[Peetwo]

Want the truth Miniscule? - Obviously...    

Here's a recap of the dire straits of the total clusterduck Govt has self-created with it's head in the sand (non-)acknowledgement of the deep, dividing issues between the aviation industry and an eternally dysfunctional, 'law unto itself' regulator...

First from IOS Hall of Famer Bruce Rhoades:
 

HAPPY NEW YEAR MINISCULE - L&KS Bruce RHOADES and the IOS...  

Update 01/01/19 : Bruce Roades' - FINAL BATTLE.

FEDERAL ICAC NOW! 



TICK TOCK MINISCULE - Your days are numbered...

Next a quote from this week's SBG:

...There has existed in this land a document named ‘Making Ends Meet’. It is and remains a critical assessment of matters relating to the development of aerodromes. Not that it made a skerrick of difference. No matter what safety logic is provided the consequences are continually attacked, degraded and belittled until it seems that ‘you’ are the one out of step and better buck your ideas up, get on board and play with the team. All well and good until some chap slams a five ton aircraft with two ton of highly volatile jet fuel into a building, which could have been full of shoppers at the time....Oh, yes it was – no mistake. The Murky Machiavellian and his side-kick Dolan were granted all manner of latitude to make the sale of airport land (Commonwealth land) to developers as attractive as possible. Hell they even ‘finessed’ some definitions to assist. All in the name of progress aligned with public safety of course...

Revisiting that 2003 H of R Standing Committee on Transport & Regional Services report, you first need to pinch yourself because the feeling of déjà vu is almost overpowering...

To get a sense of what I mean one needs to read Chapter 7 of the final report - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus.../chap7.pdf - and the disturbingly familiar recommendations 23 to 28...  

Recommendation 23

7.45 The committee recommends that the Department of Transport and
Regional Services:

- Verify the adequacy of regulation impact statements for
amending aviation safety regulations prepared by the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority; and
- Assess that the cost impacts calculated are reasonable and
justified, taking into account the importance of regional
aviation to regional, rural and remote communities.

---

Recommendation 24

7.65 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
introduce into its service charter mandated response times and fixed and
fair prices for its services.

---

Recommendation 25

7.80 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority:
- Review its training processes to ensure consistency of the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority’s interpretation of the law and
regulations;
- Introduce an ongoing program of staff training in regulation
interpretation to ensure improved consistency of the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority’s interpretation of the law and
regulations; and
- Regularly assess and record in its annual report, the levels of
knowledge and competency of its staff in interpretation of the
law and regulations.

---

Recommendation 26

7.92 The committee recommends that the Department of Transport and
Regional Services:

- Conduct an annual confidential client satisfaction survey to test
industry’s satisfaction with the services that the Civil Aviation
Safety Authority delivers, and assess compliance with its
service charter; and
- Publicly report the results of these surveys, ensuring that
confidentiality is maintained.

---

Recommendation 27

7.123 The committee recommends that:

- The Civil Aviation Safety Authority provide customer relations
management training to its staff, particularly those in regional
offices;
- The Commonwealth establish an Aviation Ombudsman, and
ensure that this position is filled by an appropriately skilled
person, to consider all aviation industry related complaints;
and
- The duties of the Aviation Ombudsman would include, in
addition to examining operational complaints, conducting
independent surveys of industry, ensuring that the
confidentiality of respondents is maintained. These surveys
would assess the effectiveness of the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority’s measures to improve the consistency of its
interpretation of aviation regulations.

---

Recommendation 28

7.146 The committee recommends that:

- The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in addition to enforcing
aviation safety compliance, place greater focus on activities to
assist industry players in complying voluntarily with the
regulations; and
- The Australian National Audit Office periodically audit and
report to Parliament on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s:

- compliance with its service charter;
- fulfilment of fostering a culture of safety in the industry;
- policing the regulations to achieve aviation safety outcomes;
and
- provision of information and education services provided
jointly with the industry.

Now let me remind you what the original ToR were for this parliamentary inquiry -  : 

Terms of reference

- The adequacy of commercial air services in regional and rural Australia.
- Policies and measures required to assist in the development of regional air services, including:

• regional hub services;
  
• small scale owner-operator services; and
  
• the deployment of most suitable aircraft types.
  

- The adequacy of commercial air services to major populated islands and the adequacy of alternative sea services.
- Interconnectivity between regional air transport systems, major national air services and international services (including on-carriage, through ticketing, freight handling, timetabling and airport slotting).
- The role of all three levels of Government in supporting and assisting the development of regional air services and island transport systems.
- The role of major air transport carriers in providing regional services.

WTF? How did this inquiry get to chapter 7? Did I miss something?   

Indeed I did, here is a link for the Hansard transcript where CASA first gave evidence to this Parliamentary Inquiry...  

Ref: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow...76/0000%22

As can be read the evidence given by the CASA Executive at the time was typically shambolic and self-serving, example:

Ms LEY —Sure. I was not talking about the FLOT conference but another NPRM process that an engineer in my area went to. They said that, having made the big effort to travel all day, they just were not listened to. They did not have an opportunity. But they did say that, when the final report came out, they were listed as having been consulted in order to give the impression that they had been, but they were not.

Mr McIntyre —That is probably because they did not see reflected in the rule what they wanted. They were consulted, their view was considered and finally it did not make it into the rule set as being acceptable to CASA as the safety regulator. Can I just say that that maintenance package will be coming before the House soon. It is a huge body of work to rewrite all of that legislation. We have just had four straight days with the industry with CASA in Canberra. This is an industry group. It is the industry coming and commenting to us. They are happy and satisfied with the standards that apply in that package. From my perspective, it is interesting to hear about this one individual, but I do not want to disenfranchise—
Ms LEY —It is never just one individual.
Mr McIntyre —There may be even a group of people. But what I am saying to you is that the majority of people who have been involved in the process and who have looked at what CASA is proposing deem it to be acceptable and reasonable.
Ms LEY —To what extent on that industry group are small operators or, for example, agricultural operators represented? 
Mr McIntyre —We have the AAAA, the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia; we have the Regional Aviation Association of Australia; we have the Australian Airports Association; and we have Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association—they are all represented. They have all nominated people from within industry who have a good understanding of what is involved.
Ms LEY —They are all happy with the maintenance changes?
Mr McIntyre —Yes.
Ms LEY —Good.
Mr McIntyre —In fact, there is a body now established representing all of the maintenance organisations in Australia. They were strident critics of what we were doing and they are now comfortable with where we have got to. Going back to the point I was trying to make, you have a very silent group of people out there saying nothing. When you open the committee up and make it quite obvious that here is an opportunity to lay your concerns out, you will only hear from those people who have concerns. You will not hear from the large numbers of people in our community who are happy.
Mr SECKER —I think you are actually ignoring the fact that the reason we opened it up is that we were getting complaints. The complaints were coming to us as local members all around Australia about how they felt about CASA. So the fact that we have had the forums and this sort of inquiry is in response to the complaints. We have not just decided that we will have an inquiry for the hell of it; we are having an inquiry into this because we are getting the complaints.
It is all right for one person to say, `They're all not true,' but we are getting different stories all the time. Your first speaker, Mr Gemmell, said you are trying to fix it up, but there must be something wrong if all these complaints are coming through to us in the way things are being handled. It is more on a personal basis where people are saying, `This one has done this,' or `This one has been vindictive to me.' You really need to look at why it is happening and try to fix it up. I am glad to hear that you are trying to do that. But I do not think you can go along this line and say, `None of it is true,' or `Most of it is not true,' or `This has only happened because you have had the inquiry.' I think you have to see where the problem lies and try to fix it, and take that attitude.
CHAIR —For example, while they are not responsible for small vessels to the same degree as you are responsible for small aircraft, we would not get one-tenth of the complaints about AMSA.
Mr Gemmell —I have spent a lot of time with AMSA. I agree with you that we get a lot of complaints and they do not. I said, `How the hell do you do it?' The answer is quite simple: they deal with the commercial end of the market. You have heard from the commercial end of the market. We have a very good relationship there, and they are not saying these things about us. I hope they have not said that to you. I have not read that they have said it to you anyway. I hope they have not said it privately—but I doubt it because we meet with them regularly and we have a good relationship with the commercial end. 
The problem we have as at the private end, for want of a better word, at the lower end of the market. And AMSA does not deal with that at all. They have no responsibility there. Small boats is a state responsibility. In our case, it is that mix of big and small that creates a lot of the problems, both in air space and in activities, and in things we do and how we do them.
Ms LEY —Because you want this `one size fits all' answer. Would you consider a small charter operator at the commercial end of the market?
Mr Gemmell —A small charter operator is a commercial—
Ms LEY —Yes, I know they are commercial operator.
Mr Gemmell —They are carrying passengers.
Ms LEY —But do you treat them like a commercial operator?
Mr Gemmell —Yes, they are a commercial operator; they are carrying passengers. So if I distinguish between a professional passenger carrying operation, which would include charter, and a private pilot flying himself around for the weekend—that sort of distinction.
Ms LEY —With great respect, Mr Gemmell, in your answer there you did sort of indicate that the private people are a problem. There was a somewhat dismissive attitude that these guys are difficult, and I know they probably are in many cases thorns in your side. But I think it is not enough for the big end of town to be happy with you.
Mr Gemmell —I agree. What I was trying to say in the opening statement—I do not mean to be dismissive of them and I am sorry if I was—is that, yes, we have not got things right at that level. We do not have good relations and we have to improve them. To go back to a question Mr Gibbons asked, what we are trying to say is that we do acknowledge there are times when we have not been at all helpful with people trying to do business things; hence the case management approach that we are trying to move forward.

  
Who was it that once said the 'more things change, the more they stay the same'? 

Anyway because the Inquiry was effectively sabotaged by a bunch of pilots (AOPA Oz) and a group of small end of town 'charter operators' and their various issues with the regulator (why does that sound familiar?), there was a follow up hearing featuring the regulator -   
Hansard link: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow...86/0000%22

Mr Gemmell —Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you again. From our previous hearing, there were clearly issues left unresolved. We were also concerned that we had not made our points well enough, leaving the committee to rely on possibly some untested and, at least from our perspective, perhaps sometimes inaccurate evidence. I will recap what we tried to say last time.

Mr Secker, at the last hearing, said in describing the volume of complaints the committee had received about us:
I think you have to see where the problem lies and try to fix it, and take that attitude.
That is exactly what I was trying to say we were doing the last time we were here. We are trying to look at the problems, find out where they are and try to fix them. The only difference between us is that we do not just accept that the complaints are valid. We assess their accuracy and deal with them when they are justified. I think it has to be recognised that on occasions we do things to operators that are not pleasant—suspensions, fines and the like. I cannot say we always get the judgments right, but we seem to get them right more often than not. All I ask of you is that, when you hear complaints against actions taken by CASA, you view them cautiously and perhaps seek our side of the story. You cannot expect a business we have taken action against to thank us or even to agree with us. But parliament requires us, and the travelling public expects us, to take action to protect the safety of air travellers. We know you have received complaints about CASA, so I want to address complaints handling.
There are currently a variety of avenues to pursue if an individual is aggrieved by CASA's actions. First of all, of course, you can appeal to CASA. We have a hotline arrangement. You can apply for an internal review going to the director or chairman, perhaps, or anywhere else. We have an internal ombudsman arrangement. We can direct inquiries to an independent person to assess that case. Indeed, if we think it is sufficiently serious and criminal matters are involved, we can direct things to the AFP, which we have done on occasions. Separately, you can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Ombudsman, the minister, the department, local MPs—this committee is an example of that style of thing—the Senate or, indeed if you think there are criminal matters involved, you can go to the AFP direct. We deal with all of these. Some complain they do not get satisfactory responses from these groups of people. In this industry, that generally means that they just did not get what they wanted. 
One thing I am aware of now much more clearly is that you as local members as well as a committee have heard significant complaints and that we are not doing well enough in giving you information to allow you to come to a reasonable, well-balanced assessment of these complaints. I would be very pleased to discuss with the committee ways in which we can do better in this respect. I think that would be of mutual advantage to us both.
The legislation currently before parliament in relation to the reform of CASA should assist in addressing concerns about unfair actions by CASA. I will pick a couple of points in there. In effect, decisions will need to be confirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before they come into effect and within five days by the Federal Court if an action is taken on the grounds of a serious and imminent risk to air safety—in other words, another body gets to confirm the decisions taken by CASA. While these in fact reduce CASA's current powers, we support them as they help redress the undoubted current perception of unfairness.
Victimisation by CASA is one area that is often alleged but rarely proven. We have sought evidence of it, but again we have rarely been provided with any. Where we have, serious follow-up action has been put in train, including referrals to the Australian Federal Police. But for the supposed high number of claims, there are precious few examples where evidence is actually given to us that enables us to follow through. We remain open to receive such evidence, which is rather more than just making allegations, and are committed to weeding out any examples where we find victimisation is pursued. But I am very uncomfortable with seeing staff vilified based on unfounded rumour and innuendo.
I know you have a particular interest in Brindabella. I just want to remind you what was said last time. I will quote Mr Collins:
I think it is very fair to say that, in this particular instance, CASA did not get it 100 per cent right. However, it is also fair to say that in this particular case the applicant also did not realise the amount of work that he had to do to upgrade his operation from essentially a charter based operation to an RPT operation. There were significant difficulties in understanding on his part and, just as significantly, there were difficulties in CASA imparting the requirements to the operator.
Ms Ley said, in responding to that:
We are not talking about a mickey mouse operation in the middle of nowhere; we are talking about a well-qualified, highly professional outfit in Brindabella that wanted to go that extra step and faced enormous road blocks to doing so.
Brindabella is indeed a safe, professional airline. But since they received their RPT licence, they have experienced three significant incidents. The last, two days after our last hearing, was a wheels-up landing in Canberra airport with four passengers on board. That is getting a bit too close for comfort. Incidents happen. It does not mean the operation is unsafe, but it illustrates what we were trying to portray to you. Perhaps they were not quite as clever as they thought they were in their preparedness for RPT. I should add in fairness that we have been very happy with their responses to these incidents in trying to get to the source of the problem and fix that up. Other than the immediate sacking of the pilot in the wheels-up incident, we do not think an immediate sacking is the best means of promoting an appropriate safety culture. 
In terms of service delivery, as you have heard and as you know, the minister has been similarly approached by operators with complaints about CASA's service performance. Brindabella is one of those. You heard about a meeting that Brindabella had with the minister. As a result, the minister some months ago had an independent analyst review CASA's performance in respect of service delivery. The report was done by KPMG and has recently been finalised. I would like to table it for the committee's information. I think you will find it interesting reading. It puts into context the complaints being made. I will table that particular report.
ACTING CHAIR —Is somebody prepared to move that we accept that report as an exhibit?
Mr MOSSFIELD —So moved.
ACTING CHAIR —Thank you.
Mr Gemmell —My final point is that a suggestion was made at our last hearing that all we are doing is imposing paperwork. The words `bureaucratic requirements' and `paper chases' were used, and it was said that these have little relationship to safety. If that is the view you are forming, I would very strongly encourage you to read closely the report of the Seaview royal commission in 1996, because they directly address this question of paper. I might get Mr Ilyk to give a couple of quotes that came out of that royal commission report.
Mr Ilyk —During the commission, Seaview were saying that all of the things the commission was looking at was simply just aviation trivia, just paper offences, and that they have no safety implications so why bother about them. The commission said:
Inevitably, the commission heard evidence about other operators and maintenance organisations and the approach of the regulatory body towards detecting transgressions and taking appropriate action. The evidence produced to the commission suggests that areas that warrant inquiry and consideration include an attitude that characterises breaches of the Civil Aviation Act, the regulations and the orders as aviation trivia, an attitude about safety and regulation that potentially puts the public at risk, and Seaview in particular sought to characterise the matters that had been the subject of evidence as simply aviation trivia.
But the commission said:
All these matters have a direct bearing on safety. The practices that Seaview engaged in were also breaches of the law. The picture of Seaview Air is a picture of an organisation with which no sensible person would wish to fly if they had been aware of its breaches and attitude to safety.
I think the point Bruce was making was that the breaches that CASA has to regulate are in fact breaches of the Australian law. They are not simply things that CASA imposes; they are breaches of the Australian law. It is the same as the way the Therapeutic Goods Authority looks at the breaches of the legislation for the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. It is the same as any regulatory authority. These are requirements that have been imposed upon industry not directly by CASA but by parliament indirectly. 
Mr Gemmell —That is it.
ACTING CHAIR —Thanks for that. I would like to make a few remarks before we go to questions. This committee recognises that a strong regulator is essential for aviation safety. We also acknowledge the very difficult task that brings. An effective regulator must be very, very credible. When we started this inquiry, it was not an inquiry into aspects of how CASA does its business; it was an inquiry into the adequacy of regional aviation services in remote and rural locations. However, during the course of that inquiry, we received an overwhelming number of complaints about the way CASA does business, which prompted us to invite you here.
What this committee wants from you today—and I think you have done that in your opening remarks—is to acknowledge that there are a high number of inquiries and that is of concern to you. More importantly, we want to know what strategies you have in place to address it. It is not a witch-hunt. That is what we need to know. As I said, the inquiry is not looking at how CASA does business. If we wanted to do that, we could use the powers we have in this committee to establish our own terms of reference and go off and have a look at the way CASA does business. That is not what the inquiry is about. If we could get from you, first of all, a recognition of the problem and strategies in place to address it, this committee would be reasonably satisfied. With that, I will throw to Ms Ley for some questions.

   
Let me remind you that inquiry was 15 years ago - 

Let's do the time warp again - FDS! 

And the Government response to recommendation 23 thru 28?   see pages 33 to 43 here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...ovresp.pdf


MTF...P2