[Peetwo]

From off the O&O thread:

---

---

ATCB lining up the ducks on YMEN DFO accident -    

A rehash of where HVH's topcover bureau is currently at with the combined investigations surrounding the tragic Essendon DFO accident: AO-2017-024 & AI-2018-010 

...And from off the UP, Old Akro & Mr Peabody voice their frustrations:

OA: This accident has been over speculated. We need the ATSB to do its job and publish the report.

In Feb the ATSB put out a media release essentially saying that the report was done but release was delayed because of a requirement to give interested parties time to comment with the inference that this involving international parties was increasing this period to 60 days. This 60 day period has now elapsed by 30 days and still no report.

The exact same update was issued on the same day for the 3 September 2015 incident at Mt Hotham with VH-OWN & VH-LQR- an incident that occurred 32 months ago. .

The list of pending reports has grown to 109.

This is from the ATSB's current strategic plan:

" The Government’s recent Budget measures, and the ATSB’s organisational change program, position the ATSB to reduce its investigation backlog and increase its capacity to complete complex investigations within 12 months, which is a key deliverable of the ATSB."

The ATSB is clearly failing to do its job by any measure.

---

Mr Peabody: I think we will be waiting quite a while for this report to come out; according to the ATSB investigation status the report is still at "Final Report: Internal Review". That means it likely hasn't even gone to the DIPs yet, if it had the status should be "Final Report: External Review".

And yes they do appear to work at a cracking pace!! Snail wise I mean.

In a 'passing strange' coincidence I noted the following addition to the ATCB AAI webpage: 

What happened

In October 2009, the operator of Essendon Airport (now Essendon Fields Airport) received an application from the Hume City Council (HCC) to construct a radio mast on top of the council office building at Broadmeadows, Victoria. The application was made under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (APA Regulations) which was only applicable to leased, federally-owned airports, such as Essendon. The application identified that the building and existing masts had not been approved under the regulations. The regulations required any proposed construction that breached protected airspace around specific airports to be approved by the Secretary of the then Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Department). Protected airspace included airspace above a boundary defined by the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS). The Secretary was required to reject the application if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) determined that the application would have an ‘unacceptable effect on safety’.

CASA’s initial response to the HCC application stated that the building and existing masts represented a hazard to aircraft and should be marked and lit, while the proposed radio mast represented a further hazard and, as such, would not be supported. The advice was considered inadequate by the Department, who instructed CASA that they required advice that either the application for the mast had an unacceptable effect on safety, or it did not. CASA subsequently determined that the application did not have an unacceptable effect on safety, and in addition, advised the Department of specific lighting and marking requirements to mitigate any risk presented by the mast. The Department approved the HCC application on 28 February 2011 conditional on appropriate marking and lighting being affixed to the radio mast and building. The ATSB has since been advised that the radio mast has been removed due to reasons unrelated to aviation safety.

What the ATSB found

The scope of this investigation was limited to the processes associated with protecting the airspace at leased, federally owned airports, and in particular the application of safety management principles as part of that process. The investigation used the HCC application for examining the APA Regulations processes, and as a result identified an issue specifically associated with that application. However, the investigation did not consider whether or not the aerial on the HCC building was unsafe.

The Airports Act 1996, which was administered by the Department, was the principal airspace safety protection mechanism associated with a leased, federally-owned airport’s OLS. The Australian Government had committed to using a safety management framework in the conduct of aviation safety oversight (that is, a systemic approach to ensuring safety risks to ongoing operations are mitigated or contained). In contrast, the conduct of safety oversight of an airport’s airspace under the Airports Act used a prescriptive approach (that is, the obstacle was either acceptable or unacceptable). This approach met the requirements of the Airports Act, but was not safety management-based. With respect to the assessment of the HCC application under the Airports Act, a safety management approach was not used.

What's been done as a result

The Department, now known as the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, has advised that it will confer with key stakeholders in the APA Regulations process regarding relevant risk management practices. The intent is to implement a more systematic approach to risk management, guided by the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy.

The Department has also identified the need to reform the current airspace protection regime based around the Airports Act. In a paper titled ‘Modernising Airspace Protection’, the Department identifies that current airspace protection regulation under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Airports Act requires improvement, and has initiated public consultation regarding reforms into this particular regulatory system.

Safety message

A safety management system approach is considered ‘best practice’ by the International Civil Aviation Organization and has been adopted by Australia as the core method of aviation safety oversight through the State Aviation Safety Program. The Airports Act processes need to adopt safety management principles to the assessment of construction applications involving breaches of prescribed airspace, but rather, used a prescriptive regulatory approach. Construction proposals can impinge on aviation safety margins, such as those represented by the OLS. A fully informed, safety management-based approach should be used to ensure that safety is not compromised.
 
Background
Context
Safety analysis
Findings
Safety issues and actions
Sources and submissions
Appendices

This bit is IMO simply gob smacking in the observed subservience by CASA to what was then Murky's Department: 

"..CASA’s initial response (sic)...while the proposed radio mast represented a further hazard and, as such, would not be supported. The advice was considered inadequate by the Department, who instructed CASA that they required advice that either the application for the mast had an unacceptable effect on safety, or it did not. CASA subsequently determined that the application did not have an unacceptable effect on safety, and in addition, advised the Department of specific lighting and marking requirements to mitigate any risk presented by the mast..."

Reference safety issue: AI-2013-102-SI-01

The use of risk management principles when considering an application under the Airports (Protected Airspace) Regulations

Issue number: AI-2013-102-SI-01
Who it affects: Airports managing protected airspace associated with their runways
Issue owner: The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Operation affected: Aviation: Airspace management
Background: Investigation Report AI-2013-102
Date: 03 May 2018

Safety issue description

The Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities adopted a prescriptive approach to the Hume City Council building application within the obstacle limitation area of Essendon Airport, which was in accordance with the process prescribed under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996, but did not require the application of risk management principles to the department’s consideration.

Proactive Action

Action organisation: Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Action number: AI-2013-102-NSA-063
Date: 03 May 2018
Action status: Monitor

In response to this safety issue, the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (Department) advised that:

The Department notes the ATSB comments that the approach to the application was in accordance with the relevant applicable regulations i.e. the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 (APA Regulations). The Department also notes that under APA Regulations r. 14(2) the Secretary must approve applications unless they interfere with the safety, efficiency or regularity of air transport operations.

As outlined in the report, the Department stresses that the primary responsibility for providing safety advice rests with CASA, given that under APA Regulations r. 14(6) the Secretary must not approve a proposal for a controlled activity if CASA has advised the Secretary that carrying out the controlled activity would have an unacceptable effect on the safety of existing or future air transport.

While the Department does consider relevant risks (including to safety, efficiency and regularity) in considering applications under the APA Regulations, the Department agrees that in the future a more systematic approach to risk management should be implemented in relation to applications being assessed under these regulations. To this end, the Department will be guided by its internal 2015 Risk Management Framework, which aligns with the 2014 Commonwealth Risk Management Policy. The Department will document its risk management approach to airspace protection applications during 2018.

The Department will also work with key stakeholders to understand and document relevant risk management practices within those organisations (particularly CASA) that impact on the application processes and advice provided to the Department for the purposes of the regulations.

A significant change since the 2010 incident has been that in October 2015 the Victorian Government amended the Victoria Planning Provisions to include mandatory consideration of National Airports Safeguarding Framework Principles and Guidelines in planning processes around the state’s airports and airfields. This is outlined at: www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/plans-and-policies/planning-for-airports/the-national-airports-safeguarding-framework.

This amendment will assist in early identification of potential airspace intrusions and facilitate communication between the relevant regulators, airports and developers. Further information about the National Airports Safeguarding Framework Principles and Guidelines is available at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/index.aspx

The Department continues to work with industry and State, Territory and local governments to improve awareness of airspace protection issues and planning processes.
The Department is currently reviewing the airspace regulations as they will sunset in April 2019 under the Legislation Act 2003 and will also take into account the ATSB’s findings on this matter.

ATSB response:
The ATSB welcomes the above proposed safety action concerning introducing a risk based approach to decision making. The ATSB will monitor the progress of implementing this safety action in future amendments to airspace regulations.
 
 
Current issue status:
Safety action pending
 


[i]Last update 03 May 2018[/i]

 

The above safety issue response, from the current iteration of the Dept, would appear to suggest that finally we have a Dept Secretary that acknowledges the inherent deficiencies of the regulations surrounding airspace and airport protection in both the CA and Airport Acts. 

However IMO it is still totally unacceptable that this investigation has been O&O'd at HVH HQ for the better part of half a decade, only to be dragged out now when other investigations may potentially draw attention to the ATCB's apparent inability to independently investigate and make safety recommendations to help industry participants proactively mitigate safety risk issues...     

---

---

Also on the latest from the PFAS front, via the ABC:

---

---

PFAS chemicals not linked to disease but health effects 'cannot be ruled out', expert panel finds
Updated about 2 hours ago
PHOTO: An expert panel has not found evidence of a link between exposure to PFAS chemicals and disease. (Four Corners)
RELATED STORY: PFAS chemicals at 'exceedingly high' levels in some Katherine residents, doctor says
RELATED STORY: Blood tests to begin for Katherine residents affected by toxic firefighting foam
RELATED STORY: National guidelines around toxic firefighting foam 'confusing', doctors say

There is limited or no evidence to link exposure to PFAS chemicals with human disease, but health effects cannot be ruled out, an independent panel has advised the Australian Government.

Key points:

• PFAS chemicals have contaminated groundwater around Defence bases, following their historical use in firefighting foams
  
• An expert panel has now found there is no evidence to link PFAS chemicals to human disease
  
• But it did find limited links between PFAS exposure and other health effects
  

An expert health panel was set up in October 2017 to advise the Government on the potential health impacts associated with exposure to the chemicals, which were historically used in firefighting foams, and to identify priority areas for further research.

While it concluded there was no increase in overall cancer risk, it did note the "most concerning signal reported" in the scientific studies was a "possible link" with an increase risk of testicular and kidney cancer.

Per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, were used in firefighting foams at 18 Defence bases across the country starting in 1970.
Use of the foams was phased out from 10 years ago but caused widespread contamination in the soil, groundwater and surface water around some of the bases.

Since revelations about contamination, residents who live near Defence facilities in Katherine in the Northern Territory, Williamtown in New South Wales and Oakey in Queensland were offered blood tests, and some offered alternative sources of drinking water.

PHOTO: PFAS chemicals build up in animals and humans and remain in the body for many years, the panel report said (Supplied: CRC CARE)

Several health effects noted

"Importantly, there is no current evidence that supports a large impact on a person's health as a result of high levels of PFAS exposure," the report found.
What you need to know about PFAS


Contamination of Katherine's water supplies is just one site emerging in a major public health issue Australia-wide.

"However, the panel noted that even though the evidence for PFAS exposure and links to health effects is very weak and inconsistent, important health effects for individuals exposed to PFAS cannot be ruled out based on the current evidence."
It found that "although the scientific evidence on the relationship between PFAS exposure and health effects is limited, current reports, reviews and research provide fairly consistent reports with several health effects".

These included:

• Increased levels of cholesterol in the blood
  
  
• Increased levels of uric acid in the blood
  
  
• Reduced kidney function
  
  
• Alterations in some indicators of immune response
  
  
• Altered levels of thyroid hormones and sex hormones
  
  
• Later age for starting menstruation in girls, and earlier menopause
  
  
• Lower birth weight in babies
  

The panel noted, however, the level of health effects in people with the highest exposure was generally still within "normal ranges" for the whole population.

PHOTO: PFAS contamination was mostly of concerns to residents in Katherine in the Northern Territory, Williamtown in New South Wales and Oakey in Queensland (ABC News: Sally Brooks)

More long-term studies needed

Considering all the evidence before it, the expert health panel advised Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt any health screening for exposed groups should be for research purposes only.

"The evidence does not support any specific health or disease screening or other health interventions for highly exposed groups in Australia, except for research purposes," the report stated.

"Decisions and advice by public health officials about regulation or avoiding specific PFAS chemicals should be mainly based on scientific evidence about the persistence and build-up of these chemicals."

A number of future research priorities were suggested by the panel, including long-term studies to reduce the risk of bias and confounding.

Another future research priority suggested health authorities get a better understanding of how PFAS affects humans and at what level, possibly including long-term studies or identifying ways to speed up the body's elimination of PFAS.

Northern Territory Health Minister Natasha Fyles said the Federal Government needed to prioritise such long-term studies to support residents.

"We need the Federal Government to put in long-term studies so we can see any potential impacts on the residents in Katherine, but [also] across Australia for those communities that PFAS has affected their groundwater, and their soil and in turn their produce," Ms Fyles said.

Panel's report not very reassuring, Katherine doctor says

Voluntary blood tests got underway in Katherine in March this year, following an interim human health risk assessment that warned against eating local seafood and home-grown produce.

The entire town has been on water restrictions since August 2017, while a permanent solution for an alternative water supply could take up to two years.
Katherine GP Dr Peter Stafford said today's findings did not answer or relieve the concerns of residents.

He said blood tests in Katherine had shown higher than average levels of PFAS chemicals to date.

"We're looking at substantial levels that I cannot, from the evidence that's been shown there [in the report], be very reassured that there's not at least an association with certain diseases if not a causation," Dr Stafford said.

"And I think it's very premature if the Government turns around and says 'look we don't have to worry about this, let's sit back, relax'.

"They must take responsibility to do those cohort studies, to take this seriously and to prevent further exposure of the population — that is paramount."

The report is 'a farce', Williamtown resident says

A Four Corners investigation revealed Defence was explicitly warned about the chemicals' impact on the environment as early as 1987, two years before the RAAF base at Tindal opened operationally.

Salt Ash resident Nick Marshall, who lives five kilometres from the Williamtown base in NSW, said the expert health panel's report was "a farce".

"It's just another disappointment for the residents in the area. Now we've got to continue fighting to get the right medical monitoring," he said.

"Even if they're going to turn around and say this stuff is OK, nothing gives them the right to put this in the blood of our children."

Queensland beef producers told 'not to eat product'

Queensland beef producer Dianne Priddle, whose property Berwick Stud is in the groundwater contamination zone, slammed the report.

"We've been waiting three months for this, and not to have any good news in it, with the same rhetoric we've been hearing since assessments were done, it's bloody bull s***," Ms Priddle said.

"We need to be able to produce a clean product, yet this government is telling us to reduce our intake - well how the hell can we do that when we live and breathe it?"

Ms Priddle said Defence had repeatedly told her and her husband not to eat their own product, but were told to sell it on to the wider community.

PHOTO: Resident Mark Hogg and Jenny Spencer on her contaminated property (ABC News: Lexy Hamilton-Smith)

Oakey resident Mark Hogg said: "It's just another whitewash, a minimalisation of PFOS contamination".

Jenny Spencer, a property owner whose land is contaminated, also said the report was "a farce".

"I felt sick, it was just what I expected... But to have it there in writing as a release from our government it shocked me. I do feel let down by it.

"It does not make us feel any safer because they are saying we have to limit our exposure.

"We do not live here because the bank has deemed this property worthless."

---

---

MTF...P2