[Peetwo]

CASA Budget Estimates 2023-24: Some AQON?? 

Previous reference: Senate Estimates QON: Chalk & Cheese (Miniscule MIA??)

This week Miniscule Dickie King has actually ticked and flicked off on some more answers to the 379 overview QON from Budget Estimates. Included in the answered list were a couple of typical sublime examples of bureaucratic word weasel confections from from Fort Fumble..  

QON 267:

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

1. The CASA Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey was sent to select stakeholders recently, this only went to 6,600 of an estimated 118,000 stakeholders, what is reasoning behind this?
2. On what basis were the 6,600 stakeholders selected?
3. On what basis were the estimated 111,400 excluded?
4. What date was this decision made?
5. After suspending the 2020 survey when it was made public, did you resume getting feedback?
6. What opportunities were given for the wider community to provide feedback?
7. Regarding the close call of two Qantas 737's in Sydney on April 29, did you work with Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Airservices Australia (ASA) on this matter to determine the cause of the matter?
8. What course of action has been taken to ensure this does not happen in the future?
9. Was human error or staff fatigue a factor in the incident?
10. Were staff shortages in air traffic control a factor in the incident?
11. In the view of CASA what was the cause of the incident?

Answer:

1. The 6,600 stakeholders were a random stratified sample of stakeholders within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) database. This methodology was recommended by our research provider and is consistent with the sampling methodology used for the previous 2 surveys in 2018 and 2020.
2. See above.
3. See above.
4. The decision to use a stratified random sample was first made for the 2018 survey following a recommendation by the independent research provider. This approach was also recommended when the new independent research provider was appointed on 20 April 2020.
5. Yes. The survey was published on CASA’s website on 8 April 2021.
6. Wider community feedback was not sought as part of the survey. However, consistent with previous surveys, feedback was sought from targeted stakeholders and associations that considered feedback from their members and broader aviation community.
7. CASA has been advised that Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating this incident and is available to support ATSB if needed.
8. Pending the outcome of a formal investigation, CASA is satisfied that Airservices is initiating actions to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence.
9. CASA awaits the outcome of the formal investigation to understand possible contributing factors to this incident.
10. CASA awaits the outcome of the formal investigation to understand possible contributing factors to this incident.
11. It would be inappropriate for CASA to speculate on the causes of this incident and will await the outcome of the formal investigation by ATSB.

    

QON 271:

In response to concerns raised with me by stakeholders, I ask CASA to address the following questions raised:

1. I reference the designation of air routes and airways by CASA. Under the Airspace Regulations 2007, s15, CASA is obliged to review any designations of air routes and airways at least every five years. However, in Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023 (QoN 72), CASA declared that:
''On 30 May 2013, CASA ceased designating air routes and airways, as Australian air routes are better described in Airservices Australia's Designated Airspace Handbook.''
2. How were these reviews conducted in the past?
3. As per Civil Aviation Act 1988, Section 9A, CASA is required to protect the environment, including communities, from the effects of and associated with the operation and use of aircraft. What noise minimisation criteria were being considered by these reviews when they still occurred?
4. I understand part of the reason CASA ceased designating air routes and airways, was the introduction of performance-based navigation (PBN) technology, which allows for more flexible and efficient aircraft operations, reducing the reliance on traditional air routes and airways. As a result, CASA shifted its focus towards implementing PBN procedures. Is this correct?
5. How does CASA fulfill its obligations to review and assess PBN procedures against Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 these days?
6. What reviews has CASA conducted and will conduct of the PBN procedures in place in Brisbane?
7. I note that the current Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS), includes an explicit explanation of what is meant by ''Environment protection'' in Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 - it says:

''Environment protection: Meaning, as far as practicable, that airspace should be administered in a manner that contributes to the protection of the environment, including for example the minimisation of noise, gaseous emissions and other environmental issues. If it will have a significant impact, CASA will consider the application of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.''

How does CASA translate this stipulation of the AAPS into its day to day operations?

8. On CASA's website, its Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) explains the review process for Airspace Change Proposals (ACPs):

''Stakeholder consultation: We will also review evidence that appropriate stakeholder consultation has occurred.
If appropriate, we may also conduct our own consultation or instruct the proponent to conduct more.''

When asked about the two crucial ACPs for Brisbane (from 29 October 2018 and 26 August 2019) in QoN 72 (Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023), CASA declared that:

''CASA did not conduct its own consultation on this ACP, as Airservices undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken. ... CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise.''

We now know that the consultation was viewed by members of the community as inadequate. The following concerns have been raised by community members:
The noise forecasts were flawed.
The community engagement was inadequate.
It employed misleading statements to dupe communities.
And this has been confirmed by three independent reports from the ANO, BAPAF, and Trax International.
They all suggest that Airservices' did not do their homework and produced a majorly flawed flight path design.
It only took Trax 3 months to identify 49 recommendations for improvement in something Airservices took 13 years to get right.
And now we also hear that people are so distressed by their exposure to the excessive flight path noise pollution that Airservices received 15,406 complaints since the new flight path architecture launched.

On what basis can CASA have been ''satisfied'' in 2018 and again in 2019 with both the flight path design and the ''evidence that appropriate stakeholder consultation has occurred?''


Answer:

1 - 2 - 3. Through the commencement of the Airspace Act 2007, the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) assumed responsibility for the designation of air routes and
airways on 1 July 2007. On 30 May 2013, CASA ceased designating air routes and
airways and therefore no explicit review of the previously designated air routes
and airways was required by s15 of the Airspace Regulations 2007. CASA had not
conducted a review of designated air routes and airways prior to 30 May 2013 and
therefore, noise minimisation criteria were not considered.

4. No, the introduction of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) technology was not
part of the reason that CASA ceased designating air routes and airways. The reason
was that the designated air routes and airways were no longer representative of all
air routes available to pilots and it was not a requirement for pilots to follow the air
routes or airways. CASA determined that no effective purpose was being served by
it designating the air routes and airways. There was nil operational effect of
ceasing to legislate the air routes and airways since the routes, although incomplete
and non- compulsory, remained available for optional use.

5 - 6. CASA’s regulation of the use of PBN procedures is limited to enabling the safe use of
PBN procedures and it does not direct the use of any specific Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) Terminal Instrument Flight Procedure (TIFP) at Brisbane. CASA
has not reviewed and does not intend to review any specific RNP TIFP procedure
used in Brisbane against subsection 9A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

7. As the airspace administrator, CASA determines the airspace architecture, which is
generally defined in terms of airspace class and the dimensions of airspace
volumes, but not the flightpaths to be used by airspace users within that
architecture. CASA considers the environmental impact of its design choice as far as
is practicable, but given those choices relate to the airspace rather than flightpaths
no issues are generally identified.

In keeping with CASA’s obligations under subsection 9A(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and
with particular regard to the relevant provisions of the Australian Airspace Policy Statement
2021, CASA administers airspace as far as practicable in a manner that contributes to the
protection of the environment. Where it appears that a proposed airspace solution may
have a significant adverse impact on the environment, CASA considers its obligations under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In making these
assessments, CASA may utilise information provided by the proponent of an airspace
change proposal.

8. Please refer to Committee Question Number 73 (SQ22-000441) from the 2022-23
Budget estimates.

4
Regarding ACP045-18 (29 October 2018) CASA stated:

CASA did not conduct its own consultation on this ACP, as Airservices Australia (Airservices)
undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the
documentation Airservices provided to demonstrate adequate consultation was
undertaken.

The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced
Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA
concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no
changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise.

The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise
minimisation.

Regarding the amendment to ACP045-18 (26 August 2019) CASA stated:
CASA did not conduct its own consultation for the amendment of ACP045-18, approved on
26 August 2019, as Airservices undertook consultation with airspace users and the
community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to
demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken. During Airservices’ Stakeholder
Engagement Program, CASA requested that Airservices conduct further consultation with
specific airspace user groups.

The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced
Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA
concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no
changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise.
The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise
minimisation.

Attachments
A: Committee Question Number 73 (SQ22-000441) from the 2022-23 Budget estimates

MTF...P2