[Peetwo]

Q/ Who was it that once said - "I was in Montreal"??

Thank you "K" & Gobbles for the translation..

I sometimes forget that there are many good folk out there that don't have the foggiest when it comes to the infamous Pprune Senate Inquiry thread(s) etc., so please excuse me I will attempt to translate as I go along from now on...

Okay to the task...

To begin I just so happened to be trolling Google for the latest ASA AIP SUPP link for the ever growing pile (Mountain.. ) of notified differences to ICAO. The first thing I noticed was that without any fanfare the SUPP was updated less than 3 weeks after Murky's SSP was promulgated?? This is despite there being more than 2 years before an update is due, see HERE. So maybe Gobbles is right and Murky & co have been given their 6 months heads up from ICAO...

While on the Google search I also noticed another interesting link which took you to a Parliamentary supplementary submission: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...sub1_1.pdf


I then tracked this sup submission to a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties  inquiry into air services agreements/treaties with both Serbia and Vanuatu:

Treaties tabled 11 December 2013

The Treaties Committee is empowered by its resolution of appointment to inquire into and report on 'matters arising from treaties and related National Interest Analysis and proposed treaty actions presented or deemed to be presented to the Parliament.'
As nearly all treaty actions proposed by the Australian Government are tabled in Parliament, this type of review activity accounts for much of the Committee's work.

The Committee invited interested persons and organisations to make submissions by Friday, 31 January 2014. Submissions for this inquiry have now closed.

  
  One of the Joint committee members is none other than Senator David Fawcett and on the 10 February 2014 he was an active participant in the questioning of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development on the Serbia and Vanuatu air service treaties:

And this was part of the Hansard:

Senator FAWCETT: Can I just follow up on the question Mr Thomson asked about ramp checks. I know CASA has the option to do ramp checks. Have they done any ramp checks on either aircraft from Vanuatu or indeed the other contracting party, who I believe are operating under an MOU at the moment?

Mr Smith : We do not have information on that. That information would be kept by CASA.

Mr Borthwick : We will take that on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: I am asking the question. Can you take that on notice then and find out for us: have any ramp checks been done and have any issues been found with that? Likewise, can you tell me if any differences have been filed by either of the other contracting parties with ICAO that would give them permission to deviate from the ICAO standards?

Mr Borthwick : I would have to take that one on notice as well and take that information back to the committee.

Senator FAWCETT: Take that on notice and get back to us, thanks. Have there been any requests for consultations from CASA with either of the other contracting parties over their regulations or specific operating issues with airlines in those two countries?

Mr Borthwick : Again, I would have to take that one on notice to give you a proper answer. I am not aware—

Senator FAWCETT: They are fairly fundamental questions if you are asking us to sign off on these agreements. So, yes, take it on notice, but for future inquiries it would be good to have that sort of information to hand.

Mr Borthwick : Okay.

Senator FAWCETT: Does this also include charter operations? I am thinking specifically of Vanuatu. That is obviously a tourist type destination, and we have not only regular public transport operators but people who operate a range of aircraft in a charter type category. Does this cover charter operations?

Mr Smith : Charter operations are dealt with separately from scheduled services, which are conducted within the auspices of these air services agreements. We have a specific charter regulatory framework that would cover airlines from Vanuatu, Serbia and other countries as well. They would be treated separately from any air services under these agreements.

Senator FAWCETT: Do we have a charter agreement with Vanuatu?

Mr Smith : It is not a charter agreement; it is a charter policy, for want of a better word, as to how the Australian government deals with requests for charter services from foreign airlines, and Australian airlines as well.

Senator FAWCETT: We had an inquiry only 12 months ago into the Norfolk Island incident, where a charter operator ended up putting an aircraft into the sea because of an inadequate fuel policy about flying to island nations in the Pacific. Following on from that we had an incident with both Virgin and Qantas, where inadequate weather forecasting to a remote Australian inland town led to 737s almost running out of fuel. Specifically, what checks have been made about the fuel policy of airlines operating to Pacific island states to check that they are adequate in the light of those two incidents?

Mr Smith : The charter policy that I referred to is essentially an economic regulatory framework for the operation of charter services. Any charter services that are operated under that framework are still required to comply with any safety requirements that CASA would require of any foreign or domestic airline operating those particular services.

Senator FAWCETT: This question also applies to the air services agreement, though, and it comes to the point of safety in that there has been a real focus here in Australia because of those two incidents. But, clearly, aircraft coming to and from a Pacific island state that are not from Australia are exposed to the same range of safety concerns, whether they are regular scheduled services or not. My question is: what checks have been done to make sure that the lessons we hopefully have learned from the Norfolk Island incident have been taken up by airlines operating from Vanuatu?

Mr Smith : Any services, whether they are operated under the charter framework or under the framework of this air services agreement, still go through the CASA process of safety approvals, so CASA would be better placed to answer any questions in relation to those safety approvals. We are happy to take those questions on notice for you.

Senator FAWCETT: If you could take that on notice, that would be great.

Mrs PRENTICE: Is the treaty only for planes inspected in Australia or can we send CASA to other countries for inspections?

Mr Smith : The safety provisions in the treaties provide the opportunity for the local regulators to inspect the aircraft in the local jurisdiction.

Mrs PRENTICE: Only in the local jurisdiction. If there is a dispute, it would be carried out under the laws of the country we are dealing with?

Mr Smith : Both of the agreements include a dispute resolution procedure which can be activated by either side. It sets out how that dispute will be resolved. It is a process whereby both sides will appoint a particular individual and then I think those two individuals appoint a third, and a tribunal is set up to look at any disputes should it get to that stage. But the agreements are fairly descriptive in how those disputes are resolved.

Mrs PRENTICE: We have had an agreement with Vanuatu for 21 years. Has there ever been a dispute?

Mr Smith : I am not aware of any but I can take that on notice.

Mrs PRENTICE: Thank you.

   
That session also generated a QON which the Department answered like this:

Did the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development collate and analyse the differences lodged with the ICAO by Serbia and Vanuatu when their respective Memoranda of Understanding and proposed Air Services Agreements were being negotiated?

No. Air services arrangements provide an economic framework in which airlines can consider serving a market. Differences lodged by States, among other more pertinent kinds of safety-related information, may be taken into account by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in the assessment of applications for the operation of foreign aircraft into and out of Australia.

Regards

Gilon Smith

Director (a/g), Air Services Negotiations

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

gilon.smith@infrastructure.gov.au Ph: 02 6274 6634

This was the Joint Committee report: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...apter2.pdf

Quote:

Deviation from the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards

2.27 Article 38 of the Chicago Convention requires a Party to notify the ICAO when it finds it impractical to comply in all respects with international standards and practices, and when it is unable to change its standards and practices to comply with standards and practices revised by the ICAO.36

2.28 Both Serbia and Vanuatu have formally notified the ICAO of differences with the ICAO standards. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advised that Serbia has lodged 183 substantive differences and Vanuatu has lodged 82 substantive differences with the ICAO.37

2.29 According to the Department, substantive differences can involve a State being deficient in an ICAO Standard, meeting an ICAO Standard using a method different to that stated in the Standard, or exceeding an ICAO Standard.

2.30 The Department analysed the substantive differences notified by Serbia and Vanuatu and advised the Committee that, in the case of Serbia, 84 of the substantive differences involved exceeding the ICAO Standards, 58 involved meeting the relevant Standard by another means, and 41 involved being deficient in relation to the relevant Standard.39

2.31 Vanuatu exceeded two of the ICAO Standards, complied with 71 Standards by a different method, and was deficient in relation to nine of the Standards.40

2.32 The Department noted:

The majority of differences notified by most countries are those where the ICAO standards and recommended practice is not applicable. An example for both Australia and Vanuatu would be those standards relating to snow-clearing activities at airports.41

2.33 In a later submission, the Department noted that differences to ICAO Standards were not considered when Air Services Agreements were being negotiated. The Department advised that:

Air services arrangements provide an economic framework in which airlines can consider serving a market. Differences lodged by States, among other more pertinent kinds of safety-related information, may be taken into account by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in the assessment of applications for the operation of foreign aircraft into and out of Australia.42

2.34 The Committee considers that, while the Agreements are principally about opening markets, the preamble to each Agreement includes the following statement:

… Desiring to ensure the highest degree of safety and security in international air transport and reaffirming their grave concern about acts or threats against the security of aircraft, which jeopardise the safety of persons or property, adversely affect the operation of air transport, and undermine public confidence in the safety of civil aviation; …43　

2.35 The Committee also notes that the Agreements themselves contain a significant number of Articles that either directly or indirectly relate to safety.

2.36 The Committee considers that it would be imprudent if the Department’s negotiators did not at least make themselves aware of the differences notified to the ICAO by States with which they are negotiating. The Committee suggests that, as part of the negotiation process of future Air Services Agreements, the Department’s negotiators consult with CASA in order to determine if any of the differences notified by the State with which they are negotiating may pose a safety risk for Australian travellers.

Fuel policy

2.37 In November 2009, a charter aircraft flying from Samoa to Norfolk Island was forced to ditch off Norfolk Island as a result of running out of fuel after being unable to land because of poor weather conditions.44

2.38 The Australian Transport Safety Board (ATSB) found, amongst other things, that the operator of the aircraft had managed fuel planning and risk in a manner consistent with the required regulations, but that the regulations governing fuel planning to remote islands were too general and risked inconsistent decisions on in-flight fuel management and diversion.45

2.39 During the investigation, CASA undertook a review of the relevant regulations and proposed the following changes:

• designating Cocos (Keeling) Island as a ‘remote island’;
  

• removing the provision that allowed an operator not to carry fuel for diversion to an alternate airport;
  

• amending the definition of ‘minimum safe fuel’ to require the calculation of fuel for diversion to an alternate airport in the event of a loss of pressurisation coupled with the failure of an engine;
  
  
• requiring a pilot flying to a remote island to nominate an alternate airport in the event of a diversion;
  

• extending the requirement to carry fuel for diversion to an alternate airport on flights to remote islands to all passenger carrying and regular public transport flights; and allowing for CASA to permit an operator not to comply with these regulations subject to conditions that would not adversely affect safety.46
  

2.40 The Norfolk Island incident was followed by another low fuel incident in June 2013, when two passenger aircraft bound for Adelaide were diverted to Mildura due to poor weather in Adelaide. Poor weather in Mildura, which had not been forecast, combined with the aircraft having insufficient fuel to divert to another airport, caused the pilots of the aircraft to land at Mildura under conditions that breached Civil Aviation Regulations.47

2.41 The ATSB investigation of this incident was not complete at the time this Report was drafted.

2.42 Further, in 2012, the ICAO amended the Annex to the Chicago Convention relevant to in-flight fuel management (Annex 6 Part I) to improve: the definition of a minimum fuel emergency; and procedures for protecting final fuel reserves. In particular, the operator and pilot-in-command of an aircraft are required to continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel needed to proceed to an airport where a safe landing can be made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing.48

2.43 To deal with the issues arising from these events, CASA has initiated a project to implement new regulations relating to fuel management. The project proposes to:

• in light of the ICAO amendments, amend regulations on fuel and operational requirements, including provisions for diversion to an alternate airport for flights to isolated airports;
  

• expand the relevant regulations to provide guidance to pilots on when and under what circumstances to consider a diversion;
  

• change the regulations on fuel planning, in-flight fuel management, and the selection of alternate airport to include the methods by which pilots and operators calculate fuel required and fuel on board; 　
  

• specify that the pilot-in-command or the operator, must take reasonable steps to ensure sufficient fuel and oil will be carried to undertake and continue the flight in safety;
  

• require consideration of a ‘critical fuel scenario’ taking into account an aeroplane system failure or malfunction which could adversely affect flight safety;
  

• publish internal and external educational material along with conducting briefings where necessary.49
  

2.44 According to the CASA website, this project is not yet complete.50 The Committee notes that the regulatory changes proposed as part of this Project have a direct bearing on flights between Australia and Vanuatu.

2.45 The Committee is of the view that the establishment or renewal of Air Service agreements should be a trigger for CASA to undertake a due-diligence review of the status of compliance (including filing of differences with ICAO) with new or revised safety-critical regulations such as those outlined in para 2.42. This review should be completed as part of CASA's input to the evaluation of new or renewed Air Services Agreements and the documented outcomes included in the Department's evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

Still joining the dots but it is becoming obvious why it is not a particularly good idea to take the Mickey Bliss out of international conventions like the 1944 Chicago (ICAO) convention, especially when you have the good Senator Fawcett looking over your shoulder...   
MTF...P2