[Peetwo]

Sandy Reith - Supplementary Submission 

I personally know that Sandy had struggles with the RRAT Committee Secretariat to get his supplementary submission published, Sandy had originally sent it through back in October 2021???   

However finally the Secretariat has come through and on the current GA industry status quo/context (ie. the last GA hearing debacle and the issues with the Angel Flight CASA embuggerance; plus the upcoming expiration of the CSF 09/19 legislative instrument; and the Comm Ombudsman review of the Glen Buckley CASA embuggerance; plus the possibility of a new/rewritten SOE direction to the CASA Board by Minister BJ) I believe the SR submission provides a perfect historical reference of where we are now at - see HERE.   

This bit in particular perked my interest:



The last response/recognition of the Forsyth ASSR recommendation 14 was published in 2017:

Completed – Implementation Ongoing
The tasks required by the Government response, such as issuing of a new SOE, have been completed.

CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy was published on 15 September 2015.

The SOE issued to the CASA Board in March 2017 requires that CASA implement its regulatory philosophy with the philosophy being reflected in relevant policies, procedures, manuals and where CASA personnel are carrying out their day-to-day operations. It is acknowledged that implementation of this response is ongoing across CASA.

 
And of course we all know how that ended up - 

Now ffwd to November 2019 to the preamble to yet another weasel worded Govt Response to the two Senate RRAT recommendations from the Angel Flight/ATSB performance inquiry (remember that this response came from the then DPM McDonaught's office): 

Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s report on the inquiry into the Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia (the report).
The Government is pleased that the Committee recognised the expert analysis conducted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in examining the Angel Flight operations. While the Committee provided comment on whether non-passenger carrying positioning flights should have been included in the ATSB’s main calculations of risk, the Government notes the ATSB’s focus on passenger carrying operations is consistent with the Government’s Statement of Expectations to the agency.
In providing this response to the Committee’s report, the Government reiterates the importance of the independence of regulatory bodies, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). CASA’s independence is set out in the Civil Aviation Safety Act 1988 which also allows CASA to issue legislative instruments relating to the safety operation and maintenance of aircraft where it deems necessary. For these reasons, the Government notes the two recommendations in the report.
The Government is committed to maintaining a safe aviation environment for all Australians. Passengers, whether fare paying or not, are generally less able to determine the level of risk involved in the service they are boarding and rely on the Government to ensure an appropriate level of aviation safety is maintained. The Government supports CASA, as Australia’s civil aviation safety regulator, using its expertise and professional judgement to fulfil that responsibility.

I have much more dot joining to do but again in the context of that last RRAT GA inquiry hearing and past statement's like this from 'the now defacto CEO' Dr Aleck:



Plus: 

Dr Aleck : The ambiguity issue can be readily addressed, as I said. In the meantime, as we're the interpreter and applier of that rule et cetera, I might mention too that, in addition to the analysis that Mr Monahan referred to, as Mr Crawford indicated, we did look at what was going on elsewhere. Of the 10 criteria that the FAA applies when assessing exemptions for the purpose of Angel Flight—public benefit flights, as they're called in the US—one is imposing higher aircraft airworthiness requirements. We looked at the kinds of considerations that that authority took into account, and that's amongst the others we've mentioned here.

..one has to carefully examine the timeline of the Angel Flight embuggerance from the initial 2014 NPRM consultation (which resulted in the former CEO Mark Skidmore rejecting the proposed CASA NPRM)...

CASA published a Discussion Paper in December 2014 that sought responses from the aviation community and public to assist CASA in its consideration of non-regulatory and regulatory options for enhancing the safety of community service flights. CASA did not proceed to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at that time, but decided to continue to monitor the operation of community service flights.

Ref: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...ement/Text

...to the initiation of the ATSB investigation into the Mount Gambier fatal accident (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-069/) and the obligations of the ATSB to CASA for providing information about their investigation as per the ATSB/CASA 2015 MOU, then leading up to the DIP (External Review) process coupled with the ATSB request to how CASA were going to respond to the ATSB identified safety issue addressed to CASA: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...069-si-04/

Safety issue description

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority did not have a system to differentiate between community service flights and other private operations, which limited its ability to identify risks. This hindered the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's ability to manage risks associated with community service flights.

Action number: AO-2017-069-NSA-020
Action organisation: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Date: 13 August 2019
Action status: Closed
Safety action taken: A legislative instrument imposing conditions on pilots conducting certain non-emergency medical community service flights arranged by third party organisations (CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019) was made on 12 February 2019 and came into force on 19 March 2019.

The instrument sets out new minimum licence, experience and recency standards for pilots operating community service flights that are conducted by volunteer pilots free of charge and coordinated by a charity or for a charitable or community service.

The instrument includes, among other things, the following requirements for pilots conducting community service flights:

• submit a flight notification including identifying the flight as community service flight
  
• make a record in pilot’s personal logbook when a flight is a community service flight.
  

 
Much..much MTF..P2 

[Peetwo]

Now ffwd to November 2019 to the preamble to yet another weasel worded Govt Response to the two Senate RRAT recommendations from the Angel Flight/ATSB performance inquiry (remember that this response came from the then DPM McDonaught's office): 

Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s report on the inquiry into the Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia (the report).
The Government is pleased that the Committee recognised the expert analysis conducted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in examining the Angel Flight operations. While the Committee provided comment on whether non-passenger carrying positioning flights should have been included in the ATSB’s main calculations of risk, the Government notes the ATSB’s focus on passenger carrying operations is consistent with the Government’s Statement of Expectations to the agency.
In providing this response to the Committee’s report, the Government reiterates the importance of the independence of regulatory bodies, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). CASA’s independence is set out in the Civil Aviation Safety Act 1988 which also allows CASA to issue legislative instruments relating to the safety operation and maintenance of aircraft where it deems necessary. For these reasons, the Government notes the two recommendations in the report.
The Government is committed to maintaining a safe aviation environment for all Australians. Passengers, whether fare paying or not, are generally less able to determine the level of risk involved in the service they are boarding and rely on the Government to ensure an appropriate level of aviation safety is maintained. The Government supports CASA, as Australia’s civil aviation safety regulator, using its expertise and professional judgement to fulfil that responsibility.

I have much more dot joining to do but again in the context of that last RRAT GA inquiry hearing and past statement's like this from 'the now defacto CEO' Dr Aleck:



Plus: 

Dr Aleck : The ambiguity issue can be readily addressed, as I said. In the meantime, as we're the interpreter and applier of that rule et cetera, I might mention too that, in addition to the analysis that Mr Monahan referred to, as Mr Crawford indicated, we did look at what was going on elsewhere. Of the 10 criteria that the FAA applies when assessing exemptions for the purpose of Angel Flight—public benefit flights, as they're called in the US—one is imposing higher aircraft airworthiness requirements. We looked at the kinds of considerations that that authority took into account, and that's amongst the others we've mentioned here.

..one has to carefully examine the timeline of the Angel Flight embuggerance from the initial 2014 NPRM consultation (which resulted in the former CEO Mark Skidmore rejecting the proposed CASA NPRM)...

CASA published a Discussion Paper in December 2014 that sought responses from the aviation community and public to assist CASA in its consideration of non-regulatory and regulatory options for enhancing the safety of community service flights. CASA did not proceed to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at that time, but decided to continue to monitor the operation of community service flights.

Ref: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F...ement/Text

...to the initiation of the ATSB investigation into the Mount Gambier fatal accident (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-069/) and the obligations of the ATSB to CASA for providing information about their investigation as per the ATSB/CASA 2015 MOU, then leading up to the DIP (External Review) process coupled with the ATSB request to how CASA were going to respond to the ATSB identified safety issue addressed to CASA: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...069-si-04/

Safety issue description

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority did not have a system to differentiate between community service flights and other private operations, which limited its ability to identify risks. This hindered the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's ability to manage risks associated with community service flights.

Action number: AO-2017-069-NSA-020
Action organisation: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Date: 13 August 2019
Action status: Closed
Safety action taken: A legislative instrument imposing conditions on pilots conducting certain non-emergency medical community service flights arranged by third party organisations (CASA 09/19 — Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights — Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019) was made on 12 February 2019 and came into force on 19 March 2019.

The instrument sets out new minimum licence, experience and recency standards for pilots operating community service flights that are conducted by volunteer pilots free of charge and coordinated by a charity or for a charitable or community service.

The instrument includes, among other things, the following requirements for pilots conducting community service flights:

• submit a flight notification including identifying the flight as community service flight
  
• make a record in pilot’s personal logbook when a flight is a community service flight.
  

 

Timeline of Angel Flight regulatory embuggerance.

Ref: Angel Flight General Aviation Timeline of Embuggerance - Letter from Anderson

Now let's rewind to about this time 4 years ago in the lead up to the Senate Additional Estimates where the former Senator NX received the following answer to his written QON to the 1st attempted embuggerance  by CASA of Angel Flight:

(02-20-2015, 11:47 AM)Peetwo Wrote: 

CASA AQONs

Example from the ATSB AQONs: 

Quote:
Senator Xenophon asked:

I understand that CASA has put forward a discussion paper in relation to community service flights, which cover organisations like Angel Flight and so on.

1. What prompted the issuing of this paper?

2. What concerns have been raised in relation to the safety of these flights?

3. How many community service flights have been involved in incidents in the last 12 months?

4. Does CASA have a view on whether people choosing to use community service flights have a full understanding of the safety regulations such flights are required to meet?

5. Depending on the outcome of the discussion paper, is it likely to have an impact on the regulation of medical charter flights?

Answer:

1. The growth in the number of community service flights prompted CASA to take a proactive approach to examining future options for the appropriate level of regulatory oversight for these flights.

2. CASA determined a number of significant potential risk factors needed to be considered; including pilots with varying experience and qualification levels and the variable types of aircraft potentially involved and their maintenance standards.

3. None reported.

4. The discussion paper has appropriately raised the importance of the Australian public having a good understanding of the safety regulation of community service flights.

5. Medical charter flights are regulated separately from community service flights. The Discussion Paper did not seek to examine medical charter flights.

 
Now given that last week CASA put out a presser through the DAS Skidmore - indicating they have backed down on the NPRM Charity flight thing - wouldn't you think the miniscule's office would have got CASA's answer to reflect the good news story before releasing the AQONs to the Senate committee??

Off the UP here is a post of mine (15 September 2014) that fleshes out the background to the last attempted embuggerance of AF: https://www.pprune.org/8656532-post1167.html

Quote:

...It comes after Angel Flight, an organisation that uses volunteer pilots to provide air transport for rural and regional people to access medical care in larger centres, raised concerns it could be grounded by unworkable and expensive red tape imposed by the aviation watchdog.

"CASA is looking at imposing an additional regulatory layer of bureaucracy on Angel Flight, with the charity required to be responsible for pilot training and licences, aircraft certification and maintenance checks, not to mention a possibly unattainable burden of insurance," the charity said in a statement.

Angel Flight founder and CEO Bill Bristow said CASA in 2003 gave the charity it's "blessing" in written approval to start operations but was now seeking to impose new rules to "regulate" Angel Flight in the future. He said flights co-ordinated by Angel Flight were no different to private general aviation flights in Australia.

"All of our 2700 volunteer pilots who generously give their time to assist struggling families must adhere to the rules and regulations already imposed and rigorously controlled by CASA," Mr Bristow said.

"When we first heard about CASA proposing regulatory changes, I presented our grave concerns to Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's chief of staff David Whitrow in March this year. However, it seems that those concerns have fallen on deaf ears."

He said he was worried the cost of complying with "onerous federal regulations" would financially cripple Angel Flight.

CASA rejected suggestions it was planning to impose crippling red tape, saying all it had done was start a discussion about aviation safety issues relating to community service flights.

A discussion paper on options for safety standards had been released for public comment so the public could understand them and consider whether there might be ways of managing safety more effectively, CASA said.

It said at the moment community service flights were considered to be private flights and pilots had varying levels of qualifications and experience and the aircraft involved differed in size, power and sophistication.

"If any changes to the safety standards covering community service flights are proposed in the future there would be further and comprehensive consultation before any action was taken," a CASA spokesperson said...

---

And then the back down by the newly fledged (former) DAS Skidmore... 

Via Oz Aviation online: https://australianaviation.com.au/2015/0...e-flights/

Quote:

CASA TO KEEP CURRENT GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE FLIGHTS
written by Australianaviation.Com.Au February 13, 2015

Mark Skidmore promised to make listening a priority ( http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10...-priority/) when he took over as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) new director of aviation safety (DAS).

And in his first CASA briefing note, Skidmore highlighted listening as one of his five key principles and promised the regulator would communicate clearly, simply and effectively ( http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/01...rinciples/ ) with the community.

So CASA’s decision on the question of how community service flights are regulated is perhaps the first sign of this emphasis on listening to community views.

CASA said on Friday people power had persuaded the regulator to maintain the status quo on how not-for-profit community service flights were regulated, with the present guidelines guidelines sufficient for now.

“We have listened to the feedback to CASA’s preferred option and we accept this is not the way to proceed,” Skidmore said in a statement.

“CASA is not proposing any changes to the existing regulatory requirements for community service flights at this time.”

A CASA discussion paper released in August – before Skidmore’s appointment as the new DAS – outlined a number of options that would change the way community service flights were regulated.

The regulator’s preferred option was for charity groups to be given the responsibility to “ensure that the pilots and aircraft meet specified standards when conducting such activities under the organisation’s auspices”.

This would mean they would have to, among other things, assess pilots, monitor pilot currency, assess and approve aircraft for their operations and conduct regular pilot proficiency checking as an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAAO).

Charity groups such as Angel Flight strongly opposed CASA’s preferred option ( http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09...a-changes/ ), citing the cost and complexity of managing such a scheme.

CASA received 65 submissions to the discussion paper.

Skidmore said CASA would continue to look at the topic of how charity flights are regulated, given the discussion paper had 10 options for consideration.

However, the new CASA DAS – Skidmore started in the role on January 1 – said there would be additional consultation with the aviation community and the public should the regulator explore any of those options further.

“CASA recognises the importance of community service operations such as Angel Flight to rural and regional Australia,” Skidmore said.

“Given the community clearly values the benefits of these flights CASA will not take any action that unnecessarily limits their ability to operate.”

So my question is - unlike last time - what happened between the former DAS statement in February 2015 and now, that convinced Carmody and the CASA Iron Ring to initiate, completely out of the blue,  a underhanded process (i.e 6 days before Xmas etc..) of supposed consultation on a rule change to the oversight of community service flights? ref: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulat...804os-1-1/

Quote:

...CASA is committed to supporting CSFs to maintain public confidence through improved safety.

We acknowledge the work being done by CSF organisations to improve pilot and safety education and we are committed to continuing to work collaboratively on these important initiatives.

While some actions have been undertaken by the sector, CASA considers it appropriate to establish a regulatory baseline that provides clarity regarding a minimum safety standard.

Previous consultation
In 2014 CASA sought comment on safety standards for CSF operations via a discussion paper. The responses to the discussion paper, indicated a significant lack of support for any regulatory intervention. In response to the feedback on the 2014 paper CASA decided not to take any immediate action, although CASA indicated it would monitor the sector and take action in the future if necessary.

Now
CASA has also engaged with the relevant charitable organisations to encourage the sector to improve safety themselves. While some actions have been undertaken by the sector, particularly in the area of safety education, CASA considers that it is appropriate to establish a regulatory baseline to provide a minimum safety standard.

Before anyone mentions the June 2017 accident near Mount Gambier, that is simply a furphy because we all know that if CASA truly had serious safety concerns/opinions about that tragic accident, they would have acted almost immediately to shutdown Angel Flight. However there is a takeaway from that Hooded Canary investigation that does raise my curiousity bump -  Huh
Reference: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-069/

Quote:
Updated: 27 June 2018

The investigation into the fatal collision with terrain near Mount Gambier in June 2017 is continuing.

ATSB investigators have examined the aircraft components recovered from the accident site and pilot transmissions from the common traffic advisory frequency for Mount Gambier Airport as well as GPS data and CCTV footage from the airport.

Investigators have also reviewed the aircraft’s maintenance documentation, pilot qualifications and experience,  and pre-flight planning as well as the weather conditions at the time of the accident.

In addition to a review of other similar accidents, investigators are currently reviewing all existing aviation safety data related to community service flights - for non-emergency medical purposes by voluntary or charitable organisations.

This involves a review of all available safety information from the ATSB aviation occurrence database and information on flight planning, coordination and oversight from the voluntary and charitable organisation.

Information from this review, along with other data from the investigation, is currently being analysed.

A final report will be released at the end of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue.
     

From the investigation page it is indicated that the investigation has since moved onto the Final Report: Internal Review phase:
Quote:

Final report: Internal review

Final ATSB investigation reports undergo a rigorous internal review process to ensure the report adequately and accurately reflects the evidence collected, analysis, and agreed findings of the Safety Factor Review. Final investigation reports also undergo other technical and administrative reviews to ensure the reports meet national and international standards for transport safety investigations.

If a review identifies any issues with a report, such as information that needs to be expanded or findings that need to be modified, investigators will look to collect new evidence or conduct additional examination and analysis of existing evidence.

This would appear to indicate that the ATSB review into CSF charity flight operations has been concluded, therefore I believe it would be safe to assume that CASA (through the terms of reference for cooperation in investigations from the March 2015 CASA/ATSB - https://www.casa.gov.au/file/102606/down...n=6kTrX4QY ) have already been privy to that part of the ATSB investigation. However given that the ATSB always state...

"...Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue..."

...then it is a fairly remote possibility that CASA are reacting to the shared findings from the ongoing investigation into the Mount Gambier Angel Flight accident.

Still chasing the dots and following the dashes but it still beggars belief that a Minister of the Crown is so scared of the CASA Iron Ring and his own shadow that he would respond with this obviously regurgitated bollocks statement:

“..The intent of this policy around community service flights by CASA is to ensure that a suitable level of aviation safety is maintained for regional and rural Australians who need to use these important resources to seek medical assistance away from their home..”

Again I reflect on this exchange between Sterlo and Carmody Capers... Rolleyes

Ref: https://auntypru.com/and-the-angels-wept/

Senator Glenn Sterle with the 'mystique of aviation safety' in a nutshell - "CASA has an incredible power over ministers. You must have some fairy dust that you sprinkle on them, because they all believe every word that you say. The minister was put under the pump and so you say, 'Okay, minister, will do an inquiry. She'll be right. Go and announce it.' You have not even done the terms of reference and you are trying to tell us that it is going to be done in a couple of months. I have no faith in you..."

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Dear Senator McDonald. etc......

THUD! - 269 pages, a whopping 13.7 MB of CASA defence against and reasoning for their treatment of CSF operations lands in the McDolittle Inquiry mail box. You can download the entire epistle from the inquiry submissions page; and, should the mood move you, read the entire thing.

Pagani et al have a mountain to climb and very little gear to do that with; not an enviable task. There are some carefully dressed up anomalies and cleverly obfuscated furphy's within the document and some very 'artistic' stretches; all par for the CASA course. There is some devilment in the detail, and that is the hard part to beat.

Unlikely, but even if time, money and interest were made available (lots and lots of each) it would all boil down two opinions - the legal v the 'operational' (for want of better). Two separate mind sets, juxtaposed. Both, in their own way 'correct' either side able to fight their corner 'till the cows come home; without a clear resolution, acceptable to both sides. 

Yet, resolved it must be. But how and by whom? Solomon departed the fix donkeys years ago, without a replacement unit. That leaves a bunch of Senators to adjudicate on some pretty tangled legislation managed by those who wrote that legislation and the resources to support their case for as long as it takes. That stand alone is a discouragement, but can you imagine the furore if CASA was overruled and there was another CSF fatal; I can.

But, for my two bobs worth; neither side have nailed down the real cause of this bun fight; nor made any attempt to eradicate the long standing reason for both CSF fatal accident - VFR qualified pilots operating into IMC; and nothing inadvertent about it; no excuses. 

There is nothing in the artful 269 page confection which suggests a remedy for this known killer; you can throw 'learned opinion' legal jargon and unlimited money at the CSF operation argument; but I'd bet good Ale that there will be another VFR into IMC before the 'he said - she said' argy bargy is even close to resolution. This committee needs to focus on cause, effect and remedy - same as any other Safety Management System would do; not the fine legal points of misdirection.

There; I feel better now: back in my box? - Right then..

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Dear Senator McDonald. etc......

THUD! - 269 pages, a whopping 13.7 MB of CASA defence against and reasoning for their treatment of CSF operations lands in the McDolittle Inquiry mail box. You can download the entire epistle from the inquiry submissions page; and, should the mood move you, read the entire thing.

Pagani et al have a mountain to climb and very little gear to do that with; not an enviable task. There are some carefully dressed up anomalies and cleverly obfuscated furphy's within the document and some very 'artistic' stretches; all par for the CASA course. There is some devilment in the detail, and that is the hard part to beat.

Unlikely, but even if time, money and interest were made available (lots and lots of each) it would all boil down two opinions - the legal v the 'operational' (for want of better). Two separate mind sets, juxtaposed. Both, in their own way 'correct' either side able to fight their corner 'till the cows come home; without a clear resolution, acceptable to both sides. 

Yet, resolved it must be. But how and by whom? Solomon departed the fix donkeys years ago, without a replacement unit. That leaves a bunch of Senators to adjudicate on some pretty tangled legislation managed by those who wrote that legislation and the resources to support their case for as long as it takes. That stand alone is a discouragement, but can you imagine the furore if CASA was overruled and there was another CSF fatal; I can.

But, for my two bobs worth; neither side have nailed down the real cause of this bun fight; nor made any attempt to eradicate the long standing reason for both CSF fatal accident - VFR qualified pilots operating into IMC; and nothing inadvertent about it; no excuses. 

There is nothing in the artful 269 page confection which suggests a remedy for this known killer; you can throw 'learned opinion' legal jargon and unlimited money at the CSF operation argument; but I'd bet good Ale that there will be another VFR into IMC before the 'he said - she said' argy bargy is even close to resolution. This committee needs to focus on cause, effect and remedy - same as any other Safety Management System would do; not the fine legal points of misdirection.

There; I feel better now: back in my box? - Right then..

Toot - toot.

---

P2 Addendum: CASA supp submission etc.

46.2 Supplementary to submission 46 (PDF 13887 KB)

Submission 72 - MR KURT PUDNIKS (PDF 310 KB)

Submission 55 (backdated and now public??) - Mr Rob Cumming (PDF 115 KB)

CASA AQON:

5 Answer to question taken on notice by CASA at a public hearing on 7 December 2021 (received 7 January 2022)
6 Answer to question taken on notice by CASA at a public hearing on 7 December 2021 (received 7 January 2022)
7 Answer to question taken on notice by CASA at a public hearing on 7 December 2021 (received 7 January 2022)
8 Answer to question taken on notice by CASA at a public hearing on 7 December 2021 (received 7 January 2022)

AQON 7.3:

On 10 December 2021 the Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive Officer of CASA, Ms Pip
Spence PSM wrote to the Chair, Senator Susan McDonald providing the requested information on the
costs awarded by the Federal Court to CASA in connection with the proceedings instigated by Angel
Flight Australia.

P2 QON: Hmmm...so why haven't the quantum court costs been published on the inquiry webpages?

---

Sandy's comment in reply, via the AP email chains:  

Ms. Spence’s 269 pages of J A’s magnificent non sense. 


Two hundred and sixty nine pages that no one will read or bother to comprehend because everyone knows it’s not worth the weeks of work that went into composing it. 

One of Aviation Hearse’s finest and most creative and wasteful discourses that you’ll never read, justification of the unjustifiable. 

You wouldn’t read about it, but yes this is how ridiculous CASA has become and it’s CEO puts her name to this believing it will be taken seriously. And she receives c. $650,000 pa of public funds. 

Sandy 

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

If you ask me, this is a very mild case of "Noble Cause Corruption" by both parties.

"Noble cause corruption is corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system, suggesting that people will use unethical or illegal means to attain desirable goals,[1] a result which appears to benefit the greater good. " - Wiki.

CASA accuses Angel Flight pilots of potentially cutting corners in pursuit of community service, and

Angel Flight accuses CASA of imposing draconian regulation in support of safety.

Why can't the two parties find a facilitator and confer together for a few days to develop a win/win solution?

The temptation to bend rules for community benefit is real. I see it occasionally in voluntary service organizations.

[thorn bird]

Interesting to note in the USA there were two fatal community service flight accidents.

Shock horror, ban them, bind them in knee jerk impositions, Oh the humanity!!

FAA reaction, zilch, Nada, zip, Nothing.

Differences here to there?

Sensible cost affective regulation where most private pilots can afford to obtain and maintain an Instrument rating, against Australia where the "Rools" dictate your life savings to obtain one and prostitute your daughters to maintain it, thus very few private pilots in Australia hold an instrument rating.

CAsA all about Safety? Yeah right!

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight court costs correspondence lost in the mail? - 

Via the Yaffa:

Court costs were awarded against Angel Flight after the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled in CASA's favour.

The Mystery of the Missing Angel Flight Costs

25 February 2022

– Steve Hitchen

When a question asked in a public senate hearing is taken on notice by the organisation giving evidence, there is an imperative that the answer to the question be provided quickly and accurately. In most cases, the reply is published on the senate committee's parliament house webpage.

But on 7 December last year, neither CASA CEO Pip Spence nor Executive Manager Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Jonathan Aleck were able to tell a senate hearing the value of the costs awarded to them against Angel Flight by the Federal Court.

In three different court actions, Angel Flight unsuccessfully challenged CASA's Community Service Flight (CSF) restrictions and in doing so was ordered to cover the regulator's costs of defending the actions.

CASA took the queston on notice among others, which raised the ire of both committee chair Senator Susan McDonald and committee member Senator Glenn Sterle.

But when the package of answers was published on the senate webpage in January, one answer was not among them: the Angel Flight court costs.

In fact, Spence had replied to the question on 10 December, three days after the senate hearing, showing that at the time the stated costs had been $67,000 with further costs under negotiation with Angel Flight.

Questions directed to McDonald's office about the letter were greeted with bewilderment: they had no record of receiving it in their logs even though it was specifically addressed to the senator as chair of the committee.

Despite the Spence letter being the answer to a question taken on notice in a public hearing, the secretariat of the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) has elected not to post the letter on the inquiry website, saying the contents of the letter could not be divulged because negotiations were ongoing.

But how can the committee make a decision on whether or not the letter should be published it if never arrived at the office of the committee chair?

It was starting to smell like a cover-up or a bureaucratic bungle.

CASA has asserted that they did not ask for the letter to remain confidential, and have since supplied a copy to Australian Flying with the expectation that it would be published.

The letter is, however, out of date now and the costs Angel Flight will have to pay are expected to be significantly higher.

Of course all this could have been avoided had CASA been able to tell the committee in the hearing of 7 December what the value of the costs was.

The no-response from CASA triggered a visceral response from Senator McDonald that is clear in the Hansard.

"I am really frustrated that, having heard the evidence this afternoon, Dr Aleck didn't come prepared for questions about Angel Flight, about the costs," she said. "He is the head of the legal team. He would have been directing the proceedings. I imagine that he had to sign off on what the requests to the courts were and then what the courts decided.

"I would be fascinated to know what amount you asked the court to award and then what the court did award. I cannot believe, Dr Aleck, that you do not know the answers to this question.

"I appreciate that Ms Spence is covering for you, but I am very, very unhappy with the horrible abuse of your position with CASA."

Senator Glenn Sterle shared Senator McDonald's frustration.

"Now, seriously, Mr Aleck, just tell the chair how much you put in; tell the chair how much you got awarded," Sterle stated. "You know darn well. Come on."

At the time of writing, the office of Senator McDonald was trying to confirm the status of the Spence letter, why it had not been published and who made the decision to not do so.

This was the AQON to the awarded Court costs QON: 7 PDF: Answer to question taken on notice by CASA at a public hearing on 7 December 2021 (received 7 January 2022)

..On 10 December 2021 the Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive Officer of CASA, Ms Pip Spence PSM wrote to the Chair, Senator Susan McDonald providing the requested information on the costs awarded by the Federal Court to CASA in connection with the proceedings instigated by Angel Flight Australia...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AFAP supplementary submission - 

Via the GA inquiry submissions webpage: 44.1 Supplementary to submission 44 (PDF 1090 KB) 

Executive Summary and Recommendations


3. The AFAP believes that this inquiry is an opportunity to rethink and reform Australia’s aviation
regulations and regulator in a manner that achieves improved safety outcomes and efficiencies,
not only for the benefit of the Australian aviation sector but also for the wider community.

4. Many stakeholders have provided input to this inquiry critical of the regulator and regulations.
Many have included examples of negative outcomes supporting these criticisms too. There are
many common themes contained in these criticisms and examples that should be understood
holistically, so to aid the comprehension of the real and underlying contributing factors. In an
earlier submission, we referred to this as comprehending consistent problems as symptomproblems.
That submission can be referred to for greater explanation and detail.

5. It is apparent that regulatory comprehension and complexity are very common themes that
stakeholders continue to raise complaint about. Some express remedies to this through “wants”
of a complete revision and reform of the Civil Aviation Act (‘the Act’), or through the complete
replacement of Australia’s aviation regulations with those from the USA or New Zealand.

6. The AFAP believes that this type and level of reform are both unworkable and unnecessary.

7. The aviation regulator communicates that it has outcomes-based regulations however, the
problems of complexity and comprehension remain largely unresolved. The AFAP suggests that it
is disingenuous to consider regulations to be outcomes-based when they don’t communicate the
intent and safety objectives. Successful and efficient achievement of an outcome necessarily is a
function of stating, comprehending and working towards the objectives.

8. With this in mind, the AFAP suggests that the inclusion of the objectives of regulations in the
regulations is the missing facet of the so-called outcomes-based aviation regulations. We believe
that the introduction of this reform will greatly enhance the comprehension and reduce the
problem of complexity. We refer to this as the inclusion of regulatory-intent in the regulations.
This submission details this further.

9. Regarding ideas for a wholescale review of the Act, we instead envision that a simple and targeted
reform of the Civil Aviation Act is the best and only legislative reform required for the Act. We
suggest that this reform should aim to resolve the current lack of outcomes-focused regulatory
activity. In our view, an amendment to s9A of the Civil Aviation Act that focuses on safety systems
and outcomes will achieve the desired reform many stakeholders are impatient for. Section 9A of
the Act addresses the requirements for the regulator’s performance and functions, including what
it must consider in the development and promulgation of standards.

10. The AFAP specifically recommends:
a. The establishment of an aviation regulatory reform process that has an objective to
include articulation of safety objectives and regulatory-intent of aviation regulations
within the regulations.
b. The Civil Aviation Act be amended in a targeted manner to permanently bestow a legal
duty upon the regulator to develop and promulgate regulations with systemic and
outcomes focused objectives. Such a targeted amendment should be worded with an aim
to resolve the current lack of outcomes-focused regulatory activity.

11. The AFAP would like the committee and other stakeholders to consider that this inquiry, and
subsequent reform initiatives, will be at risk of failing to achieve meaningful reform outcomes if
realistic and workable solutions are not agreed and applied. It is essential that a meaningful
majority of stakeholders come to agreement on these matters so that targeted reform initiatives
can be developed and applied, and so this inquiry isn’t a wasted and pointless endeavour.

12. This submission includes examples of regulatory-intent and an amendment to the Civil Aviation
Act. We included these only to aid comprehension of the vision and concepts articulated. The
wording detailed in them should not be misinterpreted for fixed positions on the wording choice.

Plus:

Targeted Legislative Amendment

59. Occasionally various aviation stakeholders raise positions for a whole-of-Act review and
amendment. Unfortunately, such positions are more informative of the weight of frustrations for
the current regulatory state than they are for a useful civil aviation legislative reform. The AFAP
cautions against such broad and risk laden reform considerations as these could conceivably lead
to a multitude of unintended consequences. Instead, we suggest that the aviation community
and government consider that there is a significant degree of consistency of the issues raised by
most stakeholders and that these fall within the remit of s9A of the Act - Performance of Functions
(of CASA).

60. Much of the current and longstanding criticism can be summarised into matters such as:
inconsistent regulation application, confusing regulations, verbosity of regulations, and poor
alignment to how regulations need to operate in the practical operational environment (leading
to cost impost in some cases). All of which can be summarised as symptoms related to the
performance of CASA’s functions.

61. Thus, instead of contemplating broad and risky reforms to significant portions of the Act, the AFAP
suggests that it would be wiser, more efficient and effective to refine wants of broad Act reform
instead into a nuanced and targeted reform of s9A of the Act.

Amendment to the Civil Aviation Act

62. Section 9A of the Act sets out the performance and function priorities that CASA must regard and
consider, which includes that CASA must regard safety as the most important consideration. In 

---

---

What does System of Safety mean?

65. During the process of socialising our proposed Act amendment with other stakeholders (since
early 2019), we have found it useful to propose a specific example with wording in which the
concept could take form. It has never been our intention to be fixed on the exact wording. Rather,
the example is only intended to assist others with the comprehension of the concept.

66. Despite our intent, a commonly raised issue by other stakeholders is the use of the terminology
“system of safety” in our proposed example Act amendment. Some stakeholders have suggested
that the inclusion of this terminology in the Act would also require the addition of a definition of
system-of-safety in the Act too. We draw attention to the fact that the Act already contains similar
terminology, and without definition of it. For example, section 9 states:

“CASA’s functions

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in
accordance with this Act and the regulations:
…

(g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety… … and to
promote the development and improvement of the system”
[Emphasis added]

67. ICAO documents also use this type of terminology without definition too. Doc 9859 (8.3.5.9):
“Performance-based regulations that are written in this manner require regulators to
have the skills and expertise to assess the performance of the system, rather than to
merely assess prescriptive compliance with the letter of the regulations.”
[Emphasis added]

68. The AFAP remains agnostic to the requirement for a definition of aviation safety systems or not,
however we do believe that the discussion on this point should be consistent and if stakeholders
believe our proposed amendment to the Act (in its current form) requires an accompanying Act
amendment to provide a definition, then these views should exist for the current wording in the
Act too.

69. We reiterate that the purpose of our proposed amendment to the Act is to achieve safety
outcomes that consider the civil aviation system in a holistic and practical manner. Considered
word choice may mean different words are selected but the AFAP requests readers to absorb the
concept rather that to focus upon exact word selection for now.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

McDolittle sells out GA industry for political expediency (election coverup) - 

From above:

AFAP supplementary submission - 

Via the GA inquiry submissions webpage: 44.1 Supplementary to submission 44 (PDF 1090 KB) 

9. Regarding ideas for a wholescale review of the Act, we instead envision that a simple and targeted
reform of the Civil Aviation Act is the best and only legislative reform required for the Act. We
suggest that this reform should aim to resolve the current lack of outcomes-focused regulatory
activity. In our view, an amendment to s9A of the Civil Aviation Act that focuses on safety systems
and outcomes will achieve the desired reform many stakeholders are impatient for. Section 9A of
the Act addresses the requirements for the regulator’s performance and functions, including what
it must consider in the development and promulgation of standards.

10. The AFAP specifically recommends:

a. The establishment of an aviation regulatory reform process that has an objective to
include articulation of safety objectives and regulatory-intent of aviation regulations
within the regulations.
b. The Civil Aviation Act be amended in a targeted manner to permanently bestow a legal
duty upon the regulator to develop and promulgate regulations with systemic and
outcomes focused objectives. Such a targeted amendment should be worded with an aim
to resolve the current lack of outcomes-focused regulatory activity.

Personally I believe that section 9A para 1 needs to be omitted and replaced with something like:

"...The CAA is responsible for the regulation and oversight of civil aviation within Australia. Its primary mission is to help facilitate safety risk mitigation within the civil aviation industry..."

However I do agree with the AFAP that the Civil Aviation Act doesn't need a complete overhaul and a properly considered rewrite of section 9A would provide the necessary impetus to helping revitalise a overly regulated and red tape encumbered/embuggered GA industry. 

Perhaps the perfect example (among many) of why the present section 9A para 1 of the Act (ie the mystique of aviation safety) doesn't work is the continued embuggerance of Angel Flight through the completely disconnected, with aviation safety standards, CSF legislative instrument - which brings me back to this...

Court costs were awarded against Angel Flight after the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled in CASA's favour.

The Mystery of the Missing Angel Flight Costs


At the time of writing, the office of Senator McDonald was trying to confirm the status of the Spence letter, why it had not been published and who made the decision to not do so.

..On 10 December 2021 the Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive Officer of CASA, Ms Pip Spence PSM wrote to the Chair, Senator Susan McDonald providing the requested information on the costs awarded by the Federal Court to CASA in connection with the proceedings instigated by Angel Flight Australia...

In an attempt to follow up on the EWH scoop (and after conversations with various SME and connected parties) I got in contact with the ever helpful and efficient RRAT committee Secretariat and posed the following questions: 

1) Why hasn't the 10 December 2021 correspondence from CASA CEO Pip Spence to the RRAT committee Chair been published on the GA inquiry webpages?

2) Why hasn't the full Court costs paid by Angel Flight (speculated to be North of 400K) to CASA been published on the GA inquiry webpages?

3) Why was the Angel Flight supplementary submission (in reply to the CASA supplementary submission, which included a breakdown of the Court costs Angel Flight paid to CASA) rejected by the committee on the grounds of it was not directly relevant to the GA inquiry?

The fella on the other end of the line studiously took down notes and promised that someone would get back to me in due course. Within the hour I missed a 'silent number' call and realised that it maybe the Secretariat returning my call. I immediately rang the Secretariat number and was surprised to be talking to the Secretary of the RRAT committee, Mr Gerry McInally.

To say the tone of the guy was somewhat 'terse' is an understatement but I gather, from his responses to my queries, that his antagonism was derived from 'rumours floating around' (he mentioned Oz Flying) that the Secretariat was responsible for both blocking the Pip Spence correspondence to the Chair and the rejection of the Angel Flight supplementary submission. The Secretary insisted that these were all committee decisions and nothing to do with the Secretariat.

I questioned how the committee could make the decision to reject the AF supp submission, on the grounds of it not being directly relevant to the GA inquiry, when it is normal practice for a witness to have a right of reply to a supplementary submission that directly challenges the witness's evidence presented.

The Secretary said the committee made the decision based on the premise that the Senate was not a court and did not want to get involved in the legal wrangling between the two parties...

I then made the point of how it is morally acceptable for a Federal agency (supposedly bound by the model litigant rules) to accept court cost payments (> 400K) from a not for profit charity like Angel Flight (with such a highly regarded reputation for safely providing a much needed service to rural and remote communities) and how that is not relevant to the GA inquiry (and all that is rotten inside of Aviation House)? The Secretary told me to take it up with the committee...

This brings me to the following dichotomy...

Via Facebook:

David Coleman - Member for Banks

It was good to visit Little Wings at Bankstown Airport on Monday to see the new plane that has been purchased through a $700,000 Federal Government grant.

Little Wings provides an incredibly important service, transporting kids and their families from regional NSW to Sydney for medical care.

 
The 700K grant backed up here: https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-...ding-boost

Little Wings also received a NSW Govt grant: https://www.theland.com.au/story/6763579...y/?cs=4951

However Angel Flight (despite totally demolishing the Monahan affidavit and proving in court they had no safety case to answer), with a Federal Court admitting CASA were a law unto themselves (section 9A of the Act), have to pay a 400k+ court cost bill to the Federal Government? 

Hmm...something stinks in Can'tberra - 

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A fair call -

"The Secretary told me to take it up with the committee.."

Spot on - over the years we have always had unstinting helpful advice from the Secretariat; within the limits of their remit. McInally continued the good work, there's not many who would pick up the phone to respond to 'inquiry' - it typifies the good working attitude of those who toil within 'the system' taking the time to explain the way things are.

P2 WROTE - "To say the tone of the guy was somewhat 'terse' is an understatement but I gather, from his responses to my queries, that his antagonism was derived from 'rumours floating around' (he mentioned Oz Flying) that the Secretariat was responsible for both blocking the Pip Spence correspondence to the Chair and the rejection of the Angel Flight supplementary submission:-

"The Secretary insisted that these were all committee decisions and nothing to do with the Secretariat."

Spot on again - quite right too. But, the statement made starts to underscore a developing line of thought related to the intent and purpose of the McDolittle line of 'investigation' (for wont of better). Essentially, the developing argument questions the value - it has taken a long time to get nowhere let alone produce anything of a practical or intrinsic worth to the non airline sector of aviation business.

There is growing support for the notion that if McDolittle knocked off today and never produced any form of 'report' it would make no difference to anyone. Credibility of the inquiry is in tatters, results so far dismal and interest may be classified as descending toward the 'passing' variety. Except for a minority - those who believe there should be an 'inquiry' into the McDolittle inquiry.

Toot - toot.

[Wombat]

P2, my guess would be that Angel Flight is the victim of a very carefully constructed whispering campaign. I would sadly expect Glen Buckley is about to discover that he is a victim of a similar exercise.

The good Senator has probably been told to back off as well so I expect nothing will come of her useless report.

The channel and substance of the campaigns are anyone's guess.

[Kharon]

Food for Inquiry thought?

Angel Flight shows Australia (again) the true spirit of this nation, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. But where is the $700,000 Little Wings in this current water logged muddy hell? It's been suggested that they don't want any mud on the new toys, or rain on their flash uniforms.

Bravo Angel Flight - well done Marj and we all hope Peter can find a dry pair of socks  soon.


But I have thus far arranged:

 

5 aircraft ex Bankstown to Lismore departing 0900 tomorrow ( Lismore airport scheduled to reopen tomorrow), with about 3 tonne of donated food and supplies. I put the call out on FB ( Ri helped here on Friday).  Campsie RSL donated $5,000 so pilot Darrell Campbell currently arranging food drop from IGA Bankstown to Nick’s hangar, on pallets.  We had separately collected about 0.5 tonne.

 

Campsie RSL also donating $40K slide-on camper for a temp home. I will liaise with our Lismore pilot Peter Martin as to a deserving family and Darrell will arrange pantec transport.

 

Also have about 1.5 tonne ready to go Ex YBAF to Lismore, to arrive at same time as the SY convoy. 6 aircraft including Bell 417 ($M5 beautiful machine - payload about 0.7 tonne) who is joining AF after I put out a call for helis in case airports stay closed.   

So should be about a dozen of us arriving Lismore at 1100 NSW time.  I have rallied our great pilot Peter Martin, to organise a fleet of utes to meet us and take the goods to the Lismore Showgrounds where they are today setting up the distribution centre.  I have arranged this delivery through Lismore councillors.

 

As a back story, we have also focused on Peter. He lost his hangar and two aircraft at Lismore, then got his boat and took SES to do rooftop rescues, but then boat got caught in submerged power line and threw them out.  Peter was washed 1 km downstream before being able to grab the exposed rafter of a warehouse roof, and was rescued shortly afterwards.  So now he is coordinating the ground transport fleet for us!

 

Will keep you posted with developments.

 

Cheers M

'M' for magnificent - perhaps? That $400,000 in costs would come in handy about now - SHAME on CASA.

[Peetwo]

Food for Inquiry thought? - Part II

Angel Flight shows Australia (again) the true spirit of this nation, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. But where is the $700,000 Little Wings in this current water logged muddy hell? It's been suggested that they don't want any mud on the new toys, or rain on their flash uniforms.

Bravo Angel Flight - well done Marj and we all hope Peter can find a dry pair of socks  soon.


But I have thus far arranged:

 

5 aircraft ex Bankstown to Lismore departing 0900 tomorrow ( Lismore airport scheduled to reopen tomorrow), with about 3 tonne of donated food and supplies. I put the call out on FB ( Ri helped here on Friday).  Campsie RSL donated $5,000 so pilot Darrell Campbell currently arranging food drop from IGA Bankstown to Nick’s hangar, on pallets.  We had separately collected about 0.5 tonne.

 

Campsie RSL also donating $40K slide-on camper for a temp home. I will liaise with our Lismore pilot Peter Martin as to a deserving family and Darrell will arrange pantec transport.

 

Also have about 1.5 tonne ready to go Ex YBAF to Lismore, to arrive at same time as the SY convoy. 6 aircraft including Bell 417 ($M5 beautiful machine - payload about 0.7 tonne) who is joining AF after I put out a call for helis in case airports stay closed.   

So should be about a dozen of us arriving Lismore at 1100 NSW time.  I have rallied our great pilot Peter Martin, to organise a fleet of utes to meet us and take the goods to the Lismore Showgrounds where they are today setting up the distribution centre.  I have arranged this delivery through Lismore councillors.

 

As a back story, we have also focused on Peter. He lost his hangar and two aircraft at Lismore, then got his boat and took SES to do rooftop rescues, but then boat got caught in submerged power line and threw them out.  Peter was washed 1 km downstream before being able to grab the exposed rafter of a warehouse roof, and was rescued shortly afterwards.  So now he is coordinating the ground transport fleet for us!

 

Will keep you posted with developments.

 

Cheers M

'M' for magnificent - perhaps? That $400,000 in costs would come in handy about now - SHAME on CASA.

Plus via the AF Facebook page:

Angel Flight Australia
4 March at 16:03

**QUEENSLAND DONATIONS**

**UPDATE. Due to the overwhelming amount of donations received over the weekend the hangar will be open for further donations tomorrow, Monday 7th March, between 9am-12pm. Thank you to the community for your continued support**

Angel Flight is deeply saddened by the devastation that has been caused by the recent floods in QLD and NSW.

We would like to extend our offer of support to areas that are recovering from the damage. We are now able to receive donations to Archerfield Airport (QLD) for distribution to the Casino and Lismore (NSW) regions affected by the floods.

How can you help?

We are currently accepting donations of the following items that are most in need:

- Underwear
- Socks
- Baby formula
- Water
- Milk
- Fruit & Vegetables
- Glen 20
- General food

Drop off location: Hangar 114 at Archerfield Airport (https://goo.gl/maps/5qpJnjirYw6mF7St6). Volunteers will be providing assistance at the Hangar on Saturday 5th March between 9am-12pm and Sunday 6th March between 9am-12pm.

Angel Flight volunteer Pilots are welcome to register their interest in assisting with supply drops. Please contact the Angel Flight office to discuss mail@angelflight.org.au or 07 3620 8300.

Angel Flight appreciates the support of emergency and community services who are working tirelessly to provide assistance and relief for those affected. To the victims who have lost their belongings and homes due to floods, Angel Flight sends you strength and urges you to get in contact if you believe that we may be able to provide assistance in any way.

And courtesy of Prime7 News North Coast:

Flood food drop

Tonnes of donated supplies are arriving in Lismore to be handed out to evacuees, thanks to charity organisation Angel Flight.

Plus from AOPA Oz CEO Ben Morgan:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia shared a post.
13 h  ·

ANGEL FLIGHT DEMONSTRATES HOW INVALUABLE GENERAL AVIATION IS TO COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE!

Angel Flight and it's volunteer pilots and ground helpers are once again powerfully demonstrating how invaluable general aviation is to communities across Australia, with emergency supplies and relief flights for flooded towns.

"Every politician in Australia's Parliament, needs to see this news report, not only because of the incredibly good work that Angel Flight and it's volunteers do for communities facing all manner of hardship, but because Angel Flight itself is at risk of being destroyed, through unnecessary over-regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), " Benjamin Morgan, CEO AOPA Australia.

"Our Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Cabinet, and every member of the House and Senate, should take a good long look at this news report.

"What you see in this news-report are hard working Australians using their pilots license and their aircraft, to help those within our community that are in need. You see mates helping mates, you see the selfless Australian spirit and the generosity and goodwill of our aviation community and industry.

"What you will not see, are the faces of those from CASA who have spent the past four years undermining the rights of pilots and the great work that Angel Flight does for the many thousands each year.

"The Australian Parliament, must support Angel Flight and our national community of pilots, in protecting our rights and ensuring that we have the freedom to fly in support of our communities." he said.

BENJAMIN MORGAN

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

McDolittle defers GA inquiry and dissents Sterlo's inquiry - WTD...

Via the APH website today...

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

17 March 2022

On 2 December 2019, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee self-referred, under Standing Order 25(2)(a), an inquiry into Australia's general
aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia.
The committee agreed to table an interim report on or before the final sitting day in
December 2020, and a final report date on or before the final sitting day of November 2021.

On 20 October 2021, the committee agreed to extend the reporting date for the final report to
17 March 2022.

The committee has agreed to extend the inquiry further to allow it to consider the evidence
received and to conclude its deliberations. It will therefore table an interim report on
30 March 2022, and a final report on 20 October 2022. The committee submits this letter to
satisfy its commitment to report back to the Senate.

Yours sincerely

Senator Susan McDonald

Chair

Next via the RRAT webpages:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Future of Australia’s aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post pandemic—Report, dated March 2022 , Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee, additional information and submissions.[Received 17 March 2022]

The recommendations:

List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1
4.100 The committee recommends that the Australian Government adopts Recommendations 16 and 17 from the Senate Select Committee on Job Security's Third interim report: labour hire and contracting:

Recommendation 16
The committee recognises the merit of an independent body with the power to make and enforce binding standards on aviation supply chain participants, including airports and their central role. Those standards include 'same job, same pay' for outsourced and labour hire workers performing functions directly connected to aviation operations, job security protections, and fair procurement standards. The committee recommends the Australian Government consults with industry participants, including unions, employers, and other stakeholders on the development of this body.

Recommendation 17
The committee recommends the Australian Government imposes obligations upon companies in receipt of future public bailouts, which prioritise job security and guarantee that companies cannot follow Qantas' lead, and exploit emergencies to engage in illegal workforce restructuring.

Recommendation 2
4.109 The committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently works with industry, unions professional associations, and aviation sector experts, to prepare a comprehensive white paper on the future of the aviation sector post-pandemic, including aviation workforce issues such as:

•  the ongoing impacts of job insecurity, wage decline and the erosion of safe work conditions on the aviation workforce, in the context of the pandemic and the sector's recovery;
  
• measures to lift wages, conditions and standards at airlines and airports around Australia, including aviation workers performing the same job are entitled to the same pay, and holding airlines and others at the top of aviation supply chains responsible for standards throughout the chain;
  
•  options for lifting workforce supply to support the projected growth in aviation activity; and
  
•  approaches to ensuring that workforce growth results in the creation of a sustainable, highly-skilled and secure workforce for the long-term.
  

Outcomes from the white paper process should inform a national plan for investing in aviation sector workforce retention, training and capacity building to ensure sustainability over the medium and long-term.

Recommendation 3

5.98 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consults and communicates closely with industry, professional associations and trade unions in the design and delivery of future aviation support measures.

Recommendation 4

5.104 The committee recommends that any future crisis support provided by the Australian Government to the aviation sector be conditional upon recipient entities retaining skills and capacity in the sector. Initiatives designed to retain capacity should specify that workers must be retained, that their pay and conditions should not be reduced, and should set out the amount that workers should be paid under the assistance.

Recommendation 5

5.108 To committee recommends that to assist with enforcing these conditions and expectations associated with future crisis support payments, and in recognition of aviation’s critical contribution to national security, supply chains and sovereignty, that the Australian Government considers acquiring an equity stake in support recipients as part of the support agreement.

Recommendation 6

5.114 The committee recommends that the Australian Government provides ongoing and targeted assistance to support the retention, training, certification and recertification of aviation workers throughout the recovery period.

Recommendation 7

• 5.115 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with unions, professional associations, airlines, labour hire companies and training providers: identifies the long-term training needs for the aviation sector; examines where future pressures lie;
  
• develops a program of skills development targeted at the aviation sector; and
  
• develops initiatives to ensure the industry remains internationally competitive in retaining key staff and attracting new entrants to the workforce.
  

Recommendation 8

5.116 The committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently considers the skills needed across the sector, and the best means of retaining those skilled workers, including developing a scheme that provides financial support directly to pilots, engineers and other highly skilled, in-demand aviation professionals to assist in maintaining their accreditation and training requirements.

Recommendation 9

6.100 The committee recommends the Australian Government leverages its procurement processes and spending within the aviation sector to protect and lift standards, promote fair wages, conditions and job security, and ensure the effective operation of an aviation industry in the national interest.

And then a dissention from the Government ranks... :

Government members - dissenting report

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee inquiry into the future of Australia’s aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post pandemic, made an interim report on 18 March 2021.

The interim report was a rational examination of the crisis facing aviation globally and more specifically in Australia. The Federal Government had acted on some of the recommendations prior to the interim report being tabled.

The final reporting date was extended three times to allow for a more thorough examination of the industry-wide challenges facing Australian aviation from general aviation through to the airline sector, including pilots, engineers, cabin crew and ground crew.

There are challenges with a shortage of pilot and engineer training businesses, reduced general aviation access to many airports, regulation, interest from young people entering the industry, and business confidence generally, following two years of international and domestic border closures.

Recommendation 8 in the final report reflects the work of Coalition senators in aviation roundtables to specifically address training and the cost of certification. These Roundtables were carried out to address identified gaps in the broader aviation ecosystem.

It remains the case that the near- and medium-term demand for air travel is an unknown quantity.
It is disappointing that the final report tabled largely fails to address the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry.

In addition, the draft contains a notable number of unfounded assertions and inappropriate emotive terminology. It lacks detailed scrutiny of testimony.

It appears that the extensions of time have been made to extend the industrial relations dispute between the relevant unions with one airline in particular, that being Qantas.

Rather than using appropriate forums, such as the courts and Fair Work Commission, to prosecute these industrial relations disputes, the Senate has been used to promote the agenda of one group of submitters to the Inquiry, primarily Unions. This is not the purpose of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport committee, and the opportunity to properly examine the genuine issues that would see aviation fly again has been wasted.

The Coalition members have been patient in providing quorum for these hearings and continue to hear evidence in good faith, but cannot support the recommendations of this report.

Senator Susan McDonald
Deputy Chair

Senator Greg Mirabella

Hmm...who'd of thought dissention in the RRAT ranks - 

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

“The committee has agreed to extend the inquiry further to allow it to consider the evidence
received and to conclude its deliberations. It will therefore table an interim report on
30 March 2022, and a final report on 20 October 2022. The committee submits this letter to
satisfy its commitment to report back to the Senate.

Yours sincerely

Senator Susan McDonald“

There we have it, a monumental cop out. A lack of courage to make a real report, after missing the interim report, after an incredibly long two years of supposed inquiry, in spite of all of the material from the ASSR Forsyth report of 2014, 269 submissions. Has the Committee considered those submissions?

We’ve been offered a truly feeble non excuse to leave off until October by saying ‘consider evidence received,’ which isn’t true in the sense that the RRAT is still open for submissions. How many years and how many submissions do you need? I sent to the Committee a few hundred comments from my Change.org petition of 2016. That petition was supported by three thousand signatories asking government to halt the bureaucratic destruction of General Aviation, and the Committee has some 60 submissions across the two years of it’s existence.

They have not, and will not, receive any more submissions that will uncover anything different, or yield any further pertinent information that will change the magnitude or quality of the problems that bedevil GA, or change the nature or course of reforms that are desperately needed. We know, and the Committee knows, or should know now unless they are completely brain dead, the reforms that are urgently required. It’s not hard it just requires insistence on the immediate start on reforms. Car driver medicals, independent instructors are two easy reforms that could start to turn the tide. And a statement that the independent corporate model of administration must give way to Ministerial responsibility in the Westminster tradition. The only long term structure that can work, a democratic necessity.

Meanwhile, fiddle while Rome burns, the RRAT abrogates its responsibility by inaction. Denying the good governance that is owing to the Australian public.

“Yours (In)Sincerely”

Thanks for nothing Senator McDonald and same to your fellow do-nothing spineless Committee Members. Excuse the rudeness but you do now know how catastrophic is government’s extraordinarily inappropriate regulatory environment to General Aviation and the shocking treatment of individuals such as Glen Buckley for whom you have done nothing. How rude is that?

[P7_TOM]

Just saying - Alternate theory maybe.

A few of us, by lunch time were completely in agreement with Sandy. The McDolittle saga has dragged on and on for too long, with little in return. Agree that there is a warehouse (probably built on a runway) somewhere full to bursting with invaluable 'evidence' (albeit untested) which has for the last 20 odd years clearly defined the growing 'problem' CASA creates. Writ large and in terrible clarity. However.

We made up a 'graph' on the stable blackboard - plotted the 'interest shown - through submission to the never ending 'inquiry': and, AP statistics. It would never stand in court, but it was 'interesting' - possibly informative. The inquiry hit a 'peak' of interest and attracted some consideration until late last year; then the graph took a descent profile and was headed for the weeds. Then Barnaby Joyce Esq. stepped up to bat. There is a reasonably supportable argument that BJ 'turned up the gas' - the SoE and a hearty ministerial Giddyup' seemed to breathe new life into the rapidly sinking 'inquiry' and the graph levels off, then begins a climb back to about +/- 60% of it's best 'rating'.

Then today P2 posted the coalition 'objections' to the Sterle inquiry - it is noteworthy that Sterle has not been in 'the picture' and that the excellent Sen. Mirabella has weighed in.  Just food for thought; interesting ain't it though. Reminded me of a favourite poem; and, wishful thinking of course....


Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell;

It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;

It pounded on the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,

For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place;

There was pride in Casey's bearing and a smile lit Casey's face.

And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,

No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey at the bat.

[Kharon]

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”

Agreed; I too hold an opinion, the rest may be considered a personal perspective. Careful consideration of history, measured progress and the tangible effects of multiple 'inquiry' into matters aeronautical produce a grim picture. Not only has industry been progressively restricted, the manner in which those restrictions have been developed, implemented and enforced reflects a clear intent to oppose any and all challenges to the 'authority' granted under the Aviation Act. 


“Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider.”

The patient researcher may delve back into the history of the past thirty year effort; there is a serious amount of midnight oil required alongside serious dedication. The entire collection of inquiry submissions alone weighs in just shy of 300 Kg. The Senate published words and the response in the 'authority' pile looks to be heavier again; (made a new bookcase for the Industry pile) perhaps I'll weigh the official responses et al when the need to move those pile arises. Anyway; there is a serious amount of 'paper' to plough through; and, I digress.

To the point fool: well, it is as simple as it is complex. A good start point is  - HERE - a Phelan article on the ASRR; worth the time to consider. When one takes the Senate and ASRR recommendations and draw comparison between that which was requested and required, against what has actually (in fact) been delivered, it becomes abundantly clear that not only have the recommendations been 'inverted' but have been used to identify possible loop holes in the regulators defence and are either obfuscated or nullified through revised regulation and sly 'policy'.

The ASRR is not an isolated example, on the contrary, clearly writ throughout the last three decades, the careful manipulation of both spirit and intent of any industry backed inquiry has led to the current dog's breakfast, referred to as the CAR. It begs but one serious question, is the McDolittle current, never ending pantomime likely to make one iota of difference in the face of documented history? 

"The Aviation Safety Regulation Reform (ASRR) Panel delivered its report and recommendations on time at the end of some four months of exhaustive and far-reaching consultation with all aviation sectors. The Minister presented the Panel’s work for public review promptly, providing another 30 days for further comment, which expired on Monday, June 30".

The only hope resides within the ministers office, his aides and those within the upper ranks of the the public service. There are some small signs that true reform may happen; but, to paraphrase an old joke; the only difference between a Tick and a lawyer is, the tick will drop off when the beast is dead.

"Of course reform is still several giant steps away, because it can only work when the new regulator’s new board and new management all accept that there exist obstructions that will take a cathartic change of corporate mindset to remove. The retraining or removal of the obstructionists will also be vital and should not be underestimated, because the philosophies that created the present system are still extant".

My two Bob, spent as pleased me best. Toot - toot....

[Peetwo]

Submission 75: Airlines of Tasmania Pty Ltd

Ref: PDF 1440 KB

---

Top job Shannon...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Interim Report II tabled - 

Via the GA inquiry webpages: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...rim_report

Recommendation 1

3.80 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) review their cost recovery process to ensure there are clear rules and transparency on how costs are determined. CASA should further consider applying a cap on charges for its services to individuals and organisations experiencing financial hardship, in a financial year.

Recommendation 2

3.166 The committee recommends the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and relevant Technical Working Groups, consider the following and report back to the committee with its findings:

• Whether Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 61 can be simplified;
  
• Whether CASR Part 141 and 142 should be combined;
  
• Compare CASR Part 66 and CAR 31 to determine the best option;
  
• Consider the conduct of Aerial Application and Airwork Operations Proficiency Check and Training by a Chief Pilot from a third-party operator as an option;
  
• How to best train regional and remote pilots in basic maintenance of aircraft and permit them to do so;
  
• Examine the role of CASA officials when receiving findings of qualified medical practitioners under CASR Part 67 by general practitioners in regional and remote areas;
  
• Review the requirement under CASR Part 138 aerial work and Part 133 for helicopter activities to have planned destination landing sites when this is not feasible; and
  
• Review the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Fatigue Management system for GA operators.
  

Recommendation 3

3.167 The committee recommends that where possible, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority streamline its licencing requirements to avoid duplication and the need for pilots and engineers to acquire multiple licences.

Recommendation 4

3.191 The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to include an obligation to support the Australian aviation sector to develop and compete nationally and internationally.

Recommendation 5

3.192 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority audit its regulatory framework to ensure that where possible, it aligns and complements the regulatory framework of other jurisdictions, specifically the US Federal Aviation Administration and New Zealand’s Civil Aviation Authority.

Recommendation 6

3.194 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority explore opportunities for mutual recognition of Australian and overseas certification, licences and maintenance qualifications.

Recommendation 7

4.85 The committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development instigate an immediate independent review into the organisational culture at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The review should be completed no later than 31 December 2022, with the findings publicly reported.

Recommendation 8

4.95 The committee recommends that a new aviation Industry Complaints Commission be established as a statutory authority. The Commission should sit outside the organisational structure of and be independent from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). In addition to the existing complaints mechanisms available under the current Industry Complaints Commissioner, the new Commission should have the power to investigate and respond to complaints concerning CASA employees, the Director of Aviation Safety and the CASA Board.

4.96 The statutory authority should be supported by adequate financial and staffing resources and be required to table its findings and reports directly to the Parliament.

Recommendation 9

5.75 The committee recommends the Australian Government, as part of its Aviation Recovery Framework, initiates a holistic training review of aviation training pathways. This review should be conducted in consultation with representatives from across the commercial and general aviation sectors, including the General Aviation Advisory Network, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and education representatives.

Recommendation 10

5.78 The committee recommends the Australian Government ensures measures to promote careers in aviation are designed to support both the commercial and general aviation sectors, in recognition of the vital role general aviation plays in the broader aviation ecosystem.

Recommendation 11

6.75 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, establish a legislative framework and associated guidelines for a Regional Aerodrome Infrastructure Fund. The Fund should be accessible to operators of regional and remote aerodromes, and should be provided with ongoing and long‑term funding.

Recommendation 12

6.81 The committee recommends the Australian Government ensures that representatives from the general aviation sector are regularly consulted as part of the modernisation of regulations under the Airports Act 1996.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

The Interim Report, more unintelligent drivel from a Committee that’s devoid of credibility and should be ashamed of wasting our time and money.

“Consider this” “review” “consult” “culture”

Same tired nonsense but two particular items stand out.

Firstly the recommendation for yet another independent statutory body as an aviation complaints commission. Terrific, spend a few more $millions a year into Government Industries, the revolving door salary enhancing merry-go-round which was once the Public Service. Yet another CASA like entity created to dash any remote hopes that our elected representatives will step up to their responsibilities and insist on fair treatment. Who would head up this new creature? Someone with good knowledge of the inner workings of CASA, a legal mind that grasps all the subtle details. Especially a person that believes that the General Aviation community need the discipline of a strong Government hand.

Second Idiotic: a whimpering plea for CASA medical to go easy on “remote and regional” pilots when faced with AVMAD’s extreme requirements for additional testing and reports and decisions which are against specialist advice.

Apparently Senators are not aware that the law is supposed to treat all equally.

Equality before the law is an essential and blindingly obvious element of the rule of law. They can’t be individually so ignorant so the Committee’s carelessness goes hand in hand with its shameless and cowardly decision not to put down a single hard and fast recommendation, except perhaps for the new Aviation Complaints Authority.

But jest for fun let’s take the call for regional and remote pilots to receive special treatment a little further. We will need to draw maps with two zones, the rational elective area leniency zone (REAL), and the strict hard interpretation territories of CASA’s AVMED.

I will apply to be CEO of the new statutory authority to determine who lives in which zone, the Regional Ordnance Regulator of Territories (RORT).