[Peetwo]

Was that second bang the door closing?

The first was Carmody being either shot in the arse from behind; or, in the foot while drawing the weapon. Not that it matters, either way; there is blood on the floor now – metaphorically speaking of course.

BRB indaba last evening – full house; and, one of the quietest I’ve ever attended. The whole video Hansard was watched, almost without pause, little ribald comment; and, importantly, no break to recharge glasses. When the show was over, (and glasses refilled) there was a general consensus that three parts needed to be seen again. Standing alone, they are significant; but viewed altogether, the only reasonable conclusion which could be reached is that Carmody has to go; and, there is need for a serious inquiry into the manner in which CASA operate.

The three ‘big’ ticket items of interest were (i) the ‘approval’ survey: (ii) Part 149 consensus and (iii) the O’Sofullofit invitation.

Items (i) and (ii) have the potential to at least demand further investigation by the Committee and possibly the minister; even if it is to simply exonerate the regulator from the suspicions raised. There has (IMO) been enough reasonable doubt raised to justify the time and expense of a further committee session to examine, in full both areas. It may well be that CASA is as pure as the driven snow and have operated with integrity and probity – however; the ugly questions have been raised; and, for the amount of public money CASA plough through, it seems fair and reasonable that the doubts raised be examined, in detail, under oath.

Item (iii) is truly interesting. Whether it was, as the BRB decided, a smart assed throw away line from O’Sofullofit; or, part of a bigger game is now academic. The invitation was issued. It is only a small section; it begins at the 10:30 time mark on the video record below.

An open invitation to the Embuggered fraternity to state their case, under parliamentary protection. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to have the draconian Enforcement Manual scrutinised, a chance to walk a committee through the machinations of the CASA version of ‘safety enforcement’ and a golden moment to put a stake in the heart of an out of control operation which can and does destroy careers, reputation and life. That they do this with some glee is academic.

PAIN will be discussing ways and means of exploiting the invitation with various groups; perhaps we can, together, garner enough general supporting evidence to provide a brief to the committee and get them to put their money where O’Sofullofit’s mouth is. We shall see. There is of course a record of some of the more spectacular acts of embuggerance; in short form, which will be the keystone. This information has been pilling up for almost a decade now. Perhaps it is high time that CASA was made to sit up straight and fly right. Handing over, but you need to be in it to win it. ‘Nuff said.

Master Morgan earned a hearty ‘well done’.  It is refreshing to listen to someone who will speak up, tell it as it is, plainly, openly, honestly without fear. Yes, he does rock some boats, but can you honestly say those boats don’t need a good rocking.

Rock On Ben, have at ‘em.  BRB awarded the best guitar riff ever.

Toot – toot.

Oversight of CASA Senate Inquiry - Update 21/11/18.

Hansard is now out here is a link: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Notable quotes so far...

Senator BROCKMAN: To continue on the theme, particularly the like for like, Mr Morgan, that's essentially what you're calling for. If you've got similar-sized aircraft flying similar places with a similar number of passengers, you're seeking a similar set of rules in terms of medical certification.

Mr Morgan : Yes. I repeat the statement. Our association—and, I believe, our AGAA partners—do not understand why we have a regulator that seems intent on creating one set of rules for government CASA regulated participants and a completely different set of rules for private self-administration participants. Within the context of the medical reform process we can see regulations that have been implemented which are clearly designed to disadvantage general aviation CASA regulated pilots. What do I mean by that? If you look at what the United States and the United Kingdom have done over the past two years, they have successfully reformed their private pilot medical standards. Both countries recognised there was a need for wholesale change, a total liberalisation of the system and a move towards private drivers licence standards.

We in Australia had hoped that this is exactly what CASA would do, because there was a clear demonstration that a private drivers licence standard was sufficient for the 10,000 members of the RAAus and the thousands of members within the gliding fraternity. So, in late 2016, when the reforms were announced, we all sat back thinking, 'If the UK has done it, if the US has done it, we're certainly not going to be different,' because, let's face it, the air is not different here in Australia; it's exactly the same as it is in the United States or the UK. Yet, much to our surprise, the reforms that CASA delivered for us in general aviation included implementing a basic class 2 environment that now required pilots to pass a commercial truck driver's medical.

More importantly, they made that medical a requirement you had to pass unconditionally. It's the unconditional part that really creates the herring in this particular situation. There are a substantial number of general aviation pilots who will pass a commercial truck drivers medical. In fact, many of my AOPA members have truck drivers licences. But they've consequently gone and looked at the standards they now need to pass under this basic and they simply will not be able to pass it. Yet these same people can go to the RAAus, fill out a self-cert form and pay a fee to a private company and have access to aviation.

We feel that there's a real problem with this. We feel that the system that's been delivered is designed to protect the self-administrations by not allowing a total liberalisation, and we've seen by way of the self-administrations' submission on medical reforms that they are deeply concerned that if CASA had reformed the system to a private driver's licence self-certification standard then the financial implications may well have rendered the organisation as unviable. So, we cannot answer—

Senator BROCKMAN: I have just a couple more questions. You've been on this mission since 2016, so I suspect you have a pretty good idea. We don't have the ability to bring you back immediately after CASA to hear your response. So, tell me what you think they're going to tell us, and tell us why they're incorrect.


Mr Morgan : Well, I imagine CASA will put forward that they base their decisions on the assessment of risk, and if the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is adhering to its regulatory philosophy then those risks will have generated a safety case, and they'll be using that to base their decisions on. Yet, interestingly, we've been requesting this safety case, or this risk assessment, so that we can have it peer reviewed, and it has not been forthcoming. We have not seen any documentation published by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in this country that justifies the decision it made. However, the United Kingdom undertook a 10-year study of medical incapacitation among pilots, and that 10-year study resulted in a determination that the risk of incapacitation was so low that it was impossible to calculate. It was one of the fundamental underlying supports for the reform of the UK system—the fact that they had come to the clear realisation, via a medical study, that the risk is low. Now, if there's been a risk assessment or a study completed in Australia, we would love to see it. Our association would love to review it.


Senator STERLE: You've written to CASA?


Mr Morgan : Yes, I have.


Senator STERLE: Could you provide us with copies of those letters—and particularly the dates, and any responses?

Mr Morgan : I'm more than happy to.

And BM nails it  :

Mr Morgan : ...To add to what Mr White was saying, I heard the comment from Spencer Ferrier that the RAAus system has been set up to deal with simpler aircraft. We've got to be careful in looking at that statement and putting too much of a stamp on it. If we go back 10 or 15 years, the RAAus were flying aeroplanes that were pretty much rag-and-tube ultralights. There were a great number of aeroplanes with, virtually, chainsaw motors on them. Those things were pretty experimental, Wild West types of aeroplanes. But the types of aircraft the RAAus are flying today are, for all and intents and purposes, general aviation aircraft, so much so that a significant number are now being used by flight training organisations nationwide. Is CASA in fact providing liberalisation for simplified aircraft, or are we now providing liberalisation for pseudogeneral aviation?

I'm often confused when I look at the general aviation economy now. I go to a flight school and see them buying up a whole bunch of RAAus aircraft, and I say to them, 'Why are you putting RAAus aeroplanes online here with the flight school?' They say: 'It's pretty simple. The students don't have to go through half the turmoil that they have to go through with CASA. We don't have to go through half the turmoil we go through with maintaining them, because we can obtain our own maintenance approvals. We can put our own people through a simplified RAAus maintenance course and we can own and maintain the aircraft. And they're cheaper to run.' So there's a very good reason why we're seeing proliferation in this space. We're seeing proliferation and rapid growth in RAAus because it's a sad indictment of the failure of CASA to actually reform our system. If CASA had taken a centralised reform approach to our overall regulatory framework and provided universal reform in terms of improving our system, we would have seen general aviation flight schools bringing these aircraft in, and we would have had growth. But instead we have this bizarre situation where we're seeing growth in an environment that can really only be categorised as a state sponsored monopoly. It is a state sponsored monopoly, because it can't exist without the special conditions and alleviations that CASA provided, whether it be through supplemental funding, reformed medical standards or the allowance to maintain your own aeroplanes. It doesn't matter which way we look at this; this thing is sponsored by CASA. We're not asking for it to be removed. What we're asking for is for our national aviation safety regulator to do the job of providing the national general aviation economy with a fair, equitable and balanced regulatory environment so that we all have opportunity...

MTF? - Definitely...P2