[Peetwo]

Carmody Capers - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Carmody Capers - 

Courtesy of IOS legend Bruce Rhoades - 

Bruce Rhoades

To all of you aviators from around the world who are joining me on my FaceBook page I have to say I am more than a little shocked at the growth rate in my “friends” at more than 30 per day.

As you will see when you scan the videos we have a manifestly corrupted Civil Aviation Regulator in this country who refuse to modernise.

We GA aviators in this country are an intimidated and suppressed minority.

Even ICAO is being ignored in successive audits of our system.

I would highly recommend the auntypru.com website to you from which this an extract and accurately describes the adversarial and hostile relationship between GA in this country and the Safety Regulator.

---

A "Forgetting" Organisation?

One of the articles of faith I absorbed as a teenager and young adult was that aviation institutions in Australia were "learning organisations" because the cause of aviation safety demanded nothing less than complete transparency by everyone engaged in the industry.

How wrong I was.

I don't know how I received this idea. It might have been from reading volumes of the old crash comics in the Ansett library. It might have been reading the volumes of internal incident reports and investigations into component failures and fixes. I later wrote a few myself that I like to think embodied that spirit; transparency, no blame or encomium, just learning so it didn't happen again.

I missed the giveaways that I was wrong in ab-initio flight training. The strange silences when I asked about specific things. Being cautioned against writing things up in the MR. The "it always does that" response to aircraft behaviour queries. A near miss learning STOL at YCEM - a real "gotcha" that could have killed us, but nothing heard thereafter. The fire caused by a rag in a heater duct. Then of course bending a Cessna firewall from a behaviour by myself that must have been as old as aviation itself but that was new to me. Some learning. Others are going to repeat these mistakes.

I thought that at least the ATSB was a learning organisation what with its unbiased safety reporting and all. But after the initial Norfolk Island report I discovered that all it was interested in doing was being a political fig leaf for its masters. CASA, from reading PPRuNe, turns out to be simply a punitive regulator with no interest in learning, merely rigid compliance. For example where is the scholarly work on fuel planning, including traps for young players? All there is is a regulation; don't run out of fuel - 50 penalty points and a criminal record. You cant learn in the CASA system because learning involves testing new ideas, and that is illegal and punished. "Outcome based" training is another fig leaf to hide a lack of understanding.

I now look at what I have built and think of the numerous "non compliances" a CASA Airworthiness inspector could find if they really tried. Shall I risk finishing it and flying it? I'm sure it will fly but its the regulator I fear. I think of the people whose careers imploded because CASA did not like their "attitude" or who became victims of forensic searches for errors in records looking for something to convict. I read in the AAT decisions about serial injustice.

I read about the minutiae of maintenance regulations, the behaviour of the CASA medical section. Is it any wonder that most pilots have at least two doctors? I think of the "maintenance statement" i have to write in the aircraft logbook and how it might one day be used to convict me of crime. I decide that the best way is to write as little as possible. Not the safest way, the best way from a legal standpoint. I vow never, ever, to fly anywhere near a CASA operative. I make a mental note to make myself scarce if I ever detect one.

These people are not teachers of anything except abject obedience.

For those of you who fly in the U.S.A under the FAA, be grateful!

---

Regards,

Bruce Rhoades

FB link: https://www.facebook.com/bruce.rhoades.7...0787477312

Cheers Bruce and the choccy frog is in the mail - 

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

ENCORE ENCORE ENCORE!!

Well suck me sideways, these videos are some of the funniest shit I have seen since CASAweary graced the UP pages. Hilarious! Well done Bruce.

Although humorous, you really highlight the stupidity of CAsA and the complete joke that we see it as. Don’t stop now, you’re on a roll. So many characters to potentially include in your true-to-life representation of Fort Fumble; Dr Voodoo, Pumpkin Head, Crawfish, the Miniscule, hell even the Groundsman that mows the lawns at The Circuit - all diehards, tryhards, retards and fucktards.

Bruce, from one IOS affiliate to another, for the next instalment could you please include some Benny Hill music or perhaps The Muppets mahana mahana music??

‘Comical representations for all’

[Peetwo]

Carmody Capers - 

Courtesy of IOS legend Bruce Rhoades - 

Bruce Rhoades

To all of you aviators from around the world who are joining me on my FaceBook page I have to say I am more than a little shocked at the growth rate in my “friends” at more than 30 per day.

As you will see when you scan the videos we have a manifestly corrupted Civil Aviation Regulator in this country who refuse to modernise.

We GA aviators in this country are an intimidated and suppressed minority.

Even ICAO is being ignored in successive audits of our system.

I would highly recommend the auntypru.com website to you from which this an extract and accurately describes the adversarial and hostile relationship between GA in this country and the Safety Regulator.

---

A "Forgetting" Organisation?

One of the articles of faith I absorbed as a teenager and young adult was that aviation institutions in Australia were "learning organisations" because the cause of aviation safety demanded nothing less than complete transparency by everyone engaged in the industry.

How wrong I was.

I don't know how I received this idea. It might have been from reading volumes of the old crash comics in the Ansett library. It might have been reading the volumes of internal incident reports and investigations into component failures and fixes. I later wrote a few myself that I like to think embodied that spirit; transparency, no blame or encomium, just learning so it didn't happen again.

I missed the giveaways that I was wrong in ab-initio flight training. The strange silences when I asked about specific things. Being cautioned against writing things up in the MR. The "it always does that" response to aircraft behaviour queries. A near miss learning STOL at YCEM - a real "gotcha" that could have killed us, but nothing heard thereafter. The fire caused by a rag in a heater duct. Then of course bending a Cessna firewall from a behaviour by myself that must have been as old as aviation itself but that was new to me. Some learning. Others are going to repeat these mistakes.

I thought that at least the ATSB was a learning organisation what with its unbiased safety reporting and all. But after the initial Norfolk Island report I discovered that all it was interested in doing was being a political fig leaf for its masters. CASA, from reading PPRuNe, turns out to be simply a punitive regulator with no interest in learning, merely rigid compliance. For example where is the scholarly work on fuel planning, including traps for young players? All there is is a regulation; don't run out of fuel - 50 penalty points and a criminal record. You cant learn in the CASA system because learning involves testing new ideas, and that is illegal and punished. "Outcome based" training is another fig leaf to hide a lack of understanding.

I now look at what I have built and think of the numerous "non compliances" a CASA Airworthiness inspector could find if they really tried. Shall I risk finishing it and flying it? I'm sure it will fly but its the regulator I fear. I think of the people whose careers imploded because CASA did not like their "attitude" or who became victims of forensic searches for errors in records looking for something to convict. I read in the AAT decisions about serial injustice.

I read about the minutiae of maintenance regulations, the behaviour of the CASA medical section. Is it any wonder that most pilots have at least two doctors? I think of the "maintenance statement" i have to write in the aircraft logbook and how it might one day be used to convict me of crime. I decide that the best way is to write as little as possible. Not the safest way, the best way from a legal standpoint. I vow never, ever, to fly anywhere near a CASA operative. I make a mental note to make myself scarce if I ever detect one.

These people are not teachers of anything except abject obedience.

For those of you who fly in the U.S.A under the FAA, be grateful!

---

Regards,

Bruce Rhoades

FB link: https://www.facebook.com/bruce.rhoades.7...0787477312

Recent addition:

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Not Happy Shane! - 

From Ben Morgan, via AOPAA:

AOPA AUSTRALIA CALLS FOR CASA TO WITHDRAW CHANGES TO COMMUNITY SERVICE FLIGHTS MINIMUM STANDARDS
December 21, 2018 By Benjamin Morgan


Friday, 21st December 2018

Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia

Dr Jane Thompson
RRAT Committee Secretary
PO BOX 6100
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia.

Call to withdraw proposed changes to Community Service Flights CD 1814OS

Mr Carmody,

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia calls on CASA to immediately withdraw it’s proposed changes to Community Service Flights, as published in your discussion paper CD1814OS.  Should the changes proposed by CASA be implemented, they will entirely undermine the viability of Community Service Flights nationwide and will leave thousands of sick and disadvantaged Australians without essential transport for medical needs.  The proposed changes will preclude qualified pilots and aircraft owners by unnecessarily increasing the regulatory and cost burdens, further contributing to general aviation industry decline.

Throughout this past year, you have loudly espoused your commitment to a just-culture stating that CASA bases aviation safety outcomes on evidence-based risk assessment and takes a pragmatic and proportionate approach towards safety-outcomes.  In view of this, any proposed changes to Community Service Flights should be based on the assessment of direct evidence and risk, not the subjective speculation by the regulator towards a possible perceived risk.

Your discussion paper (CD1814OS) published on 18th December 2018, fails to provide any statistical or accident data to support CASA’s proposed changes.  AOPA Australia is only aware of two charity flight accidents spanning the past 16 years, of which we note the following important facts;

Accident 1:  Occurred in 2011, PPL holder, over 6,000 hours experience, flying Night VFR, had owned the accident aircraft for many years.  ATSB attributes the accident to a failure of the PIC to maintain lowest safe altitude of which the result was a CFIT event.

Accident 2:  Occurred in 2017, PPL holder, over 1,000 hours experience, flying VFR, had owned the aircraft for several years.  Whilst the final accident report has not yet been delivered, the preliminary report identifies that the pilot departed in inclement weather that precluded the ability to maintain VFR, resulting in inadvertent IFR and subsequent loss of control.

Whilst these two accidents were tragic, they did not reflect a failure of regulatory aviation safety standards, but rather were attributed to a failure in pilot decision making in the cockpit.  This highlights a need for better pilot education and support services, along with peer mentoring – not a need for greater regulation by CASA.

Based on the factual accident information;

1. Both pilots (Accident 1 and 2) were experienced PPL holders with over 6,000 and 1,000 hours in command;
   
   1. Neither accident reflects a substandard approach to existing minimum experience requirements;
      
   2. CASA’s proposal to increase minimum experience requirements from 250 to 400 hours would not have prevented the two historical accidents from occurring.
      

1. Both pilots were current in their respective aircraft and had conducted regular charity flights;
   
   1. Neither accident reflects a substandard approach to existing pilot currency requirements;
      
   2. CASA’s proposal to change pilot currency from 90 days to 30 days would not have prevented the two historical accidents from occurring.
      
2. Neither aircraft suffered a partial or full engine failure, or any other aircraft maintenance related event;
   
   1. Neither accident reflects a substandard approach to existing aircraft maintenance requirements;
      
   2. CASA’s proposal to require AD/ENG/4 will preclude a significant number of private aircraft from participating in Community Service Flights, by requiring them to maintain aircraft engines to commercial charter industry standards. For example, the cost to overhaul a Beechcraft Bonanza A36 engine (IO-550) to comply with AD/ENG/4 can be as high as $85,000 AUD.
      

In all three points above, CASA’s proposed changes;

1. Would not have stopped or prevented the two historical accidents from occurring;
   
2. Do not address the relevant safety need, which is pilot support, education and awareness;
   
3. Will result in increasing regulatory burden and costs to participating aircraft owners and pilots;
   
4. Will result in reducing Community Service Flight capabilities nationwide;
   
5. Will leave thousands of persons throughout regional Australia without essential transport;
   
6. Will contribute to general aviation industry decline.
   

None of the changes proposed by CASA appear to be responsive to any relevant safety factors.  Rather, they present as a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived requirement for the regulator to be seen to be taking action.

Furthermore, AOPA Australia is deeply concerned that CASA have moved to introduce these unnecessary changes during a Christmas holiday break when few aircraft owners and pilots can respond and at a time when Parliament has risen and won’t return until February 2019.  It would appear that CASA has been very selective in its timing, seeking to avoid political interference and/or scrutiny, which is both inappropriate and unfortunate.

We also make clear that we do not believe that CASA has adequately consulted with the industry or the major charities regarding these unnecessary changes.  We call on CASA to immediately withdraw CD1814OS and ask that the regulator establish a working group with representatives of each of the charities affected along with a representative of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia.

In 2017 the AOPA Australia met with Rob Walker, Industry Stakeholder Manager for CASA and extended an offer to help develop and deliver appropriate pilot education and support services for those conducting Community Service Flights focused on decision making in the cockpit.  Whilst our offer was not taken up, we remain ready and willing to assist.

Thank you for your time and we would appreciate your direct response.

Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)
Hangar 600, Prentice Street, Bankstown Airport NSW 2200 Australia.
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.

 
And off the Yaffa:

Industry unhappy with Community Service Proposals
20 December 2018

The general aviation community has reacted with alarm to CASA proposals that would introduce stringent requirements for community service flights (CSF).

CSF flights are those where pilots volunteer their time and aircraft to save people needing medical treatment from long road trips to and from home.

These operations have traditionally been classified as private, but after two fatal accidents involving CSF aircraft, CASA is now seeking to tighten controls on the pilots and the operations.

"CASA is proposing the new requirements to support pilots who conduct community service flights and to enhance public confidence in the services," CASA CEO Shane Carmody said in his December CASA Briefing newsletter.

"The proposed requirements relate to pilot flight time experience, licensing and medicals, night operations and maintenance. In many cases pilots currently conducting community service flights will already meet the proposed requirements.

"However, CASA believes it is appropriate to formally set out these requirements as pilots carry out community service flights without the organisational structure and support provided by an air operator’s certificate."

The proposed new restrictions include:

• a landing in the previous 30 days on the aircraft type or aircraft class
  
• 10 hours time-on-type for VFR
  
• 20 hours time-on-type for IFR
  
• logbook entries to be identified as a CSF
  
• 400 hours total time for PPLs
  
• 250 hours in command
  
• 100 hours flight time for multi-engined aircraft
  
• No helicopter operations
  
• No night VFR
  
• No more than five passengers
  
• VFR flights must submit a flight plan, flight note or SARTIME to Airservices
  
• Pilots flying on a Basic Class 2 cannot do CSFs.
  

"The proposed conditions are necessary in an operation where there is no AOC or other structure to support the supervision and oversee the development of new and existing CSF pilots, or to ensure that maintenance standards appropriate to the nature of the operation have been satisfied," CASA states in the proposal.

Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani told Australian Flying that the CASA proposals are bewildering.

"It does not make any sense at all, because CASA conceded it does not relate to accident causes or data," she said. "We and AOPA have called upon them to  provide supportive risk analyses or any statistical data, and they have not.

"The FAA publishes only recommendations. I suggested to CASA they publish a CAAP but they ignored that. They have not consulted us or any aviation organisation on this."

CASA consulted on community service flights in 2014, suggesting initally that co-ordinating organisations like Angel Flight or Little Wings would need to be full approved self-administering organisations (ASAO) under CASR Part 149. The proposal met with no support from the aviation community and was scrapped the following year.

Pagani also believes that CASA may be over-stepping their mark by telling pilots and owners what they can and can't do with their aeroplanes.

"There is a broader question, and that is the proscribing of lawful conduct by properly licensed pilots and owners, by the stroke of an administrative pen.

"This will affect many pilots, both in terms of flying and maintenance. If they succeed in this without challenge, they will use the precedent as enabling them to impose any conditions on any pilot, or, if they choose, to shut down all of the community flight organisations."

CASA said today that CSFs and private flights were different in nature.

"A person flying as a private passenger in an aircraft is not expecting their flight to be similar to a RPT or charter flight," the spokesperson said.

"They usually have some social connection with and knowledge of the pilot and the flight is not usually conducted under the operational pressures that are often associated with a CSF.

"Whereas a CSF is arranged and coordinated by a third party, the passenger and pilot have no connection to one another and there are operational pressures that apply which do not apply to an ordinary private flight, for example the need to get to a specialist medical appointment that has possibly been scheduled months in advance."

CASA has confirmed the new proposals will not apply to FunFlight because those flights don't involve travel to or from medical treatment.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...tcXVuSZ.99

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

CASA - You’ve been weighed and measured, found to be deficient, and should be immediately dispatched to a fiery hell

Ben’s letter to Wingnut Comedy and Miniscule McDo’naught is incredibly succinct and superbly articulated. It calls out CAsA for the exact reasons we have known for decades - they destroy our industry by implementing a damaging change to regulations and legislation not based on fact, on actual root cause or on reason, but based upon a ‘knee-jerk(off)’ reaction to be ‘seen’ as doing something and ensuring that they, and the Miniscule, appear to be in tune, in touch and in control. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

Risk assessment my ass. CAsA don’t risk assess anything. They do what they want, as they want, when they want, not based on evidence, fact and real root cause, but based on political ass covering, saving face and painting a light and fluffy ‘all is rosy’ appearance. And sneaking the rules through in December is another old Government trick. A bit like the Friday 16:59 pm fax. Tricky, sneaky, deceiving grubs.

Wingnut and Mc’Do’nothing are a pair of Xmas turkeys who need all of their unworkable rules, strict liability, and tens of thousands of pages or regulatory horse pooh stuffed up their ass and then shoved in an oven on 350 degrees F.

“Safe Xmas stuffings for all”

[Kharon]

By the numbers.

Can you imagine what would happen if the RTA suddenly placed ‘restrictions’ on the drivers of private vehicles; those who offer a neighbourly lift to the hospital for those less fortunate? I’d say travelling by road is a whole lot more risky than travel by air – statistics (on a pro-rata basis) prove that; beyond any reasonable level of doubt. The longer you are ‘on-the-road’ the higher the percentage chance of an accident.

The numbers do show that there is a high percentage risk of VFR into IFR causing an accident; it happens. The two accident cases cited by Morgan are both ‘classic’ examples. Flights get delayed and weather changes, another fact of life.

AOPA – “None of the changes proposed by CASA appear to be responsive to any relevant safety factors.  Rather, they present as a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived requirement for the regulator to be seen to be taking action.”

Spot on – but there are other factors at play – liability, insurance, political fall out, all of which will concern CAsA more than the safety of those who travel by light aircraft. The notion that a sick person being offered a lift to hospital dies in an aircraft accident is highly ‘emotive’ and would provide the hysterical media with a juicy titbit to fill in the gaps between advertorials - for funeral insurance.

AOPA – “In 2017 the AOPA Australia met with Rob Walker, Industry Stakeholder Manager for CASA and extended an offer to help develop and deliver appropriate pilot education and support services for those conducting Community Service Flights focused on decision making in the cockpit.  Whilst our offer was not taken up, we remain ready and willing to assist.”

There’s some merit in that notion; a long weekend course on weather flying and some educational material, perhaps some of the stellar articles ATSB used to publish. A package delivered at the local Aero club or Flight school – those that have managed to keep their doors open. I reckon Morgan would have little trouble finding suitably qualified ‘volunteers’ to deliver the package. CASA could take it one step closer – make a sensible ruling; something along the lines of an annual flight check – even a ‘ride-along’ with an instructor on board; line and proficiency check for those who wish to participate in CSF operations. At least that would be ‘constructive’.

The clap trap CASA have proposed fails, dismally, to address the radical causes of the cited accidents, let alone preventing future accidents. The CASA ‘solution’ simply highlights the almost complete disconnection with not only aviation safety across the board; but reflects a complete lack of imagination, intent and knowledge, revealing a total  inability to fulfil their claimed major role. That of being ‘the’ Safety regulator.

Can someone please tell me what CASA have provided in 2018 that ‘enhances’ Safety, in quantifiable, risk based terms? No – didn’t think so. What was the total cost of running CASA last year? And, to end the Q&A session did the tax payer get value for money?

Aleck, Crawford and Carmody running aviation – What a crew; the gods must be pissing themselves laughing.

Clinton McKenzie wrote:-

Some very important data that are missing:
 
How many lives have been saved, extended or improved as a consequence of CSFs? What is the value of that?
 
How many lives will be lost, lifespans reduced and lifestyles impaired if the number of CSFs is reduced? What is the cost of that?
 
What’s the delta between the two?
 
As noted by others, a reduction in the number of CSFs may cause a net negative for society.
 
Well said that man….

Toot –hear, hear -  toot

[thorn bird]

K,
as it seems CAsA are determined to enforce restrictions
on CSF pilots, implying they are unsafe and therefore need
remedial training and testing. Perhaps the question to ask
CAsA is there something wrong with the standards of PPL
pilots in Australia?
After all it is them that set those standards in the first place and
allegedly audit them, via a desk of course as most of their FOI's
are terrified of getting in an airplane, except a business class seat
to some far flung locale
If their miasma of regulations are not creating a satisfactory standard
adding more is hardly likely to improve the situation.

[P7_TOM]

Another brick in the Great Wall of WOFTAM.

Fair comments Thorny – but I wonder if the ‘problem’ lays elsewhere. Just a notion; a twiddle as “K” would say, but it’s worth a moments thought.

On New Years Eve, Sydney harbour will be crowded with boats – all manner of craft, loaded with people out for a late night, to watch the fireworks and have a few quiet drinks. It is usually quite a party. Despite the ‘elevated’ risk levels, the ‘Captains’ of those craft will have at very least some form of basic qualification. Few, if any will be qualified for ‘commercial’ operations – in the real sense; but they can fill their craft to capacity and float about the harbour as and when pleases them. What if (gods forbid) there was some kind of accident?

It is, in essence, the same as a CSF. What will, in most cases be lacking is not ‘qualification’ but currency. Regular exposure to the environment and an awareness of the inherent dangers associated. A fellah can take out 15 or 20 ‘mates’ in the dead of night, in a high traffic density situation and no one turns a hair. Yet a qualified pilot wants to exercise the legal privileges of the licence held to take a sick soul to medical care; and, suddenly, it’s held to be a danger. Total Bollocks.

Our PPL’s are no better or worse than PPL’s anywhere; but PPL holders don’t fly everyday; or, in every weather, day or night. The cost alone is prohibitive, the time needed to plan and prepare is scarce and there is only an increasingly small band of folk available to seek advice from. I’d betcha a beer, only 1 :10 PPL’s can find their CFIT risk score for a proposed flight sequence. It is a simple enough exercise; free, from Flight Safety. But how many do the risk analysis before they launch? Not too many. Why? They ain’t slack and mostly nowhere near dopey – they simply don’t know of the tools available to assist ‘evaluate’ the risk matrix of a flight. Takes about five minutes to show ‘em, two minutes to see the benefit and about 20 seconds to accept they are entering a potentially evaluated risk zone. Forewarned is forearmed.

Same-same with a delay – particularly when the weather and darkness are involved; it is essential that there is a limit set, before departure and the option to cancel at a predetermined time made clear. Simple enough stuff to mandate – perhaps a CSF ‘guide’ could be provided to reinforce the basics and make mention of the things that can and do go awry. I like the idea of a weekend weather flying course; the idea of annual ‘ride-along’ check has merit. There are lots and lots of positive, safety oriented things CASA could do, in support of increased awareness and further education.

But, with the best will in the world – I cannot see how the new ‘regulation’ will enhance the safety of anyone above the current existing level. Another brick in the Great Wall of WOFTAM.

Yes, I am going to have another while I pray to pagan gods that RaOz don’t start doing CSF in Bristells or whatever. There is a scary thought.

“Get ‘em in boy, we do need the practice”.

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight General Aviation Timeline of Embuggerance - Letter from Anderson  
   

Ref: AOPA thread.

Via AOPA Oz FB page:

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER MICHAEL MCCORMACK RESPONDS TO CONCERNS FOR ANGEL FLIGHT AFTER CASA PROPOSALS
The Daily Advertiser, Annie Lewis, 5th Feb 2019

The Deputy Prime Minister has responded to concerns that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s new proposal could discriminate against a charity that flies sick children from Wagga to the major cities for treatment.

Angel Flight in the last 10 years, has coordinated more than 1000 flights for Wagga residents to access medical help and has raised concerns about CASA’s proposal.

Changes put forward include increasing minimum pilot hour requirements, which would bar some of the volunteers with lower hours, and requiring aircraft engines to be maintained to commercial charter standards, which could cost $85,000 or up to $120,000.

Benjamin Morgan, executive director of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, said the proposal is ridiculous.

“These are changes that are not supported by the aviation industry and community,’ he said.

“I am astounded that CASA has thought they can ram these changes into the system and subvert the standard regulatory change processes.

“If CASA were so confident in their recommendations that they’re attempting to fire through then why didn’t they go through the normal process.”

Mr Morgan said he wanted to know whether or not the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister will “stand up for families in the bush or will they abandon them”.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Michael McCormack, said the policy is far from discriminating against regional people.

“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,” he said.

“The proposals being put forward by CASA are as a result of two fatal accidents and following these tragic accidents in recent years, CASA initiated a public consultation on the CSF sector as a whole.

“The Australian Transport Safety Bureau also continues its investigation into the most recent fatal accident and has initiated an investigation into the landing incident in Wagga last week involving a CSF organised by Angel Flight.”

Mr McCormack said no flights have been grounded and operations are continuing while this process is underway to improve aviation safety standards and outcomes.

Mr Morgan said the best, most reliable way to determine if changes in aviation regulations and safety standard is to overlay the proposals against historic accidents and ask if it could have been prevented.

“The answer is, not one of the recommendations has any relevance to any historical accident,” he said.

“What we are seeing is a disgraceful attempt of CASA to fear monger and create emotional reactions to support these proposals.

“They are devoid of safety case and devoid of a risk assessment to justify it and it is a gross abuse of the aviation industry rights and the rights of Australians.”

He expected, Mr McCormack said, CASA to take a pragmatic approach to ensure aviation safety is maintained whilst taking into consideration the importance of operations such as Angel Flight and Little Wings, especially in rural and regional Australia.

“I have been in contact with both the CASA chief executive officer Shane Carmody and Angel Flight chief executive officer Marjorie Pagani to discuss the proposed changes and I will continue to monitor the consultation process closely,” he said.

“CASA believes most pilots currently conducting CSFs would already meet the proposed new standards and that these proposed changes will not exclude many of Angel Flight’s volunteer pilots.

“The proposed approach is comparable to that taken by the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States in response to similar safety concerns following a number of fatal accidents with pilots conducting CSFs on a charitable basis.

“The FAA introduced additional requirements in 2013 and the charitable medical flight sector has continued to provide these services.”

---

Comments: 

Brett Pulford - Well that's a disappointing response. Comparing CASA to FAA is not valid or useful considering the costs involved in flying in the USA are substantially lower than here.

Out of curiosity does anyone know what the 'additional requirements' introduced by the FAA were? I tried to find them but couldn't.

For me the real kicker is that the proposed rules wouldn't have prevented the two accidents, so it can't be claimed to be being introduced as a result of them. It's really as simple as that. That's without even looking at the impact it'll have on the services provided.

---

Mark Westcott - What a pathetic political response.

Nothing in the new restrictions from CASA would have prevented the two accidents.

They are out of touch and so is our deputy prime minister.

Hemophobia – And the political backbone.

6G McCormack -  (Back-flip specialist) “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,” he said. I say - BOLLOCKS.

The whole thing is disgusting; RESIGN minister, save what little internal integrity and self respect you have for the day when you understand what it is to be a ‘grown man’ with responsibilities. Having sold your soul once – you need to find a way to break the deal you made with the Devil. The Styx River ferry awaits your arrival with the patience borne of long practice; don’t forget the two bob – we still charge full rates. De-luxe service 24/7, you bet.

Toot - toot..............

P7 - (beg pardon) “[The] intent of this policy around community service flights by CASA. etc. Uhm - CASA do not conduct community flights - do they?

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:

CASA AQONs

Example from the ATSB AQONs:  

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??

I'll be back with MTF...    

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

...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 from the Cairns Post in November 2014: https://www.cairnspost.com.au/lifestyle/...a5a5a275b9

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reassured rural and regional communities it is not moving to close down community service flights such as Angel Flight.

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/

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/

...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 -   
Reference: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-069/

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:

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...  

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 

Sterle the legend;

Comment from the super coach;

”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”.

No Senator, not fairy dust, it’s a bit more simple than that; the Minister and his fellow politicians are dumb. Pure and simple. They have no idea, their life has revolved around lying, deceiving, buying off, paying off, dealing, selling promises and backstabbing. That is their skill set, that’s why they are politicians, that is their trade. So, no, fairy dust doesn’t enter the equation, quite simply you have a bunch of slimey used car salesmen who care only about themselves. They wouldn’t know a flight deck from a Qantas lounge. Fools.

Fair call Gobbles, I do believe you've nailed the problem with our gormless NFI Miniscule McDo'Naught -   

Speaking of 'nailing it' -   While trolling through old media links that referenced the 1st attempt by the CASA Iron Ring (2014-15) to embugger Angel Flight, I noted a comment in reply from Anderson to this Oz Flying article - http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/...hreat-casa - that 4.5 years later barely needs an edit/update...  

 

Anderson • 4 years ago

CASA serves only the
interests of CASA.

First and foremost -
self-perpetuation.

Closely followed by
reaching its claws into the pocket of every GA participant to extract
the maximum bounty to fund said self-perpetuation.

It long ago
became an unwieldy beast that shed even any sort of pretence it might
actually serve the aviation community that funds it through the
regular extortionate gouging, both direct and indirect.

CASA certainly does
"make no apologies" - never has, never will (if past
behaviour is any guide)...

Why then does it
expect anyone with a brain and even the slightest modicum of
historical fact into aviation in Australia to believe anything the
self declared non-apologist has to say on any topic?

It has
been proven time and time again to be untrustworthy on almost every
level (secret collusion to influence ATSB investigations and doctor
accident reports - anyone, anyone...?).

An organisation that
simply lacks credibility within the real aviation community (ie, not
the segment that benefits from the largesse, corporate favours and
behind the scenes political shenanigans) cannot be taken at face
value.

Bureaucratic
regulation for all is the panacea for everything.

By now it is
clear the regulatory behemoth seeks to destroy GA and everything
associated with it, to not only bite the hand that feeds it but to
chomp, mangle and swallow to the GA armpit and beyond.

Whatever any new
purported "safety measures" might be from CASA for the
community service flight sector, it will be a rocky transition to yet
more rules that will do nothing to protect anyone.

The only new
protection needed is for the selfless humanitarians in the community
service flight sector (and GA generally) from the CASA
bureaucrats.

The "safety measures" will come with
some new fee or charge associated - nominal at first of course so as
not to create too much resistance - and given some fashionable
newspeak name to allay any unease, which will of course be
simultaneously denounced as “misplaced concerns” when the CASA PR
machine swings into action.

We all know by now
where “nominal” fees end up down the track – the next CASA cash
cow.

Remember this all well folks, for what will be sold out
of both sides of the CASA mouth in the months and years ahead will be
nothing but a wolf in the guise of a sheep. Harmless at first, only
to reveal a savage bite when it's far too late to fully comprehend
what really occurred.

Given the behaviour of CASA over the
past years, one really does need to wonder whether they are a
completely delusional bunch (given the continued expectation we will
blindly accept anything they broadcast), but more importantly whether
there is indeed a hidden agenda to completely rout GA - to destroy it
so completely that nothing remains but empty crown land, devoid of
the now GA aerodromes and ripe for redevelopment – which will all
be a sheer coincidence of course.

This latest little trojan
horse from CASA is undoubtedly but the next distraction to interfere
where none is needed and to spew forth but more needless regulation.
This time it will be aimed squarely at those who provide a tremendous
service and benefit to the community.

A type of actual
service that CASA would not recognise if it were placed directly in
front of its bloated waistline.

     

Hmm...MTF - P2 

[Peetwo]

St Carmode the guru of bureaucratic obfuscation of aviation safety??

AP relevant thread posts:

Non-compliance with ICAO Annex 14 - Part III.

Moving right along with the NCN list for ICAO Annex 14; I go now to volume 2 of Annex 14 which of course deals with helicopter landing sites or heliports - see HERE. Referring to the ASA GEN 1.7 list for the notified differences for Annex 14 volume II, there is currently 87 pages: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/..._Vol_2.pdf

Being a smaller SARP, plus given the smaller aviation safety niche, I naively assumed that volume II would have less non-compliances than volume I. Therefore I was extremely dismayed to discover that Annex 14 Vol II outstripped Vol I by approximately 100 notified differences...  

What is worse is there is not one ND that didn't exceed (improve) on the difference level of...

"..Less protective or partially implemented not implemented.."  

And the reason for that is because apparently anything that is outside of a Federally leased; or CASA certified ALOP airport perimeter fence is not within their remit; or the concern/responsiblity of CASA - UFB!   

This bizarre situation where the aviation safety regulator's oversight responsibilities apparently stop at the airport fence and airspace boundaries is perfectly highlighted in the recently publicly released consultation company AviPro's review of the proposed HLS for the new Tweed Heads hospital: ref - https://majorprojects.accelo.com/public/...iation.pdf
 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

Engagement with CASA is not a normal part of an application for a development. CASA is normally only informed by AirServices Australia if there is deemed to be a risk to safety for a development.

HLS Compliance and Standards

Currently within Australia, there are no set rules or regulations applicable to the design, construction or placement of HLS’. The appropriate legislation at present for the use of HLS’ is Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 92 which places the onus on the helicopter pilot to determine the suitability of a landing site.

CASA, as the regulator of aviation in Australia, divested itself of direct responsibility in the early 1990s and currently provides only basic operating guidelines via Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 92-2 (2) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Onshore Helicopter Landing Sites.

CASA does not provide design, structural information or advice beyond that provided in the CAAP.

CASA, as a component of a Regulatory Reform Program, does propose to prepare rules for helicopter landing sites and currently has a panel established for this purpose. The new rules will form Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 139R, however it is not expected that they will be completed any time soon.   If and when they are introduced, there will be an implementation phase and “grandfather” clauses...

    
Hmm..new rules will form Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 139R...yet again Part 139 features?? One gets the impression that once totally completed Part 139 will be the ultimate behemoth of CASA regulations.

But why does the Part 139 reference ring a bell? 

PING!   From the Senate Estimates archive records: ref - Supp Estimates October 2012 https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates...ent_a.ashx

Man Made Obstacles Located Away From Aerodromes - Risk review

Developed for CASA by AeroSafe Risk Management.

November 2009

Recommendations

Using the findings listed above and the treatment strategies outlined in the Risk Assessment Table the following recommendations have been developed. There are a total of 10 recommendations. The complex nature of the issues outlined in this report and the potential solutions are such that the recommendations have been represented in the following format:

• Legislative Framework
• Regulatory Structure
• Advisory Material
• Administration

Legislative Framework

R - 1 Authority to make Regulations: That the Civil Aviation Act is reviewed in the context of ensuring that CASA has the power to make regulations specifically concerning buildings, structures and objects that are located away from the vicinity of a certified or registered aerodrome.

R - 2 Removal of Compensation Requirements: That the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is reviewed in the context of removing the requirement to provide compensation for the installation of marking and/or lighting on buildings, structures and objects that have been determined to be a hazard to aviation.

Regulatory Structure

R - 3 Option 1 – Creation of Part 77 Objects that Affect Navigable Airspace

This option is designed to group all obstacle related regulation within one CASR Part. It is proposed that this CASR Part is designated CASR Part 77. This brings the regulation of obstacles in Australia in line with the regulatory structure applied in the United States and New Zealand.

For this option it is recommended that:

• CASA to start the process of developing new a CASR Part 77 that satisfies the recommendations outlined in ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 4
• the scope of the new CASR Part 77 includes all obstacles whether within the vicinity of an aerodrome or outside the vicinity of an aerodrome and the obstacle requirements and marking and lighting standards set out in CASR Part 139 be transferred to the new CASR Part 77
• the new CASR Part 77 include the standards for the notification of structures, buildings and objects that are in line with FAR Part 77
• the new CASR Part 77 include the following elements...

R- 3 Option 2 – Expansion of Part 139 to include Obstacles that are located away from the
vicinity of aerodromes

This option is designed to ensure that the current CAR Part 139 – Aerodromes sufficiently satisfies the ICAO requirements both for obstacles within the vicinity of aerodromes and for obstacles located away from the vicinity of aerodromes.
For this option it is recommended that:

• That CASA to start the process of updating CASR Part 139 to ensure it satisfies the recommendations outlined in ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 4
• That the scope of CASR Part 139 is expanded to include all obstacles whether within the vicinity of an aerodrome or outside the vicinity of an aerodrome.
• That CASR Part 139 Subpart E is expanded to include the standards for the notification of structures, buildings and objects that are in line with FAR Part 77
• That CASR Part 139 Subpart E is expanded to include the following elements...
 

Hmm...how did we get from November 2009 with a regulator that was proactively putting forward recommendations to effectively mitigate safety risk and oversight aviation safety issues outside the airport perimeter fence, to the situation today where it is apparently acceptable to have 1000s of innocent public, totally oblivious to the latent safety risk of shopping at a DFO complex next to an active runway handling high capacity jet aircraft each day - UDB...    

Next the St Carmode contribution to the obfuscation of ICAO:

Australian campaign of O&O of ICAO NCNs - 1999-2019?  


Now an extract pic from page nine of the Mount NCN thread:



P2 - Note the 45 days for submission of CAPs

Okay with the above in mind the following is an extract from the latest Fort Fumble weasel worded missive...  

Risk profile for maintenance of charter operations

CASA is developing a safety risk profile for the maintenance of charter operations. To assist in the development of the risk profile a survey of relevant maintenance organisations will be conducted in May 2019 and CASA is encouraging participation. The survey will collect valuable data to accurately inform risk analysis and should only take 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Sector risk profiles are an important tool in understanding the safety challenges and issues for different segments of the aviation community. They present a picture of the current key safety risks facing a sector and assist in developing a deeper understanding of the effects of these risks. The profiles look at how the level of risks can be reduced and managed by the participants in each sector and CASA, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of risk treatments through a set of safety performance indicators. CASA is also reviewing previous safety risk profiles for aerial mustering and aerodromes, with updated reports to be issued later in 2019.

Read sector risk profile reports.

Over the preceding couple of days I have referred the above CASA link - sector risk profile reports - to several IOS/BRB/industry stakeholder members with the simple question of...

Q/ Have you seen/are you aware of this CASA webpage?

...the response was overwhelming (100%) in the negative -  

Ref CASA sector risk page webpage:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority documents

• Sector risk profile for the aerial mustering sector
  
  
• Sector risk profile for the aerial application sector
  
  
• Sector risk profile for the aerodrome sector
  
  
• Sector risk profile for the small aeroplane transport sector
  
  
• Public attitudes to aviation safety
  
  
• AR-2013-213 analysis of fumes and smoke events in Australia 2008-2012
  
  
• Av safe nations version 1.0
  

NOTE: To assist Industry in understanding the risks that are identified within their Sector, CASA now can provide information called the Sector Analysis.

If your organisation is interested in learning more, please contact your CASA oversighting office to discuss the Sector Analysis applicable to you.

Personally this is reassuring to me as I too had never seen this page before, which is bizarre because the information contained within is invaluable in the context of a regulator legislated with the responsibility to - "...regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration..."  - and I would argue if this information were to be properly disseminated across industry then maybe industry would be a lot more engaging and trustful that the regulator had the industry stakeholders interests at heart. 

The "NOTE" above would seem to indicate that this 'sector analysis' concept is a recent innovation. However it doesn't take long to realise that this proactive regulator initiated concept has been in play since at least the 28/01/2015 - right click on pdf link HERE then click on properties, note date created. This places the 'sector analysis' concept at the very start of the brief period that Mark Skidmore was the CASA CEO.

Assuming that Skidmore was supportive of this sector safety risk analysis, his moniker on the bottom of the aerodrome sector analysis would seem to support this assumption, brings into play some other interesting parallels. -   

Rewinding to early 2015 it should be remembered that Skidmore was responsible for knocking the last CASA attempted Angel Flight embuggerance on the head (see previous post above):

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.”

    
Hmm...Shirley the previous CEO of CASA Mark Skidmore got his research (white hat) and stats crew to back up his decision with a relevant sector risk profile for Community Service Flights? And even if he didn't (due to the timing) Shirley St Carmode got his R&S crew to carry out the sector risk profile for the CSFs? 

P2 comment - The argument, that given St Carmode's 600K+ part time status, that he is not aware of the R&S crew is lame because, even though only in the acting role, he countersigned this sector risk profile - see https://www.casa.gov.au/files/srpsmallaerobookletpdf   

The successful development of a sector risk profile relies on

industry participation in identifying hazards, associated risks
and developing treatments which are not only feasible but
also effective in delivering safe outcomes. It is in this regard
that I would like to thank the principal contributors from the
small aeroplane sector for giving up their valuable time to
attend workshops, provide commentary on documentation and
demonstrating a commendable dedication to building a risk
profile for the sector.

Safe Flying

Shane Carmody

Acting Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety

     
However it would appear (maybe due to lack of MOAS trough funds -   ) that since taking on the fulltime/part time role as CEO of Fort Fumble, St Carmode has sidelined the R&S crew. How else would you explain there not being (after the DFO fatal) an updated sector risk profile for aerodromes; or a sector risk profile struck up for high capacity mid level RPT operators (think VARA ATRs or REX coal loaders); or a sector risk profile for ARFFS providers;...or...or...???   

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Define – “At risk.”

What a question. However it was posed following some fairly heated discussion at the IOS indaba today. It is; and it stands, as a fair question subject to more ‘debate’.

Of course the secondary question which – logically – must follow is “when?”

Where does one begin (and end) to analyse “risk”?

Well, it seems as if it’s who you talk to and the specifics of the ‘situational’ analysis. For example; you might live in a two story house, with the Dunny on the ground floor. Bladder wakes you at midnight – 14 stairs to walk down – bathroom floor maybe slippery are you at ‘risk’? Well, yes you are, add a bottle of plonk to the matrix and the risks increase – exponentially. Your insurance company will know – down to the last drop in the bottle, where to question. They know, logically, mathematically and financially the level of ‘risk’ variance and they do insure you as being ‘sober’. Break a leg at 0.4 breath test = all good. Break your fool neck at 0.6 – Sayonara insurance. Risk matrix rules.

So, to business. We cannot blame the insurance companies, they are a business run for profit. Fine – we are living in a ‘capitalist’ democracy after all. These companies have investors who expect a return on monies invested – fair enough I’d say. Cold, hard, unassailable business logic. So far so good.

Which brings us to the point of this ramble. Insurance companies must be canny, shrewd and to some extent, ruthless, depending on the ‘law’ they operate within. But, to an operation like CASA – do these truths apply? In short; they do not.

The amounts of money consumed by CASA  – for no tangible ‘safety’ return are truly staggering. I could not care less about the money if – just once – there was a return on the investment. The cold hard facts, statistics and audit prove, categorically, that we pay dearly to live in a fools paradise. There has been no significant change in aviation carnage statistics since peace after WWII.

A simple question: are you more at ‘risk’ driving into work at peak hour than you are on a Qantas 787 flying to the USA or London?  That question is an easy one.

So, why is the ‘mystique’ of aviation safety demanding more money, more people and more draconian legislation?  Aviation is; statistically, safer than you walking to the corner shop for a pint of milk after dark– true.

The sole focus of the aviation industry, like all other business; is profit; a return to the investors. To do that, the ‘flight’ must be as demonstrably ‘safe’ as possible. So, the last question asked this evening was; what have CASA done – in the last two decades which tangibly reduced the overall body count? The short answer is  - nothing.

A King’s ransom has been wasted achieving this state; half a Billion on re-wrote law which has increased the cost of compliance 400 fold – the ‘death rate’ - across the board – unchanged. The notion that total control of the masses could change, one iota, the way thing’s are, passed away with the USSR.

Law – for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men (Bader); about say’s it all. We need the safety improvement which will come from a sane, sensible, affordable rule set. 46% of a company revenue expended on ‘compliance’ – for a zero increase safety return – ? Bollocks.

“Yes thank you Charlie – one for the road is completely appropriate.”  Cheers………….

[thorn bird]

Some great thoughts P7.

My thoughts run to the similarities between Global warming and aviation regulation.

Mind control of the masses is an affective means of governance. The book 1984 was a fiction, yet we see so many illustrations of the truths contained in that book being enacted today around the world. With the advance of technology, social media, google et al it makes it so much easier to distort truth and manipulate public perception, just look at the current election campaign as a prime example.
The ruling elite are always on the lookout for something to terrify the masses and distract them from truths, remember Y2K? the world as we knew it was going to end at midnight on the 31st Dec 1999. Same today except global warming is the villain.

There is ample evidence that the world is warming as it has over millennia. Are humans responsible?. If we are then perhaps the issue is not the CO2 we emit, because there are plenty of natural causes for rises and falls in CO2, but the fact that there are just too many of us. Strangely nobody seems to want to discuss population control as one of the means of solving the warming issue.

Our ruling elite are quite content to play to the public's fear and bankrupt the country as a solution that in the end will have absolutely no affect on global temperatures. Sure Australia will have bragging rights around the world, that we were the first to reach zero emissions, but at what cost?

I recall another leader on the aviation side who pushed Australia into adopting ADSB, which gave him bragging rights at ICAO that we were the first, but at what cost and what improvement in Safety.

That impossible to define word "Safety" is used over and over again by the aviation bureaucrats to terrify the masses that without their heavy hand the world will end, and all they have achieved in terms of "Safety" is zero, but a whole industry has pretty much been destroyed.

[P7_TOM]

If there be nothing new, but that which is Hath been before, how are our brains beguil'd, Which labouring for invention bear amiss The second burthen of a former child. Oh that record...

Cheers Thorny – I tried to express ‘old’ thoughts in a way which may make some ‘sense of the nonsense’ – probably in vain; but unless the message is constantly delivered, in simple language that even the likes of McDonowt can understand – not only is the industry doomed to constant increased cost which in no way improves ‘safety’; but, IMO the cost of ‘compliance’ steals time, effort and funds away from real improvement.

This is not a ‘new’ notion. In 2005 Shane Urquhart has – THIS – to say.

But, for sheer brilliance, in a nutshell – take the few moments it needs to read - THIS.  It is a PDF so it needs a download.

What has been will be again,
   what has been done will be done again;
   there is nothing new under the sun.

Not even the known killers have been addressed – let alone the quiet, sneaky, unexpected ones. The real risk lays within the regulator’s concept is what, precisely – “safety” is. As it stands – it is an expensive protection racket to cover the sorry rear ends of politicians who just don’t want any responsibility, but every ounce of kudos they can muster to promote their inflated sense of ‘Self worth’. Do you know, some of ‘em actually think they matter? Remarkable concept ain’t it.

I can wait to see who the next rubber stamp idiot minister will be; then I shall win my modest wager placed in “K’s” book of shame about the result. “No Change” @ 5 to one - odds on, my money is as safe as recession looming.

“No dear heart – I know, I’m standing alone but -two more of the same was and remains the order; thank you”.

[Kharon]

P7 – “But, for sheer brilliance, in a nutshell – take the few moments it needs to read - THIS.  It is a PDF so it needs a download.

Pages 1 - 13 cover the essentials – but when you arrive at the analysis completed in 2001 – almost 20 years ago, the depth and breadth of today's problems emerge. I might add that almost every forecast made has been accurate. No crystal ball used; just logic and deep understanding of the chronic ailments.

Appendix 1

This document was prepared in 2001, and quite naturally sections are dated, and as forecast, Ansett has long since ceased to exist.

However, notwithstanding the progress made by the current management of CASA, many of the fundamental problems still exist, and will continue to exist, until they are effectively addressed and dealt with.


In reviewing this document, and considering whether to include it in this submission, I was struck by how many of the carefully considered comments apply, to this day, despite the progress made by Bruce Byron and his current management team. For Mr. Byron or any future CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, the job will border on the impossible, until the problem of the underlying is eliminated.


The writer has worked closely with the senior management of CASA on a number of issues in the last two years, and can testify that the underlying “CASA Culture” is alive and well, despite efforts of senior management.

[thorn bird]

Love his work K,

no matter how much things change, they still stay the same.

[Kharon]

The Silent Majority; what a great team.

And; what a great pity it is that the Silent (and not so much) Majority of aviation folk can’t vote for the top deck crew at CASA; that would ‘rock ‘em’. Aunt Pru ran that ‘pol’ – the results NFP – but suffice to say the next miniscule will be shocked to discover the general, local and international, disgust, disquiet and lack of confidence in our overblown ‘safety’ agencies.

One interesting snippet – pure speculation now, based on some very small straws blowing about in a stiff breeze is that St. Commodes days are numbered. Just whispers and dot joining – but, rumour has it that our part time DAS not only wants to go, but there is a push from below, within the CASA ranks to be shed of the incubus. Naked ambition and political disquiet combined with a touch of madness seems to be in the air.

Nothing like a whisper of good rumour to start the week – believe it if you like.

Toot – toot.

[thorn bird]

Not bad K as rumours go. Sets the mind to cogitating just how the apparatus of CAsA works, especially when it's difficult to imagine any logical explanation to what they do.

Their mantra is "Safety", yet they don't achieve any better safety outcome than any of their peers. They maintain they are first and foremost safety regulators, yet their regulations have very little positive affect on safety, some would say a negative effect. There is also the intended or unintended (you choose) consequence that it is now plainly obvious, their regulations have decimated a whole industry. To what end?

To my mind CAsA is a complete and obvious failure at what was intended, so why have they been allowed to continue as they are?

Ever since they were separated from mainstream governance as a government independent Statutory Authority, the key word there is "independent", there has been a subtle movement behind the scenes to separate its workings from any form of scrutiny or outside control.

There are those who would say the so called "Iron Ring" was responsible for that and to some extent is probably true, but I really do wonder how much influence their union has. Given they are paid extremely generous salaries, way above industry standard for equivalent positions or level of expertise and given everyone will endeavour to protect their rice bowl it would be understandable their union would be working very hard behind the scenes to maintain the status quo, no matter what affect their efforts have on the well being of the industry that supports them.
Whispers abound, that within CAsA the atmosphere is like a modern day game of thrones, especially amongst the upper echelon, the old saying power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, perhaps rings true.

Has CAsA become so inwardly focused that it has become blind to what their actions are doing?

[Peetwo]

TCCCC - 

Since acronyms seem to be the flavour of the week I thought I would create one of my own...  

TCCCC? - Give up...ok this stands for The Carmody Capers Caption Competition and our first nominee begging for a caption is none other than our patron Saint for Aviation Safety (or at least I think it's him?):



Hmm...caption anyone? 

P7 - - Oh! bad P2 - naughty P2 - wicked boy. To cast such swine in front of 'pearls'. Now I've got to deal with the BRB.

[Kharon]

A job of work.

Serious, mind numbing, tedious, heart breaking grind; alas, if the Australian Flight School industry wants to survive, it has to be done – and soon.

There are ‘other’ sensible solutions, which could avoid the head and heart ache. This however would involve CASA taking a long, hard constructive look at the ‘type’ of people they employ and the ‘power’ gifted to those people. I am of course referring to the Glen Buckley saga and the incredible tangle CASA have landed both themselves and APTA in. What an unholy mess.

But, before asking you to get a handle on the copious amounts of ‘paper’, the incredible ‘word count’ and the confused action; to consider one small, but, IMO essential element of the saga.

In the beginning APTA elected to go whole hog on a transition to Part 142 operations. This, without considering the hidden, heavy burden Parts 61./141/142 would place on any operation and the confused, overreach this legislation, in conjunction with other confused, unclear ‘rules’ would produce was their first mistake. 61/141/142 should have been rejected, out of hand by industry and it probably would have been, had industry had time, money and a care for the future. Industry simply went along to get along, hoping for the best, never expecting or considering the worst of how that same legislation could be used against them. But I digress; start again. Click – restart.

In the beginning APTA elected to go whole hog on a transition to Part 142 operations. In good faith, they invested their time, money and effort in the project. They worked hard and consulted often with a highly professional team of CASA’s best. It was an enormous, expensive team effort, clearly demonstrating how effectively industry and CASA could work together to achieve a better outcome – 600 ‘line items’ all addressed to the satisfaction of the operator and the CASA ‘A’ team. Good to go; congratulations all round. Bravo.

Pretty much ‘out-of-the-blue’ APTA had a change of oversight team. A reasonable person could assume that – give or take a bit – the same level of support and consultation would be available from the new CASA crew and their ‘manager’. Remember; a small mountain of time, money and effort had been invested – by both CASA and APTA achieving ‘compliance’ with what is arguably the worlds worst rule set, encompassed in Parts 61/141/142.

In a heartbeat – a great example of industry and CASA cooperation to unravel the mysteries of this dreadful legislation had disappeared. The upshot is contained in the writings and pleas for common sense and for reasonable sanity provided by APTA, rejected through the artful use of carefully selected ‘rules’ by one man. Faith, hope, confidence in the regulator, money and time; lost, and gone forever. Have CASA no shame?

We have all witnessed this event on several occasions, this is not the first nor is it likely to be the last – unless there is a concerted effort, from industry – from Big Q down to the humblest one man show to put a full stop to the CASA saga of whimsical embuggerance. 

Not that it will happen; we will need a lot more than a minister with a backbone. NZ sets the bench mark – a Royal commission may help; but nothing short of a united government effort to right the wrongs and build a reliable regulatory authority, we can be proud of will change the dreadful damage CASA, some of it’s sociopaths and hedonists have served up; for far too long.

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”


One director, one board, one minister could, with a little effort and backbone, sort the shambles out. They know it’s wrong; the world and it’s wife know it’s wrong.

Aye well: (sigh) - I know – dream on – back in my box -

Toot – toot.