[Peetwo]

No Su_Spence bollocks December briefing; instead a delay on GA workplan??    

Via Fort Fumble: 

Date: 6 December 2022
CASA has updated the General Aviation Workplan to reflect progress implementing the initiatives.



Key achievements since the workplan was released include:

• expanding delivery of examiner proficiency checks to industry
  
• expanding delivery of flight examiner rating courses to industry
  
• expanding privileges for Grade 1 training endorsement holders
  
• creating a multi-engine helicopter ‘class rating’
  
• exempting operators and maintainers of Cessna aircraft in the broader private and aerial work sectors from the requirements to carry out Cessna SIDs
  
• removing the ‘stall speed limit’ for light weight aeroplanes operating under an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) administration.
  

Some initiatives have not tracked as initially anticipated as work has identified new dependencies and issues that require proposals to be re-sequenced and rescoped.

Below is an overview of changes made to the workplan since its release.

Improve the competency standards for flight examiners

A benefit has been achieved through the removal of the prescriptive minimum hour requirements for flight examiners. These have been replaced by interim assessment protocols. As a result, the finalisation of the endorsement-specific standards is no longer as urgent as other initiatives in this workplan. We will work with industry to develop these standards which are now expected to be delivered in Q1 2023.

Review the requirement to notify CASA of a flight test

CASA is working to rescope the initiative with industry. Implementation will be subject to the advice of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel. A new industry benefit date is expected following end Q2 2023.

Create a tailored pathway for task specialist pilot endorsements

Feedback from industry engagement has highlighted some further policy work needed on the entry requirements for certain specialist pilots. Public consultation is now expected to be undertaken in November 2022 with a benefit to industry also expected this quarter, Q4 2022.

Simplified and fast-tracked application and assessment process for independent flight instructors

Work on this project has identified the need to first settle assessment protocols for Part 141 and has been delayed by competing priorities. We are now working to finalise this project in Q4 2022.

Consider more progressive, less onerous maintenance licence pathways tailored for light aircraft

The policy solution of making a minor Manual of Standards amendment to provide a modular licensing pathway using existing licensing modules is something CASA’s is discussing with industry to provide a benefit in a shorter timeframe than originally proposed in the workplan. There are differences of opinion however regarding the preferred policy solution which may delay timeframes. Benefit to industry expected from Q4 2023.

Establish new Part 43 maintenance regulations which are specifically for general aviation

Feedback from the public consultation determined the need to resolve some policy and implementation issues which are currently being worked through. Benefits to industry will be incremental from Q1 2023.

Implement proportionate continuing airworthiness regulations for non-scheduled air transport operators

Work is well underway on the Manual of Standards and a Plain English Guide. Consultation is now expected to commence in mid-2023.

Amend rules for the aerial application sector

The project is being rescoped following industry consultation with a new industry benefit date to be determined.

Proposal to increase access to Class C and Class D airspace for sport and recreational aviation

This project is being rescoped due to a range of dependencies identified through the preparation of the Part 103 MOS which need to be resolved before this issue can be addressed. Benefit date is contingent on the finalising of the Part 103 MOS, expected to be February 2023.

Finalise rules for sport and recreation aircraft (Part 103 of CASR)

Project impacted by competing priorities and availability of staff and industry representative. Completion of engagement process and making of the MOS expected by end Q2 2023. There is no impact to current operations which are continuing under existing rules.

Finalise rules for parachuting operations (Part 105 of CASR)

CASA is working with industry to resolve issues raised in the Technical Working Group in relation to passenger numbers and hot refuelling. Formal advice from ASAP is expected this quarter, Q4 2022.

Due to these considerations, we expect completion of the engagement process and the making of the MOS by 31 July 2023.

There is no impact to current operations which are continuing under existing rules.

Finalise rule set for balloons and hot air airships – Part 131 of CASR

Some delays to Technical Working Group consultation due to availability of industry members. Project also impacted by competing priorities and staff availability. Completion of engagement process and making of the MOS now expected by end Q2 2023.

There is no impact to current operations which are continuing under existing rules.

Plus via the Yaffa:

Policy and Priorities delay GA Workplan

7 December 2022



Policy issues and clashing priorities have delayed work on CASA's GA Workplan according to an update the regulator released yesterday.

CASA announced the GA Workplan in May this year, which detailed series of initiatives designed to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on the GA community.

CASA published the plan with a set of timelines to give the GA community some indication of when the changes would be implemented, but according to yesterday's update, policy issues and competing work priorities are the most common cause of delays to some of the initiatives.

"Some initiatives have not tracked as initially anticipated as work has identified new dependencies and issues that require proposals to be re-sequenced and rescoped," the update says.

Among the work delayed is the long sought-after access to Class C and D airspace for Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilots.

"This project is being rescoped due to a range of dependencies identified through the preparation of the Part 103 MOS which need to be resolved before this issue can be addressed," CASA has stated. "Benefit date is contingent on the finalising of the Part 103 MOS, expected to be February 2023."

Policy concerns have delayed new pathways for task-specialist pilot endorsements, less onerous maintenance licensing for light aircraft and CASR Part 43 maintenance regulations.

Reforms to CASR Part 103 recreational and sport aviation have been delayed by "competing priorities and availability of staff and industry representative."

Although it was a part of the original workplan, yesterday's update contains no reference to CASR Part 67, which is being amended to permit PPLs to fly without the need for a medical examination. A CASA Technical Working Group (TWG) recommended the changes to Part 67 in September this year, and CASA is believed to be in the process of amending the regulations.

Since the CASA published the GA Workplan, some initiatives have been implemented already, including:

• expanding delivery of examiner proficiency checks to industry
  
• expanding delivery of flight examiner rating courses to industry
  
• expanding privileges for Grade 1 training endorsement holders
  
• creating a multi-engine helicopter ‘class rating’
  
• exempting operators and maintainers of Cessna aircraft in the private and aerial work sectors from the requirements to carry out Cessna SIDs
  
• removing the stall speed limit for light weight aeroplanes operating under an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) administration.
  

[b]New GA Workplan Timeline[/b]
Improve the competency standards for flight examiners
Was Q3 2022, now Q1 2023.
Review the requirement to notify CASA of a flight test
Remains Q2 2023.
Create a tailored pathway for task specialist pilot endorsements
Was Q3 2022, now Q4 2022.
Simplified and fast-tracked application and assessment process for independent flight instructors
Was Q3 2022, now Q4 2022.
Consider more progressive, less onerous maintenance licence pathways tailored for light aircraft
Was Q2 2023, now Q4 2023.
Establish new Part 43 maintenance regulations which are specifically for general aviation
Was Q4 2022, now Q1 2023.
Implement proportionate continuing airworthiness regulations for non-scheduled air transport operators
Was Q2 2023. Consultation is now expected to commence in mid-2023.
Amend rules for the aerial application sector
The project is being rescoped following industry consultation with a new industry benefit date to be determined.
Proposal to increase access to Class C and Class D airspace for sport and recreational aviation
Was Q3 2022, now February 2023.
Finalise rules for sport and recreation aircraft (CASR Part 103)
Was Q4 2022, MOS now expected by end Q2 2023.
Finalise rules for parachuting operations (CASR Part 105)
Was Q4 2022, MOS now expected by 31 July 2023.
Finalise rule set for balloons and hot air airships (CASR Part 131)
Was Q4 2022, MOS now expected by end Q2 2023.
More information on the GA Workplan update is on the CASA website.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence December bollocks briefing; & 6 month late reply to Sandy's MP?? -   

Via the Su_Spence propaganda HQ: Previous reference - Is it time for CASA to be disbanded as a independent statutory authority??

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

We're finishing a busy year at CASA with a burst of activity that includes the release of consultations in areas ranging from aerial agriculture to sports aviation and engineer licensing.

Our last consultation for this year is on changes to the way aircraft maintenance engineers (AMEs) can get a licence under Part 66 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR).

We're looking at changes to help address the skills shortage by making it easier for people considering a career in this crucial aspect of aviation to obtain licences and start working as licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs).

The proposal reflects industry feedback about the inflexibility of the Part 66 licensing system, particularly compared to the previous CAR 31 five-category licence process.

A person training to be a LAME currently must complete all the competencies for a broad scope of privileges to obtain a B1 or B2 licence and start working as a licensed engineer.

The proposal we are testing with industry makes that training 'modular' so that people wanting to qualify as a LAME can obtain a licence sooner on specific subsets, such as piston engines or helicopter airframes, by completing the relevant training modules and gaining the required experience.

In order to expedite introduction, CASA is proposing the use of exclusions in the first stage.

These exclusions would mean a LAME whose licence covers work on piston engines, for example, would not be able work on airframes or other systems without completing the relevant training modules and experience.

We are testing with industry our view that this initiative will help address the shortage of aircraft maintenance engineers being seen globally by making it quicker and easier for people to start working.

In the past year, we continued to bed down the flight operations rules as we dealt with a flood of applications from pilots, engineers and operators after COVID restrictions eased.

In May, we released our General Aviation Workplan, a major program continuing into 2023 and aimed at easing pressure on the GA community.

Completed initiatives range from examiner proficiency checks and flight examiner rating courses to industry, the creation of a multi-engine helicopter ‘class rating’ and expanded privileges for Grade 1 training endorsement holders.

Not everything went ‘according to Hoyle’ but when there were delays and changes, we explained why and what we were doing about them. 

Other 2022 highlights included:

• the launch in July of our RPAS and Advanced Air Mobility Strategic Regulatory Roadmap after extensive consultation with industry
  
• the transition of almost all previously registered aerodromes to certified status under Part 139
  
• the launch in August of our new pilot safety campaign
  
• industry outreach by the senior leadership team and board members with board meetings in Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and Canberra as well as visits to Bankstown, Armidale and Tamworth
  
• the transition of more services into our myCASA online portal to make it a more secure, one-stop destination for a range of applications and interactions with CASA
  
• one of the busiest years ever for our Office of Airspace Regulation with a string of airspace reviews, work with the fledgling space industry and the issue of more than 200 legislative instruments
  
• a big year for our medical staff domestically and on the international stage.
  

None of this would be possible without input from industry and I would particularly like to thank members of the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and current technical working groups for their invaluable help during the year.

An issue we look at constantly is how we engage with industry. We’re finishing the year by making it easier for people both within the organisation and externally to engage.

This includes confirming with staff at the local level that they can manage routine work and interactions with operators in their communities.

I believe we’re finishing the year in a better space than when we started and we’ve done what we said we would do or, where there have been delays, we have been open about the cause and confirmed we have it underway.

Our journey with industry continues and 2023 will be another busy year but for now, I’d like to wish you all an enjoyable Christmas break and all the best for the New Year.

All the best,

Pip

Via the AP email chains:

Good Morning Sandy,

Please see attached a response from CASA.

Kind regards,

Lauren

---

And Sandy's response to the Su_Spence weasel words:

..Lauren thank you for the response that makes reference to my otherwise unanswered letter from June to CASA CEO Ms. Spence. 

Please advise Dan that the letter failed to mention the Beechcraft wing bolts issue that is costing owners many thousands of dollars unnecessarily.

Furthermore the letter talks about reform of medical certification standards for “recreational” pilots. This reference is misleading because recreational pilots, in particular those members of Recreational Aviation Australia, some 10,000 strong, already have a proven satisfactory self certification car driver standard. This cohort has flown to this standard for more than thirty years.

In other words the letter strongly indicates that the author is not across the facts pertaining to the current situation in regard to the issues. 

Medical certification reform must apply to all private pilots, many of whom fly for business and contribute to employment directly and indirectly in the use of General Aviation aircraft.

There is no outstanding case to consider for reform that has so many years of experience in Australia and overseas and measures should be introduced as a matter of urgency to help stem the decline of GA.

Regards,

Sandy

Plus:

..A nothing answer from CASA with careless disregard for the pressing problems of GA, an attempt to counter the fact that CASA doesn’t care to answer questions.  As for CASA’s ‘Work Plan,’ it should be renamed the ’Look Busy Do Nothing Plan.’

Season’s Greetings and hope 2023 is a good year for you,

Best, Sandy

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

As expected, the solution to the “anomaly “ of RAA pilots self certification is the removal of that option.

At present, individual RAA pilots grant themselves their own virtual medical certificates by attesting to their fitness to fly each year. There is no direct CASA involvement in this process.

CASA’s humble proposal is to replace that personal choice with with a “class 5 certificate” issued by CASA and available to PPL holders. If you think that the regulations surrounding the issue of this certificate will remain as simple and unrestricted as the current system then I have a bridge to sell you.

Think of it from Avmeds point of view: ten thousand new certificates to administer! The workload that certificate can generate! The staff increases that will be required! The promotions! The RAA escapees are now corralled with the rest of the lying criminals!

I challenge AOPA and SAAA to stand with RAA on this and demand nothing less than the current UK rules.

[Peetwo]

The Su_Spence saga continues in 2023...?? - 

Courtesy AOPA Oz, via Facebook:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia was live.

ITS TIME FOR FLIGHT TRAINING REGULATION REFORM

---

Ian Tucker
  · 1:48

Keep up the good work Benjamin Morgan. This is a glaring problem that needs to be addressed urgently by CASA.

---

Sandy Reith
  · 9:37

Good work Ben, we can teach people to drive without the excruciating, costly and unnecessary stringencies of a “Part 141/142” type of bureaucratic paperwork nightmare but we qualify a Commercial Pilot to instruct but that’s not allowed!

Our present system is moronic and irresponsible to Australia particularly when considering the security aspect of a strong aviation sector, let alone the utility of GA.

I operated my own flying school for many years and it would never have existed with the current CASASTROPHIC costly regulations.

Our main policy must be to publicise the plight of GA to our Parliamentary representatives, and the media.

Expecting an independent monopoly Commonwealth corporation to administer at the lowest cost and to be mindful of the practicalities of GA and tuned in to the wishes a free enterprise GA sector, has proven to be a monumental failure since its inception in 1988.

The brainchild of the then Minister Gareth Evans, the independent regulator denies the proven Westminster principle of Ministerial responsibility for the various arms of government, which gives the most direct line of power back to us citizens and voters.

Steve Curtis
  · 0:00

ICAO guidelines only recommend training certificates (CASAs 141/142) for abbreviated CPL and Multi-crew pilot training. As far as ICAO are concerned the holder of a flight instructor rating are capable of training pilots without being associated with a flying school. The quality control on training increases under this system, CASA would randomly allocate an examiner for flight tests. This stops the in-house testing systems in place now where instructors know what their examiner likes.

&..

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia was live.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, CASA MUST STOP FIDDLING WITH THE REGULATIONS

---

Dave Berenholtz
  · 0:02

If Ben is wrong in these videos on so many issues, l would like to hear from CASA as to where he is mistaken. That is surely reasonable?

Where is the oversight? Does anyone check the regulator or does the buck stop within that organization?

Many other government departments have ombudsman or places for appeals, places of checks and balances.

Surely it is reasonable where there are so many contentious issues to have an independent umpire?

I commend many of the people in CASA who do good work. I am however saddened by some of the decisions and policies of that same organization.

Meanwhile, GA is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia
  · 0:00

Dave Berenholtz thank you for the comment and I am in full agreement with your sentiment. CASA should be responding to these issues and going on the record as to why they continue to refuse to reform. Their inaction or refusal to change is damaging our industry badly, and they appear utterly uninterested in justifying or explaining themselves. After so many years of heading in the direction we have with the negative outcomes it has delivered, why is CASA so determined to refuse all efforts to reform these regulations? Why is adopting the regulatory stance of the worlds most successful regulator such an affront to CASA?

Thank you again David. BENJAMIN MORGAN

Plus via the AP email chains:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 10:19 Manning, Lauren (D. Tehan, MP) <Lauren.Manning@aph.gov.au> wrote:

    Good Morning Sandy,   

    Thank you for your email, and wishing you a very Happy New Year!   

    Do you know why the Rockhampton Aero Club has ceased training?   

    With kind regards,   

    Lauren 

    Lauren Manning
    Electorate Officer

Sandy reply:

Hello Lauren,

Reading from the Club’s statement (link provided) the immediate problem seems to be the inability to find a qualified instructor.

In a wider context, in exactly the manner that so many of us have predicted for years, the extreme paperwork requirements and unnecessary permissions to which are attached swingeing fees, have resulted in literally hundreds of flying schools being shut this last twenty years.

The case of senior instructor Janelle Wite trying to revive the once busy Warrnambool flying school, some five or six years ago, bears revisiting. In her case, she was forced to pay $8000 up front with her application merely to have CASA consider starting their bureaucratic process towards granting a flying school licence (Air Operators Certificate). This process would have cost many more thousands of dollars. After a couple of years she gave up.

Then you may consider the case of Glen Buckley whose concept of an umbrella organisation for the smaller flying schools to cope with CASA’s extraordinary and convoluted administrative machinations. Glen negotiated with CASA and received operating consent, a very costly and drawn out procedure, only for CASA to declare his business inoperable a short time after his successful business model was proving itself.

In the USA an instructor needs none of the above to teach flying. 

Glen Buckley’s disgraceful, unjust and irresponsible treatment is ongoing, internet search if you will.

Administration of aviation by a monopoly corporation, a Labor initiative, Minister Gareth Evans 1988, is a colossal failure and denial of the Westminster principle of Ministerial responsibility.

Yes Happy New Year, but that cannot apply to General Aviation. Paul Lamont developing Cressy Airport is being told he can only have ten takeoffs and landings per day. Such is free enterprise in the State of Bureaucratalia.

Regards,        Sandy

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CM on the clusterduck that is the 30+ year regulatory reform program - 

Via the UP: 

A new concept: air transport operations that are not air transport operations

For a range of reasons, I now have little choice but occasionally to try to make sense of the complex, convoluted Heath Robinson contraption that CASA continues to devise, while the regulatory ‘reform’ program drifts on forever. Up until recently, I’ve been lucky enough to be generally able to avoid having to lift the lid on the mess. (A while ago I had no choice but to look at Part 175 – a world-leading example of bureaucratic overreach which treats every aerodrome and HLS as if its YSSY, EGLL KLAX or KJFK – and CASR Part 138 and its MOS – strong contenders as the worst in a field of regulatory dross.)

Sadly – but unsurprisingly, given my reasons for ceasing decades ago to listen to the lies told by CASA about regulatory ‘reform’ – the mess disguises some silly, sly and incomprehensible outcomes. You can look at the detail of what I’ve written to CASA, copied in the next post, if you want the tedious detail of the latest discovery I’ve made. In case that might result in you losing the will to live, here’s the summary.

The Summary

Although your flight may not be an air transport operation, it could still be an Australian air transport operation.

Down the rabbit hole to Wonderland…

There’s a definition of ‘air transport operation’ in the CASR Dictionary. You’d think that if your operation did not fall within that definition, your operation could never be any kind of ‘air transport operation’ for the purposes of CASR. That would be a logical and reasonable conclusion. But you’d be wrong.

CASR 119.010(1)(e) purports to give CASA power to prescribe, in the Part 119 MOS, any operation of any aeroplane or rotorcraft, with the outcome being that the operation becomes an ‘Australian air transport operation’ even if the operation is not an ‘air transport operation’ as defined in the CASR Dictionary (and, get this: even if the aircraft or its operator or its location have no connection with Australia).

For example, flights that are ‘cost-sharing’ flights as defined in the CASR Dictionary are excluded from the definition of ‘passenger transport operation’ in the CASR Dictionary and, in turn, outside the scope of the definition of ‘air transport operation’ in the CASR Dictionary. So you’d think that your ‘cost-sharing’ flight couldn’t possibly be an ‘Australian air transport operation’ for the purposes of the regulations, thus requiring at least an AOC. But…

If there’s a sentence buried in the Part 119 MOS prescribing ‘cost-sharing’ flights as operations for the purposes of CASR 119.010(1)(e), the result is that ‘cost-sharing’ flights become an ‘Australian air transport operation’ even though they are not an ‘air transport operation’. Do not try to make sense of that. It will break your brain.

As a private pilot you would of course think to check the content of the Part 119 MOS to find out whether Part 119 applies to your flight, wouldn’t you? You of course understand that even though the prescription of operations in a MOS made under a Part of CASR, to which operations that Part will purportedly apply as the consequence of that prescription, is neither a standard nor a technical requirement, it would still be prudent for you to look in a MOS to find out whether a Part of CASR applies to your flight.

Why this stuff happens

This is a typical product of complicators who simply cannot conceive of regulatory regimes that define the goal posts, the size of the playing field and rules of the game and leave it at that, so that those who want to play the game have certainty for the future and can plan and practise accordingly. These complicators cannot resist including mechanisms to allow them to fiddle with the goal posts, the size of the playing field and the rules of the game on the basis of their strongly-held opinions from time to time, via the easiest way practicable. (Some of these mechanisms also provide scope for opaque favouritism, conferral of commercial advantages and increased risks to safety – the mechanism for approval of what are given the Orwellian description ‘minor variations’ in the fatigue rules is an example. Of course everyone, including the travelling public, knows the details of all approvals CASA has granted for ‘minor variations’ from the fatigue rules, don’t we?)

This is what happens when a regulator is left to run the process which produces the rules which determine so much of the detail of the regulator’s own role and powers in the rules. CASA: QED.

These mechanisms are almost invariably the last item on a list of provisions which, but for that item, provides clarity and certainty on the face of the rules. I’ve been there: Some ‘technical experts’ look at a draft rule, which provides objective certainty on its face, and say they should still be able to get around all of that and make up what they want when they feel like fiddling with it. After all: they have been put in a position of authority and, therefore, their strongly-held opinions must be better than everyone else’s. (CASA Avmed are ‘thought leaders’ on this attitude.)

Have a look at CASR 119.010(1) to see what I mean. But for para (e), everyone would be able to tell, on the face of CASR 119.010(1) itself, that if your operation is not an ‘air transport operation’ in the first place, it can never be an ‘Australian air transport operation’. And that makes intuitive sense. Rules that make intuitive sense on their face are much, much better than ones that don’t.

But because of para (e), an ‘Australian air transport operation’ can include any aeroplane or rotorcraft operation that CASA plucks out of its nether regions and plonks into the Part 119 MOS when CASA feels like it. That which you thought was black can actually be white.

This is not safety through simplicity. This is confusion through convoluted complexity.

There’ll be a bunch of dissembling sophistry around consultation and potential disallowance of proposed MOS provisions that do this, but we know how that works in reality and the: “These are made by the Governor-General, not CASA” smoke and mirrors trick does not work for a MOS. The provision goes in – it’s about the safety of air navigation, dontcha know – and the damage is done unless there’s sufficient energy to lobby then political nous and courage to get the provision disallowed. If there is really a burning safety imperative for some operation to be covered by Part 119, then amend Part 119 or the CASR Dictionary definitions so that it is clear, on the face of CASR, that the operations are covered. You’d think, though, an amendment should be unnecessary after a couple of decades developing this regulatory masterpiece.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CHALK & CHEESE: FAA call to Action.

blancoliro, via Youtube:

Compare that to this expensive, self-serving, taxpayer funded load of bollocks from our civil aviation regulator...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Hansard OUT - CASA QON??

Ref: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Board membership QON? 

Senator McKENZIE: Welcome. Are you able to confirm the number of board members that you are supposed to have?

Ms Spence : We've actually got a full complement. It is the chair. I think we've got five board members and myself.

Senator McKENZIE: And the director of aviation safety?

Ms Spence : That's me, the director of aviation safety.

Senator McKENZIE: So you are one and the same?

Ms Spence : Yes, I am.

Senator McKENZIE: There are currently no vacancies on the CASA board?

Ms Spence : That's correct. We just recently had a board member appointed a week or so ago.

Senator McKENZIE: What is the process for selecting those board members?

Ms Spence : We actually went through a selection process within the organisation or through the board, having gone through a skills matrix, and identified the areas where we considered there were gaps. We used a recruitment search agency to identify potential candidates. There was an interview process involving the chair. On the basis of that, we wrote to the minister recommending someone who actually would meet those skills.

Senator McKENZIE: When did you write to the minister?

Ms Spence : I would have to take that on notice. It was maybe November last—

Senator McKENZIE: I'm pretty sure there's a register there.

Ms Spence : I don't actually have it in front of me.

Senator McKENZIE: You are a very organised person.

Ms Spence : I can tell you it was October or November. But I'm happy to take that on notice.

Senator McKENZIE: With a recommendation. When did the minister inform you of her decision?

Ms Spence : In the last two weeks.

Senator McKENZIE: Was there any explanation for the delay?

Ms Spence : Just working through the normal processes. I think there's always a gap between meetings. It's a significant appointment, so it goes through a cabinet process. There's the gap in meetings between the end of December and the start of the new year. And the vacancy only came into effect on 31 December.

Senator McKENZIE: What is the quorum for your board meetings?

Ms Spence : A simple majority.

Senator McKENZIE: So that's four?

Ms Spence : Seven, so four.

Senator McKENZIE : Has there been any meeting of the board when there was no quorum able to be achieved?

Ms Spence : No. Certainly not since I have been there.

Senator McKENZIE: Or where quorums have been lost on an issue due to members absenting themselves due to a conflict of interest?

Ms Spence : No.

Senator McKENZIE: What about on the board committees, the probity committees, as a result of Ms Hardman's term expiring?

Ms Spence : Ms Hardman wasn't actually a member of the two subcommittees of the boards that we've got—our board audit and risk committee and our people and culture subcommittee. There was no issues around quorums. Ms Hardman wasn't a member of either.

Senator McKENZIE: So there are no vacancies on the board committees?

Ms Spence : That's correct. Sorry, we we've got an ability to appoint an extra person to our people and culture subcommittee, but that would be an independent member, so not one of the board members. But it has a quorum to operate in the absence of that position.

Se nator McKENZIE: Have you got an independent member?

Ms Spence : Yes, we do.

Senator McKENZIE: Who is that?

Ms Spence : That is Linda Spurr.

Senator McKENZIE: In terms of managing the appointments process, it's CASA per se and then you put a recommendation up to the minister?

Ms Spence : In this case, we wrote to the minister. My understanding is the minister would have sought advice from the department. The department would have provided advice around our proposal.

Senator McKENZIE: And then off it goes into government. Why wasn't the expiring director's term extended? Did they retire?

Ms Spence : I think there was a desire, as with all boards, to try to get a mix between continuity and new people on the board. Ms Hardman brought very strong skills. We have another board member who has a similar background in governance. It's really trying to address that skills mix that we require on the board.

Senator McKENZIE: Could the expiring director's term have been extended?

Ms Spence : That would have been a matter for government. It is an alternative option that could have been considered.

Senator McKENZIE: Did the director seek to retire or hand in her resignation prior to the term expiring?

Ms Spence : No. It had just been a longstanding conversation that we had been having at the board that when Ms Hardman's term expired we would be looking for someone with a different skill set to make sure that we had the right balance on the board.

 
OK so on the question of Ms Hardman's retirement from the Board, I note the only acknowledgement that this occurred was in a brief Statement by the Chair in the 7 December 2022 Board Meeting summary minutes:

I would like to thank departing Board member Ms Donna Hardman, whose three-year Board term has been completed. Donna also held the role of Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee for one year and I thank her for her dedicated service to CASA. I hope to announce a new Board appointment shortly.

 
However the dismissive and disinterested statement by Su_Spence...

"We just recently had a board member appointed a week or so ago..."

...is seemingly not backed up either on the CASA Board webpage; or on the miniscule's Media Release webpage - err WTF??

I also find it bizarre that Su_Spence did not know how many members the board currently has, nor did she have the Board records etc. easily to hand:

..Senator McKENZIE: When did you write to the minister?

Ms Spence : I would have to take that on notice. It was maybe November last—

Senator McKENZIE: I'm pretty sure there's a register there.

Ms Spence : I don't actually have it in front of me.

Senator McKENZIE: You are a very organised person.

Ms Spence : I can tell you it was October or November. But I'm happy to take that on notice...

Hmm...much more QON to follow?? 

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

Now I know why CASA is a mess. Their Board selection and appointment process is bizarre and may not satisfy Australia 's needs.

1. The employees of CASA, including Spence, have no business making any recommendations whatsoever regarding Board membership. That is the absolute prerogative of the Minister advised by the CASA Chair and the Department. Failure to abide by this rule indicates that the Government either doesn’t understand the role of a Board or doesn’t care. Alternatively they do understand and Spence’s description of the process is inadequate.

The role of the Board, apart from its statutory duties like obedience to laws, Audit and preservation of assets is risk management not strategy formulation and especially not involvement in day to day management matters. It achieves this by assessing the performance of the CEO/DAS who is responsible for formulation and implementation of strategy.
- again, by asking how the CEO identifies and manages risks.

Secondly, the CEO/DAS should not be a member of the Board as this precludes discussion of his performance at Board level. The CEO/DAS is a CASA employee who should not have automatic right of attendance at Board meetings but when called, should be recorded as “in attendance “ to underline that fact.

The ideal Board member may indeed have aviation or professional qualifications as well as meet political criteria, but their most vital, critical and valuable skill is their ability to ask of CASA and the CEO/DAS the really thorny questions that they don’t want to or can’t answer - which relate to the question of risk.

Off the top of my head these risk related matters although I am not even remotely informed are:

- Given the discontinuities between ICAO, FAA and Australian regulations, are we sure that we can maintain our tier one status (or whatever it’s called?) and avoid the possibility of unfavourable audit and downgrade? What is the plan to harmonise our regulatory environment with international norms going forward?

- Given the findings of the Forsyth review, are we monitoring trust levels and if so, what are the trends? I note that this might vary by industry segment. What is our plan to increase trust and build better working relationships? I am particularly concerned with Avmed and GA Business relationships (eg: Buckley, SOAR)?

What are the consequences if our regulatory reform process fails?
- For the industry for Government? How does our regulatory environment compare with international competitors?

- What is our succession planning to ensure we maintain required competencies?

You need Board members from hell who know how to ask the very question that you as CEO/DAS don’t want to answer if they want to maximise the value of CASA to Australia.

Selecting Board members is not a beauty contest. Furthermore, really good Directors are busy people who don’t want to be seen as a rubber stamp.

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence monthly WOFTAM waffle; & miniscule (Albo Govt) non-response to GA Inquiry??

CASA briefing March: https://updates.communication.casa.gov.a...887f6d058c

(Warning bucket may be required  -   )

Via Supp Estimates:

CHAIR: I'm loath to ask this as you're walking out the door, Ms Spence, but this committee did do a GA inquiry, so there are a lot of questions coming to the secretariat on how far the government is from a response. You don't have to tell me here; it's alright.

Ms Spence : You might want to ask the department.

(From 47:20 minute mark)

Curious on that smug interchange between the Chair and Su_Spence, I made some enquiries to the RRAT secretariat on the now lapsed GA inquiry. Apparently it is correct that CASA has responded to the 2nd interim report of the GA inquiry. Despite being lapsed, the Albanese Govt is still obliged to respond and the RRAT Committee has effectively been awaiting for that response since the change of Govt. As the inquiry was self-referred the committee doesn't have to refer to the Senate in order to continue with the inquiry. Therefore the Govt response will inform the Committee on whether to continue and complete the GA inquiry. (Thank you Gerry -  ) 

So what's the hold up miniscule?? -   

Going forward and in order to get some oxygen back into this issue, I am going to refer to sections of the 2nd interim report, which IMO highlight perfectly the many diabolical regulatory road blocks industry faces when dealing with our 19th century Big R-regulator, beginning with:     

GA risk profile

2.7 There are varying views about the risk profile of GA. For example, according to Mr Peter Cromarty, a former Executive Manager at CASA, the ATSB’s figures show that:

[T]he total accident rate, per hours flown, for GA operations are nine times as likely to have an accident compared to commercial air transport operations… Recreational Aviation operations are twice as likely to have an accident as GA... The fatality rate, per hours flown, indicates general aviation operation are around fifteen times more likely to experience a fatal accident than commercial air transport operations. Again, Recreational Aviation is double GA.7

2.8 Conversely, according to a report by Anjum Naweed and Kyriakos Kourousis, the GA sector has a lower risk profile, as measured by the impact of an accident, compared to the commercial sector:

…[if] risk is a combination of the likelihood of the hazard and the risk consequences of an ensuring accident, then, although the probability of having [an] air accident in GA is higher than in commercial aviation, the lower severity of such accidents results in a lower risk profile.8

2.9 Professionals Australia observed the challenges for CASA administering two sections of aviation with different risk profiles:

While commercial aviation is the area where the consequences of critical failures are significant, the likelihood of such failures occurring are lower due to the resources of operators to maintain operational safety and the high level of public scrutiny. In general aviation, the consequences of critical safety failures are lower than with commercial airlines, however the likelihood and frequency of these failures are high, particularly when payment has been received by the operator for the carriage of passengers…9

2.10 Mr Mark Newton, a pilot and aircraft owner, submitted, ‘it is undeniable that private pilots have greater control over their risk appetite than commercial pilots’.10 Mr Newton explained that his risk awareness, and that of his passengers was distinct from charter and airline customers and that everyone ‘involved has opted in following a detailed briefing’.11 Mr Newton continued:

No amount of oversight from a safety regulator can prevent me from making decisions about running out of fuel or crashing into a mountain or running off the side of a runway or operating an airplane with a faulty engine, or from setting up any of the preconditions that make those things happen … A safety regulator is only worthwhile to the extent that it promotes and supports my safety culture.12

2.11 Aerial Application Association of Australia Ltd (AAAA), drew attention to the lack of safety data, suggesting that this was indicative of CASA’s lack of engagement with those who operate the aircraft:
… the lack of focus on safety/accident data to inform the current regulatory development process is in stark contrast to the development of Sector Risk Profiles where CASA engages with industry to learn more about risks and controls from highly experienced operators and pilots.13

2.12 According to Mr Phillip Hurst, CEO, AAAA, their members are extremely safety conscious, for obvious reasons:

We're very keen on safety as well, especially with my members being at the pointy end of any accident. We take safety very seriously, which is why we do a lot of offline training that’s not required by law. We do well above what the minimum legal requirement is.14

2.13 AAAA recommend CASA work cooperatively with industry to develop Sector Risk Profiles (SRP), relevant safety KPIs and other useful metrics to focus on safety outcomes rather than regulatory process.15 The AAAA went on to explain that:

Critically, the SRP process must be based on data – accident trends based on ATSB and BITRE data, identified opportunities for improvement – and very differently to other CASA approaches – recognition that industry can play a leading role in improving safety through various programs.16

2.14 Several issues were raised by submitters about Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisations (ASAO) and the potential for ‘blind spots’ in regulations as well as what is an acceptable risk for ASAOs.

2.15 For example, Mrs Susan Woods from Jabiru Aircraft commented that there is ‘no consideration of the cost of safety or differentiation between acceptable risk of commercial airline travel and acceptable risk of sport aviation’.17 According to Jabiru Aircraft, their customers must sign an acknowledgement of the risks of flying in aircrafts with their engines due to CASA’s concern about the risk of litigation concerning past approvals.18

2.16 Professionals Australia was concerned about CASA’s responsibility being subcontracted to non-government organisations operating as ASAO and believed that it was necessary for CASA to have ‘the skills and resources to oversight these organisations, otherwise blind spots in the regulation of general aviation could emerge’.19

Plus relevant video segments from the inquiry:

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Good work from the indefatigable PeeTwo.

But going back one comment, Wombat:-

“Secondly, the CEO/DAS should not be a member of the Board as this precludes discussion of his performance at Board level.” (Or her)

This is so obvious and the fact that this inappropriate situation has been allowed in the first place, let alone perpetuated by the Board, and as acquiesced by the Department and Minister, shows how careless is the very basic governance of CASA.

And by the very nature of Board governance the CEO should subservient to the Board to ensure proper respect by the CEO of the Board’s wishes. The CEO is not an equal to the Board members, but should have status of an employee.

A similar example might be the Department head of Defence being a voting member of Cabinet.

The CEO’s Board membership is an egregious anomaly, and one that we should strive to have corrected.

[Kharon]

If wishes were horses etc..

P2 (legend) - “Apparently it is correct that CASA has responded to the 2nd interim report of the GA inquiry. Despite being lapsed, the Albanese Govt is still obliged to respond and the RRAT Committee has effectively been awaiting for that response since the change of Govt. As the inquiry was self-referred the committee doesn't have to refer to the Senate in order to continue with the inquiry. Therefore the Govt response will inform the Committee on whether to continue and complete the GA inquiry.”

(Choc frogs and gold stars all around to the ever helpful, efficient, cheerful RRAT Secretariat).

Three major impediments exist to the 'yes' case. The big one is Sterle and the committee. The Senator is fully aware, probably more than most politicians, just how much trouble the non-airline sector of the aviation industry is in. He is probably acutely aware that CASA have responded and the second interim report is due for attention. The easy escape clause is the impending 'White paper'. “Bury it Glen” - “Roger wilco.” History repeats (again)..

The white paper WOFTAM serves many get out of jail free cards; and, the longer it is delayed, the better it is for those neatly ensconced in their bunkers. It will be riddled with neatly worded, nebulous phrases, wide open to selective 'translation' and will do little but increase the cost and provide top cover for the lunatics running the asylum.

The delay and the soft ride CASA has in any inquiry provides a perfect, tailor made excuse for continuing on their current trajectory; en-route to a major confrontation with the grown up world. Why CASA persist in the face of overwhelming evidence that they have made a dogs breakfast and looking to make themselves even more ridiculous is beyond comprehension.

Some of the submissions made provide clear, unstinting, top grade professional advice – all ignored. Even if the Senate decide to persist – what chance 'meaningful change' taking line honours – 100/1 on my tote (the book is open)..

Toot – toot...

[Peetwo]

From the land of the Aviation Safety grownups!! - 

(Chalk and Cheese series continued -  )

Via the Washington Post:

Opinion: Airline safety is at a breaking point. We can’t wait for tragedy to fix it.

By Lee Moak

March 14, 2023 at 2:31 p.m. EDT


A Delta Air Lines plane lands at Logan International Airport on Jan. 26 in Boston. (Michael Dwyer/AP)

Lee Moak is a former Delta Air Lines Boeing 767 pilot and a past president of the Air Line Pilots Association.

Over the past three months, an unusual number of commercial aviation incidents have come close to resulting in tragic accidents. These incidents suggest the need for urgent action.

On Dec. 18, a United Airlines Boeing 777, just seconds into takeoff from the island of Maui, climbed to around 2,220 feet before entering a steep dive and coming within 775 feet of the Pacific Ocean.
On Jan. 11, the nation’s airspace came to a standstill for more than two hours after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued the first nationwide ground stop since Sept. 11, 2001, because its method for communicating alerts to pilots, known as NOTAMs, failed.
On Jan. 13, a Delta Air Lines Boeing 737 aborted its takeoff run after an American Airlines Boeing 777 crossed its path from an adjacent taxiway at New York’s Kennedy International Airport.
On Jan. 26, the tails of two different Alaska Airlines Boeing 737s struck the ground on takeoff due to weight and balance miscalculations only six minutes apart while departing Seattle.
On Feb. 4, a FedEx Boeing 767 on final approach into Austin came close to colliding with a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 that had been cleared to takeoff on the same runway.
Normally, the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, the pilot and controller unions, and the airlines do not comment on ongoing safety investigations. The accepted process is to wait for any single investigation to be concluded, issue a report on all the factors that contributed to the incident, and then comment on what might be done differently in the future.

The recent string of incidents, however, is different. The number, nature and potential tragedy of the results involved are unacceptable and concerning. We cannot wait for our aging and understaffed aviation infrastructure to break, and a tragedy to occur, to demand action.

The FAA plans to hold a special event on Wednesday that will bring together a group of aviation safety leaders and government regulators. It’s what’s known as a Safety Call to Action; it’s focus is on the recent incidents, and the goal is to discuss what went wrong, what worked and what needs to be modified going forward.

But many people in the commercial aviation sector know what has pushed things close to the breaking point: the airlines, regulators, pilots and flight crews, controllers, and safety experts have just come through a massive transformation during the pandemic. After slowing down to unprecedented levels, with tens of thousands of employees furloughed, commercial aviation is now quickly ramping up operations as air travel demand increases faster than most expected. The industry is racing to meet the training requirements required to bring furloughed employees back and certify its new employees on the flight deck, at airline operations and maintenance facilities, and at FAA air traffic control centers and towers.

Safety leadership has been fluid at best. The FAA has been without a permanent administrator for almost a year. The FAA office in charge of aviation safety has had an acting head for a year, as the person previously in that role, Billy Nolen, became acting FAA administrator. Furthermore, Congress has underfunded the FAA for decades, leaving the safety regulator to make do without the technology, tools and staffing needed to upgrade aging systems, physical and digital infrastructure, and keep pace with new technologies.

There is no doubt that each of these aviation entities, in government and industry, always prioritizes safety first and foremost. But talking and acting are not the same.

And the seemingly random incidents of the past three months suggest that the safety systems, which served the nation well enough before and during the pandemic, might not be sufficiently robust for normal operations in 2023 and beyond.

Industry, government and unions must work together to determine how often each of these types of safety incidents happened and where resources are needed to prevent them in the future. Airlines, controllers and pilots need to work closely with government, sharing data, proposing solutions and then executing to enhance aviation safety for all. We cannot assume our commercial aviation system can just pick up where it left off in 2020.

The FAA needs a confirmed administrator. Congress needs to pass an FAA reauthorization bill that prioritizes and funds improvements for the Air Traffic Organization, adds certification resources and makes other identified upgrades to ensure the NOTAM failure never happens again. And lawmakers must hold the FAA accountable for delivering on the safety mandates issued by Congress.

Accidents often occur when accepted best practices are not rigorously applied and followed. They are sometimes averted only at the last moment. But we cannot rely on luck and quick thinking to keep our skies safe.

We are at a critical waypoint in aviation safety. The old ways of doing business are not working. We must reapply ourselves to ensure that these incidents are avoided altogether. All parties must act now and plot a new course to a safer future.

Plus via AvWeb:

Safety Summit Calls For ‘Vigilance’ In Light Of Close Calls

By Russ Niles -March 15, 2023


Aviation leaders representing a broad spectrum of industry activity were told to go back to their worlds and try to identify what they can do to make the system even safer after an FAA-sponsored “safety summit” in Virginia on Wednesday. Speaker after speaker mentioned the current period of remarkable safety for commercial aviation against the backdrop of some potentially catastrophic runway incursions at airports all over the U.S. in the last few months. They followed a period in which 10 of the last 12 years have been free of fatalities and the “close calls” that prompted the summit are a reminder of the continued need for vigilance. “The absence of a fatality or an accident doesn’t mean the presence of safety,” said NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy.

The call to action by government representatives was met by a few pointed requests from the groups, who are now being asked to comb the data to see what might point to the uptick in incidents, particularly at airports. Several of those taking part in a panel discussion moderated by former NTSB Chair Robert Sumwalt called for a more predictable and reliable funding model for the FAA. They also called for more attention on topping up staff-short sectors while training and refreshing the skills of the gamut of frontline workers who are shaking off the pandemic slump and rebuilding the industry. The only general aviation representative on the panel was NBAA President Ed Bolen, who called the summit “a call to vigilance.”

The meeting was held as Washington media were reporting the seventh major incident involving airliners, this time at Reagan National Airport. The crew of a Republic Airways apparently got mixed up while taxiing and crossed the wrong runway. A United flight was on the roll as the regional crossed the runway and a controller canceled its takeoff clearance. The FAA and NTSB are both investigating.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

In another hemisphere: Aviation Safety and SMS?? -   

From the grown up world of Safety Risk Management, we get this excellent contribution from David Huntzinger, via Linkedin reflecting on the AIN article ..."NTSB's Graham: Scalable SMS a Must for Smaller Aircraft Ops"... 

Dave Huntzinger 
Associate VP at Laminaar Aviation Infotech Americas, Inc

I read with interest NTSB Member Graham's comments about proposed rulemaking for Part 135 SMS programs. He, along with many others, ascribe to the notion that any SMS program required of 135 operators, must be "scalable", especially for the small operators. The FAA has said there will be no relief from the requirements.

The trouble is, there is precious little guidance on what constitutes "scalable".

Please allow one practitioner to offer some context that may help others understand how to implement an SMS using scalable practices. I am going to skip to Pillar #2, Safety Risk Management, and talk first about Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment.

How do we identify Hazards? There are about 10 or12 tools available to the safety practitioner, roughly spaced between reactive, proactive and predictive methods. These include
Reactive (after the case), Event Reporting Systems (including ASAP), Investigations, Flight Data Analysis
Proactive (looking for trouble), Audits, Safety Surveys, JHA/JSA, Flight Data Analysis
Predictive (proactive with risk value based on severity and probability, gives the predictive status), FRAT, Risk Assessment, Safety Risk Profile, Change Management

Now, for the context. A large operator, such as an airline, probably uses all of these. A small operator would be buried with that load. I propose we pick three of these for the small operator
Tool #1, Reactive. Event Report System. If you are an owner/operator, this is easy. A paper journal or log book will suffice. An electronic version is nice. It makes the Safety Assessment activities easy. What do you record? Anything non-standard that happened during the day. Scare yourself silly? Record it, risk assess and develop corrective or mitigative actions.

Tool #2, Proactive. Audit. This compares what you are doing with an accepted industry standard. There are many audits out there. Some you have to pay for. Or use the internationally recognized SMICG. Audit a friend in exchange for them auditing you. This can be done during scheduled maintenance. The insurance companies are using Safety SMEs to help their clients. Try them. Findings can be entered into your Event Reporting System and managed exactly the same way.

Tool #3, Predictive. FRAT. I know, I know. Are you fire fighting with a B-3 and a Bambi Bucket? I don't expect you to do one for every lift. Ridiculous. How about one for morning and one for the afternoon?

These three tools provide an all-around record of your operation. It pretty much satisfies all the elements of Pillar #2.

For Pillar #3, Safety Assurance, reviews your entries regularly, say each month. At least annually. This shows your risk exposure over time. Continuous Improvement.

Pillars 1 & 4 could fall into the "1 and Done" bucket. There are plenty of service providers that can give you a Safety Policy, SMS training powerpoints and other support documents.

Hope this helps with "scalable". I am space limited. Have to go.

And the AIN article:

NTSB's Graham: Scalable SMS a Must for Smaller Aircraft Ops
by Kerry Lynch - March 23, 2023, 11:03 AM


NTSB member Michael Graham expressed concerns about the recent spate of close calls in aviation and said this highlights why SMS should be fully used. (Photo: Kerry Lynch)

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member Michael Graham stressed his belief that there should be no exceptions for size from the FAA’s safety management system (SMS) rulemaking but did say the final regulation must be scalable for small operators. During the Air Charter Safety Foundation’s Safety Symposium on Wednesday in Daytona Beach, Florida, Graham noted that the NTSB has been pushing for the FAA to mandate SMS for Part 135 since 2016, following the Hawker 700A crash in Akron, Ohio.

“The voluntary days are over with. We didn't hit enough people,” he said, adding that about 10 to 12 percent of Part 135 operators have adopted SMS. “We’re talking out of 2,000 operators. You can do the math and that's not many. The time is over. The safety benefits are there. We all need to get there.”

He said the NTSB was pleased that the FAA had released the notice of proposed rulemaking to extend SMS requirements to Part 135 and air-tour operators. While some have asked about alternatives for the smallest operators, Graham said the answer should be: “Nope. You don’t have an SMS if you don’t have all four components [safety policy, risk management, assurance, and promotion].”

However, he has been pushing for guidance and scalability. “It has to be scalable. If it’s not, it’s never going to work.” Graham pointed to an NTSB recommendation that the FAA provide guidance on specific examples, methods, and techniques for small operators.

Thus far, the FAA’s draft guidance has not done that, he noted. “I read it. There’s nothing in there.” He said it only repeats language that it should be scalable. “It’s just like everything else: ‘scalable.’ Good luck. Good to go.”

Graham also expressed concern over the associated oversight. NTSB has asked the agency to require SMS and then verify the effectiveness. “We already see issues with oversight in a lot of our accidents with [Part] 135s. Now add SMS to it.”

Graham opened his discussion at ACSF talking about the “elephant in the room. Let’s face it. We’re all wondering what is going on with aviation right now.”

He pointed to the meltdown of the notam system, turbulence incidents, and the half-dozen near collisions that they’ve counted so far this year—but there are a couple of others the Safety Board is looking at right now, but still categorizing them.

The average for Category “A” and “B” close calls is about 17 to 18 per year. “Now we’ve got six of those in two months. That’s not good.”

Frustrating to the NTSB is the number of cockpit voice recording readouts it has been able to get out of these six events: “zero,” Graham said, noting that most get overwritten every two hours. NTSB has called for a 25-hour time on them, he stated. “We've got the technology out there. This is ridiculous. We’ve got to have this.”

Adding to this, he said, NTSB has received pushback on its efforts to interview crews afterward. As for reasons behind these incidents, he said “I don’t think it’s going to be one smoking gun. We’re investigating.”

He noted air traffic control procedures are among the areas being reviewed, but emphasized the importance of data and SMS. He pointed to the strong safety record of the airlines. “They earned it. They worked really hard, but I’m concerned,” Graham said. “Are we putting on the autopilot here? Are we just letting things run? Are we putting that SMS up on the shelf now? Because we all know you have to work continuously and manage risk and safety assurance. If you're not, you don't know when the next big one's going to happen.”

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence April WOFTAM Waffle! -   

Courtesy Su_Spence, via Fort Fumble: 

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

Safety is CASA's key objective but it depends on much more than simply being a regulator.

We're keenly aware that every passenger who boards an aircraft in Australia expects their safety authority and industry to work together to ensure they safely reach their destination.

It's a sector-wide responsibility that would get nowhere without the cooperation and actions of individuals, aviation operators and the companies that support them.

That's why we recently reviewed and endorsed the regulatory philosophy that guides us in making our decisions and, we hope, supports you.

That philosophy commits us to approaching our regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively while taking into account relevant considerations such as cost.

It also requires us to communicate meaningfully with stakeholders, build trust and respect and fairly balance the need for consistency with flexibility.

As a safety authority, there are occasions when we need to take legitimate action against people flouting the rules.

When this happens, our regulatory philosophy tells us to employ a rational 'just culture', proportionality and discretion as well as natural justice and fairness in exercising our powers.

Having a regulatory philosophy is a good start but we also need to be seen to be applying it.

A practical example of the regulatory philosophy in action is our General Aviation Workplan aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on the general aviation sector and some of the specific initiatives we are working to.

One way we are doing this – in response to industry feedback – is by making it easier for individuals to conduct non-complex flight training as a single person operation.

We are simplifying the application, assessment and approval process for simple Part 141 applications to enable an individual to offer simpler flight training for the issue of some flight crew licences, ratings and associated endorsements.

The feedback we received was that obtaining a Part 141 authorisation was complex, time consuming and expensive.

Another example is the proposed Part 66 modular licensing initiative for aircraft maintenance engineers aimed at increasing flexibility and improving the licensing process for industry.

We consulted on this late last year and, as part of our commitment to transparency, we recently published the feedback we received on our website.

While there was strong support, you can also read the views of those who raised issues and how we will work though addressing them on our consultation hub.

Another initiative gives pilots better training and assessment options for aerial mustering.

Trainee pilots now have a choice of training and assessment through their employer or the traditional Part 141 pathway to become qualified for an aerial mustering endorsement.

We’ll keep you informed by publishing updates as we progress the workplan.

This will give you an overview of what we’ve completed, and what is still to be done, including reasons for any delays.

Those on track include the review of Part 67 aviation medicals, an update to Part 21 regulations and manual of standards covering certification and airworthiness of aircraft parts, and a review of the requirement to notify CASA of a flight test.

Our regulatory philosophy is there to guide and support us in our everyday decision making, and to help us be transparent, consult, engage and focus on safety.

This is part of our ongoing efforts to build trust and respect in the aviation community so we can work together to foster a vibrant Australian industry.

All the best,

Pip

Hitch's take on that:

CASA aims for Individual Flying Instructors

5 April 2023

CASA has given the strongest hint yet that it will re-introduce rules that permit flight training by individual flying instructors.
CASA Director of Aviation Safety and CEO Pip Spence said in her April CASA Briefing newsletter published today that restoring individual instructors was part of their program to reduce regulatory burden.

"One way we are doing this – in response to industry feedback – is by making it easier for individuals to conduct non-complex flight training as a single person operation," Spence said.

"We are simplifying the application, assessment and approval process for simple Part 141 applications to enable an individual to offer simpler flight training for the issue of some flight crew licences, ratings and associated endorsements.

"The feedback we received was that obtaining a Part 141 authorisation was complex, time consuming and expensive."
Whilst individual instruction was already possible in theory, the instructor still needed to operate with a CASR Part 141 approval and be overseen by a Chief Flying Instructor or Head of Operations.

Allowing qualified flying instructors to teach outside the Part 141 regime has been seen as key to restoring GA flight training to regional areas, especially at aero clubs that don't have the resources to retain a CFI or work with a Part 141 organisation.

And Sandy's (waiting in) reply to LMH...  

LMH Awaits ok...

"The feedback we received was that obtaining a Part 141 authorisation was complex, time consuming and expensive."

Well well well, after watching the demise of hundreds of flying schools over the last twenty years CASA needed “feedback” to see how destructive has been its relentless fee gouging and extremely expensive regulatory assault on what used to be a flourishing General Aviation training industry. In particular with its Head of Operations and other ‘Hooey’ the likes of which doesn’t exist anywhere else because it was never needed in the first place. And those of us watching the disaster unfolding will never forget the unjust smashing of Glen Buckley’s umbrella business that, painfully designed by dint of months of negotiations with CASA, was successfully helping smaller clubs to survive CASA’s crushing fees and its administrative nightmare.
 
And we wait, and wait, for actions of reform knowing that when CASA really wants change it can act very quickly, have a look back at the hundreds of ‘exemptions’ and see what’s possible. And we wait. 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Who's in the privileged 6,600?? - 

Via LMH:

2023 CASA Satisfaction Survey goes out

27 April 2023




CASA has launched its 2023 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey with a series of e-mails sent to select stakeholders on 14 July.
Conducted once again through consultant company Faster Horses, the CASA survey canvasses opinions and feedback from only 6600 of an estimated 118,000 stakeholders.

The e-mails contain a link to the survey site where the selected stakeholders are requested to provide confidential feedback on the performance of CASA, which is then compared to the last results gathered in 2020.

CASA's methodology of selecting stakeholders rather than permitting any stakeholder to provide feedback has drawn criticism in the past because it has been seen by some advocates as barring large parts of the aviation community from participating in the survey.

According to CASA, Faster Horses recommended the select participant method because it prevents any one group from influencing the outcome and restricted people from giving multiple responses.

In November 2020, CASA suspended the survey after AOPA Australia posted online a direct link to the survey company, which effectively allowed anyone to provide feedback.

The 2020 results showed that 54% of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with CASA and 17% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The stakeholder satisfaction rating was 6.3, a small increase over the 6.2 recorded in the 2018 survey,

CASA has done stakeholder surveys regularly since the first one conducted in 2015. The 2023 survey will be the first one done under current Director of Aviation Safety Pip Spence.

Cost please?? - 

Hmm...maybe a P9 blast from the past...

Via AuntyPru blog: https://auntypru.com/of-mushrooms-and-mandarins/

"..A familiar pattern is emerging; the CASA customer service survey for example completely ignores every single bone of contention; Part 61, Part 135; CAO 48.1, and many other, significant items with which CASA customers are not bloody well happy; it is a long list. But the survey will be used to foster and promote the notion that all is well; this will be supported by the BITRE soft soap and the whole package, from the smooth Carmody, to the bogged up ‘results’ will be touted as industry satisfaction. Bollocks..."

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence decides to decentralise to enhance centralisation?? - OMHH! 

(OMHH - Oh my head hurts)

Via the Monthly Su_Spenceful bollocks...  : Ref- https://updates.communication.casa.gov.a...887f6d058c

Director of Aviation Safety, Pip Spence

We're continuing to fine-tune the way we interact with the industry by listening to your suggestions, embracing ideas aimed at improving communication, explaining clearly why we're doing what we are and focusing on things that make a difference to safety.

This month sees a return of some regulatory services functions to our local offices to make it easier for aviation operators to interact with us, and for us to better understand local operations.

We're doing this after feedback that some elements of our centralised model were not working as expected and made it difficult at times for you to connect with us when you needed to.

A review of these arrangements prompted us to make changes that will see our regulatory services teams once again operate from their local CASA offices and engaging with local operators.

To be clear, we're still looking for consistent and predictable results through a national system.

Complex issues will still require centralised consideration, while more straightforward matters will be progressed locally, consistent with nationally settled policies and procedures.

But we operate better and get improved safety outcomes when we're engaging with industry and that's what our local offices will do.

If you’re an aviation operator, you’ll receive more detail from us directly over the coming weeks.

This is one of several moves to make interacting with us quicker and easier. Others include a push to embrace digital technology, work on streamlining medicals, a new Safety Management System tool kit and our Plain English guides.

Another change for operators will be around the remaining deadlines to implement some transition steps to the flight operations regulatory suite introduced at the end of 2021, which included several deferred provisions.

Specifically, this includes revisions to timelines for training and checking systems for many air transport and aerial work operators, human factors and non-technical training and safety management systems for previous charter and air ambulance operators, and Part 133 rotorcraft performance classes.

We’ll be communicating directly with operators soon on these new timeframes and, more importantly, what we can do to help industry embed these important safety initiatives in their operations.

In keeping with our commitment to keep you informed, later this month we'll be updating our website to show completed General Aviation (GA) Workplan initiatives  and providing revised timeframes for other items to give you the latest outlook.

Work continues on our GA Workplan and while we have steadily rolled out initiatives, I’m conscious some proposals have taken longer than we originally predicted.

On the plus side, we have delivered initiatives for flight instructors, opened up examiner proficiency checks for industry and established a multi-engine helicopter 'class rating'.

And if you’re a pilot operating in controlled airspace, please check out our latest pilot safety campaign and consider joining one of our webinars.

We also have our ‘Stay OnTrack’ series which has guides for VFR pilots to use when flying into, out of and around some of Australia’s main regions.

Be sure to check out the guides for Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Perth and Darwin and stay tuned for our Melbourne region guide.

And we’ve got a range of information on our pilot safety hub with a range of products to support you flying in and around these locations.

We will continue to update you on our initiatives as 2023 progresses and, of course, we welcome your feedback.

All the best,

Pip

And via our resident fence sitter LMH:

CASA to decentralise Oversight Functions

3 May 2023



CASA announced today that it will send some functions of regulatory oversight back to the regional offices after problems connecting with the aviation industry through the central office in Canberra.

The Regulatory Oversight Divsion (ROD) will still handle most day-to-day inquiries such as applications, approvals and safety regulations, but CASA is now encouraging the aviation community to contact the regional offices for complex inquiries like surveillance issues or operational services.

According to CASA, the changes came from a review of the national oversight model that was established in 2020.

"We’re doing this following a review of our 2020 move to manage regulatory services nationally," a CASA spokesperson said.

"Our goal was to make sure we were providing a more consistent service across Australia, however, in practice, we understand this made it more difficult for [the industry] to interact with us.

"The changes we’ve made are designed to rectify that, while maintaining the improvements we’ve made in national standardisation.

"We’ve changed our processes to make it easier for you to get in touch with us when you need to speak directly with someone who understands your operations and the environment you work in,."

ROD functions were brought under a national model in 2021 because the aviation community was being provided with inconsistent advice and rulings from regional offices. CASA now believes some services are best delivered from the regional offices.

"To be clear, we're still looking for consistent and predictable results through a national system," Director of Aviation Safety and CEO Pip Spence said.

"Complex issues will still require centralised consideration, while more straightforward matters will be progressed locally, consistent with nationally settled policies and procedures.

"But we operate better and get improved safety outcomes when we're engaging with industry and that's what our local offices will do."

CASA will send out an e-mail to all holders of Air Operator's Certificates detailing the changes.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

……………No comment…………………….

[Wombat]

You aren’t going to get medical self assessment.

CASA has performed a quick swindle and redefined the source of complaint as being about speed of issue , not about jettisoning a pointless bureaucratic farce - that’s why Spence referenced “streamlining medicals”. Furthermore an earlier missive defined the complaint as “healthy pilots find the system slow, etc.” Meaning everyone with a “condition “, which is most, will still be subject to the same BS.

They hope they can placate the pilot group with a few sops to the “healthy” ones while continuing to feed on the rest.

Words matter. Anyone with a shred of Jewish background instinctively knows it and can read between the lines.

As for centralization and decentralization; bureaucrats have played this game for at least 2000 years.The change is both meaningless and pointless. Those expelled from Canberra will feel aggrieved because their “customer” is Spence, the Board and the Minister -those are the people they need to be close to if they want advancement. The last thing bureaucrats want to do is have to talk to the peasants at the outstations.

[Peetwo]

Pup_Spence dodges a legal hand grenade with Firefighter widow court case?? -   

Via the Oz: 

Firefighter’s widow settles CASA litigation



The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has narrowly escaped the public scrutiny of a Supreme Court showdown after reaching an 11th-hour settlement with the widow of a pilot killed while fighting bushfires near Ulladulla almost a decade ago.

After six years of costly litigation, stress and sleepless nights, Julie Black has accepted a confidential settlement from CASA and other parties just days before their NSW Supreme Court trial was due to begin.

David Black had been water-bombing on the NSW south coast for the Rural Fire Service in October 2013 when the left wing tore off his modified PZL Mielec M-18 Dromader, sending it plummeting to an “unsurvivable impact”.

The 43-year-old left behind his wife and their three young children.

He was also the director and chief pilot of the couple’s aerial crop spraying business, Rebel Ag, in Trangie.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau later revealed that Beal Aircraft Maintenance and Aviation NDT had inspected the aircraft’s wings 11 weeks before the crash using an incorrect technique called the eddy current method which was not approved by CASA.

A Coronial Inquest also found that the inspection, maintenance and testing procedures used on the aircraft were “inadequate” and failed to detect both corrosion pitting and a fatigue crack in the left wing’s lower attachment fitting.



After the inquest, Ms Black launched civil action against CASA, Beal Aircraft Maintenance, engineer Bruce Beal, Aviation NDT, Australian NDT Services, and NDT technicians Travis Tuck and Neil Joiner.

In a statement of claim filed in the NSW Supreme Court, Ms Black accused the parties of – among other things – breach of statutory duty, breach of duty and negligence.

The 48-year-old sought relief in the form of damages, compensation and costs on behalf of herself and her children who suffered injury, loss and damage.

In the court documents Ms Black states CASA failed to comply with its statutory duties and breached its duty of care. CASA should have conducted regular surveillance and audits of Aviation NDT, Australian NDT Services and Beal Aircraft Maintenance to ensure they were performing inspections in a correct and compliant manner, according to the documents.

In their defence pleadings, CASA denied many of the allegations, saying it “did not owe a duty to David Black as alleged … or at all”.

“Neither the accident, nor the deceased‘s death on 24 October 2013, was foreseeable,” CASA countered.

“At all material times CASA exercised reasonable care in the performance of its statutory functions and the exercise of its statutory powers.”



CASA also claimed the exercise of its functions was “limited by the financial and other resources that are reasonably available to CASA”.

“CASA relied upon the skill, experience and expertise of second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants to undertake aircraft maintenance, assessment and inspection work in accordance with all applicable maintenance, assessment and inspection guidelines, manuals and directives, including and not limited to the CASA AD, as in force over the period of the operation of the Aircraft,” the pleadings said.

CASA denied it owed “any of the duties alleged” and rejected that the plaintiffs were “entitled to any damages for losses as alleged”, countering that any damages or losses “were caused or contributed to by the negligence of David Black”.

They accused the aircraft owner and operator of failing to comply with various sections of the Civil Aviation Act and regulations related to handling, maintaining and operating the aircraft.

The Australian was not granted access to, or provided with, the defence pleadings of the other defendants.

After multiple failed mediation attempts, the case was set down for a trial starting Monday but on April 21 Justice Michael Walton approved the secret settlement.

When contacted at the weekend Ms Black said she was relieved her legal battle was over but called it a “bittersweet” victory.

“I am certainly relieved this chapter is now over,” she said.

While you've got the taxpayer and industry funded cheque book out...  : GlenB embuggerance update: 16/05/23 

Also: Pup_Spence and the CASA Board signal duplicity and favoritism is alive and well inside the halls of Fort Fumble in the case of the Croc Wrangler...

CASA gave Matt Wright exemption before Chris Wilson’s fatal chopper crash



The Civil Aviation Safety Authority granted Netflix star Matt Wright and two of his mates ­exemptions that allowed them to collect crocodile eggs with someone hanging from their helicopters – after its chief executive and board members received a private demonstration – just months before the fatal chopper crash that killed Chris Wilson.

New flight operations rules, ­effective from December 2021, stipulated that only turbine-­engine-powered helicopters were permitted to carry a person externally for sling operations.

Despite this, in September 2021, CASA granted Wright and pilot Michael Burbidge an exemption allowing them to continue carrying crocodile-egg collectors beneath their piston-engine-powered Robinson R44 aircraft for ­another three years.

In February last year Wilson – who starred on Outback Wrangler and Wild Croc Territory – was killed when the Robinson R44 Raven II he was slung beneath crashed in a remote part of West Arnhem Land during an egg-collecting mission. Pilot Sebastian Robinson was critically injured.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s preliminary ­report revealed the chopper’s ­engine had stopped before the helicopter hit the ground.

The destroyed chopper was owned and operated by Wright’s company Helibrook and contracted to Mick Burns’ company Wildlife Harvesting NT.

Shortly before the exemptions were granted, Mr Burns and Wright met CASA chief executive Pip Spence and board members Tony Matthews, Michael Bridge and Elizabeth Hallett in Darwin.

The CASA executives had travelled to the Territory in June 2021 for a safety forum, regular board meeting and industry ­engagement events. CASA said it fully-funded its employees’ travel.

While in Darwin, Ms Spence, also director of aviation safety, and her three board members visited Mr Burns’ business Crocodile Farms NT where they were briefed on its operations and how the looming new flight rules would affect its ability to collect crocodile eggs.



Celebrity croc-wrangler Wright then took the CASA CEO and Board members for a flight on one of his Bell choppers to see the scale of the company’s operations and the remote environment in which egg collection is undertaken.

The following month, CASA granted another of Burns’ companies, Porosus, a Supplemental Type Certificate allowing it to use dual cargo hooks for human external cargo operations on Robinson R44 and R44 Raven II helicopters for the purpose of crocodile-egg collecting.

A couple of months after that, CASA granted Helibrook and Mr Burbidge’s company, Northshore Holdings NT, an exemption ­allowing them to collect crocodile eggs via a sling person.

The authorisation was subject to many conditions, which included fitment of dual external cargo hooks under the certificate issued to Burns.

Among its 33 conditions, the sling person must carry a “readily ­accessible harness knife capable of cutting the lifting strop or harness in an emergency”. Also that the sling person “must be made aware, in writing, that the hook system is not certified for human use”.

CASA this week confirmed that Robinson R44 aircraft “can no longer be used for this kind of operation” under Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

“Transitional arrangements vary between operators based on when an approval was granted but the longest an approval could be used is up to two years after it was made,” a spokesperson said.

While the exemptions granted to Wright and Burbidge in September 2021 state they will not be ­repealed until September 2024, CASA told The Australian their exemptions will cease after two years.

Since Wilson’s death, NT WorkSafe has prohibted the practice of collecting crocodile eggs from the wild by transporting workers suspended from a helicopter via a sling.

CASA board member Mr Bridge also sits on the Northern Territory Tourism board of commissioners alongside Mr Burns.

Tourism NT said it had no knowledge of, or involvement in, CASA’s visit. Wright declined to comment and Mr Burns, who is a­ ­director of Crocosaurus Cove and owns the Darwin Crocodile Farm that houses about 70,000 salt­water crocodiles, did not respond to requests for comment.

TICK..TOCK Pup_Spence, TICK..TOCK INDEED!   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Hansard out; Senator McDonald drills into Torres Straits airstrip embargo?? -    

CASA Hansard - HERE

Via Youtube:

(From 40:18 minutes) 

Senator McDONALD: It's great to see you. I have some questions about the legislative change process to align with the CAO. You notified of proposed changes. Part 139 has all gone well. There was the small part of the CAO; do we have a funny way to say that?

Ms Spence: The civil aviation order.

Senator McDONALD: It is about operating to manufacture specs, which has been in use for the last 50 years. It has added a safety performance factor of 20 per cent to Northern Australia airstrips. You know all about this. I have to tell you that the industry has been very complimentary of the very helpful way that CASA has gone about trying to resolve the issues for Murray Island, Darnley Island and Mabuiag Island. You have given an allowance for the short landing approval. The company has done modifications of US$17,000 per aircraft. We still have this problem where aircraft that have been landing at two islands for the last 20 years now can't. My understanding is that the company is now submitting a test flying program and that hopefully somebody will sign off on it. I understand that under the legislation you don't have a legislated way to solve this. You have to keep providing workarounds for each circumstance. I keep hearing about it whether it is the big guys, such as Qantas, Virgin or Rex, or little operators like this one. Everybody has been granted exemptions. There are workarounds. How do we talk about legislative change frameworks that mean we're not having to do this? It just seems extraordinary.

Ms Spence: It has been one of the most difficult issues that I've dealt with since I have been in CASA.

Senator McDONALD: Really? I know you've dealt with some difficult issues.

Ms Spence: Everything in me says these people desperately need these services. The alternatives are so terrible. The other side of it is that they are operating on airstrips that were built post Second World War and were designed for a certain type of aircraft that doesn't operate there any more. They are certainly technically better aircraft, but they are bigger and more powerful than what was designed to operate on these airstrips. We are working very closely with the operator you mentioned to see how we actually make it work for the two remaining islands. If we haven't yet, we will be going back to them shortly saying, 'Yes, do the flight testing that they've proposed.'

To your point, we want to find an enduring solution to this because there will be a number of other aerodromes that have not dissimilar issues. It's not a bad thing to provide exemptions for certain types of activity. We would like to be able to do more of a class exemption rather than deal with everything on a case-by-case basis. Our hope is that by working through the issue that we are currently with the operator you mentioned, we will be able to find a more enduring solution for these circumstances. You prefer to use a more sophisticated aircraft, but you are operating on airstrips that were never designed for that type of aircraft.

Senator McDONALD: There is no safety case. They've been operating on those strips for 20 years using a Caravan without incidents.

Ms Spence: You are right around the length of time that they've been operating. It wouldn't be 20 years with the Caravan. They would have previously been using the Islanders, the ones designed to operate on those strips. At the end of the day, the manufacturers themselves say these aircraft aren't designed to operate on those strips. Again, this is the logic part that is very difficult to come to terms with. The bottom line is that you are asking us to approve something that is not as safe as what other people would get. It is trying to get that balance. If there is no alternative, is something we provide with less assurance a better outcome than no outcome at all? That's what we're working through at the moment.

Senator McDONALD: At the moment, the alternative is a dingy in crocodile and shark infested waters.

Ms Spence: We met with the council when we were up in Cairns a few weeks ago. Something we discussed with them is whether they feel comfortable writing to us and explaining to us, in the absence of us approving it, what the alternative looks like and how they say to us, 'We accept and understand that this is not the same level of assurance that you would get in other areas for this particular location because the need for the service is greater than what the alternative might look like.'

Senator McDONALD: This is complex. I listened to the questions from Senator Smith and Senator Roberts. I appreciate that CASA is under pressure to provide more regulation and different standards. How many strips do you think this applies to?

Mr Marcelja: I think it is six in the Torres Strait that we are looking at.

Senator McDONALD: What about the rest of Northern Australia?

Mr Marcelja: We haven't identified any at this stage, but we are actively looking to see whether the solution we are talking about here would have a broader application. Where we are aware there may be some need is in the area of medical services, such as the Royal Flying Doctors Service and others. We are actively trying to look at whether there are others, but none have been brought to our attention at the moment.

Senator McDONALD: My understanding is that the reason you became aware of this was another airline competitor brought this to your attention?

Ms Spence: No. Actually the operator themselves raised it with us. It is a big kudos to that operator, who has been—

Senator McDONALD: That is not my understanding. They said they weren't made aware of the change of legislation and that it was from an audit that CASA came to them.

Ms Spence: This is where it gets even more complex. It wasn't as a result of the change of regulations. I think there was a difference in interpretation of how some of the civil aviation orders worked. I think we could have certainly been clearer. At the end of the day, it wasn't a change in regulation.

Senator McDONALD: What I need to understand is how many strips you have identified and where and how many operators are now affected. I guess I am really concerned that we don't have a safety case for change. I know that CASA will say that this is the new world and that this has not been safe. There has been no incident. These people are now forced into a more dangerous outcome because we have decided to change the rules.

Ms Spence: As I said, we are working on the basis of what the aircraft manufacturer says is safe. It's not us changing the rules. I'm not disagreeing with the scenario that we have landed in, which is how we can safely ensure that these people get aviation services. It's also making sure that we don't approve something that then, again, involves what Senator Smith was asking about. I would hate to be sitting here and him saying, 'What on earth were you thinking, Ms Spence, when you allowed these operations to occur?' That's the balance.

Senator McDONALD: There wasn't a problem that you were trying to fix. You've identified a problem. You've identified an issue that didn't have a problem and now a whole lot of people have a worse problem. If they were to go and privately hire the Caravan, they wouldn't be subject to these rules?

Ms Spence: That's correct. They would be operating privately, not as a commercial transport operator.

Senator McDONALD: It makes no sense.

Mr Marcelja: That is the exact conversation we were having a moment ago. We have a much higher safety standard for a commercial operation.

Senator McDONALD: I understand that. But the people are now in crocodile and shark waters. People frequently have terrible situations in dinghies in the Torres Strait.

Mr Marcelja: We had a really good conversation with the operator. They've stepped us through all the additional mitigating actions they are taking. They've done additional pilot training. They are marking runways. They are now about to go and do a test program to see whether all those other things they've developed can give us some assurance.

Senator McDONALD: I know. They were very complimentary of CASA's approach and the way that you are doing it. I am worried that once again CASA has identified a problem that didn't exist.

Ms Spence: We would categorise it differently to that, Senator. I think we're all in furious agreement about the need to—

Senator McDONALD: CASA always identifies it differently to that. That is why I end up here at estimates every single time, tediously for you, no doubt. You are going to identify how many strips. I appreciate you are going to try to sort it for the RFDS. There is a whole lot of other operators other than the RFDS. We rely on it in Northern Australia. General aviation is our bread and butter to get around. I shudder to think of all these test flights, the new weights and the measurements. We're going to fly out and we're going to do it over and over again and send you videos because you don't want to authorise that happening. You will authorise it once they've sent you all this information. You are not actually engaged in saying that this is a process that you will authorise.

Ms Spence: But one thing that will come out of this—the operator has already said it to us—is that they generally feel their operations into Murray Island are safer now than they were. They say that is a good thing.

Mr Marcelja: It is quite an isolated issue because those runways on those islands are particularly short. There are not many other locations where we are faced with that.

Senator McDONALD: I look forward to you actually doing it. I understand there is an audit of Indigenous strips maybe with the infrastructure department.

Ms Spence: It may be with the department.

Senator McDONALD: I heard something today. There will be strips all over the country. Guess what? The infrastructure department is not going to pay for them all to be upgraded.

Ms Spence: But not all of them will have this significant issue. It is not just that it is short. It is soft at the end of the runway. It is just a particularly challenging environment.

Senator McDONALD: So it's fixable. Somebody could pay for it to be fixed. Do you think the infrastructure department would pay for that to be fixed?

Ms Spence: Senator, you know what answer I am going to give you.

Senator McDONALD: Minister, do you think that would be something that could be looked at? We've raised that there are two islands.

Senator CANAVAN: You might have to wait for the Voice.

Senator McDONALD: Indeed. Thank you. Do you think that for the two islands that now have no passenger service going into them this is a good outcome?

Senator Chisholm: We did cover off this yesterday. Senator Canavan asked a question about the remote airport upgrade fund. Another round was agreed to in the budget. I know we have funded some support for airport strips in the Cape islands. It might be something that they can apply for as part of that.

Senator McDONALD: Terrific, if you take carriage of that. I think it is pretty shocking that we have actually gone backwards as a result of regulation. For the people on those islands, I think it's a poor outcome.

Ms Spence: Yes, understood.

Senator McDONALD: The industry bodies have all been complimentary of the fact that there is a not a legislative fix. You are going to have people out there with sandbags weighing things. We have created a problem that didn't exist. People are worse off.

Ms Spence: As I said, Senator, my hope is that we can find a more enduring solution that will actually be beneficial to the communities because they will actually have safer services when we can get those services back.

Senator McDONALD: Will you write to the minister alerting her to these two specific islands and the issues? Could you?

Ms Spence: Yes.

Senator McDONALD: We want a solution out of this.

Ms Spence: What I can let you know is that we do regular reporting to the minister, so we can include an update on how we're going on this issue at our next update.

Senator McDONALD: I think that would be terrific. For the pregnant girl who goes into labour and has no solution now because we've taken it away—it will be cold comfort if something terrible happens to somebody because we are so smart and so modern that we won't let people land on places where they've been landing for 20 years. That is the end of my questions for CASA.

Here we go again - Ref: Proaviation - A skilfully mismanaged stuffup - Su_Spence and her WOFTAM mob of executive trough feeders in their lofty offices at Aviation Hearse, dictating to the isolated regional communities of the Torres Strait how their essential air services, are to be operated safely - UDB! 

"..You are right around the length of time that they've been operating. It wouldn't be 20 years with the Caravan.."

By the way Pup_Spence the Caravan has been safely operated in the Torres Straits for 30 years..



MTF...P2 

PS: A blast from the past:

“CASA will do all it can to ensure that a person whose licence, certificate or authority is suspended or cancelled has ready access to full external merits review in the AAT. Once before the AAT, CASA will conduct itself as a model litigant.” CASA, in a document entitled: A new approach to enforcement. March, 1989.

“Anyone other than Dick Smith who joins CASA, becomes ‘infallible'”– Dick Smith, August 1998.

“That’s the way the system works. They think: ‘We are powerful and we are totally unaccountable.'” – Dick Smith, August 1998.