[Peetwo]

CASA Estimates: 23/10/23

Via APH:  Hansard out, see - HERE - or PDF Version - HERE:

CHAIR: Welcome back, everyone! I welcome officers from CASA. I won't ask for opening statements; if you have one you can table it. Senator Fawcett, who is 60 today, has the call. Happy birthday—there's no better way to spend it than at Senate estimates!

Senator FAWCETT: We won't be asking for your age, either, Ms Spence, you'll be glad to hear!

Ms Spence : Happy birthday, Senator!

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. In fact, this does actually take me back a little bit. I'm assuming that in preparation for your role you read through the Hansard transcripts of many years and that you're aware that between 2014 and 2017 your predecessors and I had many discussions about colour-vision-deficient pilots?

Ms Spence : Yes.

CHAIR: I'm aware of it!

Senator FAWCETT: Eventually, as you'd be aware, in February 2020 your predecessor, Mr Carmody, announced something to the world, which I will read from the statement that he sent out:

Research in recent years has shown relying on diagnostic tests alone may be unnecessarily limiting when considering the impact of colour vision deficiency on aviation safety. Advances in technology, operating techniques and human factors training can now mitigate many of the safety risks of colour vision deficiency. Technology to assist pilots has developed significantly and the impact of colour vision deficiency on aviation safety should take these changes into account.

At the end of his statement he said:

CASA has carefully examined all relevant safety issues and believes this new approach—

Which is the same as in New Zealand and for the FAA—

offers a practical alternative assessment for colour vision deficient pilots. We have listened to the views of pilots and made judgements based on research and evidence.

That is a fantastic outcome. They changed the lot of pilots, which had been thrown into confusion by a new senior medical officer within CASA who didn't like Australia's position, which was to allow pilots to do an operational test. Despite losing AAT cases et cetera and despite reviews of evidence that finally proved we should do this operational test, like the New Zealanders and the FAA, it's all happening again. Could you explain why CASA is spending half a million dollars on a review? What is the evidence base to justify this change of position? What incidents have occurred? What evidence has led to the decision to spend half a million dollars of taxpayers' money and overturn what has been in the CASRs for some years now, to the detriment of a group of individuals in our aviation community?

Ms Spence : I wouldn't describe it in the same way that you have, in terms of someone coming in and not supporting the previous position. I will ask our principal medical officer if she wouldn't mind joining us at the table, but I think the first thing really is that it's a question about what's consistent with the standards versus what's okay from an operational perspective. I don't think we've changed our position that there aren't ways of overcoming the issue of colour blindness from an operational perspective. I think there is a different question about whether that is consistent with the standards, and that's a harder question to answer, so I might pass to Dr Manderson to provide a bit more detail.

Senator FAWCETT: Dr Manderson, welcome.

Dr Manderson : Thank you very much. Regarding the colour vision assessment, what we found a couple years ago, and going back a bit before that, was that there was a lot of difficulty and confusion in how that colour vision assessment was being applied by the flight instructors who were assessing the pilots with colour vision deficiencies and in how the pilots themselves knew what they would be expected to demonstrate in their flights. We had some difficulties where the forms and the flights were not being conducted to a consistent standard across the board. Someone might have one kind of flight or assessment with one assessor and a completely different one with somebody else. With that degree of confusion and lack of clarity, we realised that, having established that an operational flight based assessment was really important, how we did that was where there was a big gap in what we were doing and why we were doing it, and it was that gap that led to all of that confusion and some difficulties in what standard was being met by whom and when. That's why we saw that gap in the how that hadn't been filled by any of those other organisations or jurisdictions.

We've consulted really quite extensively. Even last Friday we had an international meeting here in Canberra with our colleagues from FAA, New Zealand and ICAO. The United States military have come across as well to share their experiences with us and how we do it now. There really is a global consensus that the approach we've taken is world leading and will make a big difference to the consistent application of a good standard that our instructors and pilots can rely on to make a safe decision.

Senator FAWCETT: Sure. I don't have a problem with standardisation. I think that's excellent. I do note my understanding is that New Zealand did have a course to standardise their examiners, which we didn't adopt, even though we adopted their operational test. Am I correct in my understanding of that?

Dr Manderson : I'm not familiar with the detail of the way the New Zealand team initially applied theirs, but they're certainly very excited about looking at what we're doing and learning from what we're doing. That's because we have gone to the next level. There's much more depth and it's much more comprehensive. The CAA New Zealand chief medical officer is very interested in learning from what we've done.

Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is that, because we didn't have any standardisation initially, the initial batch of flight examiners went to New Zealand to get their training there. In fact, we encouraged or enabled it, saying that, if pilots wished to bear the cost to go to New Zealand to be tested by the New Zealanders, we would accept that as a valid system that did have standardisation and did the test. I don't have a problem with standardisation. What I have a problem with is this. When I look at your website, we have gone back to the days of saying: if you pass the operational test, we are still going to limit you in terms of what you can do as a pilot; for example, fly as or with a copilot. Given everything Mr Carmody said, everything the AAT found and cases back in ancient history—30 years ago now—when Australia became a world leader, what evidence justifies that imposition of a restriction on someone who passes the operational test?

Dr Manderson: The evidence is based around the demonstration of being able to do the elements of the flying task that have been assessed by this international group of expert pilots and flying instructors as being the time-critical, safety-critical colour-vision-dependent tasks of the flying task. That was a gap that was there in the work that was done leading up to the New Zealand assessment that we've now been able to produce. It is not about the medical diagnosis; it is what it is with the diagnosis of colour vision deficiency. The evidence is now about being able to know exactly how that medical status affects a person's fitness to fly and fly safely. That's exactly the same as we do with people with kidney disease, hearing deficiency or heart disease. They don't meet the standard, but now we can—in very great detail and very safely—effectively and consistently assess whether or not the way they meet the standard presents a hazard to safe air navigation. That's the way we do all of our medical assessments.

Senator FAWCETT: In theory that is fine. What you're describing is that your test is now focusing on some discrete task elements that you believe are important. But what your website says is that even if someone passes that test—they've now jumped through these additional hoops of specific tasks—you're still going to put limitations on what they can exercise as captain in command of an aircraft. What is the evidence to justify those limitations? That is my question.

Mr Marcelja : Could I jump in? The website and some of that information sits in my area. I think what you're describing, if that is correct, is not our policy. Our policy is that there are various conditions that we can put on medical certificates, depending on how you go in the test, but if you pass the test and can demonstrate that you're operationally safe there is no condition of a copilot. What Dr Manderson is saying, though, is that, because you have not met a medical standard that's internationally accepted but have proven you are safe, we will grant you a medical certificate. We can't say that you've met a standard but we can say you're safe to fly, and those conditions will be applied depending on the way you've gone. If that's on our website, I'll take that up, because that's not the policy.

Senator FAWCETT: I have two points. I think it was amply proven almost a decade ago, and two decades before that, as we dug into the history, that those standards emerged from maritime standards that were applied in the United Kingdom in the days of Sopwith Camels and things in World War 1, and the reason we no longer require them is that we have secondary means of communication. We've demonstrated through a whole range of flight profiles and cockpit modifications, particularly with the advent of EFIS screens et cetera, that many of the old colour hierarchies around warnings et cetera are no longer relevant. They're not required to do the task. Even the red and green lights are not required. Pilots wear Bluetooth headsets.

I come back to the fact that your website—at this stage, this is what industry is seeing—states that a pilot who passes the test will have these restrictions until they have 100 hours of flight at night, the ATPL standard, or 75 hours of instrument time. I've done just a very quick bit of research on the current costing of something like a Cessna 172RG, which is the kind of aircraft for night VFR or instrument flying, the costs between Moorabbin, Dubbo, Adelaide and Sunshine Coast vary from about $250 to $355, excluding GST. We're putting a burden on pilots who want to enter the industry of $30,000 to $40,000, and I'm not aware of any evidence that would justify those restrictions if they have passed the operational test.

Ms Spence : I think what we're saying is that we think our website's wrong. We will go back to review it, because that doesn't sound like our policy. As Dr Manderson said, we're working—and we're working internationally—looking at how we manage this issue. But the whole point, in the simplest terms, was that if you pass the test then you've got a permission to fly. Those sorts of conditions you've just described should not be applying. If you can bear with us, we'll review the website, because what you've read out just doesn't sound right.

Senator FAWCETT: I'll have a look tomorrow afternoon. I'll be very pleased to see that gone. This is my last question. My understanding is that, in accordance with the regulation—which I could look up; I've got it written here somewhere, but I'm sure you know what it is—CASA was still advising pilots to do the operational test, which they did at some cost, and then AvMed were denying them an aircrew medical because CASA had changed its mind, even though the regulation still said it was possible and even though pilots have been directed to that. Some pilots now, over periods in excess of 12 months, have forked out thousands of dollars to take a flight test and have had their application refused. What is the situation for people who have previously done it, before this change in approach? What is the situation for those who did it in the intervening period, when the regulation said they would be approved? They committed to a flight test on that basis and have now been told they're not able to fly. What is CASA going to do to enable those people to move ahead with their lives, and can you guarantee there's going to be no retrospective action against the many pilots who did the original operational flight test as announced in 2020 and have been flying—single-pilot, in RFDS type operations, and multi-pilot, in RPT operations, both domestically and overseas—without incident since they got their medicals? Can you guarantee that they will be able to continue to exercise the qualifications that they have earned in accordance with the regulation, or will there be any retrospective action that CASA is looking to impose upon them?

Ms Spence : Can I just jump in first: if you've got people who've come to you saying that they haven't been approved, I would really encourage you to refer them to me, Mr Marcelja or Dr Manderson, because that doesn't sound like that's consistent with our policy. I would have thought, with medicals, that they're things that come up every two years or whatever, depending on where you are, and so there would be no retrospective requirements. If matters change over time then get your medical renewed, but there's certainly not an intention to have a retrospective element to all of this. Again, for anyone who's spoken to you and said that they've been refused on the grounds that you've described, please encourage them to talk to us, because that just doesn't sound right.

Senator FAWCETT: This is my last question, Chair, before you wind me up. Industry had been told that the new test and all of its conditions would be released in September this year. We're now approaching the end of October. Where are we at, and when will these people have some certainty about their future or current careers?

Mr Marcelja : We have slowed that down just a little bit because we're working through some of those implementation issues that you just mentioned. As Ms Spence said, we don't expect people to automatically have to prove things themselves, but, where we've discovered that a test maybe has some uncertainty around it, we might ask somebody to do that test again. In that circumstance, we would fund that. These are the policies that we haven't yet settled, which is why you haven't seen a policy come out. They haven't been finalised, but they're very close. As Ms Spence said, we'd very happily follow up any individual case where someone's been disadvantaged, because our understanding was that the existing scheme was in place while we were settling the new one.

Ms Spence : As far as my understanding goes, no-one has been refused—

Dr Manderson : There have been no refusals or cancellations for colour vision deficiency.

Senator FA WCETT: Okay. I'll go back to the email trail that I have been given and see if I can see whether there's substance to what was reflected in that email. If that's the case, I will come to you, Ms Spence, as the best person to—

Ms Spence : That'd be great. Thanks, Senator.

---

Torres Strait & remote airstrips.

Senator McDONAL D: I get a lot of feedback about not having staff where you operate, where the aircraft operate. At the May estimates, we discussed the airstrips in the Torres Strait and the Civil Aviation Authority applicable to the three strips there. Tragically, a life was lost only a couple of weeks after that estimates hearing because air services were not able to be provided. Has a solution been developed to allow services to be restored to these islands?

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator McDONALD: To all three?

Ms Spence : Yes, to all three, and we've also got two airlines operating there—both Hinterland and Skytrans.

Senator McDONALD: What was the solution that was provided in the end?

Ms Spence : It was extensive testing of the operations that Skytrans have in place with a particular aircraft that they're using, but I might ask my colleague Mr Monahan to provide a bit more detail.

Mr Monahan : As Ms Spence pointed out, it was a more robust safety case that aligned how they were going to operate and identified the controls that they suggested, that we agreed to, that now make them safe—because one end of the runway on one of them was different; it required a slight modification. Once we settled that, they were then able to operate into there.

Senator McDONALD: Who paid for the modification of that end of the strip?

Mr Monahan : They didn't modify the end of the strip. The way they fly the approach and the way they manage the arrivals was different, in that they were cognisant of what was different about that end of the runway versus the other one. They did an individual assessment of each runway in the end, and then we found what they had was suitable. That enabled us to reduce the factoring for them, to allow them to get in there.

Senator McDONALD: You know my opinion on this. There were no incidents reported; there was no safety case raised. You implemented a system that meant that those islands didn't have a service, and then the final solution was that the pilots assessed how they landed there, to land in a safe way.

Mr Monahan : No, they do it differently to how they did it before. They do it with additional controls in place that make them safe and appropriately safe for the type of operation they want—

Senator McDONALD: Did they introduce them to satisfy CASA or because they were safer?

Ms Spence : It's definitely safer, and I think you would appreciate as much as anyone that regulations are always a balance between—

Senator McDONALD: Let's not talk about this anymore because I will get too distressed about the outcome and no interim—you mentioned in the May estimates that there were other aerodromes that would have similar issues. I believe you were referring to airstrips that were built before such sophisticated aircraft were using them. What other airstrips would these be?

Ms Spence : I don't have a list of the airstrips. I think the only operator that we've currently got any issues that we're working through with is the Queensland RFDS. We've got arrangements in place that allow them to continue to operate to some of those smaller strips which don't meet the same arrangements, but because of the nature of those operations—they're not a commercial air transport service—that's allowed us to have a slightly different approach with the Queensland RFDS. I think that's the only one.

Mr Monahan : That's correct.

Senator McDONALD: Are there any strips that you have prevented the RFDS from landing on?

Ms Spence : There are some strips that we're monitoring closely and have given them approval to operate while they work through what they might need to do to their aircraft to be able to operate to those strips in a way that meets our requirements around factoring that we've discussed.

Senator McDONALD: Are these in Queensland, the Northern Territory or Western Australia?

Ms Spence : These are in Queensland.

Senator McDONALD: Is that because they're using twin-engine aircraft and not the Pilatus that they use in other states?

Mr Monahan : It would depend on the type of aircraft and its performance capability on what runway combination.

Senator McDONALD: Could you provide me on notice that list of airstrips and the reasons why there are some restrictions on them?

Mr Marcelja : Absolutely, Senator. I wanted to say that we're not impacting any operations at the moment, so we're working through that. No-one's operations are being impacted, to our knowledge, in terms of restrictions. We'll absolutely get you a list of where we're working through it. We're also working with the department on whether we can identify any strips. Our intention is to try and get ahead of it so that we're not in a situation where someone's stopping.

Senator McDONALD: I would certainly hope not, because the problem with RFDS is that they don't land at a lot of places. I know people who have landed in remote places because the RFDS can't land to pick them up, because they can't land on roads and in other places that they were designed to be used for. But it's northern Australia; nobody gives a bugger, so let's not talk about it. Who's going to pay for the upgrades of these airfields?

Ms Spence : At this stage, we're working with the operators to see whether there are things that we can do, like with the Torres Strait and how they can demonstrate that they can operate safely. It's more likely to be modifications to aircraft at this stage, but that's something we're still working through.

Senator McDONALD: The other assistant minister suggested that the councils could apply for money from the remote airfields.

Ms Spence : That's correct.

Senator McDONALD: Have you put together any suggestions or assistance for those remote councils to apply for those monies?

Ms Spence : We haven't identified any. We know that the only solution is physical investment in the infrastructure. So we haven't as yet, but we talk regularly with the department and understand how their programs operate.

Senator McDONALD: On notice, will you provide me the list of the six other airstrips for the Torres Strait, if I haven't asked you that already?

Ms Spence : Six?

Senator McDONALD: At the last estimates, you told me there were six other strips.

Mr Marcelja : I don't remember the number, but we'll certainly provide the strips.

Senator McDONALD: You mentioned that you met with the council in Cairns a few weeks before the last May estimates. I assume that that was the Torres Strait Council.

Ms Spence : That's correct.

Senator McDONALD: Did they travel 800 kilometres to Cairns to meet you or did you travel to Torres Strait to meet them?

Ms Spence : We met in Cairns at their suggestion.

Mr Marcelja : My understanding was that they were in Cairns for other business, so they didn't travel just to meet us.

---

CASA approvals for EMS/Firebombing aircraft.

CHAIR: Any further questions of CASA?

Senator McKENZIE: Yes, there is one—whatever one it was.

Senator CANAVAN: I will try to do it as quickly as I can. What regulation does CASA use to authorise the conduct of emergency service response aviation activities within Australia?

Ms Spence : Can you provide a little bit more context to that question?

Senator CANAVAN: With respect to emergency services, when you do need a response, what activities or services do you provide in an emergency?

Senator McKENZIE: When we have massive planes dumping water or fire retardant.

Mr Monahan : For emergencies, that would be part 138.

Ms Spence : Which is regulating aerial work.

Mr Monahan : That's aerial work. I apologise.

Senator CANAVAN: Does the regulation authorise the use of modified transport category aircraft and ex-military aircraft in those situations?

Ms Spence : There would be multiple points to that question, and there are processes that need to be worked through before modified aircraft can be operated in Australia, usually through restricted type certification.

Mr Monahan : Ms Spence is right. There is accommodation for some of them but not in every aspect of the aerial work portfolio. It depends on what they want to do, but it's more limited.

Senator CANAVAN: So part 138 does authorise ex-military aircraft?

Mr Monahan : It does, but it doesn't necessarily allow them to do everything.

Ms Spence : There are quite detailed processes that need to be worked through to approve those types of aircraft operating in Australia, even for part 138 operations.

Mr Monahan : That's where they would start. It just depends on what they want to do and the type of aircraft.

Senator CANAVAN: I'm rushing through this, but my understanding, or what I'm informed, is that ex-military aircraft in the US are an important part of the firefighting capability and that, in the US, specialist support and direct firefighting personnel can be carried on ex-military aircraft. But apparently that's not permitted here. Is that correct?

Mr Mona han : It's correct, because the US model is different to the Australian model. I think the case you are speaking of is working under the public use model, which is a very different construct that actually is not governed by an FAA regulation. It's governed by risk acceptance by the state, and it doesn't have the same oversight.

Senator CANAVAN: Have we looked at that before?

Mr Monahan : Absolutely.

Senator CANAVAN: Why don't we allow that while the US does?

Ms Spence : We actually have some work underway, but one point of clarification—you can let me know if I'm wrong—is that I didn't think they could actually carry firefighters on those aircraft in the US. It's more agricultural. I didn't think they were actually able to carry passengers.

Senator CANAVAN: Maybe you could come back. We'll put some questions on notice on that.

Mr Monahan : Sure.

Senator CANAVAN: And we can get some more information, but, given the time, we'll move on.

Senator McDONALD: Can I just suggest that we went through this at length with Senator Patrick a couple of years ago, and it would be good to dust off those answers, because it wasn't very satisfactory at the time. There was some talk about exactly this issue of who was being carried on the aircraft. Could you make sure that your answers align with that.

Senator McKENZIE: And 'They're undertaking some work' has been the answer for a couple of estimates. Eventually we'd like to understand what that looks like.

Ms Spence : I can confirm that we are actively engaging with the various RFSs across the country to try and understand exactly what they need. I think there has been a step forward from where we were two years ago.

CHAIR: CASA, thank you very much.

MTF...P2