[Peetwo]

Three decades of Australia taking the piss out of ICAO - Part II

P7 said: "...Perhaps we can get the issue raised by Mike Smith at the Wagga pow-wow. Have a choc frog mate...My shout next time around..."

Bloody good idea Ol'Tom, after all (according to the MS CV) there is no more informed independent Aussie ex-pat that knows the inner workings of FAA's IASA program than Mike Smith...

Quote from AvMassi promo for MS: ref - http://www.avmassi.com/about-us/our-team...smith.html

...Since leaving the Australian Civil Service, Mike has been engaged as a senior consultant by airlines and aviation regulators around the world, predominantly advising clients in the areas of regulatory reform, ICAO USOAP and FAA IASA compliance and the introduction of Safety Management Systems and risk based oversight principles into their organizations. Recent clients include the World Bank and the civil aviation administrations of Singapore, the UAE, Nigeria and Bahrain. Mike led the World Bank funded program that gained IASA category one status for Nigeria in 2010, allowing that country’s airlines to operate to the USA. Nigeria remains one of only six African nations to hold that status...

I have no doubt that MS will have a passing interest in some of the seriously deluded and disconnected correspondence recently tabled with the Senate RRAT committee in Estimates hearings from the Dept.

For example from the Secretary to the Dept:

---

  

---

And tabled from - the latest - Mr McFixit at Budget Estimates:

---

---

So according to Lachie  ... 

..Australia was assessed in October 2017 by ICAO auditors and while the results are yet to be made public it places Australia in the top 10 States for safety oversight compliance... 

...and the Dept Secretary (see above) the results, which presumably means the report, were due to be published (February 2018) publicly by now. These results/report are important as they will go to the veracity of the Carmody/Dept Secretary/Mr Mc'Fixit/Lachie proclamations of all's good in Dodge City -        

This brings me to an historical reference blog - posthumously from Ben Sandilands  - which is still unfortunately very relevant to our international involvement with ICAO and our regional aviation member states -  : reference Herbert D Ray submission #47 to the Forsyth (ASRR) review.

US rehabilitates Israeli air safety, a lesson for Australia

Ben Sandilands | Nov 02, 2012 8:05AM | EMAIL | PRINT

The US Federal Aviation Agency’s rehabilitation of Israel as a Level 1 state in relation to air safety ought to be read as the clearest of warnings to Australia to get its act together without delay.

If Australia is busted down to Level 2, which on the evidence, it should be, the consequences include the prohibition under US law of code shares between Australian flag carriers and those of America.

The managements of Qantas and Virgin Australia need to carefully consider what losing their respective code share deals with American Airlines and Delta would mean, and ask whether the craven acceptance of the dismal state of affairs in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia is worth the damage such a downgrade would inflict on their shareholders, employees and commercial reputations.

When Israel flouted its responsibilities and was busted for almost four years, it failed to lobby its way out of trouble, which was quite surprising. But as Wikileaks showed earlier this year, when Australia provisionally failed the necessary audits to retain Level 1 status, our lobbying efforts saved the day.

Since then matters if judged by recent events, have gone backwards in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia, and the risk of a safety downgrade and all of its commercial consequences should be treated (as it may already be in high places) as being severe and imminent.

This is the FAA statement concerning Israel, released overnight:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced that Israel complies with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), based on the results of an October FAA review of Israel’s civil aviation authority.

Israel is now upgraded to Category 1 from the Category 2 safety rating the country received from the FAA in December 2008. Israel’s civil aviation authority worked with the FAA on an action plan so that its safety oversight system fully complies with ICAO’s standards and practices.

A Category 1 rating means the country’s civil aviation authority complies with ICAO standards. A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with minimum international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record keeping or inspection procedures

With the International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Category 1 rating, Israeli air carriers can add flights and service to the United States and carry the code of U.S. carriers. With the Category 2 rating, Israeli air carriers were allowed to maintain existing service to the United States, but could not establish new services

As part of the FAA’s IASA program, the agency assesses the civil aviation authorities of all countries with air carriers that operate or have applied to fly to the United States and makes that information available to the public.

The assessments determine whether or not foreign civil aviation authorities are meeting ICAO safety standards, not FAA regulations

In order to maintain a Category 1 rating, countries with air carriers that fly to the United States must adhere to the safety standards of ICAO, the United Nations’ technical agency for aviation that establishes international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance.

This is the situation in Australia, in terse form:

CASA is accused in multiple places, including under parliamentary privilege before the Senate, of conspiring with the ATSB, to withhold vital safety information contrary to the provisions of the Transport Safety Information Act of 2003 in order to protect the reputation of operator Pel-Air in relation to the ditching of one of Westwind jets off Norfolk Island in 2009, in the final report into the crash published by the ATSB on 30 August.

The ATSB has admitted that the report is not one it can be proud of, through its chief commissioner Martin Dolan, and the general manager, air safety investigations, Ian Sangston, deposed that he didn’t even know what safety questions had been asked of the survivors, but signed off on a report that did not even say whether the safety equipment on the jet worked. (It didn’t.)

---

---

AirServices Australia has recently lost at least two airliners in Australian controlled airspace, and in the case of the Virgin Australia 737 that it lost track of for most of the way between Sydney and Brisbane, lied about to the media, and has not addressed evidence that the notification of the incident to the ATSB was so inaccurate in the first instance that it had to be amended after the fact.

There are many more areas of administrative and competency failures, as regular readers of Plane Talking would be aware.

The damage the situation in CASA, the ATSB and AirServices Australia can do to life, property and the economic interests of this country are considerable. They are conveniently ignored in the general media and public life. The inconvenience that will arise without determined and urgent corrective action cannot be understated.

Coming back to the Herbert D Ray submission, although somewhat disjointed it provides an historical insight into the 30+ year disconnection between the metamorphosis of the big 'R' regulator from the real world of aviation safety and international aviation regulation harmonisation.

Extract from HD Ray submission:

Dear Sir,

The purpose of this submission is to respectfully draw the attention of the ‘Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (the Committee) to the effects of the ‘Clipping our Wings’ submission questioning the government ‘Where in all the World is our International Civil Aviation law- ?’

This complimentary submission argues a vital consequence of not ‘safety regulating’ compliant with the requirements contained in the Convention on International Civil Aviation which establishes delinquent operational matters and consequences attributed to by the airworthiness matters and consequences as regulated by FAR sterile national law standards and practices not recognized by FAR harmonized international civil aviation law and that laws standards and practices.

Our FAR sterile National Civil Aviation laws do not provide an equivalent ‘internationally acceptable standard of safety’ for persons traveling in VH aircraft transiting in national and international airspace as is afforded those persons traveling in aircraft registered in up to 870+ compliant ICAO Treaty States that are safety regulated compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and that Convention’s safety standards and practices.

Our National Civil Aviation regulations have never been audited by an ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Program (USOP) audit team as being classed as other than a ‘Non compliant ICAO Treaty State’

The US should ‘rehabilitate’ CASA’

The attached article “US rehabilitate Israeli air safety, a lesson for Australia” CASA was identified in a “Wikileaks document which showed late last year, that
Australia provisionally failed the necessary audits to retain Level 1 status, our lobbying efforts saved the day.”

Our national civil aviation laws have been consistently audited by the ICAO USOP teams as Australia being a non compliant ICAO Treaty State which by default qualifies our air carriers as FAA category 2 operators.

“A Category 2 rating means a country either lacks laws or regulations necessary to oversee air carriers in accordance with minimum international standards, or that its civil aviation authority – equivalent to the FAA for aviation safety matters – is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel, record keeping or inspection procedures”

Maintaining the ICAO USOP audit findings as a ‘non compliant ICAO Treaty State and an FAA category 2 ‘safety regulator’ means our safety regulation laws are not compliant with the minimum international standards for the certification of aerospace products, which the submission ‘Clipping our Wings’ described, including a lack of technical expertise, trained personnel and inspection procedures, all elements mirrored by the FAA to qualify Israeli air carriers as ‘category 2’ operators.

Our national civil aviation laws are ICAO USOP audited and are in principle found to be not compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
CASA as a ‘safety regulator’ does not provide an equivalent ‘level of safety’ for persons traveling in VH aircraft transiting in national and international airspace as is afforded those persons traveling in aircraft safety regulated compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and that Conventions FAR harmonized safety standards and practices.

An FAA category 2 rating on our national air carriers both RPT and GA will have a devastating economic effect on the entire VH aerospace industry, as GA operator’s contract in foreign States and must maintain the diplomatically engineered FAA category 1 level to operate in compliant ICAO Treaty States airspace.

We are operating in foreign airspace as ICAO/FAA category 1 operators, hinged on ‘diplomatic camerade’ and this will surely ‘unhinge’.

The 1999 ICAO USOP audit ‘findings’ noted ‘ that an MOU had been signed between Australia and ICAO to resolve a raft of primary and civil aviation legislation delinquencies and CASA should review the requirements contained in its Regulation and Orders to ensure full conformance with the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) contained in Annexes 1, 6 and 8.

The 1996 USOP audit findings also noted that in June 1996, the Regulatory Framework Program (RFP) office of CASA(as directed by the Program Advisory Panel) commenced a Government endorsed review and revision of the Australian aviation safety requirements currently contained in the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and the Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs). The proposed new legislation is to be called the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs).

The ‘findings noted that “the future CASR Parts will ensure, ensure Australian regulations FAR harmonize with international standards and practices?

The ICAO USOP audit teams consistently ‘find’ Australian regulations do not FAR harmonize with international standards and practices and neither does the FAA ‘find’ a VH TC’d aircraft is returned to service compliant with FAA design standard law, and those laws instructions and orders that constitutes ICAO USOP ‘international standards and practices !

In 2004 CEO Bruce Byron’s unauthorized withdrawal of the Program Advisory Panel CASR /FAR sequenced Part 43/66/145 and 147 maintenance, licensing and training rules compliant with our ICAO USOP MOU and our treaty pledge and Article 37 of the Convention rules and those rules replacement with the FAR sterile CAR 1988 Part 1 and CASR Part 42/66/145 and 147 maintenance, licensing and training rules, are not compliant with our ICAO Treaty pledge nor are they Article 37 of the Convention compliant or correlated with international civil aviation laws and that laws standards and recommended practices.

If our civil aviation airworthiness laws are not article 37 compliant with the ICAO treaty States regulated compliant with the requirements of the Convention on International

Civil Aviations simply put we will never be classed as a ‘Compliant ICAO Treaty State’
Subsequent ICAO USOP audits have maintained Australia as a ‘non compliant ICAO Treaty State exacerbated by CASA being established as serially dishonoring promises to regulate to international ICAO USOP ‘Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP’s) and reneged on the 1999 promise ICAO USOP audit promise” “the future CASR Parts will ensure, ensure Australian regulations FAR harmonize with international standards and practices.

The ‘Summary ‘ duplicates the same ‘resolutions’ as ‘Clipping our Wings’ but maybe should include ‘The US should ‘rehabilitate’ CASA’ -to maintain a ICAO/FAA category 1 rating.?
The ICAO USOP audits findings display similar CASA non compliances with USOP SARP’s etc as the level 2’d Israeli air carriers!

Summary

We believe that it is a responsibility of ‘the Committee’ to ensure ‘Constitutional’ matters that vest a power to the parliament to promulgate legislation must be seen to make laws that are appropriate to meet those Constitutional obligations and responsibilities as pledged as an ‘ICAO Treaty State’

The government has entrusted a ‘rulemaking power to CASA who have serially dishonored Treaties, MOU’s, Charters and Pledges, made to the ICAO USOP audit teams to harmonize to airworthiness international standards, by taking the questionable privilege of submitting national airworthiness legislation to our parliament that is in conflict with the terms and conditions of matters our government has contracted to uphold as a Constitutional Section 51 (XXIX) ‘External Affairs’ instrument to be a compliant ICAO Treaty State regulated to FAR harmonized International Civil Aviation law.

The withdrawing of the PAP harmonized CASR/FAR Part 43/66/145/147 universal rules and the ‘putting‘ of national airworthiness legislation that is in conflict with the ICAO Treaty and absolves CASA of its international ‘safety oversight regulator ‘ responsibilities can be argued as being ‘unconstitutional law’.

The options the government should consider in resolving the ‘matter’ of CASA’s airworthiness ‘safety oversight’ management that jeopardizes ‘Safer Skies for All’ includes:

First and foremost

- Separating CASA’s ‘rule making power’ and resume the Program Advisory Panel of Industry experts. CASA can’t be trusted!
- Sack the CASA board and replace it with a ‘non partisan’ board with the ‘best interests’ of the nation at heart! –We don’t want any more ‘sword falling’ invitations for FAR harmonizing CEO’s!
- Revoking 1988 CARS and CAR 42/CASR Part 42 and Part 145 as the CAR 1988 PART 1 (2) dysfunctional behavior creating illegal CASA approved maintenance instructions permeates through CASR Part 42 and Part 145 and cannot positively contribute to ‘safer skies for all’
- Revoking the CASR Part 66 and Part 147 as these rules do not harmonize with the standards and values of either the **FAA or EASA rules.
- Australia should either resurrect the PAP FAR harmonized CASR 43/66/145/147 rules or adopt the NZCAA internationally recognized rules expanding the significant ANZA mutual operational agreement to include the NZCAA maintenance and personnel rules which are seen as the most cost efficient resolution to CASA’s perpetual and costly development of misaligned rules.
- The possibility of presenting the ANZA mutual operational agreement, and expanding the agreement to include maintenance and personnel as the SW Pacific Aviation Safety Agency (SWPASA) would be in line with our joint Trans Tasman Trade agreement principles should be held in view.
- Adapting the NZCAA rules ‘would be more cost effective than harmonizing CASA’s present costly and dysfunctional EASA agenda CAR 1988 and CASR 42/66/145/147 national rules with the EASA system and its guidance material , which favors the ‘big end of town’ at the expense of the ‘little end of town’.
- The transitioning of AME’s who may still hold ICAO Annex 1 license(Diamonds), to the NZCAR 66 AME license is preferable to transitioning to CASR 66 licenses as these are not ICAO Annex 1 rated. (Lemons)
- To overcome CASA’s skill resources dilemma CASA should contract industry IoA holders that specialize in design conformity inspections for C of A issues, and experienced LAME’s (retired) qualified to carry out this RTS function on CASA’s behalf until those LAME/ AWI’s in CASA’s employ receive re currency training. The ADF AW staff will need to obtain AME licenses and civil experience
or
- The government give consideration to extending the MRO industry’s present ‘self regulatory ‘ role to act as a ‘maintenance and AME licensing ‘safety oversight program regulator’ to administer the FAR harmonized ‘maintenance and AME licensing rules on behalf of the government supported by a resurrected ‘Program Advisory Panel’
- As noted adopting the NZCARS is popular with other NAA’s – and is the most cost effective solution to CASA’s skill based AW rules dilemma.
- Having FAR harmonized maintenance and AME personnel rules will see a pleasant change with the ICAO USOP audits finding Australia a ‘compliant ICAO Treaty State’ instead of findings to date of being a ‘non compliant ICAO Treaty State’ and our CAR form 1 ARCs being rated on a par with an **FAA 8130-3 ARC the global airworthiness certification standard

 It will be a pleasant change from being internationally recognized as a ‘lemon’!

Unfortunately for H.D.Ray et.al it would appear that our committee has been lost to the self-interested political survival of a totally disconnected National party...

This was the observed attitude (former Senator Edwards) of the committee then (i.e prior to O'Obfuscation):

 Compare that to this recent totally 'soft cock' performance from the Senate RRAT committee headed up by a QLD LNP powerbroker:

&..

No comment required me'thinks...


MTF...P2