[Peetwo]

Things that make you go Hmmm! - Part II

Previous:

Its not really idle speculation, more of an 'I wonder' or a 'what if'  - more the sort of thing you'd bring up at the Pub; hardly worthy of a scribble, but curious to see what wiser heads may have to say. Here is the 'Line' which started the notion; that, the FAA video and P2- HERE - which set me to thinking about Australia's 'differences' lodged' with ICAO.

"Therefore, ICAO's 188 member states have an affirmative obligation to conform their
domestic laws, rules, and regulations to the international levelling"..

Now, its not only Qantas who operate in the USA, there are other States which are really ICAO and IASA compliant; have to be, 'them's the 'rooles'. In turn, other national carriers who are 'used' to operating in ICAO/IASA 'compliant' countries come to Australia, with the expectation of systems and aerodromes etc. being on a par. Yet they are not. How many flight crew have read through the hundreds of pages of 'differences' and, more to the point, how many 'operators' have ploughed their way through those differences and drafted 'special' procedures and warnings for flight crew operating into Australian airspace and aerodromes?

Of course, non of this matters in day to day routine operations; esoteric perhaps, maybe even irrelevant on a routine - just another shift at the mill day: operationally. Until something goes wrong and the casual world of 'routine' operations ends up in a court. Just suppose a 'difference' - practice or procedure was deemed the radical (or even partial) cause of a hull loss (for example) - what then? Insurance legal top dogs don't mess about; if there is even a slim argument that an Australian 'difference' was part of the causal chain, that would be exploited? Could an ICAO or IASA compliant national carrier be held to account for being 'non compliant' with their own 'systems' operating into a national system which is non compliant? See the turn about - the national carrier's book work says 'Thou shall't not'  - but due to the 'differences' - technically (legally) - are they in breach of their own tenets? A lawyers picnic I reckon.

It is the horror story at Essendon which prompted the thoughts; well that and the DFO parked within the runway confines and the foreign aircraft turning up for service at Bombardier. The intriguing part is what is 'causal' - aircraft hits building - building responsible for causing damage; but not party to the cause for the event? No brainer; the building is arguably 'illegal' - (lost cause) - but not responsible for the aircraft hitting it: i.e. not 'causal'. Intriguing ain't it.



Ref: https://www.australianflying.com.au/late...ice-centre



Ref: https://auntypru.com/essendon-dfo-accide...christine/

Anyway; too much time spent already on the legendary 'Chicken and Egg' argument. Just needed to file and forget these stray notions.

Toot - toot.......

While on the subject of the Bombardier facility at Essendon Fields airport, Bombardier is a recognised first class Canadian aircraft manufacturer, with a long and proud history of producing a economically competitive and ICAO safety compliant commercial aviation product. Therefore it is with interest that I reviewed the latest 132 page Canadian Transport iteration of the AIP GEN, which includes GEN 1.7 and the 37.5 pages (refer from pg 26) of NDs that Canada submits to ICAO...   

Out of interest there are 9 pages of NDs listed under Annex 14: (ref: GEN 1-50 to GEN 1-60):

Things that make you Hmmm??

MTF...P2