[Peetwo]

To Disallow or not to Disallow; that is the Q? 


Disallowance Motion CAO 48.1 - Part I 

CAO48.1 - PFOAG Chair David Fawcett rethink perhaps?

The following is the Parliamentary Friends of Aviation Group statement off the PFGs webpage:

As legislators, we have a key role in keeping aviation both safe and viable as an industry and the friendship group will provide members a great opportunity to stay informed about the issues the industry is facing.

    
However the PFOAG members, which now includes the Minister for Transport, may have to reconsider their current strategy in applying their "key role".
The following is a quote from my post off the RAAA thread today:

RAAA News - Summer 2015/16

From the RAAA Summer newsletter in the LHS, Jim Davis opens up on the OTT CAO 48.1:

"..The closest it comes to offering any facts is when it references ATSB data. Here CASA make the extraordinary statement that ‘there have been approximately 65 incidents/accidents in the last 10 years in which human fatigue was identified as a factor (note: not a causal factor). A proportion of these occurrences have been in the Regular Public Transport (RPT) sector of the industry.’ This is manifestly absurd and hardly scientific analysis! The RAAA requested a copy of this data from CASA and when it was not forthcoming obtained the information by approaching the ATSB directly. After talking with the ATSB Chief Commissioner and Aviation Commissioner and having the data examined by industry experts no evidence of a systemic fatigue safety issue was found. .."

P2 comment: Hmm..that passage has some very disturbing similarities to the CVD Pilot's issue, especially when it comes to doctoring or ignoring empirical evidence that is contrary to the "Big R" regulator's subjective interest - now TFB (totally ducking believable) under OST    

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (13:08):..I am aware that CASA's point of view is that the drafting of 48.1 involved working groups with industry and scientific experts, but I would have to say that CASA's track record of engagement with industry has not been wholesome. On many occasions it appears to have been a one-way process where they might have listened but did not take due regard or, in some cases, they just transmitted what they were planning to do and called it consultation. There are examples where it has worked well, but there are many where it has not. This is one area where we need to fundamentally reform the process, not only at the drafting stage but also, importantly—as Senator Xenophon has highlighted—once a regulation comes into force, because there is often very little appetite to revisit it for an extended period...

..That strategy would go to the culture of the regulator, whether it is a big 'r' regulator—a policeman with a big stick—or further along the spectrum towards an educator and supporter. That balance in the middle needs to come through a strategic decision. So, regardless of who is the director of the regulator, we should see a consistent approach that industry can plan for and engage with—an approach that will keep the industry not only safe but viable in terms of the cost bases they have to meet. And there are many costs associated with changing or rejecting regulation.

 ..As I have stated, overall it is safer, and in the areas where there are points of contention we are no worse off than we were. If we were worse off in significant areas then clearly there would be a case to reject the regulation. But, if we are no worse off and in other areas we are better off, then the travelling public and the industry are better served in finding a way to effectively and quickly review the regulation and modify those areas of concern...

..Not only are we going a step backwards in safety if we adopt this disallowance but we are disadvantaging those industry players who have invested in adopting the new regulations. I am seeking to make sure that we have, in a very timely manner, the opportunity for the concerned parties in the industry—I know the Virgin Independent Pilots Association and the Qantas group have raised the concerns of, predominantly, long-haul pilots—to help select subject-matter experts who can form this independent panel to review the specific areas of concern. We would then have an independent umpire to bring a recommendation back to the minister so that he can work with the regulator to address those concerns in a timely manner...

..Obviously, I cannot speak for the review being led by David Forsyth, nor the recommendations that they will bring forward, but, having met with many players from the maintenance, manufacturing, engineering and operations areas of the industry, I am aware that one of the critical things that we need is a system whereby industry can have a timely remedy to decisions of the regulator that have a material impact on their business and where the safety case is disputed by industry. Whilst, hopefully, the remedy for this will not necessarily be part of the broader regulatory reform and a change of structure, it may well be a test case of how that could work. That may then lead to ideas around how we adopt the broader regulatory system and provide an opportunity for industry to have that timely remedy...

..The government will not be supporting the disallowance. I maintain the same position I have had since I was in opposition: in net terms we would do better to adopt the new 48.1. But there is a need to have that independent panel to work with industry and the regulator to review the points of concern and come up with an agreed position so that we can quickly amend that part of the regulation that needs changing.

  
   

 In hindsight how's that working out for you Senator Fawcett??

On reading the RAAA Chair's rant on CAO 48.1, would it have made any difference to the way he voted I doubt it. However I wonder if DF would like to revisit certain parts (particularly the parts in bold) of that oratory??  

That was now more than two years ago on 6 March 2014 - so where is the CAO 48.1 instrument now at?

Progress as of last week, off the CASA website, has the CAO in yet another round of consultation due to the numerous issues that industry continue to bring up  :

..Amendments to extend the transition period for the new CAO 48.1 were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 23 November 2015 and came into effect the following day. Therefore, operators who held an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) before the commencement of the new CAO 48.1 will now have until 1 May 2017 to comply with the new CAO 48.1. Operators can move across to the new rules at any time during the transition period. All operators that have not completed the transition by 31 October 2016 will need to submit draft operations manual amendments or a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) application to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) by that date...

Documents

24 March 2016

• SPC to CD 1510OS-2
  
• Annex A - Draft Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2016 (No. x)
  
• Annex B - Consolidated version of CAO 48.1 taking into account proposed 2016 amendments (with changes shown)
  

Which makes now a good time to put up the NX reply to the Opposition & Government (Senator Fawcett) rebuttal to the DM debate : 

1:19 pm



Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will first go to Senator Bilyk's contribution to the debate. It was short but not so sweet. I do not think it addressed the issues. That is not a criticism of Senator Bilyk; that is the position of the opposition. There are a number of serious issues in relation to these regulations. This is an opportunity lost to fix what is clearly a most unsatisfactory situation that still exists.

In relation to Senator Fawcett's contribution—hopefully this will not damage Senator Fawcett's preselection chances with the Liberal Party!—we are lucky to have him in this place, given his considerable expertise in aviation safety. The contribution he has made on Senate committees on this issue has been outstanding. I am very grateful to have worked with him. I think both sides of the chamber can safely say that.

But the points that he makes to rebut this motion are, in fact, points that can be used to support it—equally or with greater force. Senator Fawcett acknowledges quite openly that the length of time to change regulations is unsatisfactory and that the industry should be more involved in the process. He says, in his usual diplomatic way, that 'the track record of engagement with industry from CASA has not been a wholesome one'. That is an incredibly polite way of putting a situation where industry is incredibly frustrated and concerned, and the pilots are gobsmacked that we are left with these regulations that do not address fundamental issues of fatigue. I outlined those concerns in my earlier contribution.

There are real problems in the regulation-making process, as Senator Fawcett, with his expertise and involvement in these issues, acknowledges. We need to have a mechanism to deal with these. The independent scientific panel is something that would see a way through this. That is what we need to have. To say that we are no worse off than we were does not address the fundamental issue that these regulations are simply inadequate. While this instrument does bring us, in some respects, to a relatively safer position than the previous regulation, we must take this opportunity to address the significant concerns about this instrument. In many respects, there are huge gaps in safety, and the concern of pilots—those whom we trust to fly us from A to B around this great continent—are still there. They have serious concerns about these regulations; I have outlined those.

Senator Fawcett is right when he says that the consultation process for these regulations has been long and almost dysfunctional. We simply cannot go through this process again. We cannot sit and wait for improvements to be made—because will it be another five years or six years or will it be 60 years before this process is revisited? We need to take a proactive stance and push for something better, and now is the time and the opportunity to do so.

I hope that the government will not let CASA wipe this task off its books. I hope, from Senator Fawcett's comments, that the government will be pushing for a continual consultation and a review process and not leave these issues at a dead end. And I hope that this instrument will not become another regulatory dead end, with all the implications it has for airline safety and passenger safety in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this disallowance motion.

Part II soon with the other (successful) NX CAA Disallowance Motion- see HERE for reference.   



MTF...P2