[Peetwo]

Now ffwd to November 2019 to the preamble to yet another weasel worded Govt Response to the two Senate RRAT recommendations from the Angel Flight/ATSB performance inquiry (remember that this response came from the then DPM McDonaught's office): 

Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s report on the inquiry into the Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia (the report).
The Government is pleased that the Committee recognised the expert analysis conducted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in examining the Angel Flight operations. While the Committee provided comment on whether non-passenger carrying positioning flights should have been included in the ATSB’s main calculations of risk, the Government notes the ATSB’s focus on passenger carrying operations is consistent with the Government’s Statement of Expectations to the agency.
In providing this response to the Committee’s report, the Government reiterates the importance of the independence of regulatory bodies, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). CASA’s independence is set out in the Civil Aviation Safety Act 1988 which also allows CASA to issue legislative instruments relating to the safety operation and maintenance of aircraft where it deems necessary. For these reasons, the Government notes the two recommendations in the report.
The Government is committed to maintaining a safe aviation environment for all Australians. Passengers, whether fare paying or not, are generally less able to determine the level of risk involved in the service they are boarding and rely on the Government to ensure an appropriate level of aviation safety is maintained. The Government supports CASA, as Australia’s civil aviation safety regulator, using its expertise and professional judgement to fulfil that responsibility.

I have much more dot joining to do but again in the context of that last RRAT GA inquiry hearing and past statement's like this from 'the now defacto CEO' Dr Aleck:



Plus: 

Dr Aleck : The ambiguity issue can be readily addressed, as I said. In the meantime, as we're the interpreter and applier of that rule et cetera, I might mention too that, in addition to the analysis that Mr Monahan referred to, as Mr Crawford indicated, we did look at what was going on elsewhere. Of the 10 criteria that the FAA applies when assessing exemptions for the purpose of Angel Flight—public benefit flights, as they're called in the US—one is imposing higher aircraft airworthiness requirements. We looked at the kinds of considerations that that authority took into account, and that's amongst the others we've mentioned here.

..one has to carefully examine the timeline of the Angel Flight embuggerance from the initial 2014 NPRM consultation (which resulted in the former CEO Mark Skidmore rejecting the proposed CASA NPRM)...

CASA published a Discussion Paper in December 2014 that sought responses from the aviation community and public to assist CASA in its consideration of non-regulatory and regulatory options for enhancing the safety of community service flights. CASA did not proceed to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at that time, but decided to continue to monitor the operation of community service flights.

Ref: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...ement/Text

...to the initiation of the ATSB investigation into the Mount Gambier fatal accident (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-069/) and the obligations of the ATSB to CASA for providing information about their investigation as per the ATSB/CASA 2015 MOU, then leading up to the DIP (External Review) process coupled with the ATSB request to how CASA were going to respond to the ATSB identified safety issue addressed to CASA: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...069-si-04/

Safety issue description

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority did not have a system to differentiate between community service flights and other private operations, which limited its ability to identify risks. This hindered the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's ability to manage risks associated with community service flights.

Action number: AO-2017-069-NSA-020
Action organisation: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Date: 13 August 2019
Action status: Closed
Safety action taken: A legislative instrument imposing conditions on pilots conducting certain non-emergency medical community service flights arranged by third party organisations (CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019) was made on 12 February 2019 and came into force on 19 March 2019.

The instrument sets out new minimum licence, experience and recency standards for pilots operating community service flights that are conducted by volunteer pilots free of charge and coordinated by a charity or for a charitable or community service.

The instrument includes, among other things, the following requirements for pilots conducting community service flights:

• submit a flight notification including identifying the flight as community service flight
  
• make a record in pilot’s personal logbook when a flight is a community service flight.
  

 

Timeline of Angel Flight regulatory embuggerance.

Ref: Angel Flight General Aviation Timeline of Embuggerance - Letter from Anderson

Now let's rewind to about this time 4 years ago in the lead up to the Senate Additional Estimates where the former Senator NX received the following answer to his written QON to the 1st attempted embuggerance  by CASA of Angel Flight:

(02-20-2015, 11:47 AM)Peetwo Wrote: 

CASA AQONs

Example from the ATSB AQONs: 

Quote:
Senator Xenophon asked:

I understand that CASA has put forward a discussion paper in relation to community service flights, which cover organisations like Angel Flight and so on.

1. What prompted the issuing of this paper?

2. What concerns have been raised in relation to the safety of these flights?

3. How many community service flights have been involved in incidents in the last 12 months?

4. Does CASA have a view on whether people choosing to use community service flights have a full understanding of the safety regulations such flights are required to meet?

5. Depending on the outcome of the discussion paper, is it likely to have an impact on the regulation of medical charter flights?

Answer:

1. The growth in the number of community service flights prompted CASA to take a proactive approach to examining future options for the appropriate level of regulatory oversight for these flights.

2. CASA determined a number of significant potential risk factors needed to be considered; including pilots with varying experience and qualification levels and the variable types of aircraft potentially involved and their maintenance standards.

3. None reported.

4. The discussion paper has appropriately raised the importance of the Australian public having a good understanding of the safety regulation of community service flights.

5. Medical charter flights are regulated separately from community service flights. The Discussion Paper did not seek to examine medical charter flights.

 
Now given that last week CASA put out a presser through the DAS Skidmore - indicating they have backed down on the NPRM Charity flight thing - wouldn't you think the miniscule's office would have got CASA's answer to reflect the good news story before releasing the AQONs to the Senate committee??

Off the UP here is a post of mine (15 September 2014) that fleshes out the background to the last attempted embuggerance of AF: https://www.pprune.org/8656532-post1167.html

Quote:

...It comes after Angel Flight, an organisation that uses volunteer pilots to provide air transport for rural and regional people to access medical care in larger centres, raised concerns it could be grounded by unworkable and expensive red tape imposed by the aviation watchdog.

"CASA is looking at imposing an additional regulatory layer of bureaucracy on Angel Flight, with the charity required to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance," the charity said in a statement.

Angel Flight founder and CEO Bill Bristow said CASA in 2003 gave the charity it's "blessing" in written approval to start operations but was now seeking to impose new rules to "regulate" Angel Flight in the future. He said flights co-ordinated by Angel Flight were no different to private general aviation flights in Australia.

"All of our 2700 volunteer pilots who generously give their time to assist struggling families must adhere to the rules and regulations already imposed and rigorously controlled by CASA," Mr Bristow said.

"When we first heard about CASA proposing regulatory changes, I presented our grave concerns to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's chief of staff David Whitrow in March this year. However, it seems that those concerns have fallen on deaf ears."

He said he was worried the cost of complying with "onerous federal regulations" would financially cripple Angel Flight.

CASA rejected suggestions it was planning to impose crippling red tape, saying all it had done was start a discussion about aviation safety issues relating to community service flights.

A discussion paper on options for safety standards had been released for public comment so the public could understand them and consider whether there might be ways of managing safety more effectively, CASA said.

It said at the moment community service flights were considered to be private flights and pilots had varying levels of qualifications and experience and the aircraft involved differed in size, power and sophistication.

"If any changes to the safety standards covering community service flights are proposed in the future there would be further and comprehensive consultation before any action was taken," a CASA spokesperson said...

---

And then the back down by the newly fledged (former) DAS Skidmore... 

Via Oz Aviation online: https://australianaviation.com.au/2015/0...e-flights/

Quote:

CASA TO KEEP CURRENT GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE FLIGHTS
written by Australianaviation.Com.Au February 13, 2015

Mark Skidmore promised to make listening a priority ( http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10...-priority/) when he took over as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) new director of aviation safety (DAS).

And in his first CASA briefing note, Skidmore highlighted listening as one of his five key principles and promised the regulator would communicate clearly, simply and effectively ( http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/01...rinciples/ ) with the community.

So CASA’s decision on the question of how community service flights are regulated is perhaps the first sign of this emphasis on listening to community views.

CASA said on Friday people power had persuaded the regulator to maintain the status quo on how not-for-profit community service flights were regulated, with the present guidelines guidelines sufficient for now.

“We have listened to the feedback to CASA’s preferred option and we accept this is not the way to proceed,” Skidmore said in a statement.

“CASA is not proposing any changes to the existing regulatory requirements for community service flights at this time.”

A CASA discussion paper released in August – before Skidmore’s appointment as the new DAS – outlined a number of options that would change the way community service flights were regulated.

The regulator’s preferred option was for charity groups to be given the responsibility to “ensure that the pilots and aircraft meet specified standards when conducting such activities under the organisation’s auspices”.

This would mean they would have to, among other things, assess pilots, monitor pilot currency, assess and approve aircraft for their operations and conduct regular pilot proficiency checking as an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAAO).

Charity groups such as Angel Flight strongly opposed CASA’s preferred option ( http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09...a-changes/ ), citing the cost and complexity of managing such a scheme.

CASA received 65 submissions to the discussion paper.

Skidmore said CASA would continue to look at the topic of how charity flights are regulated, given the discussion paper had 10 options for consideration.

However, the new CASA DAS – Skidmore started in the role on January 1 – said there would be additional consultation with the aviation community and the public should the regulator explore any of those options further.

“CASA recognises the importance of community service operations such as Angel Flight to rural and regional Australia,” Skidmore said.

“Given the community clearly values the benefits of these flights CASA will not take any action that unnecessarily limits their ability to operate.”

So my question is - unlike last time - what happened between the former DAS statement in February 2015 and now, that convinced Carmody and the CASA Iron Ring to initiate, completely out of the blue,  a underhanded process (i.e 6 days before Xmas etc..) of supposed consultation on a rule change to the oversight of community service flights? ref: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulat...804os-1-1/

Quote:

...CASA is committed to supporting CSFs to maintain public confidence through improved safety.

We acknowledge the work being done by CSF organisations to improve pilot and safety education and we are committed to continuing to work collaboratively on these important initiatives.

While some actions have been undertaken by the sector, CASA considers it appropriate to establish a regulatory baseline that provides clarity regarding a minimum safety standard.

Previous consultation
In 2014 CASA sought comment on safety standards for CSF operations via a discussion paper. The responses to the discussion paper, indicated a significant lack of support for any regulatory intervention. In response to the feedback on the 2014 paper CASA decided not to take any immediate action, although CASA indicated it would monitor the sector and take action in the future if necessary.

Now
CASA has also engaged with the relevant charitable organisations to encourage the sector to improve safety themselves. While some actions have been undertaken by the sector, particularly in the area of safety education, CASA considers that it is appropriate to establish a regulatory baseline to provide a minimum safety standard.

Before anyone mentions the June 2017 accident near Mount Gambier, that is simply a furphy because we all know that if CASA truly had serious safety concerns/opinions about that tragic accident, they would have acted almost immediately to shutdown Angel Flight. However there is a takeaway from that Hooded Canary investigation that does raise my curiousity bump -  Huh
Reference: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-069/

Quote:
Updated: 27 June 2018

The investigation into the fatal collision with terrain near Mount Gambier in June 2017 is continuing.

ATSB investigators have examined the aircraft components recovered from the accident site and pilot transmissions from the common traffic advisory frequency for Mount Gambier Airport as well as GPS data and CCTV footage from the airport.

Investigators have also reviewed the aircraft’s maintenance documentation, pilot qualifications and experience,  and pre-flight planning as well as the weather conditions at the time of the accident.

In addition to a review of other similar accidents, investigators are currently reviewing all existing aviation safety data related to community service flights - for non-emergency medical purposes by voluntary or charitable organisations.

This involves a review of all available safety information from the ATSB aviation occurrence database and information on flight planning, coordination and oversight from the voluntary and charitable organisation.

Information from this review, along with other data from the investigation, is currently being analysed.

A final report will be released at the end of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue.
     

From the investigation page it is indicated that the investigation has since moved onto the Final Report: Internal Review phase:
Quote:

Final report: Internal review

Final ATSB investigation reports undergo a rigorous internal review process to ensure the report adequately and accurately reflects the evidence collected, analysis, and agreed findings of the Safety Factor Review. Final investigation reports also undergo other technical and administrative reviews to ensure the reports meet national and international standards for transport safety investigations.

If a review identifies any issues with a report, such as information that needs to be expanded or findings that need to be modified, investigators will look to collect new evidence or conduct additional examination and analysis of existing evidence.

This would appear to indicate that the ATSB review into CSF charity flight operations has been concluded, therefore I believe it would be safe to assume that CASA (through the terms of reference for cooperation in investigations from the March 2015 CASA/ATSB - https://www.casa.gov.au/file/102606/down...n=6kTrX4QY ) have already been privy to that part of the ATSB investigation. However given that the ATSB always state...

"...Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue..."

...then it is a fairly remote possibility that CASA are reacting to the shared findings from the ongoing investigation into the Mount Gambier Angel Flight accident.

Still chasing the dots and following the dashes but it still beggars belief that a Minister of the Crown is so scared of the CASA Iron Ring and his own shadow that he would respond with this obviously regurgitated bollocks statement:

“..The intent of this policy around community service flights by CASA is to ensure that a suitable level of aviation safety is maintained for regional and rural Australians who need to use these important resources to seek medical assistance away from their home..”

Again I reflect on this exchange between Sterlo and Carmody Capers... Rolleyes

Ref: https://auntypru.com/and-the-angels-wept/

Senator Glenn Sterle with the 'mystique of aviation safety' in a nutshell - "CASA has an incredible power over ministers. You must have some fairy dust that you sprinkle on them, because they all believe every word that you say. The minister was put under the pump and so you say, 'Okay, minister, will do an inquiry. She'll be right. Go and announce it.' You have not even done the terms of reference and you are trying to tell us that it is going to be done in a couple of months. I have no faith in you..."

MTF...P2