[Peetwo]

ASA ARFFS inquiry - Episode II: Sub_16 -  

Extract from opening statement from Mr Buss (quite appropriate name really -   ) CEO City of West Torrens, plus follow on questioning/comments from Committee:

...Minister McCormack in his response to council also stated, 'Under civil aviation safety regulations there is no requirement to provide any ARFFS coverage outside of the operating hours of passenger aircraft at Adelaide; however, reflecting its commitment to aviation safety, Airservices has enabled or elected to provide a category 5 level of service for many years and current staffing levels are above the minimum required for a category 5 service.' That noted—once again being respectful of the minister's comments—staffing levels at Adelaide Airport have been in place for some time now, and it would appear illogical for Airservices to reduce the current staffing levels as a cost-saving measure when at the same time Adelaide Airport is continuing to grow at an exceptional rate in terms of any number of measures you want to use, including aircraft movement, passenger numbers, freight payloads and non-airside business development. To the contrary, with all the growth occurring at Adelaide Airport, it would appear quite logical to argue for an increase in staffing levels to a higher category of service rather than having Airservices reduce staffing levels.

Council is aware that those professional personnel who provide the support and delivery of services at Adelaide Airport share concerns similar to council's about the proposed reduction in ARFF staff numbers. I therefore request that this Senate references committee takes on board the concerns expressed today, forms the view that any reduction in ARFF staffing numbers at Adelaide Airport is not warranted or justified and sends a clear message to Airservices Australia and Minister McCormack that it opposes any such reduction. Thank you.

And once again from the UFU:

Mr von Nida: ...If you look at places like Heathrow, Brussels, Changi and Dallas Fort Worth, they showcase their airport emergency services: 'Look at this. Look at what we're doing. We've got all this really good high-tech equipment. We've got all these highly trained people if something goes wrong.' That's the sort of model that you look at and think you could be proud of—whereas here in Australia we're just ticking the box. Even when we can't tick the box we go to CASA and say, 'Can I get an exemption,' and CASA just hands them out.

I think, when we were listening to the Melbourne hearing, Senator Gallacher talked about all the different standards in the MOS, asking, 'Do you still apply this? Do you still apply that?' And, when you got to about seven, CASA was going, 'Um, I don't think so.'

That's the reason we've had this steady decline over the last couple of years to the minimalist model that they use.

I think that's why we're here. It's nothing personal against anybody or anything. We just want a fire service we can be proud of.

Aviation fire service is in 26 different locations and has over 850 uniformed staff. We're a national fire service and we're really proud of our fire service.

&..

CHAIR: The truth of the matter is, Mr von Nida, that we shouldn't even be here. It is absolutely ridiculous that at a money-making machine like Airservices Australia, which has no competition, which is a monopoly, which is very good at rewarding its own people, some peanut might get up in the morning and have a brain snap and think, 'How many jobs can I get rid of in terms of firefighting?' Jeez. Who wants to open the batting? I've had a gutful of Airservices at the best of times. - 

And from Mount Non-compliance: ICAO Annex 14: Timeline of non-compliance.

Plus:

Can you make change for a nine dollar note?

“Sure” say’s the CASA advisor – “three’s OK?” That children is a short version of what happens when anyone challenges CASA on a point of law. No matter what you offer, there is always a wriggle room and change in the tin. The only real ‘safety’ concern of CASA is that their edicts and their whimsy become part of an unchallengeable, home spun rule set, which always ensures they win -.

Take airports for an example – under the regulations they can approve or disapprove anything that pleases them. Under the section 98 of the Act under 98(3(d) & (g). Despite all protests, they are the only ‘authority’ which matters - push comes to shove. Yet can they deny all responsibility for the Essendon DFO complex – defend their lack of action on safe legal grounds, without Joe Public standing a chance of challenging that decision (or lack thereof) and winning; despite unassailable evidence. Yes, they can and win too. This is a fact of life as we live it. Safe legislative wriggle room for CASA. That ‘safety’ has cost half a billion so far by the way.

Then; there is a push to have the Navigation Act updated and to relieve CASA of some of the massive, unassailable power they have carefully stored over the decades. Great idea, doomed to fail. Even if the ‘new’ Act gets up, there is more than enough wriggle room to actually give CASA even more uncontested power than ever. Ask a Barrister or; better yet, a retired Judge – we did:– and wished we had not.

Then we come to the much advertised ‘disallowance’ of a CASA edict. Been thrown out of court already, before the party even got going. Apart from being a ridiculous rule set it has provided a terrific example of what happens when you try to find your way through the protective systems Sleepy Hollow has installed. However, as a smoke screen; it has been an unmitigated success. Is the general aviation population concerned about the lack of RFF on Essendon? No. The implications of an aircraft smacking into a building and the potential for massive legal conflict? No. The ability of the local services to control a fuel fed fire and evacuate the building within the survivable time frames demanded by law? No. Has anyone yet apart from the ARFF, (aka UFUA) considered the operational and legal ramifications of this event at Essendon? It is a classic example of a cluster of ducks – all heading for the gun lines. It is, from a human survival and legal standpoint a buggers muddle of massive proportions.

And yet, it could have all been avoided had CASA exercised it's god given right and said NO – that building creates a worst case scenario. That would be the end of it – CASA holds all the cards. But there the building sits – with no added safety measures or revamped action plan or even clear lines of authority. A screaming basket case then; as it is now. Yet CASA have even written into ‘their’ law that the building can be torn down – on their say-so; alone.

“..(g) the prohibition of the construction of buildings, structures or objects, the restriction of the dimensions of buildings, structures or objects, and the removal in whole or in part or the marking or lighting of buildings, structures or objects (including trees or other natural obstacles) that constitute or may constitute obstructions, hazards or potential hazards to aircraft flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome, and such other measures as are necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft using an aerodrome or flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome; etc.

I’m not even going to run a book on that – daylight robbery don’t come close. We can only hope that Slater & Gordon (USA) division can see the lines of attack as clearly as we can see the evacuation paths. Bring the bulldozers with you boys – I’ll come to cheer. Just start with ICAO and work backwards to see who has the Yea or Nay on whether the DFO was (a) legal (b) safe, © properly prepared for the crash event, (d) who actually approved the building, (e) how was the ARFF prepared to deal with the accident and last; but not least – (f) who authorised the infringement on the mandated runway safety width?

Have fun boys.

Toot – toot.

Just checked the submissions page for the RFFS SI - see HERE - to discover that a current serving (23 years) ASA RFFS Fire Chief has put forward an excellent coal-face submission that is disturbing but most definitely essential reading: 

16 Mr Andrew Hanson (PDF 55 KB) 

---

Task and Resource Analysis

The TRA is an excellent tool for Fire Services endeavouring to confirm staffing resources are
adequate to ensure safe and effective operations and compliance with the organisations
Procedures. It is an inexpensive process centred around a table top exercise designed to
identify “pinch points” in operations where staffing resources may be deficient.

In 2014 ICAO amended Annex 14 and the Airport services manual and introduced the
requirement for ARFFS to justify staffing numbers for category by way of a TRA. The model
adopted by ICAO is that of the NFPA5.

Despite requests to conduct the TRA ARFFS decided not to comply with the ICAO
recommendation. No rationale or justification was given.

It is a requirement of the Manual of Standards (MOS) that differences from the ICAO
standards, Recommended Practices and Procedures are to be published in the Aeronautical
Information Publication (AIP)6.

The justification stated in the AIP for noncompliance with ICAO 9.2.45 is “Legislation does
not specifically identify that a task resource analysis should be completed to determine
staffing numbers”.

It is my submission that this is a simplistic and subjective interpretation of the legislation. In
line with the discussion below, the legislation operates to incorporate treaty requirements
into domestic legislation and is only limited to the extent of any inconsistency with the
domestic regulations. The fact that there is no specific reference to staff justification in the
legislation indicates there can be no inconsistency with the ICAO amendment.7

I would respectfully ask the Committee to inquire as to what level this decision was made
and is it consistent with Airservices Act s 9 (3) discussed below.

...Irrespective of the binding nature of ICAO with regard to TRA, is it incumbent on AA
management to complete the analysis as part of best practice given the following
circumstances?

• I cannot recall in my time a comprehensive TRA being conducted across all
categories and locations. It is long overdue.
• The deficiencies in CABA operations could potentially indicate staff resourcing
issues.
• The importance that the courts place on compliance with procedures in fulfilling a
safe system of work for firefighters.
• It is consistent with International practice.
• Possibly the most important trigger is the discrepancy of minimum staffing numbers
recommended by the NFPA and ARFFS current staffing numbers.

NFPA 403


ICAO has adopted the NFPA TRA model11. The NFPA panel have conducted an initial
assessment of staff resource requirements for each category12. It is then recommended that
a TRA is conducted to determine additional staffing requirements13.

The NFPA emphasise the meaning of minimum staff numbers as follows,

Under no circumstances shall the minimum required staffing be less than those values
appearing in table 8.1.2.1

(see table etc.)

This disparity is staggering, especially at the lower category levels. The issue was

raised with ARFF management in 201614 and to date no explanation or action from
ARFFS to explore or explain the significant difference in numbers.

The NFPA numbers were ascertained by an expert panel using a model now adopted
by ICAO. I would respectfully ask the Committee to view the documentation relating to
ARFFS justification process and determine if it is consistent with the standard set
down by NFPA/ICAO.

It is also important to note that the largest disparity is at the lower Category levels. In
Australia this is compounded by the fact that these stations do not receive the same level of
outside support within the same timeframes as the larger city airports....

P2 edit: Some useful links associated with Fire Chief Hanson's footnotes:

1) Implementing Treaties in Domestic Law: Translation, Enforcement and Administrative Law
Andrew Edgar and Rayner Thwaites

2) HMA V Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.[/url][url=http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1407/HMA-v-SCOTTISH-FIRE-AND-RESCUE-SERVICE]


MTF...P2