[Peetwo]

McDolittle sells out GA industry for political expediency (election coverup) - 

From above:

AFAP supplementary submission - 

Via the GA inquiry submissions webpage: 44.1 Supplementary to submission 44 (PDF 1090 KB) 

9. Regarding ideas for a wholescale review of the Act, we instead envision that a simple and targeted
reform of the Civil Aviation Act is the best and only legislative reform required for the Act. We
suggest that this reform should aim to resolve the current lack of outcomes-focused regulatory
activity. In our view, an amendment to s9A of the Civil Aviation Act that focuses on safety systems
and outcomes will achieve the desired reform many stakeholders are impatient for. Section 9A of
the Act addresses the requirements for the regulator’s performance and functions, including what
it must consider in the development and promulgation of standards.

10. The AFAP specifically recommends:

a. The establishment of an aviation regulatory reform process that has an objective to
include articulation of safety objectives and regulatory-intent of aviation regulations
within the regulations.
b. The Civil Aviation Act be amended in a targeted manner to permanently bestow a legal
duty upon the regulator to develop and promulgate regulations with systemic and
outcomes focused objectives. Such a targeted amendment should be worded with an aim
to resolve the current lack of outcomes-focused regulatory activity.

Personally I believe that section 9A para 1 needs to be omitted and replaced with something like:

"...The CAA is responsible for the regulation and oversight of civil aviation within Australia. Its primary mission is to help facilitate safety risk mitigation within the civil aviation industry..."

However I do agree with the AFAP that the Civil Aviation Act doesn't need a complete overhaul and a properly considered rewrite of section 9A would provide the necessary impetus to helping revitalise a overly regulated and red tape encumbered/embuggered GA industry. 

Perhaps the perfect example (among many) of why the present section 9A para 1 of the Act (ie the mystique of aviation safety) doesn't work is the continued embuggerance of Angel Flight through the completely disconnected, with aviation safety standards, CSF legislative instrument - which brings me back to this...

Court costs were awarded against Angel Flight after the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled in CASA's favour.

The Mystery of the Missing Angel Flight Costs


At the time of writing, the office of Senator McDonald was trying to confirm the status of the Spence letter, why it had not been published and who made the decision to not do so.

..On 10 December 2021 the Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive Officer of CASA, Ms Pip Spence PSM wrote to the Chair, Senator Susan McDonald providing the requested information on the costs awarded by the Federal Court to CASA in connection with the proceedings instigated by Angel Flight Australia...

In an attempt to follow up on the EWH scoop (and after conversations with various SME and connected parties) I got in contact with the ever helpful and efficient RRAT committee Secretariat and posed the following questions: 

1) Why hasn't the 10 December 2021 correspondence from CASA CEO Pip Spence to the RRAT committee Chair been published on the GA inquiry webpages?

2) Why hasn't the full Court costs paid by Angel Flight (speculated to be North of 400K) to CASA been published on the GA inquiry webpages?

3) Why was the Angel Flight supplementary submission (in reply to the CASA supplementary submission, which included a breakdown of the Court costs Angel Flight paid to CASA) rejected by the committee on the grounds of it was not directly relevant to the GA inquiry?

The fella on the other end of the line studiously took down notes and promised that someone would get back to me in due course. Within the hour I missed a 'silent number' call and realised that it maybe the Secretariat returning my call. I immediately rang the Secretariat number and was surprised to be talking to the Secretary of the RRAT committee, Mr Gerry McInally.

To say the tone of the guy was somewhat 'terse' is an understatement but I gather, from his responses to my queries, that his antagonism was derived from 'rumours floating around' (he mentioned Oz Flying) that the Secretariat was responsible for both blocking the Pip Spence correspondence to the Chair and the rejection of the Angel Flight supplementary submission. The Secretary insisted that these were all committee decisions and nothing to do with the Secretariat.

I questioned how the committee could make the decision to reject the AF supp submission, on the grounds of it not being directly relevant to the GA inquiry, when it is normal practice for a witness to have a right of reply to a supplementary submission that directly challenges the witness's evidence presented.

The Secretary said the committee made the decision based on the premise that the Senate was not a court and did not want to get involved in the legal wrangling between the two parties...

I then made the point of how it is morally acceptable for a Federal agency (supposedly bound by the model litigant rules) to accept court cost payments (> 400K) from a not for profit charity like Angel Flight (with such a highly regarded reputation for safely providing a much needed service to rural and remote communities) and how that is not relevant to the GA inquiry (and all that is rotten inside of Aviation House)? The Secretary told me to take it up with the committee...

This brings me to the following dichotomy...

Via Facebook:

David Coleman - Member for Banks

It was good to visit Little Wings at Bankstown Airport on Monday to see the new plane that has been purchased through a $700,000 Federal Government grant.

Little Wings provides an incredibly important service, transporting kids and their families from regional NSW to Sydney for medical care.

 
The 700K grant backed up here: https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-...ding-boost

Little Wings also received a NSW Govt grant: https://www.theland.com.au/story/6763579...y/?cs=4951

However Angel Flight (despite totally demolishing the Monahan affidavit and proving in court they had no safety case to answer), with a Federal Court admitting CASA were a law unto themselves (section 9A of the Act), have to pay a 400k+ court cost bill to the Federal Government? 

Hmm...something stinks in Can'tberra - 

MTF...P2