[Peetwo]

Sterlo probes Harfwit/Miniscule on Aviation & Airport Matters -

From the QON index I get the feeling that Senator Sterle is being well advised on matters to do with airports and Airservices. From the following QON Sterlo appears to even have an understanding of the relevance of ICAO SARPs and their relationship to CASR Part 139...

• Overdue - No
  
• Asked Of - Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
  
• Proof Hansard Page/Written - Written
  
• Portfolio Question Number - 478
  
• Question
  The CASA website has advertised Notice of proposed rulemaking - Post-implementation review of the legislative framework for Part 139 - Aerodromes (NPRM 1426AS) and states in part that the proposed amendments to Part 139 of CASR and the Part 139 MOS aim to:
  
  more closely reflect the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) for Annex 14, Aerodromes to the International Convention on Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention).
  
  I also note that in a prior submission to this Senate Committee regarding Annex 17 Airport Security that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development made a similar statement about the importance of being more closely aligned to ICAO SARPs.
  
  Questions:
  
  

1. Would you agree that it is important as a signatory of the Chicago Convention, that Australia closely follow the ICAO SARPs and harmonize with International aviation standards and recommended practices?
   
2. Why is this same reasoning not being applied to ARFFS in Australia and the review of CASR 139H?
   
3. How is the weakening of the establishment (from 350,000 to 5000,000 passengers per annum) and disestablishment (from triggers for an Aviation Rescue and Firefighting Service consistent with the above policy to more closely reflect the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) for Annex 14, Aerodromes to the International Convention on Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention)
   
4. What happens to passengers onboard a large domestic passenger plane that crashes at an unprotected airport?
   

Continuing on the ARFFS theme:

• Overdue - No
  
• Asked Of - Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
  
• Proof Hansard Page/Written - Written
  
• Portfolio Question Number - 477
  
• Question - At the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates Hearing on the 23 October 2017, Airservices Australia were questioned about the agreed recommendation to weaken the regulations by raising the threshold for the establishment of an Aviation Rescue and Firefighting Service (ARFFS) from 350,000 passengers to 500,000 passengers per year. At page 141 Mr Harfield states that the threshold for disestablishing an ARFFS at an airport would stay at 300,000 passengers:
  
  Senator GALLACHER: Can I go to the general thrust of firefighting services, and I'll pick on Hamilton Island because I know that, through the Public Works Committee, we just commissioned a new firefighting service there. However, the federal minister and CASA are supporting a raising of the threshold of airports that require firefighting services to 500,000 a year. That will mean that Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Ayres Rock, Gladstone, Hamilton Island, Broome, Karratha, Port Hedland and Newman will all fall under that 500,000. In some of those areas, you've invested significant amounts of taxpayers' money building new stations and I know this from the Public Works Committee. Should that weakening of the regulations go through, what will happen? Will you raze these facilities abandon them and take the firefighters out? Mr Harfield: No. With the new threshold of 500,000 to establish a new fire station, there is a disestablishment criterion staying at 300,000 passengers. Senator GALLACHER: So if there's an existing facility, it stays? Mr Harfield: In the supplementary estimates last year, I was asked that very question. I stated categorically that we would not be closing those stations and then I reiterated that at the May estimates, where I was asked a direct question. I stated in Hansard that we would not be disestablishing any of those stations; they will be staying online. Senator STERLE: Even though Newman's just under 300,000? Mr Harfield: Even if they go under the disestablishment threshold, we will not be closing those stations. I've publicly reiterated that on a number of occasions.
  
  The Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFFS) Regulatory Policy Review Agreed Recommendation 6 states The ARFFS provider must complete a risk review relating to the possible disestablishment of an ARFFS within six months of the withdrawal of scheduled international passenger air services or the BITRE confirming that passenger numbers have remained below 400,000 for a twelve-month period.
  
  Question:
  
  1. Is the disestablishment trigger remaining at 300,000 passengers per annum as claimed, or is it being changed to 400,000 passengers per annum?
  

Download question

---

&..

• Overdue - No
  
• Asked Of - Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
  
• Proof Hansard Page/Written - Written
  
• Portfolio Question Number - 479
  
• Question
  The current CASR Regulations contain the obligation for the ARFFS to respond to any fire on the aerodrome whether it started in an aircraft or not. It is also a very firmly established practice for the past 20+ years that ARFFS will respond to any medical emergencies on the aerodrome. This has provided aerodrome users/owners with a significantly advanced level of safety. 
  
  It reduces the insurance premiums of the airport owners, tenants and users. It has been responsible for saving several very important buildings and installations on the airports. 
  
  It overcomes the very strict and likely to get stricter security access into the restricted airside environment. 
  
   It has most importantly directly saved many lives over that 20-year period. 
  
   It provides immediate response within the chain of survival that the State Ambulance services can due to workloads, security/access restrictions and the requirements for escort into the airside areas. 
  
   Questions: 
  
  

1.  Does Airservices Australia support the removal of this safety requirement from the new regulations? 
   
2.  What has changed to make saving peoples lives and property no longer the ARFFS role when they are obviously the most suitably located and qualified emergency service with full unrestricted access to the airside environments?
   
3. How does removing this vital function of the ARFFS meet the statement of expectations from Minister Chester that he requires a World Class ARFFS?
   

Download question

---

• Overdue - No
  
• Asked Of - Airservices Australia
  
• Proof Hansard Page/Written - Written
  
• Portfolio Question Number - 480
  
• Question
  The current CASR Regulations contain the obligation for the ARFFS to respond to any fire on the aerodrome whether it started in an aircraft or not. It is also a very firmly established practice for the past 20+ years that ARFFS will respond to any medical emergencies on the aerodrome. This has provided aerodrome users/owners with a significantly advanced level of safety.
  
  It reduces the insurance premiums of the airport owners, tenants and users. It has been responsible for saving several very important buildings and installations on the airports.
  
  It overcomes the very strict and likely to get stricter security access into the restricted airside environment.
  
  It has most importantly directly saved many lives over that 20-year period.
  
  It provides immediate response within the chain of survival that the State Ambulance services can due to workloads, security/access restrictions and the requirements for escort into the airside areas.
  
  Questions:
  
  

1. Does Airservices Australia support the removal of this safety requirement from the new regulations?
   
2. What has changed to make saving peoples lives and property no longer the ARFFS role when they are obviously the most suitably located and qualified emergency service with full unrestricted access to the airside environments?
   
3. How does removing this vital function of the ARFFS meet the statement of expectations from Minister Chester that he requires a World Class ARFFS?
   

Download question

And on the PFAS issue:

• Overdue - No
  
• Asked Of - Airservices Australia
  
• Proof Hansard Page/Written - Written
  
• Portfolio Question Number - 475
  
• Question
  At the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates Hearing on the 23 October 2017, Airservices Australia were questioned about the continued use of non-CASA approved foams, and whether there is a national management plan to deal with the exposure to ARFFS firefighters to PFAS. At page 165 of the Proof Hansard Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield is recorded as stating Airservices Australia is currently reviewing its work health and safety controls:
  
  Senator McCARTHY: A national management plan around dealing with PFAS? Mr Harfield: Yes. We have a national plan where we're going through preliminary site testing at all our locations, and they are underway. We just released last week the results for the Gold Coast for some off airport testing, and we continue to work with the Prime Minister and Cabinet PFAS task force for the whole-of-government approach, as well as, as mentioned before, continuing to review our work health and safety controls to ensure that they are as effective as possible.
  
  Questions:
  
  
  1. What controls are currently in place?
     
  2. If PPE is your primary control, how and when is decontamination required?
     
  3. who will be responsible for reviewing these controls?
     
  4. When did this review begin?
     
  5. In terms of the legacy of PFAS contamination, have you tested all ARFF fire grounds for PFAS?
     
  6. Are firefighters still being exposed to PFAS when they train on the ARFFS fire grounds?
     
  7. Is Airservices Australia resisting providing testing information to the firefighters union who have made four FOI Requests and are yet to be provided with the information requested?
     
  8. Why is Airservices Australia not blood testing or health monitoring the firefighters for PFAS?
     
  9. Why is Airservices Australia still using the non CASA approved foam at Darwin and Townsville? Is this a cost-saving measure that is putting the lives of firefighters, and the health of the community surrounding those fire grounds at risk?
     

Download question

---

• Overdue - No
  
• Asked Of - Airservices Australia
  
• Proof Hansard Page/Written - Written
  
• Portfolio Question Number - 476
  
• Question
  Mr Harfield stated at page 146 that Airservices Australia was being proactive in its management of PFAS and to mitigate the health risk to firefighters:
  
  Mr Harfield: The issue that we have been trying to deal with is how to manage this situation where the science hasn't caught up and to manage it in a proactive way without actually setting precedents that we are not quite aware of. We're trying to be as diligent as we possibly can with the science and what the evidence is around it. Senator STERLE: I suppose it gets to the stage now that if the firefighters start developing symptoms that Senator Gallacher talked about that are in America, where does that put Airservices? Mr Harfield: We are doing everything we possibly can to mitigate the risk. Senator STERLE: I understand that. Mr Harfield: We are monitoring the situation all the time and taking advice and continuing to review our protocols and monitoring.
  
  Questions:
  
  
  1. Has Airservices Australia produced any procedures or guidance to the firefighters who continue to work in PFAS contaminated sites, or with non-CASA approved foams?
     
  2. What are the things that Airservices Australia are using to mitigate the risk?
     
  3. Is Airservices Australia following the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) recommendations and advice for industries using products containing PFAS?
     
  4. If so, what NICNAS recommendations and advice is being followed and implemented?
     
  5. If not, why not?
     
     Download question
     

---

• Overdue - No
  
• Asked Of - Airservices Australia
  
• Proof Hansard Page/Written - Written
  
• Portfolio Question Number - 480
  
• Question
  The current CASR Regulations contain the obligation for the ARFFS to respond to any fire on the aerodrome whether it started in an aircraft or not. It is also a very firmly established practice for the past 20+ years that ARFFS will respond to any medical emergencies on the aerodrome. This has provided aerodrome users/owners with a significantly advanced level of safety.
  
  It reduces the insurance premiums of the airport owners, tenants and users. It has been responsible for saving several very important buildings and installations on the airports.
  
  It overcomes the very strict and likely to get stricter security access into the restricted airside environment.
  
  It has most importantly directly saved many lives over that 20-year period.
  
  It provides immediate response within the chain of survival that the State Ambulance services can due to workloads, security/access restrictions and the requirements for escort into the airside areas.
  
  Questions:
  
  
  1. Does Airservices Australia support the removal of this safety requirement from the new regulations?
     
  2. What has changed to make saving peoples lives and property no longer the ARFFS role when they are obviously the most suitably located and qualified emergency service with full unrestricted access to the airside environments?
     
  3. How does removing this vital function of the ARFFS meet the statement of expectations from Minister Chester that he requires a World Class ARFFS?
     

Download question

MTF me thinks? - P2