s aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post pandemic

On 9 November 2020, the Senate moved that the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2021:

The future of Australia’s aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post-pandemic, having particular regard to:

1. the importance of Australia’s aviation sector in supporting the economic and social wellbeing of all Australians;
   
2. the immediate and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on all aspects of the Australian aviation sector;
   
3. the immediate and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic response on all sectors that rely on aviation (e.g. tourism);
   
4. the adequacy of government industry support and procurement and programs for the social and economic well-being of workers for all sections of the aviation industry to survive the downturn caused by the pandemic;
   
5. the immediate and long-term employment landscape within Australia’s aviation sector;
   
6. what policy and practical measures would be required to assist the industry to recover in the medium term; and any related matters.
   

1 Rural Doctors Association of Australia (PDF 206 KB) 

2 Airservices Australia (PDF 2987 KB) 

3 AFAP (PDF 9386 KB) 

4 Professionals Australia (PDF 204 KB) 

5 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (PDF 1835 KB) 

6 Queensland Airports Limited (PDF 233 KB) 

7 Adelaide Airport Limited (PDF 998 KB) 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submissions cont/-

I note that the RRAT committee (at least) are back to work...  

(ps I guess subs 8 & 9 are still under review -   )

---

10 Canberra Airport (PDF 930 KB) 

11 Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) (PDF 379 KB) (Chocfrog submission -   )

From pg 2:

...However, there is a problem, and it is by no means a new problem or a problem that arose as a result of

COVID.

Whilst the activities of The Australian Government working the aviation industry and providing support for
freight and critical passenger movements through a range of assistance programs in the wake of COVID-
19 are acknowledged, this does not in any way shape or form fix the preceding and very fundamental
problem - at the heart of which, is the complex and overly burdensome nature of the Australian aviation
regulations.

THE HEALTH OF AUSTRALIA’S AVIATION SECTOR

The general aviation sector has been struggling for decades under the weight of increasingly complex and
burdensome regulations that are at odds with comparative jurisdictions such as the UK, USA and Canada.
CASA seems to be out of step with contemporary regulatory practice as adopted by The International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) through the promulgation of Annex 19, Safety Management Systems – this
seems likely to in part be contributing to the decline of Australia’s general aviation industry.

Expressed in many ways and in many forums, the essence of the question has been quite simply “Why?”
And further, despite Section 11 of the Civil Aviation Act 19883 - Why is it that Australia is not harmonising
its aviation regulations to the rest of the world in accordance with our commitments as a signatory to the
ICAO treaty? Why is Australia so different?

The consequence of the direction our regulations have taken is that aviation is a higher cost activity than it
should be in Australia for a whole raft of reasons associated with regulations imposed by CASA on owners
and operators. In the United States, which does not have the same approach to regulation, aircraft operating
costs have been reported to be around half what they are in Australia and achieving safety outcomes that
are statistically better.

Safety, particularly in general aviation, is dependent on the behaviour of individuals and their personal
responsibility. The consequence of overly complex regulation is counter-productive and it might enable the
successful prosecution of a very small percentage of recalcitrant individuals – however, that approach falls
short when providing safe guidance to the good intentioned majority. Just consider the example of 
voluminous Software Licensing Agreements, which we are all required to so frequently acknowledge;

similarly, our overly complex aviation regulations may obscure the best intentions. But further, overly
complex regulation leads to multiple and confusing interpretations and an over-reliance on “experts” to assist
understanding or clarify intent.

Calls to simplify our aviation regulations have been loud and clear from Australian aviators for decades and
perhaps most vociferously in recent years at the Wagga Wagga General Aviation Summit in 2018. This
summit was attended by almost 40 aviation organisations and businesses and importantly also by the
Deputy Prime Minister (also Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development), Hon. Michael
McCormack MP, and the then Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development,
Hon. Anthony Albanese MP.

The calls to simplify the regulations, for example by adopting the USA aviation rules with ideally only a
minimum of adjustment, remove the red-tape and all the unnecessary cost burdens to the industry so as to
encourage it to flourish, and not encourage it to die were made most clearly to the Ministers. The urgency
to effect change to avoid the loss of more and more aviation related business, and the effects of which reach
far beyond just those involved directly in these businesses, was also made clear to the Ministers.
An important focus of the summit was to debate statements in the Civil Aviation Act in respect of the CASA’s
performance of functions, which at the time effectively provided for CASA to regulate to achieve “safety
outcomes at any cost”. Given the wording of the Act as it stood, CASA’s direction and actions were therefore
perhaps unsurprising. However – the wording in the Act in this regard was considered the likely root cause
of the direction in which our regulations had been heading – was it any wonder that without any regard for
the economic impact of regulations designed to maximise “safety at any cost” would drive the industry into
decline?

The Summit produced a number of recommendations that were carefully considered to represent real
tangible steps to improve the health of Australian aviation and a specific proposal to amend the Civil Aviation
Act – these recommendations were forwarded by letter to the Hon. Michael McCormack MP on 17th July
20184. The need to amend the Act had been recognised for some time and, with bi-partisan support, some
themes of the proposed amendments passed into law in November 2019.

The long and short is that, although there has been some activity to reform the regulations, the process is
incredibly slow – measured not in years, but rather decades. “Re-inventing the wheels” when well proven
cost and safety effective alternatives exist elsewhere in jurisdictions such as the UK, USA and Canada? Is
there some block or unconscious bias existing that seems to have largely thwarted common sense changes
so long sought, in particular, by the general aviation sector over all these decades?

Actions to date and understood to be in-hand / ongoing seem only to play at the edges and seem unlikely
to deliver the quantum change that is really required to make a fundamental change to and transform the
future of Australian aviation – and particularly the general aviation sector. There does not appear to be a
will or the correct settings existing to effect material change. Accordingly, we are convinced that a sense
and culture of expediency and a will to effect change needs to be prosecuted to truly bring about the concept
of “affordable safety”, which is the necessary pre-cursor to effect the real change our industry needs.

COVID does not change a thing in this regard other than, like many other substantial domestic and world
events over the decades that have been then triggers to precipitate or accelerate major reforms, bringing to
the forefront the very real need to do things now to protect and improve the future viability and economic
outcomes of Australia’s aviation industry.

With few exceptions, the required steps have been tabled time and time again by industry. Bring some
pressure to accelerate these steps, further supported with some simple short term financial relief measures,
and we believe the meaningful support for recovery from the consequences of COVID will be available and,
in turn, secure and enhance the long-term viability and economic outcomes of Australia’s aviation industry...

12 Department of Finance (PDF 4320 KB) 

13 Australian Council of Trade Unions (PDF 436 KB) 

14 Australian & International Pilots Association[b] [/b] (PDF 1543 KB) (Chocfrog submission -   )

..We need a national aviation strategy


AIPA maintains the view that much of the disproportionate damage inflicted on the aviation
sector among the severe economic damage induced nationally was largely avoidable and
that our future planning must prioritise the preservation of our aviation connectivity.

Our national aviation policy appears to lack the most critical element – a strategic approach.

Airports 
Airport infrastructure provides an excellent example. This is the US approach:

Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transportation of
people and goods and in regional, national, and international commerce. They are
where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation
and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations
intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most
airports.

This particular preamble relates to the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), an
industry/government collaboration of the US Department of Transportation, and is drawn
from the 2015 ACRP Report 1322, The Role of U.S. Airports in the National Economy.

Evolution of the United States Airport System


Airports have evolved over the past 100 years to meet the specific needs of the
communities they serve and the national aviation system. The first airport in the
United States opened in 1909 in College Park, Maryland, and is still in operation
today. Many airports opened as private landing strips or military airfields in the
1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Still other airports were established by local jurisdictions
and continue to serve as general aviation facilities providing access to small
communities and remote areas.

The United States turned its attention to the development of civilian aviation after
the end of World War II. This included a national network of airports and a national
airport plan, now known as the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). The plan identified existing and proposed new airports to serve
commercial and general aviation needs. Specific criteria were established to meet
national aviation needs at a reasonable cost. These criteria considered the number
of based aircraft and annual operations, scheduled air carrier service, and
proximity to other airports in the national plan. Airports that met special needs,
such as access to remote populations, could also be included.

The national airport plan released in 1951 identified 2,657 existing airports and
2,288 proposed airports. Many of the proposed airports identified in the 1951 plan
were subsequently constructed during the 1950s.
…
Since the 1950s, aviation in the United States has matured, resulting in more than
3,300 airports consistently included in the NPIAS

In stark contrast, a somewhat simplistic comparison with the Australian experience highlights a local program of off-loading our airports to either monopolistic operators making significant private returns from under-priced Commonwealth assets or to struggling local government authorities incapable of generating sufficient returns to maintain the assets and
whose general motivation is to repurpose the airport land to other non-aviation uses.

Clearly, there are Commonwealth support programs for airports, but it is not particularly
clear to us whether they are designed with a clear strategy comparable to the NPIAS or
indeed whether they prioritise preservation of the infrastructure over other funding “needs”.

Pilots and maintainers

The shuttering of Australia’s aviation industry highlighted several vulnerabilities in the supply
chain for aviation personnel. With no flying activity, most people in the sector had no
meaningful work. In the private sector, personal financial commitments drove many to seek
alternative employment for no other reason than to delay the onset of the inevitable financial
distress.

In circumstances where a market collapses with no prospect of return, those losses would

be lamentable but tolerable. However, a pandemic-induced collapse is only temporary,
creating similar economic shocks but with variable and unpredictable recovery timelines.

The uncertainty of a partial or full return to normal levels of aviation activity creates a
number of risks to preparedness for recovery.

The loss of knowledge and experience has been dramatic. For many, the rate of recovery
will force a choice between the uncertainty of resuming their aviation careers and the
apparent security of alternative employment.

For highly qualified licenced personnel, the gaining of essential knowledge and experience
creates a lead time for supply that will substantially lag the demand if we are forced to
respond to a whole cadre of those personnel being permanently lost to the industry. Even
for those who can return, their skills are highly perishable and refresher training
requirements may well exceed the capacity of training systems to return them to job-ready
status.

Many pilots have taken early retirement to protect their entitlements and to provide some
level of financial security. In the main, they will be lost to the aviation system. While
traditionally some might transition into GA training, the current hiatus in flying activity
provides little prospect of employment.

Longer term, we need to plan for the eventual return and increase in demand for key
aviation personnel. AIPA can only remind the Committee of our submissions to the 2010
Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety – nothing of great import has changed in relation
to making the occupation desirable to our young citizens. While we note that funding
options have improved, recommendation 8 of your final report “…that the Government

require the Productivity Commission or another suitable body to undertake a review of the
current and future supply of pilots in Australia…” should be reinvigorated...

...We need to act coherently

As we advised DITRDC in our Issues Paper submission:

Every element of a Commonwealth aviation plan that relies on any or all States to
behave in a certain way, enact certain legislation, adopt a national code or to place
the national interest above local interests is now subject to much higher political
and/or compliance risk. In most cases, AIPA expects the Commonwealth and
State interests to be aligned but we also expect that the States will be emboldened
by both the recent High Court decision on border closures and the acceptance of
the politics of isolation by generally acquiescent populations to occasionally flex
their independence within the Federation.

AIPA fervently hopes that State and Territory politicians now fully understand that
embarking on simplistic and self-interested actions such as wholesale border closures
involve cutting supply lines to both intra- and interstate enterprises and creating economic
damage far greater than the originating issue might otherwise entail.

However, the protracted WA border issues and hollow justifications underline the reality that
politics will always jeopardise rational decision-making, significantly narrowing the range of
proper solutions to maintaining connectivity. On the other hand, the response by the
eastern States to the evolving “northern beaches” cluster seems to be generally that of
containment rather than exclusion and we further hope that such a politically restrained
approach is validated as the future model.

AIPA strongly believes that a constitutional solution must be found that prevents State and
Territory governments from shutting down aviation activities rather than protecting them as
last ditch essential services.

We also believe that if we can create a practical solution to maintain at least cargo
operations but preferably health-safe passenger operations as part of a coherent and
committed national connectivity plan, then we can share the concepts with like-minded
countries to maintain some level of international connectivity as well...

15 Australian Local Government Association (PDF 1261 KB) 

16 Australian Airports Association (PDF 905 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 1259 KB) 

17 Tasmanian Department of State Growth (PDF 2980 KB) 

18 International Transport Workers’ Federation (PDF 1157 KB) 

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sterlo's aviation inquiry update: Public hearings today & tomorrow - 

Via the APH website:

---

03 Mar 2021 ACT   



04 Mar 2021 ACT   

---

Proceedings have just started, so for those interested in monitoring click on the applicable LIVE view links HERE; or watch the recorded version HERE.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Sterlo's aviation inquiry update: Public hearings today & tomorrow - 

Via the APH website:

---

03 Mar 2021 ACT   



04 Mar 2021 ACT   

---

Proceedings have just started, so for those interested in monitoring click on the applicable LIVE view links HERE; or watch the recorded version HERE.

Still sharp John Sharp - 

Well worth taking the time to watch, if for nothing else but the fact that you can watch a professional, politically astute, aviation subject matter expert spin his magic...    

Also worth a watch, for much the same reasons, is the AIPA/ALAEA session:

Much MTF with Hansard and some segments from today's session...P2 

[Peetwo]

Hansard out: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
03/03/2021 - Future of Australia's aviation sector, post COVID-19

Still sharp John Sharp - 

Well worth taking the time to watch, if for nothing else but the fact that you can watch a professional, politically astute, aviation subject matter expert spin his magic...    

Senator McDONALD: Does that support extend to regional airports?

Mr Sharp : It's an interesting question. Regional airports are now primarily owned by local councils. They were gifted to those local councils back in the 1980s, under the Keating government plan, and it was continued by the Howard government in its early period. Most of those councils were granted the airport, which was in Commonwealth ownership, and they were granted a lump of capital to go with it. This was supposed to maintain the airport into the future, but disappeared very quickly in most cases. There is an argument for governments assisting councils who own those airports in upgrading the airport, be it a new runway or a resurfacing of the runway or replacing the lights with new lights or some other upgraded capital works program.

Where you have to be careful is that some councils, not all, put the capital that has been given to them by the Commonwealth into a terminal or a runway. They use it to gold plate it. In other words, they build things that aren't necessary. They build things that people don't need, but the local council like to think looks good and makes them look good in the local community. They gold plate it. As a consequence of that, we have infrastructure which is not necessary. Somebody has to pay for the infrastructure. And so the council then uses the capital that has been given to them, that has been invested in the airport, as a reason to argue that the depreciation of that capital has to be added to the operating costs of the airport, and those operating costs of the airport therefore need to be covered by the regional airlines that operate to it.

There's one airport we fly to where the depreciation is over $2 million a year, and yet theoretically the council that owns that airport hasn't invested a cent in it—it was all given to them by governments—and yet they use the capital that's invested by grants and so forth to increase the depreciation bill, and then they run a policy of saying: 'Well, we're only trying to cover costs. If we can just recover costs that's all we want.' But those costs are indeed inflated, and that adds a considerable amount to the cost of our head taxes and that has to go into the cost of a ticket and that reduces the viability of regional airlines.

Also worth a watch, for much the same reasons, is the AIPA/ALAEA session:

Senator McDONALD: I'm interested in your experience, because it is the very story that you're telling that—I'm doing a general aviation inquiry, a separate inquiry to this one, because I'm desperately worried about how there are so few charters and mustering helicopters and planes for a whole range of reasons. And whilst that's not the big end, which is what you're a part of, you started—that was the throughput. I would imagine that it has made you a terrific pilot because you know how to fly, which is a little bit different to learning now. Anyway, that's a hobbyhorse of mine.

I do think a lot about this. I'm very, very concerned about all sectors, whether it will be engineers or pilots or GA or charter or midtiers or airlines. They all feed off each other in some way, and so it's important that, going forward, we do have a comprehensive plan for aviation. It's so important in a big country like ours. There is an aviation strategy paper that the department of infrastructure is working on. You've already said that, as the engineers, you haven't been invited to have input into that. What about the Pilots Association? Have you had input into the white paper strategy document? I just can't quite remember the exact name of it.

Capt. Jackson : Dick will talk to that.

Capt. MacKerras : Yes, we have. In fact, we attached our responses to that discussion paper as part of our contribution to this inquiry so that you had both of them.

Can I go back to your other point about incentivising people to start in aviation? I think one of the problems that has occurred, and Captain Butt has already referred to it, is that, back in the day, when I was a bit younger, pilots—and I think engineers as well—could get scholarships and other sorts of support measures, because their employers invested in their employees. What's happened now is that the employers have transferred all the costs of training to their employees, and that's why, as Captain Jackson was saying, it's becoming a rich person's game, because it's only the people who can afford to stump up that amount of money who can get into the game. We're cutting off a whole bunch of people, where, traditionally, there are some very smart, very capable and very dedicated people, who just don't have the financial resources to get into this sort of game. We've got to look at how that sort of financial support is provided. It goes to the heart of what Steve was talking about with apprentices.

The other thing that comes up is that we lobbied for years to get VET help extended into the pilot training or aviation training areas. We need to review that as well to make sure, as Teri O'Toole said, the support measures are targeted at the individual, not at rent-seeking companies who use them as a government revenue stream and get a whole bunch of people in on the basis of headcount and don't care whether they produce anything or not, so long as they've got money coming in from the government based on the number of students. I think these sorts of support payments need to be tied to the individual so that they're released to the supplier, on the basis of the person achieving a particular milestone, so that it doesn't become a free kick for people like Soar Aviation.

ACTING CHAIR ( Senator McDonald ): That's a point very well made. I'm looking at the secretariat meaningfully; we will take that on board—that, rather than it going to the company, it goes to the student. I think there are some parts there too—we've heard evidence from other places about costs of regulation amongst some of the flying schools that make the per hour cost to get through the initial stage so expensive.

Plus from yesterday's public hearing...

MTF...P2