[Peetwo]

Budget Estimates 25/05/21 - Video segments 

1st from the (soon to be departing) Hooded Canary:

Next from ASA:

Finally, without further Suspence, CASA...  

Addendum - Hansard etc..etc..WALOB!! (What a Load of Bollocks)

To begin the Hooded Canary's (vomitus -  ) tabled opening statement:

Mr Greg Hood, Chief Commissioner, Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Opening statement
25 May 2021
PDF 1,263KB

Hmm...wonder why HC (conveniently -  ) omitted the following from his verbalised version of his opening statement??

...To highlight just one example, in January of this year, the ATSB released the final report into the accident involving a de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver aircraft on the Hawkesbury River on New Year's Eve 2017. The accident resulted in fatal injuries to the five passengers and the pilot.

During the course of the investigation, the ATSB identified safety issues that needed to be brought to the immediate attention of the industry regarding the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. So well in advance of the  publication  of the  final report, we published two  Safety Advisory Notices - one, to the maintainers of piston-engine aircraft to inspect exhaust systems and engine firewalls and the second to operators, owners and pilots of piston-engine aircraft to consider the fitment of active carbon monoxide detectors .

Then, with the publication of the investigation's final report this year, the ATSB formally recommended that the International Civilian Aviation Organization mandates the fitment of recording devices in smaller passenger carrying light aircraft, something the accident Beaver aircraft lacked. Had there been a recording device on board, that would have considerably aided the ATSB's investigation into this tragic accident...

WALOB 1: Refer here - Incompetence it is then? - and here: An insignificant Penny drops; with a loud clang.

I also note there was no mention of the Essendon DFO cover-up despite Senator McDonald's apparent concerns over the implications for that particular crash?? Ref: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companie...55zmf.html

Queensland Nationals senator Susan McDonald, who chairs the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, said she was "massively concerned" about what happened at Essendon Airport, in Melbourne's north, as well as other developments in and around major, secondary and regional airports across Australia.

"We can’t risk aviation safety over commerce," Ms McDonald said. "We need to shine a spotlight on the decision making for infrastructure within air spaces and ensure that there is a clear understanding that maintaining airspace is a priority."

Hmm...I wonder whatever happened to that Senate probe?

..The chair of the Senate transport committee is chasing a sweeping inquiry into commercial developments around Australia's airports amid concerns that new office blocks, retail developments and hotels are jeopardising the safety of critical transport infrastructure...

WALOB 2.

Next the Hansard link:

25 May 2021 - Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications (HTML & PDF)

CHAIR: Do you have to assess it, if they're managing it and they're operating safely?

Mr Crawford : If we're going to have an FRMS we have to assess it, yes.

CHAIR: Why?

Mr Crawford : Because that's what our rule set says.

CHAIR: Because why?

Mr Crawford : Because that's what our regulations require.

Ms Spence : We need to be able to—

CHAIR: Because your regulations require it. Because you need a rule.

Mr Crawford : That's a standard across the globe. If you go to other aviation regulators, they have a mechanism for assessing people who want to deviate from prescriptive limits. That's a standard practice in aviation.

CHAIR: It's a way of operating that doesn't reflect—it's whether or not you're addressing proportionality of regulation around different sectors within the industry.

Mr Crawford : I understand the proportionality argument. We're in favour of the proportionality argument.

Ms Spence : Essentially, we want to demonstrate that you can be an outcomes based regulator through using the FRMS but that does require us to be able to do our side of it and say, 'Yes, we think this delivers a safe outcome on the basis of the proposal that's been put to us.'

CHAIR: Some operators have been using standard industry exemptions for many years. What did this allow for? I assume that the exemptions approved by CASA and oversighted by CASA meant that they were operating safely.

Mr Crawford : There were a variety of industry exemptions in the past. It reverts back to us having brought in a new set of rules. If operators want to operate differently from prescriptive rules—and there are four or five annexes—there is a vehicle. We created an 'FRMS light', where we said that if you've just got a minor change to an appendix we would allow that. So you could work still within the appendix but have a minor deviation. But if it's a significant deviation from the appendix they have to have an FRMS. That's the way the regulation's constructed.

CHAIR: But if they've had these exemptions for a long time, they've not had a problem and they've got a proven track record, is the limit under the new exemption allowed to be carried over into the new rules?

Mr Crawford : If they wanted to continue with what they'd done previously and it didn't fit within an existing appendix, they would have to submit an FRMS that said, 'This is how we want to do it.' By all means, they can share their past experiences and we do a trial.

CHAIR: You make it seem so reasonable and so straightforward, but we know that's not the case people have had, particularly in the Far North where they have different flying conditions and livestock handling and so forth. Are you telling me that if people come to you with examples of where they want to vary their appendix this is not a process that will leave them lying awake at night worrying that they're going to lose their business?

Mr Crawford : On the assumption that they're adequately managing the risks, yes.

CHAIR: They must be, because they've been flying with these exemptions for some time.

Mr Crawford : That's a big assumption, I would suggest.

Ms Spence : The bottom line is, if they capture what they're doing into an FRMS and submit it for assessment, we would go through a trial process and, assuming that everything's okay, that could be approved. But we do have to meet our requirements of ensuring that everybody is safe, and that includes the people in the plane.

CHAIR: Indeed. They are the most keen on being safe. If they've been able to demonstrate that over a very long period of time, I just worry that this is another example of the tightening of the aviation noose on aviation in the north.

Ms Spence : One option we could do is to look at how many FRMS applications we've had and what processes we've done, through those, to give you some level of comfort that we're trying to work collaboratively but maintain a strong safety record.

CHAIR: Are these current rules going to allow you to monitor fatigue and make adjustments where needed?
Mr Crawford : The reality is, the operator should monitor their own fatigue management system, because it's a subset of a safety management system. When we go in and review operators and assess their safety management systems we're interested in how they're taking safety information, data, and how they're addressing things as they materialise. That's how we do it. We do it during our oversight processes.

CHAIR: I want to flag that I hear that the Air Force comment on general aviation, safety and operations. The Air Force flies a fraction of the hours that these guys in the north fly. I'm really worried that as an organisation you're focused on big operations, Qantas, Virgin and Air Force pilots, and the guys who are—and girls, aviatrix; four per cent of pilots are women—in this sector of the industry that is so critical to developing industry in the north, tourism, moving people around on charters, are going to end up with another gold-plated requirement that's going to force aviation companies, in GA particularly, to jump through another level of red tape and cost just to continue doing what they've been doing safely for years.

Mr Crawford : All I can tell you is we did a lot of consultation on the new fatigue rules—

CHAIR: Great.

Mr Crawford : with technical working groups through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel. We had representation from a variety of the aviation sector. There were genuine concerns about us coming up with a set of rules that may be too restrictive or not proportionate, so our board engaged an independent entity to review it. They came back with recommendations and we, essentially, adopted those recommendations.

CHAIR: On notice, could I ask for who you consulted with, where they were from, what sector of the industry, who the independent consultant was?

Mr Crawford : Yes.

Hmm...

"..through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel. We had representation from a variety of the aviation sector..."

...representation that did not include any of the professional pilot associations or indeed AOPA Oz - UFB! 

MTF with much more WALOBs...P2