[Peetwo]

McDonaught aviation shamelist - Part III 

Time for industry to grow a set! - 

Courtesy Ben Wyndham, via AOPA Oz Charter Ops FB page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...ater&ifg=1

Ben Wyndham

Yesterday at 10:23 AM

As someone else said we have a cultural problem in Australia. We don't have rights - we are granted privileges.

One of our privileges (which can be withdrawn) is permission to contact the bureaucracy on some matters.

In the US you have rights, government officials want to  help you use them, promote commerce and view you as a customer they are  honoured to serve.

I say to all of you - we must start to stand up as an  industry. Because we are quiet (for fear of offending the Sky Gods) they  continue to win.

I would like to start a General Aviation public  awareness campaign. It would rely upon all of you permitting a video guy  to work with you shooting remote community work, quick interviews with  your pax and clients ("GA is important to Kalumburu because it brings  the Doktah and the Sistah for my Mum..." )

Lots of heartstrings stuff. GA serves Australia's beating heart.

Only when the Australian Public knows what will we do
will they object that the government is killing us off.

Great idea - so let's make it happen...

MTF...P2 

KC on Scomo's RTR plans??

Via AOPA Oz:

RED TAPE REDUCTION: WHY IT FAILS IN AVIATION

July 31, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia's Aircraft Maintenance & Engineering Contributor KEN CANNANE provide his opinion on why red-tape reduction is failing in aviation.



Recently, we have seen some great news headlines and quotes from Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who has declared he is at war with red-tape, determined to clean out government agencies and departments to make them more efficient and accountable.

For example; “The Morrison government’s plan to cut red tape will boost business investment, increase wages, and remove bureaucratic constraints on Australians reaching their potential.” and “Red tape costs Australian businesses, families, and individuals $176 billion each year, which makes red tape Australia’s biggest industry. This cost represents all of the businesses which are never started, the jobs never created, and the dreams never fulfilled due to red tape.”

However, where industry would like to be in the future can be different to where bureaucracy envisages;



Unless Government sets policy then the direction of government departments and agencies can often be biased and not supportive of business growth to meet Morrison’s red tape reduction policies.

The biggest single hurdle to overcome in aviation is the different impressions for the future between what the bureaucracy wants, what industry wants and what will provide proper growth leading to jobs.

Government must make decisions:

• Are aviation regulations and requirements subject to government policy to create jobs?
  
• Are aviation regulations and requirements subject to government policy to reduce red tape?
  
• What is the change vision and strategy to achieve jobs and red tape reduction?
  
• When will government clarify how the future will be different from the past, and how government and its agencies can make it happen?
  

The majority in industry are uncertain of the future as there is no defined government policy for the future that will provide jobs with reduced red tape.

Industry impression of the future includes many jobs being created post major red tape reduction to aviation requirements as has the USA red tape reduction program achieved. This can be achieved by delegating more responsibility to industry to reduce government costs as the USA aviation system been doing over the last couple of decades.

Industry impression is that CASA will create licencing/certificate & personnel standards for pilots like the Canadians have done and maintenance engineers standards like the Europeans have done. In all cases, remaining compliant with the standards promulgated to the ratified treaty, Convention on International Aviation.

To enable this to happen, government must remove as many barriers as possible so that those that want to make the Morrison’s vision a reality, can do so.

However, past government achievements in the 1990s have already been eroded over time by the bureaucracy. How does the government propose to make changes permanent for participants and the community?
Why isn’t government sorting out these different impressions of the future?

Plus from Shawn Kelly:

FOR BUREAUCRACY’S SAKE: KNOW THINE ENEMY
July 31, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Director Shawn Kelly provides an insight into the strangling of Australian general aviation.



As an experienced seaplane pilot, warbird owner and adventure flight operator in Queensland, I am currently in the process of trying to obtain permits to operate my seaplane on the Pumicestone Passage, located on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.  What at first appeared to be a relatively simple application process, has evolved into a glaring example of what’s actually killing aviation across Australia.

Currently, I operate from the Maroochy River, which is located in the same Council area as the Pumicestone Passage and is covered by the same office of Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ).  My thinking was, that since I have safely operated for five years within these jurisdictions without incident, accident or complaint, that it would be relatively easy to obtain permits to operate in an additional area.

But alas, my application was rejected, and again on appeal was rejected again – so why?

The application and rejection process has revealed some interesting insights into the devious Australian bureaucratic mind, and I thought that my experience provides an important lesson that might be helpful in our industry’s larger battle with senseless bureaucracy and over regulation – know thine enemy!

One of the main objections to granting my approval was a concern that the Pumicestone Passage is too crowded, which is an interesting argument, because the waterway is anything but. Take a look at the photo below, which was taken at 13:30 on a Saturday;




With the above photograph in mind, think about how it would compare to say Rose Bay on Sydney Harbour, where there is a strong mixture of ferries, commercial charter boats, private motor and sail boats, along with yacht racing fleets from the CYCA and RSYS – all intermixing with the operations of Sydney Seaplanes.

However, rather than nit-picking whether or not a waterway was actually crowded, I thought it best to demonstrate that seaplanes can safely operate on crowded waterways and that such activities are not in any manner unusual or abnormal.

So with the above in mind, I provided a video of a seaplane landing on Lake Union in Washington State in the the United States of America.  Take a look at the YouTube video below and compare that to the photograph of the Pumicestone Passage;

In my application I explained that there are over 35,000 seaplane operations per year on Lake Union, which equates to about 100 seaplane movements per day, and that seaplanes have been safely operating there for 85 years without a single accident.  More importantly, pilots in Australia are trained to a high standard and everything we do in aviation is undertaken in direct support of safety.

This is the response I received:

52.  I am not satisfied that safety concerns should be deemed unfounded or negligible because of the absence of past accidents and incidents. Indeed, it is only by appropriately managing such safety risks and concerns that the occurrence of accidents and incidents can be prevented;
63.  The Applicant submits that there have been no collisions between seaplanes and vessels that have caused serious injuries or death in Australia in the past 60 years, or on Lake Union in Washington, USA for 85 years.
64.  I am not satisfied that safety records on Lake Union have particular relevance to seaplane operation in the northern area of the Pumicestone Passage. In any event, I am not satisfied that the absence of past accidents and incidents on Lake Union, in itself, is conclusive in demonstrating that all congested waterways are appropriate for seaplane operation.

A stunning response – no doubt – as yet again our aviation industry learns that in the minds of our government bureaucrats our air is so different in Australia as compared to the US (or any other country for that matter) that it demands entirely unique and overly restrictive rules to prevent aviators from harming ourselves or anyone else!

More outrageous is the manner in which the bureaucrats argue that in order to prevent potential accidents or safety issues, the acceptable course of action is to simply to prevent the activity from happening!

The response communicates that the bureaucrats first and only priority is to themselves, with their decisions always seeking to cover their backsides against any perceived liability.

The response from Maritime Safety Queensland raises more questions than it provides answers, such as;  who is the assessing officer and do they hold any formal aviation qualifications?  do they have any relevant aviation experience?  what was the methodology that was used to assess the waterway as congested?  what evidence do they have to suggest that the request was unsafe?  Simply, where are the facts?

It’s absurd that decisions are being made devoid of genuine facts and hard data.  Since when are the opinions of bureaucrats an acceptable form of evidence?

Disappointingly, to challenge this determination will now require that I personally fund an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, footing the bill to ultimately educate Maritime Safety Queensland and its staff on aviation safety matters.
Should I refuse to challenge the decision it will deny my business the opportunity to grow, denies me the opportunity to employ more staff and denies the international tourists that I take flying the opportunity of depositing their hard earned money in Australia – to which we all benefit.

Ultimately, this is just one example that reinforces my view that only through immense public media exposure and political pressure will our industry see any relief in the medium to long term.

If left in the hands of bureaucrats our industry is guaranteed to be grounded and put out of existence.

[Peetwo]

McDonaught aviation safety shamelist: ARFFS & Airservices - 

Via BITN thread:

OneSKY trough fund under threat?? 

Just released and tabled in Parliament by the ANAO: https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance...rangements or https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/fi...2020_4.pdf 

OneSKY: Contractual Arrangements
PUBLISHED
Wednesday 31 July 2019



Summary

Background

1. The December 2009 National Aviation White Paper identified expected benefits from synchronising civil and military air traffic management through the procurement of a single solution to replace the separate systems of Airservices Australia (Airservices) and the Department of Defence (Defence). The OneSKY Australia program involves the procurement of a Civil Military Air Traffic Management System (CMATS). Airservices is the lead entity for the procurement.

2. The procurement process commenced with a Request for Information issued to industry in May 2010, with 23 responses received. A Request for Tender (RFT) was issued in June 2013. Six tenders were received, four of which proceeded to detailed evaluation, during which one was set aside on the basis that it was clearly not competitive. The two highest ranked tenderers proceeded to the final evaluation stage. Decisions were then taken to set-aside, and later exclude, the second-ranked tenderer from further consideration (on the basis that it was ‘clearly non-competitive’) rather than enter into parallel negotiations with two tenderers.1

3. Negotiations with the successful tenderer (Thales Australia) commenced in September 2014. Offers were submitted by the successful tenderer in October and December 2014. On 27 February 2015, it was announced that an advanced work contracting arrangement would be entered into allowing discrete parcels of work to be performed while negotiation of the acquisition and support contracts was progressed. The earlier offers (including the response to the RFT) expired in October 2015. Another offer was submitted in June 2016, with a final offer submitted in September 2017, followed by further negotiation on scope, price and commercial terms.

4. In February 2018:

an acquisition contract was signed by Airservices and the successful tenderer (as well as a support contract). The acquisition contract had a target price of AUD$1.22 billion and a ceiling price of AUD$1.32 billion (applying exchange rates on the date the contract was signed);
Defence obtained Government approval for a $243 million increase to its project budget (including $90 million identified as relating to CMATS) to enable it to afford its share of project costs. Associated with the budget increase, Airservices and Defence were to undertake cost reduction measures, including capability offsets, to enable work to be delivered within the revised Defence budget for CMATS; and
cost sharing arrangements between Airservices and Defence were updated and formalised through the execution of an On-Supply Agreement. For a fixed price of $521 million, CMATS will be provided to Defence along with an alternative air traffic management tower solution at four sites2 and the voice control switch developed under Advanced Work Order 3. Defence’s contribution to program management costs are also included within this agreed amount. Airservices and Defence are each responsible for their own personnel and resourcing costs.

5. In February 2018 when the decision was taken by Airservices to enter into the acquisition contract, it estimated its acquisition program costs to be $1.517 billion. This figure does not include the fixed acquisition price of $521 million agreed between Airservices and Defence.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

6. OneSKY Australia was selected for audit because it is a significant program. The program has an estimated total cost of more than $4.11 billion.3 Australian airspace covers 11 per cent of the globe and OneSKY is expected to improve safety and efficiency for civil and military air traffic, while catering for the significant forecast growth in the aviation sector.

7. In August 2015, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee requested that the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) examine the implementation of the OneSKY program. This is the third audit the ANAO has undertaken in response to those requests.4

Audit objective and criteria

8. The objective of the audit was to assess whether the contract for the acquisition of the Civil Military Air Traffic Management System demonstrably represents value for money.

9. To form a conclusion against the audit objective, the ANAO adopted the following high-level criteria:

Were required timeframes achieved for the replacement of existing systems?
Is there adequate assurance that the price being paid is consistent with a value for money outcome for the capability being acquired?

Conclusion

10. Important changes were made, after the successful tenderer was selected, to the timeframe for delivery, scope of work, type of contract and price. An appropriate governance framework was established to evaluate whether negotiations had resulted in contract terms that represent value for money. Shortcomings in the application of that framework mean that value for money has not been adequately demonstrated.

11. If the current contracted timeframes are achieved, there will be a more than ten year delay (from 2015 to 20265) in the replacement of the existing separate civil and military systems compared with the timeframe envisaged at the start of the procurement process. The capability baseline for the new combined system was established in advance of issuing the Request for Tender through appropriate engagement with industry. Delays with tender evaluation activities were exacerbated by even longer delays in the negotiation phase. Negotiations took so long that the offer submitted by the successful tenderer expired and the lives of the existing separate systems needed to be further extended. Negotiations also resulted in a late change in the contracting model from the one that had been presented to the market in June 2013.

12. There is inadequate assurance that the acquisition price is consistent with a value for money outcome:

For the June 2016 offer, a comprehensive evaluation report was produced that included a clear conclusion that value for money had not been achieved. This was principally due to concerns about the $1.449 billion estimated acquisition cost.
Through further negotiations, changes were made to delivery timeframes, the scope of work and the contract model, leading to a September 2017 final offer (with an estimated target price of $1.23 billion with the ceiling price to be 10 per cent higher) followed by further negotiation on scope, price and commercial terms. An evaluation report addressing each criterion, the expected total cost of ownership and whether the negotiated outcome represented value for money, was not prepared by the CMATS Review Board (CRB) and provided to the Airservices Board to inform the decision to sign the acquisition contract. Rather, the Board was provided with a report prepared by the Lead Negotiator6, who was not authorised to and did not undertake a full evaluation of the offer.7 The records of the relevant Board meeting do not identify or discuss the provision of the February 2018 Lead Negotiator’s Report8, and do not outline the value for money considerations of the Board.

13. Price risk is dealt with in the terms of the acquisition contract.

Supporting findings

Negotiation timeframes

14. The planned timeframe of replacing the systems in 2015 was not met. The current date for acceptance of the replacement system is 2026. Delays with the conduct of the tender, tender evaluation and contract negotiations contributed to this more than ten year delay. This meant that Airservices and Defence had to extend their existing, separate air traffic management systems beyond that which was originally envisaged.

15. Scope requirements for the harmonised civil military air traffic management systems were established prior to entering into negotiations. A request for information and industry briefing process had been undertaken, and the resulting feedback was used to inform the development of the tender requirements. The requirements were released with the June 2013 Request for Tender and updated in October 2013, prior to tenders being received.

16. In November 2016, more than two years after negotiations began, it was decided to change the acquisition contract from the firm fixed price model that had been part of the June 2013 request for tender. A change to a target cost incentive contract model had first been suggested by the successful tenderer in December 2015. Airservices’ decision to change the contracting model was made after various price submissions under the fixed price contract model received during the negotiation process had been identified as not representing value for money and/or as not likely to be affordable. The ceiling price under the target cost incentive model that was then adopted is more than double the price submitted by the successful tenderer in its response to the 2013 request for tender.

17. The delays in negotiating and finalising an acquisition contract, together with the scheduled delay in replacing the existing separate civil and military systems, have required the lives of the existing systems to be extended beyond that which was originally envisaged at an estimated cost of at least $212 million. Delays have also required additional resourcing from both entities for contract negotiations and project management. The costs relating to the additional resources for negotiations and project management were not quantified.

Negotiation outcome

18. Traceability was not maintained between offered requirements and the original Request for Tender. Traceability focused on changes over time in the various offers submitted by the preferred tenderer against updated versions of the requirements. The number of high priority requirements at the end of negotiations was 3.6 per cent greater than at the beginning of negotiations, with 6.7 per cent of the high priority requirements included in the Request for Tender modified in the signed acquisition contract.

19. There is a clear scope specified for the signed acquisition contract. Changes to the contract scope were envisaged before the acquisition contract was signed. To date, two change proposals have been actioned (in August 2018 and December 2018).

20. Price risk is dealt with in the terms of the acquisition contract. Of note is that the contract:

requires the successful tenderer to use its ‘reasonable endeavours’ to ensure that the outturn price is, at final acceptance, lower than a target price of $1.22 billion;
incorporates a painshare/gainshare framework intended to incentivise cost containment. This includes providing that Airservices’ exposure to actual costs being greater than the target price is limited to a 50 per cent share of the costs above the target price up to the ceiling price, capping Airservices’ exposure at $1.32 billion; and
allows the contract scope to be amended, and provides a mechanism for the target and ceiling prices to be adjusted for scope changes.

21. There is inadequate assurance that the contracted acquisition price is consistent with a value for money outcome for the capability being acquired. Assessment governance arrangements for the June 2016 offer (which was rejected for not providing value for money) were appropriate. There were shortcomings in the application of the governance arrangements for the final (accepted) September 2017 offer. Of significance was that the CMATS Review Board did not prepare a comprehensive assessment report that addressed each of the evaluation criteria, quantified the expected total cost of ownership and analysed whether value for money had been achieved.

Hmm...quite damning really but I guess much like most damning Parliamentary inquiry, Government review reports (eg Forsyth review) into the aviation safety sector; this ANAO wet lettuce report at the first chance will be quietly filed and shelf-wared for all eternity...




MTF...P2  

ARFFS Senate Inquiry report tabled. 



View full report HERE or pdf version HERE ; these are the recommendations (note number 1 -   ): 

List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1
7.11
The committee recommends that the Australian Government conduct a review of Australia's adherence to the International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended Practices for the provision of Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Services in Australia. The review should consider:

Subpart 139.H of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998;

the associated Manual of Standards;

Australia's adherence to Chapter 9 of Annex 14 of the Chicago Convention; and

any other relevant regulations, standards and procedures (including those issued by the National Fire Protection Association).
Where the review identifies non‑compliance with international standards, the rationale for this should be explained.
Recommendation 2
7.18
The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conduct an audit of all Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Service (ARFFS) vehicles and equipment currently in operation across Australia, to determine the level of compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organization standards, and associated Australian regulations and standards (such as the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 and the Manual of Standards). The audit should consider whether the vehicles and equipment adhere to the relevant ARFFS airport category at each aerodrome.
Recommendation 3
7.22
The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority implement a testing program for the firefighting foams in use at Australian airports, in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization guidelines. The testing should take place under conditions unique to Australia (such as higher ambient temperatures), to establish whether the foams operate effectively to extinguish aviation fires.
Recommendation 4
7.36
The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority mandates that Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Service (ARFFS) providers use the Task Resource Analysis (TRA) methodology, as prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization, to determine the suitable staffing levels for ARFFS at all aerodromes in Australia where an ARFFS is provided. The TRA should take into consideration the category of each aerodrome.
Recommendation 5
7.42
The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority mandate that the Task Resource Analysis (TRA) process undertaken by Airservices must involve appropriate consultation, via the direct engagement of Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting staff and officers at all stages of the TRA process. The consultation should be transparent, and the outcomes made publicly available as soon as is practicable.
Recommendation 6
7.47
The committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce legislation which stipulates the minimum Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) staffing level in accordance with airport category, at all Australian aerodromes where an ARFF service is provided. The legislated staffing levels should reflect the outcomes of the Task Resource Analysis at each aerodrome.
Recommendation 7
7.56
The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities, and Regional Development undertake a review of the current establishment criteria used for determining whether to implement an Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting Service (ARFFS). The review should consider whether the current methodology of utilising passenger numbers allows for sufficient provision of ARFFS across Australian aerodromes, in light of increasing passenger numbers in recent years.
Recommendation 8
7.63
The committee recommends that the Australian Government mandate the establishment of a Task Resource Analysis for Domestic Response Services responding to emergencies at aerodromes (DRS TRA). The DRS TRA should determine the additional Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) staff required for responses to non‑regulated ands non‑aviation emergencies across the aerodrome, over and above the staff required for an ARFF station to maintain category in the case of an aviation emergency.

Hmm...I note recommendations 1 & 2 but will it just be ignored &/or obfuscated like all other inquiry/review recommendations?? 

Plus today from Ironsider, via the Oz..  :

Regional airports ill-equipped to handle disaster




Firefighters work on a burning aircraft at an airport in Russia. Picture: AFP

• ROBYN IRONSIDE
  AVIATION WRITER
  @ironsider
  
• 12:00AM AUGUST 5, 2019
  
• 2 COMMENTS
  

Firefighters based at Australian airports say a lack of fire trucks, the removal of power saws and training restrictions on tall ladders has left them ill-equipped to deal with an actual emergency.

A Senate committee for rural and regional affairs and transport heard stations at Rockhampton, Gladstone and the Sunshine Coast must share a fire truck despite being 543km apart.

In addition, rescue saws were removed from the service last September despite being required under the manual of standards and training on ladders restricted to 2m for safety reasons.

In its final report, the committee made eight recommendations, including a government review of Australia’s compliance with international standards for fire services, after hearing more than 300 airports had no onsite protection.

“There were a number of serious concerns raised throughout the inquiry as to the performance of Airservices in its delivery of aviation rescue and fire fighting services (ARFFS) across Australia’s major airports,” the report said.

“In particular, concerns were raised with regard to the suitability of some ARFF equipment and resources in use across the country, and decisions of Airservices which would directly impact on the ability of the ARFFS to respond quickly to an emergency.”

The recommendations included a Civil Aviation Safety Authority audit of airport firefighting equipment and vehicles to ensure compliance with international standards.

“The committee was alarmed by the removal of rescue saws from operation despite no replacement for the saws having yet been identified and despite the fact the removal meant the airport fire service was no longer compliant with the manual of standards,” the report said. “Further, the implementation of training for firefighters on ladders below 2m remains an ongoing concern for the committee. This limited height training is not reflective of operational conditions, particularly for larger aircraft.”

The United Firefighting Union of Australia said the height limit had been lifted to 2.5m since their concerns were first raised, but that was still inadequate.

UFUA aviation branch secretary Mark von Nida said the training restriction was implemented despite the fact firefighters had never had an accident using the ladders. “It’s just not practical. You’re working up to heights of 9m, you’ve got to be able to operate at that,” Mr von Nida said.

The report also questioned whether Australia’s aviation firefighting services met international standards more broadly, after hearing evidence only 26 airports had a dedicated fire station.

Whereas the threshold for airport fire stations in the US was aircraft carrying more than 12 people, and more than 30 people in New Zealand, in Australia the threshold was much higher.

“We’ve got 180-seat aircraft and above landing at airports that aren’t protected, like Dubbo, Mt Isa, Proserpine and Newman,” Mr von Nida said.

“There’s only the local fire service there to put it out, and it might take 15 minutes until they actually get on scene.”
Although airports with more than 350,000 passenger movements a year qualified for a fire station, Mr von Nida said Proserpine and Newman reached that level in 2017, and were still waiting.

An Airservices Australia spokeswoman said ARFFS operated at “the highest standards and has a world-class safety record”.

“We are examining the report’s recommendations,” the spokeswoman said.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

500 Clicks, a long march indeed. 



Ironside – “A Senate committee for rural and regional affairs and transport heard stations at Rockhampton, Gladstone and the Sunshine Coast must share a fire truck despite being 543km apart.

To a crown minister, living within a slow moving, well protected parliamentary bubble the pace of life is slow. To passengers and pilots alike, the sheer speed and unrealised violence of a crash is incredible.



 

Don’t know how many have ever driven a loaded truck 543 Kms on Australian roads; but I can assure you, six hours would represent some kind of a record – seven would be closer. Not worth it – the aircraft burned out in about three minutes.
 

Meanwhile, ASA is desperately saving pennies to pay KPI bonus and support their lunatic, almost out of date One Sky project. Consultants at a million bucks a pop, Rockhampton passenger must wait seven hours for a fire crew to rescue them from an inferno.
 


Do wake up minister; there’s a good chap; smell the fumes, count the bodies and you can even get a dewy eyed 10 second grab on the local news; for being such a deeply caring, concerned minister at the funerals.
 
Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

McDonaught Aviation Shamelist cont/-  

Via the BITN thread:

ANAO confirm ASA and Dept take the piss on Govt oversight -    

It's now official that the aviation safety bureaucracy, in particular Harfwit's ASA, totally ignore and/or obfuscate all accountability through Government (ANAO)/Parliamentary inquiry and audit findings/recommendations. Today the ANAO (office of the proverbial wet lettuce) released their "Implementation of ANAO and Parliamentary Committee Recommendations" audit report in which Airservices Australia and the Department of Infrastructure etc. were included audited entities: ref - https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance...tions-2019

 

A couple of disturbing ASA audit report quotes:

   

Did the entities develop an implementation plan?

The selected entities did not develop clear implementation plans for all recommendations.

3.1 Successful implementation of audit recommendations requires implementation planning to set clear responsibilities and timeframes for addressing the required action. Implementation planning should involve key stakeholders, including the internal audit function.

3.2 Airservices Australia (Airservices) agreed to the six recommendations arising from Auditor-General Report No.1 2016–17 Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program (the ICCPM audit). Airservices advised the ANAO that, as the entity was working to quickly address the recommendations, implementation plans were not developed to monitor the progress of agreed actions. Rather, Airservices relied on a table of initiatives to assess progress, provide status updates, and describe planned actions to address the recommendations. Airservices has acknowledged that affecting cultural change within the organisation will take time. The evidence reviewed by the ANAO indicates that, as at May 2019, actions against the ICCPM audit recommendations, particularly against recommendation one, remain ongoing.

---

Did entities maintain evidence to confirm the implementation of ANAO recommendations?

Entities did not maintain sufficient and appropriate evidence to clearly demonstrate that all recommendations have been implemented.

3.7 Airservices agreed to the six recommendations arising from the ICCPM audit. In October 2016, the Chair of Airservices’ Board advised the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport that all ANAO recommendations had been addressed by 30 September 2016. Further, Airservices’ 2016–17 Annual Report stated that implementation of all six recommendations was completed by 30 September 2016.46

3.8 Airservices provided evidence of a range of actions taken in response to the recommendations, many of which remain ongoing at May 2019. Further, Airservices has undertaken a number of internal audits and reviews which highlight that weaknesses remain in Airservices’ procurement policies and procedures which has impacted on the achievement of the agreed culture shift.

3.9 As Airservices did not develop implementation plans to respond to the recommendations, there is no evidence of intended outcomes, including benchmarks and targets or robust measures to assess progress achieved. As such, Airservices has not been able to evaluate its performance against the implementation of the recommendations or identify when the intended result has been achieved.

---

3.14 Overall, Airservices’ reporting of the recommendations as completed by 30 September 2016 more accurately reflected the commencement of actions to address the recommendations, rather than the intended outcomes being achieved and therefore the completion of implementation. While action has occurred against each of the recommendations, Airservices has only partially or not fully implemented the recommendations from the ICCPM audit. Refer to Table 3.4 for further detail.

---

Recommendation no.1

3.17 Entities finalise implementation of 2016–17 ANAO performance audit recommendations. Specifically:

1. Airservices complete implementation of the recommendations from Auditor-General Report No.1 2016–17 Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program;
   

Airservices Australia response: Disagreed.  - WTF?  

Harfwit oversees a toxic culture at ASA -   

Via the SMH:

Top stories



Morale disappeared off the radar, new Airservices review shows

Sydney Morning Herald·13 hours ago



'Putrid': Sex discrimination in air traffic control could endanger lives, says report

Sydney Morning Herald·1 day ago

And from Oz Aviation :

AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA SETS UP INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ITS WORKPLACE CULTURE

written by Australianaviation.Com.Au August 6, 2019



Airservices Australia says it will set up an independent review of its workplace culture after a survey of its air traffic controllers found claims of bullying and sexual harassment.

The country’s air traffic manager said former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick would conduct the “broad and independent review” of its workforce culture.

“We will share the findings of this review and any recommendations will be adopted to ensure that Airservices offers a safe, diverse and inclusive workplace for all of our employees,” Airservices said in a statement on Tuesday.

Airservices was responding to the publication of a report prepared by former Federal Court judge Anthony North, which included responses from a survey of about 500 Airservices employees in January.

The survey, conducted by YouGov Galaxy and commissioned by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for air traffic controllers’ union Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association, found half of all respondents – and three quarters of female respondents – said that they had experienced bullying, discrimination or sexual harassment while working at Airservices.

“It is evident that bullying, discrimination, and sexual harassment are features of the experience of many employees of Airservices and that they are not confident that management condemns the behaviour and acts effectively to prevent or stop it,” North said in the report, according to a joint statement from Civil Air and Maurice Blackburn on Tuesday.

“The fact that such behaviour has been documented as occurring over many years and at various Airservices worksites allows for the conclusion that bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment is part of the way things are done at Airservices, that they are part of its culture, and that they are not isolated or aberrant occurrences.”

“Of particular concern in the air navigation control environment, in which Airservices operates, is the potential for the poor workplace culture to have effects which compromise the safety of aircraft and passengers.”

Airservices said it rejected the suggestion in the report that its workplace culture was negatively affecting safety.

Instead, the government-owned corporation said its safety performance was “demonstrably among the best in the world and always improving”.

“There is no factual basis for these false and alarmist claims. When our safety performance is compared against our peers, we compare exceptionally well,” Airservices said.

Airservices said its annual employee engagement surveys had found “some areas of our workforce are concerned about workplace behaviours and how effectively they are managed when they arise”.

“We have been working with our people to address this, and have initiated some key improvement actions; most importantly enhancing essential people leadership skills in our highly specialised operational workforce,” Airservices said.

Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association executive secretary Peter McGuane called on federal government to “urgently step up” commence a full and independent enquiry.

“Employees lives are being ruined by the culture of bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment that Airservices have allowed, and the government must intervene stop this,” McGuane said.

“This employer has known about this culture for many years but it still refuses to change.”

Hmm...not a good look for the miniscule, yet another festering turd for the growing McDonaught aviation safety shame list...  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

McDonaught Aviation Shamelist cont/-  

Via the BITN thread:

ANAO confirm ASA and Dept take the piss on Govt oversight -    

It's now official that the aviation safety bureaucracy, in particular Harfwit's ASA, totally ignore and/or obfuscate all accountability through Government (ANAO)/Parliamentary inquiry and audit findings/recommendations. Today the ANAO (office of the proverbial wet lettuce) released their "Implementation of ANAO and Parliamentary Committee Recommendations" audit report in which Airservices Australia and the Department of Infrastructure etc. were included audited entities: ref - https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance...tions-2019

 

A couple of disturbing ASA audit report quotes:

   

Did the entities develop an implementation plan?

The selected entities did not develop clear implementation plans for all recommendations.

3.1 Successful implementation of audit recommendations requires implementation planning to set clear responsibilities and timeframes for addressing the required action. Implementation planning should involve key stakeholders, including the internal audit function.

3.2 Airservices Australia (Airservices) agreed to the six recommendations arising from Auditor-General Report No.1 2016–17 Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program (the ICCPM audit). Airservices advised the ANAO that, as the entity was working to quickly address the recommendations, implementation plans were not developed to monitor the progress of agreed actions. Rather, Airservices relied on a table of initiatives to assess progress, provide status updates, and describe planned actions to address the recommendations. Airservices has acknowledged that affecting cultural change within the organisation will take time. The evidence reviewed by the ANAO indicates that, as at May 2019, actions against the ICCPM audit recommendations, particularly against recommendation one, remain ongoing.

---

Did entities maintain evidence to confirm the implementation of ANAO recommendations?

Entities did not maintain sufficient and appropriate evidence to clearly demonstrate that all recommendations have been implemented.

3.7 Airservices agreed to the six recommendations arising from the ICCPM audit. In October 2016, the Chair of Airservices’ Board advised the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport that all ANAO recommendations had been addressed by 30 September 2016. Further, Airservices’ 2016–17 Annual Report stated that implementation of all six recommendations was completed by 30 September 2016.46

3.8 Airservices provided evidence of a range of actions taken in response to the recommendations, many of which remain ongoing at May 2019. Further, Airservices has undertaken a number of internal audits and reviews which highlight that weaknesses remain in Airservices’ procurement policies and procedures which has impacted on the achievement of the agreed culture shift.

3.9 As Airservices did not develop implementation plans to respond to the recommendations, there is no evidence of intended outcomes, including benchmarks and targets or robust measures to assess progress achieved. As such, Airservices has not been able to evaluate its performance against the implementation of the recommendations or identify when the intended result has been achieved.

---

3.14 Overall, Airservices’ reporting of the recommendations as completed by 30 September 2016 more accurately reflected the commencement of actions to address the recommendations, rather than the intended outcomes being achieved and therefore the completion of implementation. While action has occurred against each of the recommendations, Airservices has only partially or not fully implemented the recommendations from the ICCPM audit. Refer to Table 3.4 for further detail.

---

Recommendation no.1

3.17 Entities finalise implementation of 2016–17 ANAO performance audit recommendations. Specifically:

1. Airservices complete implementation of the recommendations from Auditor-General Report No.1 2016–17 Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program;
   

Airservices Australia response: Disagreed.  - WTF?  

Harfwit oversees a toxic culture at ASA -   

Via the SMH:

Top stories



Morale disappeared off the radar, new Airservices review shows

Sydney Morning Herald·13 hours ago



'Putrid': Sex discrimination in air traffic control could endanger lives, says report

Sydney Morning Herald·1 day ago

And from Oz Aviation :

AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA SETS UP INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ITS WORKPLACE CULTURE

written by Australianaviation.Com.Au August 6, 2019



Airservices Australia says it will set up an independent review of its workplace culture after a survey of its air traffic controllers found claims of bullying and sexual harassment.

The country’s air traffic manager said former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick would conduct the “broad and independent review” of its workforce culture.

“We will share the findings of this review and any recommendations will be adopted to ensure that Airservices offers a safe, diverse and inclusive workplace for all of our employees,” Airservices said in a statement on Tuesday.

Airservices was responding to the publication of a report prepared by former Federal Court judge Anthony North, which included responses from a survey of about 500 Airservices employees in January.

The survey, conducted by YouGov Galaxy and commissioned by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for air traffic controllers’ union Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association, found half of all respondents – and three quarters of female respondents – said that they had experienced bullying, discrimination or sexual harassment while working at Airservices.

“It is evident that bullying, discrimination, and sexual harassment are features of the experience of many employees of Airservices and that they are not confident that management condemns the behaviour and acts effectively to prevent or stop it,” North said in the report, according to a joint statement from Civil Air and Maurice Blackburn on Tuesday.

“The fact that such behaviour has been documented as occurring over many years and at various Airservices worksites allows for the conclusion that bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment is part of the way things are done at Airservices, that they are part of its culture, and that they are not isolated or aberrant occurrences.”

“Of particular concern in the air navigation control environment, in which Airservices operates, is the potential for the poor workplace culture to have effects which compromise the safety of aircraft and passengers.”

Airservices said it rejected the suggestion in the report that its workplace culture was negatively affecting safety.

Instead, the government-owned corporation said its safety performance was “demonstrably among the best in the world and always improving”.

“There is no factual basis for these false and alarmist claims. When our safety performance is compared against our peers, we compare exceptionally well,” Airservices said.

Airservices said its annual employee engagement surveys had found “some areas of our workforce are concerned about workplace behaviours and how effectively they are managed when they arise”.

“We have been working with our people to address this, and have initiated some key improvement actions; most importantly enhancing essential people leadership skills in our highly specialised operational workforce,” Airservices said.

Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association executive secretary Peter McGuane called on federal government to “urgently step up” commence a full and independent enquiry.

“Employees lives are being ruined by the culture of bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment that Airservices have allowed, and the government must intervene stop this,” McGuane said.

“This employer has known about this culture for many years but it still refuses to change.”

Hmm...not a good look for the miniscule, yet another festering turd for the growing McDonaught aviation safety shame list...  

In addition... 

Catch Up or Ketchup?

One of the worst things that can happen, in almost any field of endeavour is falling behind. The further behind one gets, the harder it is to catch up, much more energy and will power is required and, having expended that energy, getting ahead becomes a very real challenge. It takes a while and some thinking to fully grasp the implications for the Australian 'catchup' emanating from the excellent report into the Air Nuigini 'accident'. (?)

In less than a twelve month, the PNG AIC managed to produce not only a first class analysis, but recommendations which not only have merit, but will stick. Flying operations in PNG are not without risk; almost everyone concerned there has an elevated awareness of ‘real’ risk in ‘real’ time and have a vested interest in finding out what happened, why and how best to fix it to prevent a reoccurrence. There are no faery tales of ‘safety’ told in PNG, no spin to mislead the public into believing that the local CAA is a god like being which, through a myriad of complex rules can sit back and say you are safe. Not in PNG, they understand that terrain, weather, aircraft and pilot can combine in an accident – any tick of the clock – and they do what they may to prevent reality happening, with limited resources and going the extra mile, without fear or influence. They shame Australia.

Despite the spin, bullshit, resources, unlimited power; and, not to mention the minister on a string, Australia has an impressive list of unfinished fatal reports, an even longer list of unpublished recommendations, and a marked reluctance to complete any of the above within a reasonable time frame. If an emerging nation like PNG with limited everything can do a complex, world class report within ten months, why are we in Australia still waiting for results? It also begs the question why did we waste so much time and effort to hold not only a Senate inquiry, but an independent report and an international examination; which, combined produced almost 100 recommendations, to no effective change whatsoever?

P2 - It is also disturbing that despite there being a 2nd inquiry and report by the ATSB into the PelAir VH-NGA ditching that there was no observations/findings in regards to Pacific Island air services agreements etc. like the PNG AIC has been able to do, without fear nor favour, inside of 10 months to an excellent full report...

A good question for the opposition to ask the incumbent Muppet, masquerading as minister methinks.

Perhaps ask why there is such a delay on the final report into the Ross Air fatal for example; another ‘training’ based event which proved lethal. Many would like to hear the ‘official’ ministerial response to that event; or, of any of the serious events which are neatly stacked up in the waiting room, awaiting their final, properly edited turn to be of no practical value.  

How’s this for a response to an enquiry – two years (and counting) down the track of the Ross Air investigation (another sim v aircraft training accident).

ATSB - "The investigation is progressing well, however, the analysis phase is proving to be a complex process due in part to the lack of recorded data from the flight. As a result we now expect to provide you with a copy of the draft report in the 4th quarter of this year. Sincere apologies for the delay however this investigation remains a high priority for the ATSB and the team are working tirelessly to complete the investigation as soon as possible."

Here is one response:-

Anon – “but not too busy to try making ATSB keep up with their promise of monthly updates. What utter tosh! Here is a copy of the latest 'update'. As you can see he insults my intelligence by telling me the investigation is progressing well and they are working tirelessly!!! Can you believe the audacity???”

I, for one can, so can many others. Australian aviation ‘safety’ is rapidly becoming little more than a PR exercise for government ministers who just don’t want to address the rapidly growing elephant in the room. Perhaps someone could whisper into the ministerial ear the real opinion of his international peers regarding the pitiful, deceitful state Australian aviation governance has descended into.  Volunteers? No. I wonder why not.

Toot – toot.

Cue the 60 minutes clock...tick..tick..tick..etc

 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Rice bowls – and protection thereof.

How often do you have the germ of an idea which, despite being dismissed as an impractical nonsense, keeps popping into your head. Sneaky little bugger, there you sit, feet up taking a well earned half hour of idleness and the notion creeps in, wanting further attention. I blame Glen Buckley for my current haunting; well, him and our ICC. I thought if I put it in written form, I could be shut of the notion for ever, hence this missive. (Twiddle or Ramble). So, with your forbearance: It begins thus.

In the USA, AOPA is a force to be reckoned with. Had the Buckley Saga even occurred under sane regulation (unlikely), then the AOPA would have gone in to bat. Now then, it costs, as we are all aware, a great deal of time and money to take a case to court. It is a waste of resources to not use a top gun barrister; this implies a support team, lawyers, research and etc. If a case was important enough, as is Glen’s, affecting the whole flight training industry, then a case could be mounted, AOPA probably leading the charge. No one outfit can afford that level of cost, especially going up against the likes of CASA. Huge costs, an incredible amount of money. There have been a few cases in Australia where the bill was a cool million (plus) which went nowhere. So it begs the question; what chance does a small operator like Glen have- standing alone? Buckley’s perhaps.

There is a need for a rebuttal of and a resolution to the CASA employed ICC’s response to GB’s complaint. It is now a matter of law, perhaps even down to the wire constitution law. How is one man to afford that level of argument, hells bells, your looking down the barrel of at least AUD20,000 a day, just for Barristers, let alone a support and research team; plus years of time.

There is a thing called the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) employed, fed and watered by CASA; the very body against which your complaint has been made. Bloody silly idea ain’t it, unless you happen to bat for CASA. Then it makes a whole world of sense; bit like the so called ‘Ethics Committee’ CASA run in the back rooms; there are some tales from that inglorious body which, I for one, would love to see dragged into a Senate inquiry: but, I digress.  

The point is how does this industry gain a truly ‘independent’ ICC and who would fund such an animal? Dare we ask the RRAT committee to fund such an office? Would it then be free of ‘vested’ interest influence? Could industry collectively fund such an organism and could that be held as free of bias?

Remember - He who pays the piper calls the tune - always. Read the ICC’s carefully crafted response if you doubt that.

"I don’t at this stage propose to find the actions were wrong or unlawful. It’s any decision maker’s prerogative (and obligation) to consider an application on its merits. Just because a different interpretation was reached to a previous decision maker on substantively the same question, it doesn’t mean it was unlawful."

Had a Judge made that comment at the end of a hearing, you may think it fair and reasonable. But when it comes from a CASA employee? Well................

The only ‘fair and equitable’ solution I can come up with (given limited mental resources) is that of a full dress Judicial Inquiry. I know, I do know how difficult it is to have one of these things mounted. But, the reality is that only a willing government can make it happen, this needs a Senate Committee to make that happen with enough evidence to make the incumbent minister realise that even the big airline operations are suffering under the present mindless rule set; and, that natural justice, fair play and a chance to prosper are being denied. Simply because CASA is still ‘liable’ under the Act and they will move heaven, earth and hell itself to protect their rice bowls and cover their unconscionable past behaviour.

Do we have that level of integrity in the Senate; do we have that level of will in the parliament; do we have a minister who actually gives a continental about aviation? Or do we have a bunch of self interested folks grinding one of this nations best assets into the dust beside the road to perdition.

Aye well; that’s got it off my chest – FWIW, perhaps now I too can shake my head, declare it ‘all too hard’ and get back to planet Earth.

Selah.

Ps CASA embuggerance of Glen Buckley update:

Dear Colin,

 
I had hoped to hear from CASA on whether they intended to meet in a well intentioned manner by last Friday. This has been going on for 9 months, and I apologise for this somewhat combative approach, I can assure you its not my natural way of engaging. Sorry to involve you in this. As I have not heard from CASA I have suggested the following template could be used to expedite processes.
 
Good decision making doesn’t take this long. Such delays only suggest manoeuvring by CASA which I do not have time for, and have been the victim of since October 2018.
 
 
 
As always, respectfully. Glen 

Ref link: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...kley-2.pdf

 

[P7_TOM]

Mathews – “The Board of CASA is responsible for “ensuring” that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner”.




Not what you could call ‘definitive’ is it. Despite the ‘sound and fury’ of the Mathews rhetoric prior to taking the job, he has managed to infuriate some very well respected, senior members of his immediate peer group. A lion become pet lamb of the Kool Aid crowd. Even the rubbish being spouted in ‘official’ blurbs carefully steps around ‘honesty’ integrity and ‘due process’ without going anywhere near CASA needing to be compliant with the law as writ.

News to no one; for the amount of use the CASA Board is to man, beast or aviation, we may as well save the dollars and let the tea lady make the policy: she would, in all probability at least bring some common sense, dignity and decency into the Bored room.

If Mathews had a shred of decency or a scrap of honour he’d resign and turn whistle blower. Fat chance of that eh? No matter, his peers have weighed, measured and valued his stellar contribution; I doubt they’ll tell him the result – why bother, when Glen Buckley and many others know the truth.

BRB verdict (Censored)......

[Peetwo]

Dear glenb - L&Ks Tone (Fort Fumble Chair) 

Today on the GB embuggerance so far...

Mathews – “The Board of CASA is responsible for “ensuring” that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner”.




Not what you could call ‘definitive’ is it. Despite the ‘sound and fury’ of the Mathews rhetoric prior to taking the job, he has managed to infuriate some very well respected, senior members of his immediate peer group. A lion become pet lamb of the Kool Aid crowd. Even the rubbish being spouted in ‘official’ blurbs carefully steps around ‘honesty’ integrity and ‘due process’ without going anywhere near CASA needing to be compliant with the law as writ.

News to no one; for the amount of use the CASA Board is to man, beast or aviation, we may as well save the dollars and let the tea lady make the policy: she would, in all probability at least bring some common sense, dignity and decency into the Bored room.

If Mathews had a shred of decency or a scrap of honour he’d resign and turn whistle blower. Fat chance of that eh? No matter, his peers have weighed, measured and valued his stellar contribution; I doubt they’ll tell him the result – why bother, when Glen Buckley and many others know the truth.

BRB verdict (Censored)......

Oh no not the dreaded Fort Fumble five o'clock email/fax??

Dear Glen,

I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you at Melbourne Airport on 19 July 2019 so that you could provide your perspective on CASA’s relationship with Australian Pilot Training Alliance.

I have reviewed your notes that you sent to me on 29 July 2019. Your notes provide significantly more detail than we covered during the discussion. As we discussed, I met with you to listen to your perspective and this was not to be taken as an indication that I agree or disagree with the views you expressed.

I would like to confirm that I did not see the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) final report until immediately prior to the meeting. I also understand that the report was finalised the day before our meeting.

As we discussed, the ICC reports directly to the CASA board. In my experience, the ICC acts independently and impartially. The final ICC report identified that the timing of CASA’s change in regulatory approach and manner of communication were likely to have been unfair. However, the ICC concluded that CASA did not act unlawfully or unreasonably fail to provide information.

Your email of 7 August 2019 requested advice on whether CASA was prepared to meet with you regarding compensation for your perceived losses or whether CASA preferred for the matter to proceed to a legal process.

The decision to discuss compensation or legal action is an operational matter for CASA. I do not intend to intervene in CASA’s consideration on this matter but will be kept informed on the progress.

I acknowledge your email of 9 August 2019 providing a suggested template for my response.

I also acknowledge an email from your father, Derek Buckley, of 9 August 2019 seeking a response to our meeting.

Please accept this letter as my response to your emails.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Mathews
Chair
CASA Board

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

The Enigma of Safety.



Digging into the history of aviation development in Australia the question of ‘Safety’ is at the forefront of just about every document written about aviation.

Indeed, over the past decade or so, safety has grown into an industry of itself and now absorbs considerable resources across every industry. Occupational health and safety is the new mantra in academia. Tens of thousands of pages of esoteric dissertation and philosophical debate fills the Internet, safety has become de rigueur de jour.

But what is Safety? How is it measured?

Wikipedia defines ‘Safety’ as:

“Safety is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected from harm or other non-desirable outcomes. Safety can also refer to the control of recognized hazards in order to achieve an acceptable level of risk.”

It is important to realize that safety is relative. Eliminating all risk is not possible, endeavouring to do so would be extremely difficult and exponentially expensive.

A safe situation is one where risks of injury or property damage are low and manageable.

When something is called safe, this usually means that it is safe within certain reasonable limits and parameters. Conversely a choice motivated purely by safety may have other consequences. Australia is a classic example where prescriptive over regulation is driving up compliance costs to the extent where parts of its industry are becoming unviable and in some instances less safe.

Normative safety is achieved when a product or design meets applicable standards and practices for design and construction or manufacture, regardless of the product’s actual safety history.

Objective safety occurs when the real world safety history is favourable, even if standards are not met.

It has always puzzled me that the general public tolerates the yearly death toll on our roads and highways, yet reacts with horror to very rare aviation accident.

But do they really?

How often do we hear our political masters state “The public expects us to impose these restrictions” is this perception really the public’s or is it the politicians, or rather the bureaucrats that control them?

The problem with perception is its emotive, public perception can be driven by a sensationist press, or subverted by other agencies and promoted in pursuit of other agendas unrelated to safety. For example our own regulator often promotes itself as the guardians of safety as an excuse for more draconian regulation and 'safety' as a tool to intimidate politicians to acquiesce to agree to them. Unions use OH&S to drive industrial agenda’s unrelated to actual safety.

The perception of safety can be at times quite divorced from reality.

So how safe is aviation?

A little bit of history related to Commercial Air Transport.

In 1926 and 1927 there were a total of 24 fatal commercial airline crashes, a further 16 in 1928, and 51 in 1929 (killing 61 people), which remains the worst year on record at an accident rate of about 1 for every 1,000,000 miles (1,600,000 km) flown.

Based on the current numbers flying, this would equate to 7,000 fatal incidents per year.

For the ten-year period 2002 to 2011, 0.6 fatal accidents happened per one million flights globally, 0.4 per million hours flown, 22.0 fatalities per one million flights or 12.7 per million hours flown.

From 310 million passengers in 1970, air transport had grown to 3,696 million in 2016, led by 823 million in the United States then 488 million in China.

In 2016, there were 19 fatal accidents of civil airliners of more than 14 passengers, resulting in 325 fatalities: the second safest year ever after 2015 with 16 accidents and 2013 with 265 fatalities.

For planes heavier than 5.7 t, there were 34.9 million departures and 75 accidents worldwide with 7 of these fatal for 182 fatalities, the lowest since 2013: 5.21 fatalities per million departures.



Yearly fatalities since 1942, 5-year average in red: fatalities peaked in 1972.



Fatalities per trillion revenue passenger kilometers, 1970-2018 (five-year moving average for fatalities)


From UK statistics some interesting transport comparisons.

There are three main ways in which risk of fatality of a certain mode of travel can be measured:

Deaths per billion typical journeys taken, deaths per billion hours travelled, or deaths per billion kilometres travelled.

The following table displays these statistics for the United Kingdom 1990–2000. Note: that aviation safety does not include the transportation to the airport.



The first two statistics are computed for typical travels for respective forms of transport, so they cannot be used directly to compare risks related to different forms of transport in a particular travel "from A to B". For example: according to statistics, a typical flight from Los Angeles to New York will carry a larger risk factor than a typical car travel from home to office. But a car travel from Los Angeles to New York would not be typical. It would be as large as several dozens of typical car travels, and associated risk will be larger as well. Because the journey would take a much longer time, the overall risk associated by making this journey by car will be higher than making the same journey by air, even if each individual hour of car travel can be less risky than an hour of flight.

It is therefore important to use each statistic in a proper context. When it comes to a question about risks associated with a particular long-range travel from one city to another, the most suitable statistic is the third one, thus giving a reason to name air travel as the safest form of transportation.

How safe is Safe?

Air travel is the safest mode of mass transportation; your odds of dying in a plane crash are about one in 11,000,000. That's an average of about 110 people per year, and those numbers include private planes and non-crash related accidents in addition to commercial travel. In fact, you're more likely to be struck by lightning, with a one in 13,000 chance for your lifetime.

Fatal accidents do occur, of course, but media outlets give them so much attention you begin to think they happen all the time. Between 1982 and 2010, 3288 people in the US died from aeroplane related causes.

That's an average of about 110 people per year, and those numbers include private planes and non-crash related accidents in addition to commercial travel.

In Australia, 42 people died in air transport related incidents in 2008 and 27 in 2009 and flying is only getting safer. Julie O'Donnell, a spokeswoman for Boeing, explains that fatal accidents occurred once every 200,000 flights in the '50s and '60s. Now, fatal accidents only occur once every two million flights.

It's also important to realise that most aviation incidents are not fatal. Planes lose altitude, slide off the runway and hit extreme turbulence without any injuries. Even if your plane is involved in some type of accident, there's a good chance you'll survive.

The US National Transportation Safety Board estimates there's a 95 per cent chance of survival based on their studies of past commercial aircraft accidents.

Regulation and Safety

Aviation Safety continues to improve as new technology is introduced and initiatives lead by aviation safety partnerships between some regulators, manufacturers, operators, professional unions, research organisations, and international aviation organisations further enhance safety.

Regulation alone plays only a small part in overall safety.

What is the purpose of regulation? What are we really trying to achieve?

What should the world look like after it has been regulated?

Many “stakeholders” assent to the concept of regulation as a tool to fix a problem, but is there any clear idea about what the outcomes should be?

It is very easy to become enmeshed in the mechanisms and processes of compliance without developing a grasp of the principles underlying regulation, a trap our regulator has fallen into.

With no incentive to examine cause and effect, or unintended consequence they churn out vast volumes of extremely complicated obtuse regulations that have no practical purpose, defy common sense, are very difficult to interpret and therefore diminish real safety.

I believe regulation should be based on ethical drivers that, if we understand them better, will help direct us towards a more effective, safe and efficient system.

DO MORE REGULATIONS EQUAL LESS SAFETY?

Aviation Business in Australia must comply with a lot of rules. Tens of thousands of pages with more added each year. The chief rationale for these regulations is safety, the only mandate CASA are required to consider.

The underlying principle however is not safety; it is to relieve themselves and the government of liability. As a result they concentrate on writing highly detailed and prescriptive rules in an endeavour to quantify common sense.

There is a phrase used often in the aviation world, “Regulatory Capture”.

Generally applied to a regulator being captured by industry. Politically, due to the highly technical nature of aviation the reverse has occurred in Australia with politicians captured by the regulator leading to a failure of oversight, rather than scrutinising legislation they rely on the regulators 'advice'.This allows the regulator free reign to impose poorly drafted and ineffective rules that diminish safety rather than enhance it.

The significant drag regulatory compliance puts on the industry and the Australian economy and the burden it places on all businesses, but especially small ones is ignored.

Many, and too detailed, regulations swamp business in unnecessary financial and logistical burdens, resulting in reduced compliance, discourages innovation, and fuels uncertainty which diminishes participation and investment, ultimately making Australians less safe.

REGULATORY OVERLOAD

Psychology, economics, and organizational science, suggest that too many regulations—particularly highly detailed regulations—may make society less, rather than more, safe.

A Behavioural Analysis of Regulatory Compliance, occupational psychologists and economists look at the behavioural effects of regulatory overload on businesses.

They find that incoherent and excessive regulation can diminish individuals and businesses ability to comprehend basic principles and apply them in everyday judgments. A culture of dependency can result. Increased regulation of an undirected kind does indeed make matters worse.

Reduced Compliance. Workers subjected to too many rules—some of which are overly complex, contradictory, out-dated, or inapplicable to their specific jobs—often forget, cannot prioritize, or simply ignore many of them.

Helpful rules become harmful if they obscure more important rules. For example, road signs announcing important, but relatively minor risks can distract a driver long enough to miss the stoplight.

The Australian Regulator often try to address a wide range of situations by writing very detailed “command- and-control,” or prescriptive, rules.

The length and legalistic language of the regulations make it hard for businesses to decipher if, or how, these rules apply to them.

The rules that do apply directly often fail to capture the complexity of the problems businesses face.

Even if there has been full regulatory compliance, if something bad happening in the industry or a specific business it often spurs even more rules and exceptions, further increasing the complexity of, and difficulty of complying with, the parts of the regulatory code applicable to each situation.

When workers no longer see regulations as a means of promoting safety, they are less likely to comply; when they do comply, they often focus on passing audits, rather than improving safety.

Workers who see an increasing number of regulations as irrelevant to their jobs become less motivated to comply with any of the rules.

Less Innovation.

When there are too many rules, particularly command-and-control rules, businesses may respond by becoming rigid and reactive an or dependant.

Instead of anticipating and addressing safety concerns, businesses become so preoccupied with following the rules that they fail to pursue innovative solutions to improve safety. The failure to innovate leads to more mistakes, which spurs more regulations, less innovation, less safety, more mistakes, another round of rules, and so on. In addition:

• When something unexpected happens, reactive businesses are less capable of solving problems. Instead, they simply wait for officials to tell them what to do.
• Financially, it often is more cost-effective for firms to invest in legal experts, to ensure regulatory compliance at the lowest possible cost, than in experts who can find the best solutions to the business’ specific challenges.
• Attempting to comply with too many rules is harder for small businesses. Large businesses manage by complex internal procedures and can dedicate resources to compliance. Small businesses without internal bureaucracies must be as flexible as possible and cannot arrange their business around rigid external rules.
• When large businesses lobby to have their procedures adopted as rules, small businesses bear a disproportionate compliance cost—at least 30% higher per employee—and may be priced out of the market. This reduces competition and innovation, both in general and in the realm of safety.

Increased Uncertainty.

Businesses face an on-going climate of uncertainty fuelled by too many vague, broad, and overly complex rules. This uncertainty suppresses investment and growth across the economy, and is particularly harmful for small businesses.

• The sheer volume of rules on the books today creates uncertainty; but the situation is made much worse by the fact that no rule ever is “final.” Particularly when regulators use command-and-control techniques, there will be more rules that change more often.

Uncertainty often leads to paralysis. Businesses delay investments, even in safety improvements, so as to see what regulators will do next. For example, a business might not install new equipment because regulators might later specify a different, though not necessarily better, technical standard.

In Australia the regulations are so obtuse the regulators own enforcement officers have widely differing opinions as to what they mean. What can be "Compliant" one day with one CAsA official can be un-compliant the next with another.
Because our regulator applies "strict liability" into its legislation the "sovereign risk" to business and individuals is enormous. One can be compliant one day and un-compliant the next. More time is devoted to "are we compliant?" than discussing real safety issues and planning to mitigate them.

A better way

• “Goal-based regulation” does not specify the means of achieving compliance but sets goals that allow alternative ways of achieving compliance, e.g. “People shall be prevented from falling over the edge of the cliff”. In “prescriptive regulation” the specific means of achieving compliance is mandated, e.g. “You shall install a 1 meter high fence at the edge of the cliff”.
• There is an increasing tendency in the real world to adopt a goal-based approach to safety regulation, and there are good technical and commercial reasons for believing this approach is preferable to more prescriptive regulation. It is however important to address the practical problems associated with goal-based regulation in order for it to be applied effectively.
• The Robens Report [Robens 1972] and the Cullen Enquiry [Cullen 1990] were major drivers behind the UK Regulatory agencies exploring the benefits of introducing goal-based regulations. The reports noted several shortcomings with prescriptive safety regulations.
• Firstly, with prescriptive regulations, the service provider is only required to carry out the mandated actions to discharge his legal responsibilities. If these actions then prove to be insufficient to prevent a subsequent accident, it is the regulations and those that set them that are seen to be deficient. Thus safety is viewed as the responsibility of the regulator and not the service provider whose responsibility, in law, it actually is.
• Secondly, prescriptive regulations tend to be a distillation of past experience and, as such, can prove at best to be inappropriate and at worst to create unnecessary dangers in industries that are technically innovative. It is the innovator that is best placed to ensure the safety of their design, not the regulator. Clearly prescriptive safety regulations are unable to cope with a diversity of design solutions.
• Thirdly, prescriptive regulations encode the best engineering practice at the time that they were written and rapidly become deficient where best practice is changing e.g. with evolving technologies. In fact it is quite probable that prescriptive regulations eventually prevent the service provider from adopting current best practice.
• Another driver for adopting goal-based regulation, from a legal viewpoint, is that overly restrictive regulation may be viewed as a barrier to open markets. Various international agreements, EC Directives and Regulations are intended to promote open markets and equivalent safety across nations. Whilst it is necessary to prescribe interoperability requirements and minimum levels of safety, prescription in other areas would defeat the aim of facilitating open markets and competition.
• Finally, from a commercial viewpoint, prescriptive regulations could affect the cost and technical quality of available solutions provided by commercial suppliers.
• So there are clear benefits in adopting a goal-based approach as it gives greater freedom in developing technical solutions and accommodating different standards. However, in order to adopt a goal-based approach, it is necessary to provide a coherent and convincing safety justification.

SOLUTIONS

In the attempt to better protect the government from liability CASA write ever more, and ever more prescriptive, rules. But evidence suggests that constantly expanding the regulatory burden has the opposite effect: the difficulty of complying with such complex regulations makes Australian aviation less safe.

Simplifying and clarifying the regulatory code would go a long way toward improving safety.

Specifically, CASA have proved themselves very inept at writing regulations, at the very least they could eliminate rules that are no longer needed, simplify the rules and write them in plain English with clear compliance priorities.

They also could focus on defining required outcomes, rather than detailing activities and focusing their priorities on limiting liability. This would return to businesses and workers the behavioural and financial incentives to find the best solutions for their specific, ever- evolving set of challenges to improve safety and the responsibility to do so.

Of course the logical most cost effective thing they could do, is accept they have completely failed in the vision government set for them and do as New Zealand did.

If improvement in Safety outcomes is their primary goal, if a viable and growing industry is their objective;
Embrace the safest, simplest rule set in the world, the US FAR’s.

The benefits of doing so;

• We would improve safety. The USA has far better safety outcomes than we do.
• We would align ourselves with our primary supplier and as New Zealand regulations have spread throughout our region, align ourselves with our neighbours instead of sticking out like a sore thumb as the odd man out.
• Compliance costs would be dramatically reduced without compromising on safety, enabling industry to invest in new equipment and training which would improve safety.
• Bringing certainty to the regulatory environment would Unshackle industry, dramatically lower costs, opening the way for greater participation and therefore growth, commensurate with a greater contribution to GDP.
CASA has already expended upwards of half a billion dollars and over thirty years on their regulatory reform program to achieve an industry in severe decline for no quantifiable improvement in safety.

New Zealand modelled their regulations on the US FAR’s and took a couple million dollars and a couple of years to complete the transition. New Zealand’s industry is vibrant and growing, Australia’s is dying.

The Paradox in all this is, CASA says it regulates the way it does to keep the Australian public safe.

If that is their statutory responsibility, as they go to great pains to promote, and Australia is the safest, Why are “Less Safe” foreign operators allowed to fly into Australia? And why do so many Australians travel on foreign airlines?

Could it be that the publics perception of “Safety” is not quite as intolerant of risk as it is painted or somehow they are not aware.

Some years ago CASA were going to require General aviation operators to announce to passengers that they were about to board a less safe aircraft.

Should therefore there be large signs posted in International terminals that flying on foreign carriers is less safe than Australian ones?

Now wouldn’t Qantas love that?

[Peetwo]

McDonaught aviation safety shamelist - Part IV.

Article today in the Oz:

State push to land a larger slice of aircraft maintenance boom


By Ironside 



The Queensland government is seeking to bring thousands of ­aviation jobs to the state as part of a bold pitch to capitalise on the booming demand for aircraft maintenance.

In the past two decades, airlines have increasingly sent their aircraft overseas to New Zealand, Singapore and The Philippines for maintenance, repair and overhaul because of the lower cost, scale and quality of work.

Qantas is now the only major airline that carries out heavy maintenance on part of its fleet in Australia. That work is done at its Brisbane hangar.

However, with the world’s commercial airline fleet set to increase from 25,368 aircraft to more than 35,000 in the next 10 years, demand for maintenance will grow, presenting opportunities for skilled workers and services.

Queensland Minister for State Development Cameron Dick will meet aviation heavyweights, including Qantas and Hawker ­Pacific, tomorrow to discuss opportunities for the state to raise its share of the growing aircraft maintenance market.

Data from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics shows that in Australia, there were 2107 aircraft registered as commercial air transport last year. Of those, just 102 had heavy maintenance in Australia — including 75 Qantas 737s and 28 A330s.

Boeing forecasts an additional 769,000 technicians will be needed in the aviation industry by 2038, including 266,000 in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr Dick said the focus of the roundtable would be to look at how to bring a good portion of those jobs to the state.

He said as well as examining the obstacles to major airlines, the roundtable would show how the government was keen to support jobs through project facilitation and industry attraction.

“We’ve seen reports that major Australian airlines have sent aircraft overseas for servicing and we want to bring those jobs to Queensland,” Mr Dick said.

“Queensland is in the pilot’s seat to build on the state’s established (maintenance) industry and create more high-value, knowledge-based jobs of the future.”

The government’s jobs and ­regional growth had already led to an increase in the size of Hawker Pacific’s far north Queensland hangar, in readiness for heavy maintenance work from across the Asia Pacific region.

Mr Dick said Boeing, Airbus and Northrop Grumman also maintained a range of aircraft with “future capacity for heavy maintenance for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner”.

“Deloitte Access Economics reports with continued support, the aerospace sector could support 6200 jobs over 10 years,” Mr Dick said.

As well as Qantas and Hawker Pacific, other organisations to confirm their attendance at the maintenance roundtable include Cobham, Wellcamp Toowoomba Airport, TAE Aerospace, Asia ­Pacific Aerospace, Aviation Australia and Pacific Turbine.

Boeing, Virgin Australia and Brisbane Airport were also invited to attend.

Mr Dick said the meeting showed Queensland’s commitment to expanding the existing maintenance business.

“Queensland will be the only Australian state represented at the (maintenance) Asia Pacific conference in Singapore next month,” he said. “We will also host the ­inaugural Australasia event in March 2020, and again in 2022 and 2024.”

  
Hmm...excellent initiative by the QLD Labor Govt but hang on a second...Q1) where are they going to get the ginger beers?? &.. Q2) why isn't our useless good for nothing miniscule getting behind this wonderful initiative??   

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

"where are they going to get the ginger beers??"

Relatively simple question to answer P2.

Given CAsA's inane, outdated, convoluted and very expensive new way to gain a licence, very few manage to survive the process before either going broke or going insane. At the end of it all, your shiny new LAME licence is not recognised anywhere in the world, your licence is unique to Australia and therefore Australian registered aircraft.
Almost all of Australian major carriers go to foreign climes for maintenance anyway, Qantas has built a hundred million dollar maintenance facility in LA. There are good and valid reasons why this happens, not least of which to get away from CAsA's stifling bullsh@#$t.

So to get anything off the ground of substance will require a lot of 457 visa's or whatever its current iteration is.

Meanwhile across the ditch, with sensible rules, our Kiwi mates are cleaning up.

To compete Internationally you need sensible, comparable rules, but our regulator believes all the rest of the world is wrong, only they are right.

[Peetwo]

ATSB, CASA & Dept attempted embuggerance of Angel Flight continues...

Another one for the McDonaught aviation safety shame list...

Via the Accidents Domestic thread:

ATSB Mount Gambier Angel Flight report out -   

Has the Hooded Canary buried Angel Flight? You be the judge, via the ATCB:

ATSB investigation highlights risks of community service flights


Source: Mount Gambier Airport
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation has found that community service flights conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia have a fatal accident rate per flight that is seven times higher than for other private flights.

That was a key finding of the first analysis to be undertaken in Australia to determine the relative safety of Angel Flight compared to other private flying operations, after a second fatal accident involving the charity in the past decade.

The analysis was conducted as part of the ATSB’s investigation into the collision with terrain of a SOCATA TB-10 Tobago light aircraft near Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia, on 28 June 2017. The aircraft had departed Mount Gambier in poor weather bound for Adelaide, transporting a young person to a medical treatment appointment on behalf of Angel Flight, accompanied by a family member.

Shortly after take-off the aircraft entered low-level cloud (estimated to be about 200 feet above ground level), and the pilot, who was not qualified to fly in other than visual conditions, probably became spatially disorientated, resulting in a loss of control of the aircraft.

Our analysis of the circumstances of this tragic accident highlights that passengers on Angel Flight community service flights, and indeed their volunteer pilots, are being exposed to much higher levels of risk

About 70 seconds after take-off, the aircraft collided with the ground. Both passengers and the volunteer pilot were fatally injured, and the aircraft was destroyed.

“The ATSB considers that the conduct of community service flights, where volunteer pilots flying private aircraft to transport those less fortunate requiring medical treatment from regional and rural Australia, demonstrates a laudable concern for others,” ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said.

“However, our analysis of the circumstances of this tragic accident highlights that passengers on Angel Flight community service flights, and indeed their volunteer pilots, are being exposed to much higher levels of risk compared with other types of aviation operations.”

Community service flights operating on behalf of Angel Flight do so as private flights, which the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) defines as “flying for pleasure, sport or recreation, or personal transport not associated with a business or profession”.

However, the ATSB investigation showed that the rate of safety occurrences, which can be pre-cursors of fatal accidents, was substantially higher for passenger carrying Angel Flight operations than other private operations. This is almost certainly due to pilots operating community service flights on behalf of Angel Flight being exposed to additional operational risk factors.


Source: South Australia Police

These include the potential for pilots to experience perceived or self-imposed pressures to take on what Angel Flight described as ‘missions’ to fly ill, unrelated passengers (rather than family  or friends) at pre-determined times and locations to meet scheduled medical appointments, rather than at times chosen by the pilot.

“Angel Flight did not pressure pilots to fly in conditions beyond their capability, but some circumstances can lead a pilot to feel pressure anyway, such as the responsibility to fly unrelated ill passengers to meet medical deadlines. This can lead to degraded decision making under high-pressure situations, like when confronted with poor weather,” Commissioner Hood said.

On the morning of the Mount Gambier accident two regional airliner flights into Mount Gambier were delayed due to the poor weather, Commissioner Hood noted.

The ATSB’s analysis determined pilots flying on behalf of Angel Flight were more likely to make operational errors when compared to other private operations, particularly associated with flight preparation and navigation, airspace, runway events, and communications breakdowns.
 
“The community could reasonably expect that community service flights would have a level of safety at least commensurate with other private operations, if not higher. However, this investigation has shown that those conducted for Angel Flight are actually less safe than other private operations, let alone charter and scheduled airline flying,” Commissioner Hood said.

Earlier ATSB research has already established that private flying has a fatal accident rate per flight that is eight times higher than commercial charter operations and 27 times higher than low-capacity scheduled airline flying. Further, there have been no fatalities involving a high capacity airliner in Australia in more than 40 years.

“Given the factors identified for the accident at Mount Gambier and previously with another Angel Flight fatal accident in 2011, supported by the differences identified in the analysis of safety occurrences and consistent with findings from investigations of similar organisations in the United States, the ATSB considers that measures must be undertaken to improve existing risk controls,” Commissioner Hood said.

The ATSB commends Angel Flight for initiating some pro-active action on a number of the investigation’s identified safety issues, including developing an online safety course, planning a pilot mentoring program, and implementing a safety management system. The ATSB will continue to monitor the implementation of these and other controls to ensure pilots receive sufficient support and guidance to deal with the additional risks faced by private pilots when conducting a flight on behalf of Angel Flight.

However, the ATSB has issued a formal safety recommendation to Angel Flight Australia, recommending that it consider paying for commercial flights where they are available to transport its passengers.

“This ATSB investigation showed that commercial passenger flight options are available for nearly two-thirds of the private flights organised by Angel Flight,” Commissioner Hood said.

Angel Flight could purchase tickets on commercial flights for two passengers for a comparable cost to the organisation to what they normally reimburse for the fuel costs of privately-operated flights. Taking into account other passenger needs, 30 to 40 per cent of flights could be done using existing commercial flights.

“As a charity established to transport rural and regional people with limited financial means to medical appointments, the ATSB considers that Angel Flight could and should include the fact that commercial passenger flights have a lower safety risk to passengers than private operations as a factor when they are organising flights.”

Commissioner Hood noted that on the day of the Mount Gambier accident, suitable and cost-comparative airline flights were available.
In response to a separate safety issue raised by the ATSB’s investigation, CASA has taken proactive safety action by ensuring community services flights can now be identified separately to other private operations, which will better enable it to identify risks in the sector into the future.

“The ATSB is supportive of the community service flight sector, however, based upon the analysis conducted, it is essential that the controls for risk are strengthened to prevent further accidents,” Commissioner Hood said.

Read the investigation report AO-2017-068: Collision with terrain involving SOCATA TB-10 Tobago, VH-YTM, near Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia, on 28 June 2017 

---

And via Oz Flying:






Angel Flight should be using Public Transport: ATSB
13 August 2019

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has recommended that Angel Flight clients should be placed on regular public transport (RPT) flights rather allow private pilots to fly missions.

The conclusion was part of an investigation report released this morning into the 2017 crash of a TB10 Tobago at Mount Gambier on an Angel Flight mission.

According to the ATSB, the pilot of VH-YTM was ferrying passengers from Mount Gambier to Adelaide in June 2017 when he took off into low cloud and poor visibility. The aircraft reached a maximum altitude of only 300 feet before it descended and struck terrain about a minute after take-off. All three on board were killed. The flight was VFR and the ATSB considered the pilot did not have IFR proficiency.

" ... the pilot took off in low-level cloud without proficiency for flight in instrument meteorological conditions," the report states. "Shortly after take-off, the pilot likely lost visual cues and probably became spatially disorientated, resulting in loss of control of the aircraft and collision with terrain."

Cameras at Mount Gambier airport and GPS tracks showed the pilot conducted a series of non-standard turns during his initial approach to the airport and that conditions were marginal.

Among its findings, the ATSB stated that Angel Flight's incident rate was "considerably more" than other private operations, that Angel Flight didn't have controls in place to address operational risks involved in community service flights and that CASA didn't have a system in place to differentiate between community service flights and normal operations.

"The ATSB found two aspects in particular likely contributed to this higher rate," the ATSB explained. "These were the potential for some pilots to experience perceived or self-induced pressure by taking on the responsibility to fly ill, unknown passengers, at scheduled times to meet predetermined medical appointments, often with an expected same day return; and the required operation to unfamiliar locations, and limited familiarity with procedures in controlled airspace (associated with larger aerodromes)."

The ATSB also slammed Angel Flight for not having placed the passengers on commercial RPT.

"It was identified that Angel Flight did not consider the safety benefits of commercial flights when suitable flights were available, the report states.

"While Angel Flight arranged and paid for commercial flights (18% of all flights) for capital city transfers, or when private pilots cancelled, it was estimated that nearly two-thirds of the private flights conducted for Angel Flight had a commercial regular public transport option available, which offered considerable safety benefits when compared to private operations.

In a media statement accompanying the reports, ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said that Angel Flight should use RPT as a first resort.
"The ATSB has issued a formal safety recommendation to Angel Flight Australia, recommending that it consider paying for commercial flights where they are available to transport its passengers," Hood said.

“This ATSB investigation showed that commercial passenger flight options are available for nearly two-thirds of the private flights organised by Angel Flight.

"Angel Flight could purchase tickets on commercial flights for two passengers for a comparable cost to the organisation to what they normally reimburse for the fuel costs of privately-operated flights. Taking into account other passenger needs, 30 to 40% of flights could be done using existing commercial flights.

Angel Flight responded to the safety concerns raised in the investigation by saying it considered it inappropriate for the ATSB to criticise them for not abandoning the model for which they were constituted.

"Angel Flight only consider[s] the use of regular passenger transport in two circumstances: if a private pilot is unavailable or cancels at short notice and flights are available, or if the flights are capital city to capital city.

"They are not, and are not required to be, considered other than as a back-up and for long distance compassionate flights."

In March this year, CASA instituted new restrictions on pilots conducting community service flights, which is currently the subject of legal action between Angel Flight and the regulator. The matter has also been listed for disallowance motions in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...toxGB4V.99

Hmm...I find it passing strange that despite the ATSB stating on all active investigations similar words to the effect...

..should any safety issues be identified during any phase of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue...

 
 ...that the ATSB in this case waited till the final report release day to issue a very rare safety recommendation directly to Angel Flight:

Safety issue description

Angel Flight did not consider the safety benefits of commercial passenger flights when suitable flights were available.

Response to safety issue from Angel Flight: Angel Flight consider it inappropriate for [the ATSB] to criticise the charity for not abandoning the model for which it was constituted. Angel Flight only consider the use of regular passenger transport in two circumstances: if a private pilot is unavailable or cancels at short notice and flights are available, or if the flights are capital city to capital city. They are not, and are not required to be, considered other than as a back-up and for long distance compassionate flights.

ATSB comment: The ATSB acknowledges that Angel Flight uses commercial passenger transport for some flights it organises. This ATSB investigation showed that commercial passenger flight options are available for a considerable percentage of the private flights organised by Angel Flight. As a charity established to transport people without the means to medical appointments, the ATSB considers that Angel Flight could and should include the fact that commercial passenger flights have a lower safety risk to passengers than private operations as a factor when it is organising flights.

The ATSB is issuing the following recommendation.

Recommendation

---

Action organisation: Angel Flight Australia

---

Action number: AO-2017-069-SR-015

---

Date: 13 August 2019

---

Action status: Released

---

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that Angel Flight Australia takes action to enable it to consider the safety benefits of using commercial flights where they are available to transport its passengers.

---

Current issue status: Safety action pending

So despite conducting an exhaustive 2+year investigation the Hooded Canary only now considers the Angel Flight response/action to the initial identified safety issue as unsatisfactory and therefore requiring the issuing of a safety recommendation - yeah right. Note that the initial identified safety issue is also dated 13 August 2019 (see HERE) but given the Angel Flight response obviously that is not possible. 

Still reading but at this stage this report IMO is the biggest bureaucratic stitch up since the PelAir ditching and there will be definitely MTF...

Angel Flight's response to the ATSB report:

ANGEL FLIGHT RESPONSE TO ATSB REPORT 13 august 2019

ANGEL FLIGHT IS AUSTRALIA’S LARGEST AND LONGEST-SERVING CHARITY FACILITATING COMMUNITY BENEFIT FLYING

Angel Flight has co-ordinated free flights for more than 100,000 disadvantaged rural Australians, whose only other option to attend city hospitals for specialist treatment is ground transport – often taking days each way, at times with the driver/ patients being very elderly or accompanying very young children, on dangerous outback roads. These people cannot afford commercial air travel, which is more often than not, unavailable from their hometowns. Angel Flight recognises, publicly and privately with the affected people, the consequences of tragic fatal accidents, wherever and in whatever circumstances they occur, and is (and has always been) committed to safety and welfare as its priority.

THE ATSB REPORT INTO THE ACCIDENT AT MT GAMBIER ON 20 JUNE 2017

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ATSB offered no safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather.

The safety recommendation made was for the charity to book people on airlines for travel: this does not adequately factor in cost (particularly where two or more people are travelling, which is often the case); nor does it properly factor in the infrequent scheduling or non-existence of airline flights into country regions across Australia; the
inconvenience and difficulties faced by the elderly and families with young children at major city airports, and the associated ground travel; and appears to work on the assumption that city specialists and hospitals will gear their appointment times around airline timetables. Angel Flight does use airline flights where practicable and necessary, and will continue to utilise these services.

The rules implemented by CASA were not directed to the cause of the 2017 accident, or any other accident in the community benefit sector, and the ATSB has not given any support for those rules, save and except for that requiring pilots to write community benefit flights up in their log books, and note that fact on flight plans: the only flow-on from those rules is one of policing data – the very same data has been given by the charity to the ATSB.

It is regrettable, that the Bureau made no relevant safety recommendations, nor gave any guidance whatsoever, to pilots flying in poor weather conditions – the cause of the accident: it would have been of benefit to the flying community had the ATSB focussed on these aspects of the accident.

The safety message raised – induction training and safety management systems, together with a pilot mentoring programme, had already been implemented by the charity prior to the ATSB report and recommendations. Angel Flight takes, and has taken, a very serious and proactive approach to improving safety, and will continue to do so. Angel Flight will continue to urge CASA to improve its Human Factors training in the pre-licencing stage of training, in addition to the refresher courses now offered.

THE DATA

The charity engaged two senior expert statisticians and an analyst, all of whom concluded that the accident rate was not significantly different from the rate for other private flying across Australia.  The ATSB also chose to compare only the passenger-carrying sectors of flights coordinated by the charity –it disregarded the flights, also coordinated by the charity, where the aircraft flew from home base to the city collection points, the return trips back to base, and the positioning flights to collect passengers from their own home towns: it did, however, include those flights when reporting ‘occurrences’ against the charity flights. There was, and is, no reason for this failure. To
remove up to two-thirds of the coordinated flights in order to make statistical conclusions is unjustifiable. Moreover, when comparing the data with private flights generally, it did not exclude the non-passenger flights for that group – all flights were counted in the general private sector, but not in the charity sector.

Angel Flight has coordinated more than 46,000 flights for the purpose of travelling to, returning from and carrying rural Australians to the city for non-emergency medical appointments. The ATSB has excluded more than half of these flights when assessing accident rates, with the result being to substantially increase the alleged statistical accident rates.

THE EXACERBATION OF THE DATA ERRORS

The ATSB has not adopted its own protocols (and those followed in the US) of counting flight hours for general aviation accidents - instead it counted only flight numbers. An example of that methodology, further invalidating the findings, is (a common route), where the pilot departs home base in Tyabb, flies to Essendon to collect passengers, flies from Essendon to Hay, then returns to Tyabb (three sectors) – this is counted as one flight by the ATSB for its statistical purposes. The flight time for this route in a Cessna 182 would be at least 3.5 hours yet the ATSB gives it is given the same status as a 6-minute touch-and-go circuit at Essendon. To disregard both the actual flight numbers, and the flight hours, compounds the errors (and unreliability) of the findings to an extraordinary degree.

OCCURRENCES

The ATSB also looked at ‘Occurrences’ in controlled airspace (in comparison with private flights generally, most of which occur in uncontrolled space, and therefore are not reported). The ATSB acknowledged that they have no data from flights OCTA, so they did not take that fact into account.  The investigators also included in the occurrence data (adverse to the charity), instances where the admitted and conclusive report findings included ATC errors; errors of other aircraft causing safety breaches (not the fault of the charity flight); the proper reporting by the charity-organised flights where others had caused danger (including, for example, a pilot reporting a model aircraft illegally
on a flight path, causing the authorised charity aircraft to take evasive action: this was included as a ‘negative’ occurrence against the charity; and diversions to other airports in the interests of safety.

This cannot be regarded as valid in the collection of statistical data, and nor was it found to be so by the experts.

OTHER FINDINGS

The ATSB, amongst its findings, noted that Angel Flight was planning a mentoring program: this is incorrect, and known to the ATSB – the charity implemented its pilot mentoring programme more than a year ago. It was required to stop because CASA introduced rules which imposed restrictions on who could accompany a pilot, as was made very clear by the written advice of a senior CASA executive that “another pilot can accompany a pilot on a CSF as operating crew, so long as the other pilot qualifies to be a co-pilot of the aircraft and has such duties in relation to the CSF”: this clearly precludes pilots from being on board for mentoring, familiarisation, and observation of Angel Flight’s processes and safety culture.

FUTHER OVERLOOKED FACTS

It has not been acknowledged that all volunteers operating their own (CASA-approved and maintained) aircraft for the purpose of these community benefit flights, are CASA-licensed, CASA trained, and CASA-tested on a one or two-yearly basis. Angel Flight has ensured that the volunteer pilot qualifications are not less than as permitted by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and for the entire period leading to the investigation (14 years), these pilots have had substantially more than the required experience for passenger-carrying private flights in Australia. The new Rules decreed by CASA would have had no bearing on the accident under investigation, and this has been acknowledged by CASA. The pilot under investigation had greater experience than that required by either the former or the current Rules.

Angel Flight has been urging CASA for a substantial time, to re-visit and strengthen the training of its pilots in the human factors area prior to issuing licences. With the additional safety, risk management and induction training that Angel Flight has already implemented, the addition of CASA training would be beneficial for all pilots in this and other general aviation environments.

This message has been authorised by Angel Flight Australia.

And from Sandy off FB...

Sandy Reith The independent corporate body. ATSB, divorced from proper Ministerial control in 2009 by then Minister Albanese, has shown again it’s incompetence by slinging around opinions which are completely unsubstantiated. It’s safety comparison by category of flight, same ridiculous comparison as made out by CASA, it’s bedfellow and leader.

Elsewhere those with professional knowledge of statistics all say that the tiny number of accidents makes such claims null and void. If ATSB was going to have any semblance of balance it would also point to the extraordinary mess that CASA has made of the rules, which contribute hugely to the lack of IFR rating uptake by private pilots. By CASA inappropriately instigating the Cessna Supplementary Inspection Documents for privately operated aircraft, and other unnecessary and expensive imposts throughout General Aviation, all contribute to failings.

Not to mention the decline in flying training, including loss of experienced instructors, due the near impossible and super expensive rules relating to training which have sunk hundreds of flying schools so that Instrument training is now confined mainly to the capital cities.

The independent corporate body is a model of governance that cannot work properly in the National interest because it’s incentives are only to look after itself. Human nature will prevail and none of these bodies will ever do their proper job until back where they belong, directly under a Minister. 

TICK..TOCK minister TICK..TOCK indeed -   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight latest: Via Canberra Times.

---

AUGUST 14 2019 - 8:00AM
Angel Flight slams the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's 'damning' investigation

Annie Lewis


FATAL CRASH: The wreckage of an Angel Flight plane that crashed at Mount Gambier in July 2017. Picture: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

A charity that flies sick children from regional areas to the city for crucial medical treatment has hit back at claims it has a fatal accident rate seven times higher than other private flights.

The report comes from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is investigating the safety of Angel Flight compared to other private flying operations, after a second fatal accident in the past decade.

The ATSB investigation came after a pilot and two passengers were killed when an Angel Flight service crashed at Mt Gambier in South Australia in June 2017.

Businessman Grant Gilbert, 78, was flying the SOCATA TB-10 Tobago to take 16-year-old Emily Redding to Adelaide for medical treatment, accompanied by her mother Tracy.

The investigation found Mr Gilbert, who had less than three years' experience, took off in heavy fog despite not being qualified to fly in cloud using the plane's instruments.

Shortly after, he likely lost visual cues and became spatially disorientated. The plane crashed within 70 seconds.

The same day, two Rex airline flights into Mt Gambier were delayed by poor weather.

Another plane running an Angel Flight mission crashed in similar circumstances near Nhill in Victoria in 2011, also killing all three people on board.

Angel Flight has more than 3000 volunteer pilots on its books and organises about 1600 flights a year.

A spokesperson for the charity said it engaged two senior expert statisticians and an analyst, all of whom concluded that the rate was not significantly different than other private airlines.

"The ATSB also chose to compare only the passenger-carrying sectors of flights coordinated by the charity," they said.

"It disregarded the flights ... where the aircraft flew from home base to the city collection points, the return trips back to base, and the positioning flights to collect passengers from their own home towns.

"It did, however, include those flights when reporting 'occurrences' against the charity flights."

The statement added that the ATSB had not adopted its own protocols of counting flight hours for general aviation accidents - instead, it counted only flight numbers.

"To disregard both the actual flight numbers and the flight hours, compounds the errors and unreliability of the findings to an extraordinary degree," the spokesperson said. 

Angel Flight expressed frustration it was not acknowledged that all volunteers are CASA-licensed, CASA-trained, and CASA-tested at least every two years. 

The charity also shut down the recommendation that it should book people on airlines for travel, claiming it did not factor in cost, flight schedules in regional areas and the strain on families.

It added, it uses airline flights where practicable and necessary, and will continue to utilise these services.

The ATSB report stated Angel Flight pilots were more likely to make operational errors when compared to other private operations.

"This investigation has shown that those conducted for Angel Flight are actually less safe than other private operations, let alone charter and scheduled airline flying," Commissioner Hood said.

The ATSB reported stated that it considered flight hours as a normaliser, however, were assessed as more limited in answering the safety objectives.

John Smith, captain of flying at Wagga City Aero Club, questioned the report, labelling the data as "rubbish". 

Mr Smith has been a pilot for 45 years, volunteering on and off with Angel Flight.

"It's very damming and very irresponsible of a department with that much power," he said. 

"It would be a real shame if Angel Flight has to close down because of this discrimination. 

"It's discriminatory against country people because city people have all the medical services at their fingertips."

Mr Smith added that commercial operations would benefit from the charity operator being shut down.

---

Via ABC Radio SA and AOPA Oz:


ABC RADIO: ATSB FINAL REPORT AO-2017-069
August 14, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan speaks with ABC Radio South Australia's Selina Green.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, today spoke with ABC Radio South Australia’s Selina Green, discussing the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s final report into the tragic fatal accident involving TB-10 Tobago VH-YTM in 2017.

You can listen to the complete ABC Radio South Australia interview between Presenter Selina Green, and;
Mr Greg Good, ATSB Chief Commissioner
Senator Rex Patrick, Senator for South Australia
Mr Benjamin Morgan, Executive Director AOPA Australia

---

[Peetwo]

McDonaught Shamelist Update - 16 August 2019.



References:

Hooded Canary not singing but still talking bollocks - 



Via the Yaffa:

ATSB wears Kickback over Angel Flight Report
15 August 2019
    
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has been roundly condemned by both Angel Flight and the Centre Alliance for its recommendations stemming from the Mount Gambier crash report released on Monday.

The report's recommendations into the VFR-into-IMC accident deliberately focused more on the systems and management behind Angel Flight than the actions of the pilot, suggesting that Angel Flight should consider using regular public transport rather than private pilots (PPL) because it was safer to do so.

Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani slammed the report, saying that the ATSB focus was of no help to general aviation.

"The ATSB offered no safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather," Pagani said in a statement. "It is regrettable that the Bureau made no relevant safety recommendations, nor gave any guidance whatsoever, to pilots flying in poor weather conditions – the cause of the accident.

"It would have been of benefit to the flying community had the ATSB focussed on these aspects of the accident.

"The safety recommendation made was for the charity to book people on airlines for travel. This does not adequately factor in cost (particularly where two or more people are traveling, which is often the case), nor does it properly factor in the infrequent scheduling or non-existence of airline flights into country regions across Australia, the inconvenience and difficulties faced by the elderly and families with young children at major city airports, and the associated ground travel; and appears to work on the assumption that city specialists and hospitals will gear their appointment times around airline timetables.

"Angel Flight does use airline flights where practicable and necessary, and will continue to utilise these services."

Centre Alliance's Senator Rex Patrick was openly critical in a statement released through Angel Flight. Senator Patrick has opposed the CASA-imposed restrictions on community service flights and was behind motions to disallow lodged in the previous parliament.

"The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight," Senator Patrick said.

"Indeed, its hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.

"The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.

"Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report."

ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood defended the investigation report, saying that investigators deliberately shied away from focusing on the pilot.

"If you have a look at the way the ATSB works, we've been broadly criticised, particularly over the Norfolk Island report where we focused on the individual, so with this investigation, given that it was the second triple-fatality, our methodology took us to having a look at organisational factors, and that's why we put in the recommendations we did," he told Australian Flying.

"We went to look at the organisational factors, and one of the problems we encountered is that we didn't have any data. There was no way to have a look at the safety of that particular sector of the industry because the data didn't exist.

"Being private flights they weren't required to state that they were Angel Flights, so what we had to do was ask AF for the schedules and then go back into the flight plan database and then the incident database and match that up to give us some idea of the health of the industry in relation to occurrences and accidents."

On the matter of the recommendation to place clients on RPT, Hood took pains to point out that the ATSB recommended only that Angel Flight consider using commerical flights in the same manner as the Canadian Hope Air, which places 70% of all clients with medical appointments on RPT.

Hood stated that the issue with using PPLs is that Angel Flight missions appeared to impart greater pressures to complete that flight than the ATSB believed are present during general private operations, leading to the conclusion that RPT would be a safer option.

"We did go to great lengths to be balanced," Hood said. "I know that's no everybody's view, but what we were faced with is two triple-fatalities and when we were able to extract the data it was telling us something very clearly in relation to these pressures and so then it was a matter of what recommendations do you make?

"The ATSB has no legislative powers to enforce any of these recommendations; they are there to improve the safety of the traveling public in these particular flights."

Angel Flight also took issue with the data analysis used in the reports, stating that the ATSB didn't use straight comparisons when assessing the levels of reported incidents and accidents.

"The ATSB also chose to compare only the passenger-carrying sectors of flights coordinated by the charity – it disregarded the flights, also coordinated by the charity, where the aircraft flew from home base to the city collection points, the return trips back to base, and the positioning flights to collect passengers from their own home towns," Pagani said

"It did, however, include those flights when reporting ‘occurrences’ against the charity flights. There was, and is, no reason for this failure. To remove up to two-thirds of the coordinated flights in order to make statistical conclusions is unjustifiable. Moreover, when comparing the data with private flights generally, it did not exclude the non-passenger flights for that group – all flights were counted in the general private sector, but not in the charity sector."

Angel Flight is currently contesting the data used by CASA to justify applying restrictions to Angel Flight operations last March, with the matter scheduled to be back before the courts again in September. According to Greg Hood, the ATSB did not rely on the CASA data, but used its own analysis to arrive at a similar conclusion, that Angel Flights were statistically more dangerous than normal private operations.

"We've done everything entirely separately from the regulator," Hood pointed out. "We've been very careful in that space especially after the experience we had with Norfolk [Island] and previous investigations, so we obtained the data from Angel Flight [and] we did our own analysis completely independent from anything that was done by the regulator.

"I'm absolutely confident in the science applied to this. We have a number of data scientists here with PhDs and we had one team developing the science and arriving at conclusions and another team making sure that that was valid.

"The ATSB just wants [Angel Flight] to operate well and for the people who are being carried to medical appointments to have that level of assurance that they're going to get there safely."

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...MDIj7qM.99

& via the Oz:

ATSB’s warning to pilots on risky flights: ‘Don’t push it, don’t go’



A new safety campaign urging ­pilots “don’t push it, don’t go” will be launched next week by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau following this week’s Angel Flight crash report.

That report found pilot Grant Gilbert should never have taken off from Mount Gambier on June 28, 2017, due to low-lying cloud and the fact he was only visually flight-rated. His TB-10 Tobago was airborne for just 70 seconds before the crash that killed him and his passengers, Tracy Redding and daughter Emily.

It was the second fatal Angel Flight crash in six years, with the previous triple-fatality accident in 2011 occurring in similar circumstances.

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood said the bureau’s finding that Angel Flight services were seven times more likely to result in a fatality than other private flights showed more needed to be done to improve safety.

“We have absolutely no barrow to push; we’re not anti-Angel Flight, we’re simply saying that the data is telling us something,” Mr Hood told The Australian.

“We’ve got two triple fatalities, you’ve got next of kin who are incredibly upset and we think that better things can be done in the sector.”

He admitted to being “taken aback” by the response from Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani that the final report provided little in the way of useful guidance. She criticised the recommendation that Angel Flight consider booking commercial flights where available as an alternative to using volunteer private pilots, and said there was no advice given to pilots flying in poor weather.

Mr Hood said the best guidance the ATSB could provide was the message of their “don’t push it, don’t go” campaign.

“If the weather’s not suitable, you shouldn’t be flying,” he said.

“I don’t know how many times we’ve run these campaigns over the years, but pilots who are only rated to fly under visual conditions have continued to get themselves in trouble.”

The Australian understands as many as 100 incidents of pilots becoming spatially disoriented in cloud have been reported to the ATSB in the past decade, resulting in 21 fatalities.

Crossbench senator Rex Patrick said he would continue to push for new regulations imposed on Angel Flight by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to be reversed, despite the finding that the community service operation had a higher fatality risk than other private flights.

“Angel Flight uses experienced pilots and safe aircraft,” Senator Patrick said. “There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA-certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA-certified pilot flying someone to chemotherapy in Melbourne except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilot and the risks associated with a flight.”

But the ATSB argued that transporting patients to medical appointments carried greater responsibility and pressure, which had led to pilots taking off in unsuitable conditions.

Transport safety director Stuart Godley said it was important that pilots were trained how to recognise those pressures and deal with them, “rather than leave them alone to make those decisions in the heat of the moment”.

And in regard to O&O'ing reports...  

ATSB chief Greg Hood: More complex reports take time



Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood has defended the increasing time frame for aircraft incident investigations, pointing out the greater depth of recent final reports.

This week’s report on the 2017 Angel Flight crash at Mount Gambier went to great lengths to delve into organisational factors that may have contributed to the accident, and produce the statistics highlighting the risks involved with the not-for-profit operator.

Mr Hood said much of the data had to be sourced from scratch, after the ATSB discovered that what it needed for an examination of the safety of the community service flight sector did not exist.

“What we did is we went back and got more than a decade of schedules from Angel Flight and we matched those flights with data from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics and also from the ATSB database,” he said. “(Statistician) David Wilson wrote the program that matched all that up and for the first time we were able to compare flights in the community service flight sector with private, charter and regular public transport.”

A number of investigations were close to being finalised including the 2017 Sydney Seaplanes crash and the Australia Day crash of a Grumman G-73 Mallard in Perth the same year.

 
Hmm...in the real world the Hooded Canary protestations would be all well and good, however the problem for Herr Hood is that he has a massive  credibility issue in all this because of his checkered past inside of both CASA and ASA. To say the guy is impartial and a SME (subject matter expert) would welcome hilarity from the more credentialed aviation accident investigation professionals throughout the world. 

Remember that this was the guy that as Chief Commissioner saw fit to threaten internally his employees with the possibility of jail time if they were contemplating leaking or having an opinion on the active (at the time) MH370 investigation and search - References:

Joining dots on Hood threat & obfuscation of MH370

..As witnessed above, currently there is much finger pointing, hand wringing, consternation and condemnation; on the ATSB's 'Hooded' threat to it's employees and attempted obfuscation of the Australian's FOI request for the recorded opinions of the various MH370 SSWG participants...

Well aided and nicely abetted.

..If the data Australia refuses to release belongs to Malaysia; then why does Hood simply just say so. “Sorry folks, if it were our data, we would release it without hesitation; but, it ain’t”. “If you want it, petition the Malaysian government, it all belongs to them”.  But Hood does not say this – clearly, that’s not case. So, like Higgins and Byron,  I’m left wondering just who is running this country? ..

And remember that this was the guy that was so severely intertwined within the PelAir cover-up (Mark I & II) to suggest a massive conflict of interest with any dealings with the ATSB, let alone being the Chief Commissioner...

References: 1. https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...38#pid8238 & 2. https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...29#pid8029

The Iron Ring & the Hooded canary -   

Quote from this week's SBG: Speak softly; yonder, as I think, he walks.

 "...The opening gambit is readily seen in the media – see: there’s Hood, doing a Geoffrey Thomas (he of Sunrise fame). This is not a top quality act, but ‘twill suffice. Firstly, we must examine the ‘props’ used, the title for a start will impress – ‘top dog in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and a natural performer. Always seen looking ‘windswept’ and interesting, dressed in his canary yellow vest, wearing his ‘courage’ wrist band. The ‘shrinks’ would have a field day with that little lot, no matter. The long suffering public will not know the lack of qualification, or the association with some of the most disgusting ‘Acts of bastardy’ which hover about the ‘windswept’ visage. They will have no concept of conflicted interest or even ‘departmental’  manipulations. No; they just see the ‘fluff’ and hear the soothing words, reassured; they happily hop on the cheapest flight and toddle off to booze in Bali..."

 &.. from SBG post #95:

"...The main reason being that while HVH was the CASA Executive Officer ultimately overseeing the enforcement actions against both PelAir and Dominic James I also have, on good authority, information that HVH was the designated co-ordinator/liaison officer dealing with the FAA audit team and therefore the consequential cover-up of the actual FAA findings that could have led to the possible Cat II IASA rating..." 

So with interest piqued the BRB have tasked me to re-examine the HVH crumb trail with the intent to join some further chronological dots & dashes on the PelAir cover-up timeline (i.e Pel-Air: A coverup: a litany of lies?)... 

  
MTF...P2 

UFUA Aviation Branch Secretary highly critical of Airservices...  

Via the UFUA: https://mailchi.mp/ufuav/united-firefigh...vg7uc1gyaw

FROM THE BRANCH SECRETARY 

 
So another eventful month for the UFUA. There has been a lot happening and we have been working hard to keep up the pace. There has been a termination of one our members which has been typically heavy handed, over the top and in the words of our general counsel disgusting behaviour by Airservices towards our member. As your union has always stated, actions speak so much louder than words and Airservices actions say it all about what they think about you their staff. 

Civil Air shares our concerns about the behaviour of Airservices Management. They enquired about sexual harassment policies at the NCC before the last one and were met with an angry and quite aggressive response by the CEO basically telling them to get lost we don't need a sexual harassment policy.  Well as any good union should Civil Air took the matter up to their members and the overwhelming response was Airservices has a massive problem with their treatment of staff. Everyone of you should read the North QC Report. 

Airservices reaction to over 241 of their valued staff saying there is a real problem? Scream loudly that it is all false and alarmist. Oh and by the way they also take all allegations of bullying and harassment seriously. Supposedly???

Our ARFFS Senate Inquiry report is out with some substantial recommendations to Airservices and CASA to lift their game in regard to the provision of ARFFS. We all know that is unlikely to happen unless we drag them there kicking and screaming. Several TRA's have been conducted, the first three were done with a loaded scenario that did not require CABA interventions or rescue to be conducted. We pulled CASA in on the Canberra TRA and surprisingly they agreed with your union. Plausible worst case scenario is what ICAO and NFPA call for. Oh you may want to keep a very close eye on the new CABA procedures? In fact you may want to ask your LOM to explain the delays in implementation.

The TRA was just completed in Sydney and it now has a rescue component and an internal fire so all we can say is for all our members to make themselves experts in the TRA process and don't get led astray by people with agendas to save money by putting our members and passengers in harms way.

Have a good look at what the timings are by the ARFFSWG, the examples in ICAO and the examples in NFPA 403. There is no point making entry to a burning fuselage in 15 to 18 mins after arrival it will flashover if you are not in there and controlling it in just over 5 mins. Don't believe us? Check the FAA fire protection ratings for fuselages and what they are designed to withstand. Its time Airservices actually did some real ARFFS research and stopped flying by the seat of their pants.

So watch this space we are working on the Senate Report part of the strategic plan going forward. Your Union has reached out to our minister Mr McCormack who has totally ignored us. Great work by an elected representative of the people. Considering the great benefits an expanded ARFFS would have for regional Australia, its sad that a National Party leader is just not interested enough to even respond.

So your Union has written to Airservices about their plans to use Elizabeth Broderick to do a review on Airservices staff. Our concerns are the same as our concerns for the Employment Opinion Surveys. That is that the Terms of Reference will exclude the people who we, and all the other unions see as responsible for the toxic management culture that thrives in Airservices. Having sat through several hours in the last NCC while Airservices management tried polish the turd that was the last EOS, we can't see it being anything different with a cultural review. Spin it, bury it or blame it on the workers, is their modus operandi.

We don't expect them to include or consult with us about the Terms of Reference, why change their contempt for their staff seeing its working out so well for them. Your union will keep trying to engage and consult and get a TOR that looks hard at the underlying cause for the toxic workplace our members are forced to endure.

Our members also need to be aware that these reviews never paint fire services in a good light and your UFUA expects to cop it as well. But if we have done the wrong thing, we will take it on the chin, learn from it and try and fix it. Hopefully our female and diverse culture firies see us as their union, and see us as trying to help and would tell us if we were stuffing up and not supporting them or understanding their issues properly. Our offer has been clear to all members for a while now, we want you to help us and inform us, its the only way to grow and get better.



Our Federal Court Case has been on hold due to the excessive workload but don't despair its going ahead soon. We have a bunch of FWA cases to run shortly as well which should clear up some reinterpretation of the EA by some managers. One way or the other we will have a ruling and then we need you to ensure you always get what you are entitled to, don't just give in because they make it hard or threaten to harm you in another way.

The EGM has informed me they intend to have a crack at our members over the low loaders and they have no intention of fixing their chronic EVT shortage. So let us know as soon as it happens and we will lodge an injunction ASAP.

We have started monthly meetings with your workplace Delegates and the BCOM. If your Workplace Delegate has not yet attended give them a nudge and ask them what was discussed. We are trying hard to build an effective team in both the Industrial and WHS areas which are so important to our members. So take an interest help and support your local HSRs and Workplace Delegates or volunteer to take on a role. We really need some of our female and culturally diverse members to help us if that's you, call me anytime, we can make it happen.

Hmm...why does this sound so familiar? 


"..Your Union has reached out to our minister Mr McCormack who has totally ignored us. Great work by an elected representative of the people. Considering the great benefits an expanded ARFFS would have for regional Australia, its sad that a National Party leader is just not interested enough to even respond..."




MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Fame it is then? - For all the wrong reasons...

Slight thread drift here but if you ever wanted a clearer example of why the woes of the aviation industry won't ever get a proper hearing within the political and bureaucratic bubble of Can'tberra, or at least while DPM McDonaught is at the helm, then go no further than the following...  

  

---

Our Deputy Prime Minister Reckons “Fruit-Picking” Will Save Pacific Islands From Climate Change

by JOSEPH EARP  17 AUGUST 2019



It has become astoundingly clear that climate change will hurt the countries that have the least responsibility for it long before it affects the major producers of global carbon emissions.


After all, rising water levels are already affecting the Pacific Islands. In 2016, scientists reported that five islands had already been claimed by climate change, with more to follow. Since then, even those island nations that have escaped total erosion thanks to rising water levels are struggling to produce sustainable crops.



Land is growing scarce, and of poorer quality. For many of these island nations, climate change is not some looming threat — it is a problem right now.

Well, turns out nobody needs to worry, because Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack reckons that Pacific Island nations will be just fine. Why? Well, McCormack says that “fruit-picking” will solve the problem.

Yep, in an attempt to smooth over the tense talks at the Pacific Islands Forum that saw Australia’s reliance on coal and fossil fuels criticised, McCormack outlined his vision for how the brunt of climate change will be avoided.

As The Guardian reports, McCormack reckons that Pacific Island nations will “continue to survive” thanks to Australia’s fruit reserves.

“They will continue to survive,” he said. “There’s no question they’ll continue to survive and they’ll continue to survive on large aid assistance from Australia. They’ll continue to survive because many of their workers come here and pick our fruit.”

Our generous Deputy Prime Minister also assured citizens of the Pacific Islands that Australia will continue to “welcome” those coming here, presumably as long as they’re doing so in order to pick a bunch of raspberries.
In some ways, McCormack’s comments are unsurprising. The Coalition have long taken the opinion that climate change will be, at worst, a little bit inconvenient.

Of course, that’s not what even moderate scientists are predicting. According to most estimates, Australia will struggle to produce its own crops, let alone have enough fruit to support the economy of an entire other set of nations.

But sure Michael, let’s all imagine a future where climate change is about as disruptive as a bumped toe.

Hmm....




Is it any wonder the likes of the Hooded Canary, St Commode and the Harfwit can get away with embuggerances of Angel Flight, Glen Buckley, etc..etc; or burying their heads in the sand on real safety issues like building DFOs beside runways etc..etc; or wasting billions on an outdated OneSKY trough funds and on self-perpetuating 30+ year regulatory reform programs - God help our ailing industry because the political elite never will!    



MTF...P2 

Ps Definitely time to 'Bell the Cat'! ref: https://auntypru.com/time-to-bell-the-cat/ &/or https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...9#pid10519

[Peetwo]

#BellingCat: Money where your mouth is ScoMo...  


Ref: https://auntypru.com/dont-get-in-our-way/

---

Yesterday ScoMo apparently re-read the riot act to the APS...

References, 1st from Thorny on Snippets :

In todays Australian:

" Public service Mandarins have been put on notice that they will have to meet greater community expectations of service delivery, respect the governments policy agenda and remove bureaucracy roadblocks if they want to keep their jobs.

The implicit message to be delivered by Scott Morrison today comes as the Prime Minister warned that his ministers too would be accountable for regulatory reform and policy rigour across their portfolios."

Ahem! PM.... mate. Are you aware of the following in regards to Aviation?

In the general aviation sector of the industry, expectations of service delivery are so far below rock bottom you need two decompression stops to surface.

Have CAsA ever respected Government policy? there's ample evidence they have thumbed their noses at Government Policy. Is it government policy to shut down the GA industry?, they are doing just that by stealth.

How many roadblocks can a bureaucracy put up? In Australia, CAsA have burdened the industry with tens of thousands of pages of very poorly designed, obtuse, indecipherable regulations in the name of 'Safety". In the USA they achieve better safety outcomes than us with less than a thousand pages of plain english rules. Their industry thrives, ours dies.

CAsA's attempts at "Reform", many would say is actually having a detrimental affect on safety. They have been at it for more than thirty years now, and expended hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to achieve NOTHING, except a dying industry. New Zealand adopted US regulations in less than two years, spent around five million dollars to amend and modify FAA rules, their aviation industry is thriving.

Your Minister, despite the recommendations from many inquiries and industry groups, obfuscates, and ignores the voices of the industry while CAsA runs amok, killing investment, stifling growth, innovation, incomes and in some cases denying natural justice.

So the big question Mr Morrison is are you really serious about the statements in the above press release or is it just Pie in the Sky?

And from the Oz:

Australia ‘expects more’ of public servants


Prime Minister Scott Morrison will deliver a speech to the Institute of Public­ Administration in Canberra today. Picture: AAP

• SIMON BENSON
  NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR
  GREG BROWN
  NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR
  @gregbrown_TheOz
  
  
• 12:00AM AUGUST 19, 2019
  
  
• 417 COMMENTS
  

Australia’s outgoing top bureaucrat Martin Parkinson has backed Scott Morrison’s push for innovation and reform of the public service, declaring “the Australian public expect more of us”.


The secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet told leading bureaucrats in Canberra this morning that the Prime Minister’s push to reform the public service should “give you clarity about where we are going and how fast we intend to get there”.

“The PM has been pretty clear already about how he sees the public service. He respects the APS. He appreciates the different roles played by ministers, their offices and the public service,” Dr Parkinson said in Parliament House this morning.

“But while we have done well in the past, he and the Australian public expect more of us. More delivery, more momentum, more focus and getting on with the job of serving Australians and making their lives easier.

“In fact this is exactly what we have been hearing from the public themselves. They expect more of us as well.”

Dr Parkinson will be replaced in his role next month by Treasury secretary Philip Gaetjens.

He said government departments need to be more innovative and listen to a wider range of voices outside the public service.

“We have gotten better at engaging with outside views. The first step of that though is recognising they existed,” he said.

“We have brought in more people from outside the APS but we still have a long way to go in making that transition.”

Morrison puts public servants on notice

The PM put public service mandarins on notice that they will have to meet greater community expectations of service delivery, respect the government’s policy agenda and remove crippling bureaucr­acy if they want to keep their jobs.

The implicit message, delivered­ by Scott Morrison today in a speech to the Institute of Public­ Administration in Canberra, comes as the Prime Minister warned that his cabinet ministers would also be held accountable for regulatory reform and policy rigour­ across their portfolios.

With more changes expected in the senior ranks of the public service in coming months, Mr Morrison will today outline a broader vision for the public service that will challenge the “Canberra club’’ and put “quiet Australians” at the heart of the public service mission.

Fears within the bureaucracy that a quiet purge was being ­planned were rejected by the government.

However, Mr Morrison said community expectations “have never been greater” and the Australian Public Service needs to “evolve” as more demands are made of it to deliver public services such as the NDIS.

In a strident reminder it was the government that set policy, not the public service, Mr Morrison signalled a new era of accountability will sweep through the bureaucracy. Reforms will include a recruitment drive to open up public service jobs to private sector professionals, in what some regard as a radical culture shock for the APS.

“At the departmental level, secretari­es will need to be pro­active in identifying ways to bust congestion in the commonwealth bureaucracy,” Mr Morrison will say in his speech at the Great Hall of Parliament House.

“And all ministers will continue to remain responsible for ensuring that regulations in their portfolios are fit for purpose.

“There is strong evidence that the trust deficit that has afflicted many Western democracies over recent years stems in part from a perception politics is very responsive to those at the top and those at the bottom, but not so much to those in the middle.”

The Australian recently revealed sweeping reforms to the APS, with confirmation that the secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, ­Martin Parkinson, will retire.

His successor, former Treasury secretary Phil Gaetjens, will lead the implementation of recommendations from a review into the APS by former Telstra boss David Thodey, which will be handed to government in the coming weeks.

Since announcing Mr Gaetjens’ appointment, and his replaceme­nt in Steven Kennedy as Treasury secretary, Mr Morrison has made key appointments to agencies including ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, as well as the appointment of former ­Abbott and Howard government security adviser Andrew Shearer as cabinet secretary. The widely respected secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Frances Adamson, is tipped to move into another portfolio.

Mr Morrison said: “The Australian people need to be at the centre of APS service delivery. That is the thinking behind ­Services Australia. This isn’t some fancy rebranding exercise.

“It’s a message to the whole of the APS, top to bottom, about what matters to people. It’s about doing the little things well, everything from reducing call waiting times and turnaround on corres­pondence through to improving the experience people have walking into a Centrelink office.

“I want to send a message to every single member of the APS, in whatever role you have: you can make a difference to the lives of the Australian people.

“In rugby, my coach used to describe­ it as the bacon and eggs principle: the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.”

 



And a link plus quotes from the Mandarin article:

Prime Minister bucks up the troops of the public service in a call to remember the ‘quiet Australians’


Prime Minister Scott Morrison (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

Prime Minister Scott Morrison chose to begin Monday morning with his first major speech to the Australian Public Service, hosted by the Institute of Public Administration Australia at Parliament House.

A web stream was arranged to show the speech live and a written preview was provided by the PM’s office. Morrison provides six “guideposts” for employees of the APS, “to show the way forward for the evolution of our public service” and reinforce his priorities.

---

“I want to send a message to every single member of the APS, in whatever role you have: ‘You can make a difference to the lives of the Australian people.’

“We all have a job to do and that is to serve the Australian people.

“I’ve talked about the need for a culture of regulatory congestion busting in our bureaucracy.

“That doesn’t mean cutting corners or not meeting regulatory obligations.

“But it does mean being relentless in finding ways to help Australians make things happen and reach their goals. Not sitting passively while families and businesses struggle to navigate rules and regulations.

“We need interactions with government to be simpler and less bureaucratic.

“It’s why I have tasked my Assistant Minister Ben Morton with revitalising our regulatory reform and deregulation agenda, with a new Deregulation Taskforce in the Treasury.

“A key focus is on working with business to identify and remove unnecessary barriers to investment, with a focus on sectors and activities which have the most to gain.

“At the departmental level, Secretaries will need to be proactive in identifying ways to bust congestion in the Commonwealth bureaucracy. And all Ministers will continue to remain responsible for ensuring that regulations in their portfolios are fit-for-purpose.

Hmm...as Thorny says : 

"..So the big question Mr Morrison is are you really serious about the statements in the above press release or is it just Pie in the Sky?.."


Finally coming back to our useless, head up his a*** miniscule McDonaught...

"...Your Minister, despite the recommendations from many inquiries and industry groups, obfuscates, and ignores the voices of the industry while CAsA runs amok, killing investment, stifling growth, innovation, incomes and in some cases denying natural justice..."

We'll definitely be Belling the Cat on these ScoMo statements...

“One of the worst criticisms politicians can make of each other is that a Minister is a captive of their department... 

P2 - Hmm...  

 

...That is not a reflection on the department, but on the Minister. It speaks to a Minister not driving their policy agenda. I have selected and tasked my Ministers to set and drive the agendas of our Government. I believe the public have a similar expectation...

“A public servant providing advice must exercise all due diligence and professional care in its preparation, but it is the Minister who must decide as it is they who will face the public and be held to account. This is how it should be...

“Only those who have put their name on a ballot can truly understand the significance of that accountability. I know you might feel sometimes that you are absolutely right in what you are suggesting, but I can tell you when it is you that is facing the public and must look your constituents in the eye, it gives you a unique perspective.”

Hmm...perhaps ScoMo could start by taking his DPM to task on his total disengagement on anything to do with aviation safety, the muppet doesn't even have the decency to reply to legitimate professional industry concerns..FFS!    

Examples (above posts) and: Glen Buckley to PM - "..Previous correspondence to the responsible Minister has been ignored, hence I bring this to the attention of the Prime Ministers Department.."

UFUA Aviation Branch Secretary: "..Your Union has reached out to our minister Mr McCormack who has totally ignored us. Great work by an elected representative of the people. Considering the great benefits an expanded ARFFS would have for regional Australia, its sad that a National Party leader is just not interested enough to even respond..."



MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

It is completely unacceptable that a Minister doesn’t answer correspondence in a timely manner. Regarding responsibilities, the failed means of governance by independent Commonwealth corporate bodies, deliberately divorced from the Minister’s Department, is an affront to the Westminster system.

[Peetwo]

#BellingCat: Money where your mouth is ScoMo...  


Ref: https://auntypru.com/dont-get-in-our-way/

---

Yesterday ScoMo apparently re-read the riot act to the APS...

References, 1st from Thorny on Snippets :

In todays Australian:

" Public service Mandarins have been put on notice that they will have to meet greater community expectations of service delivery, respect the governments policy agenda and remove bureaucracy roadblocks if they want to keep their jobs.

The implicit message to be delivered by Scott Morrison today comes as the Prime Minister warned that his ministers too would be accountable for regulatory reform and policy rigour across their portfolios."

Ahem! PM.... mate. Are you aware of the following in regards to Aviation?

In the general aviation sector of the industry, expectations of service delivery are so far below rock bottom you need two decompression stops to surface.

Have CAsA ever respected Government policy? there's ample evidence they have thumbed their noses at Government Policy. Is it government policy to shut down the GA industry?, they are doing just that by stealth.

How many roadblocks can a bureaucracy put up? In Australia, CAsA have burdened the industry with tens of thousands of pages of very poorly designed, obtuse, indecipherable regulations in the name of 'Safety". In the USA they achieve better safety outcomes than us with less than a thousand pages of plain english rules. Their industry thrives, ours dies.

CAsA's attempts at "Reform", many would say is actually having a detrimental affect on safety. They have been at it for more than thirty years now, and expended hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to achieve NOTHING, except a dying industry. New Zealand adopted US regulations in less than two years, spent around five million dollars to amend and modify FAA rules, their aviation industry is thriving.

Your Minister, despite the recommendations from many inquiries and industry groups, obfuscates, and ignores the voices of the industry while CAsA runs amok, killing investment, stifling growth, innovation, incomes and in some cases denying natural justice.

So the big question Mr Morrison is are you really serious about the statements in the above press release or is it just Pie in the Sky?

And from the Oz:

Australia ‘expects more’ of public servants


Prime Minister Scott Morrison will deliver a speech to the Institute of Public­ Administration in Canberra today. Picture: AAP

• SIMON BENSON
  NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR
  GREG BROWN
  NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR
  @gregbrown_TheOz
  
  
• 12:00AM AUGUST 19, 2019
  
  
• 417 COMMENTS
  

Australia’s outgoing top bureaucrat Martin Parkinson has backed Scott Morrison’s push for innovation and reform of the public service, declaring “the Australian public expect more of us”.


The secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet told leading bureaucrats in Canberra this morning that the Prime Minister’s push to reform the public service should “give you clarity about where we are going and how fast we intend to get there”.

“The PM has been pretty clear already about how he sees the public service. He respects the APS. He appreciates the different roles played by ministers, their offices and the public service,” Dr Parkinson said in Parliament House this morning.

“But while we have done well in the past, he and the Australian public expect more of us. More delivery, more momentum, more focus and getting on with the job of serving Australians and making their lives easier.

“In fact this is exactly what we have been hearing from the public themselves. They expect more of us as well.”

Dr Parkinson will be replaced in his role next month by Treasury secretary Philip Gaetjens.

He said government departments need to be more innovative and listen to a wider range of voices outside the public service.

“We have gotten better at engaging with outside views. The first step of that though is recognising they existed,” he said.

“We have brought in more people from outside the APS but we still have a long way to go in making that transition.”

Morrison puts public servants on notice

The PM put public service mandarins on notice that they will have to meet greater community expectations of service delivery, respect the government’s policy agenda and remove crippling bureaucr­acy if they want to keep their jobs.

The implicit message, delivered­ by Scott Morrison today in a speech to the Institute of Public­ Administration in Canberra, comes as the Prime Minister warned that his cabinet ministers would also be held accountable for regulatory reform and policy rigour­ across their portfolios.

With more changes expected in the senior ranks of the public service in coming months, Mr Morrison will today outline a broader vision for the public service that will challenge the “Canberra club’’ and put “quiet Australians” at the heart of the public service mission.

Fears within the bureaucracy that a quiet purge was being ­planned were rejected by the government.

However, Mr Morrison said community expectations “have never been greater” and the Australian Public Service needs to “evolve” as more demands are made of it to deliver public services such as the NDIS.

In a strident reminder it was the government that set policy, not the public service, Mr Morrison signalled a new era of accountability will sweep through the bureaucracy. Reforms will include a recruitment drive to open up public service jobs to private sector professionals, in what some regard as a radical culture shock for the APS.

“At the departmental level, secretari­es will need to be pro­active in identifying ways to bust congestion in the commonwealth bureaucracy,” Mr Morrison will say in his speech at the Great Hall of Parliament House.

“And all ministers will continue to remain responsible for ensuring that regulations in their portfolios are fit for purpose.

“There is strong evidence that the trust deficit that has afflicted many Western democracies over recent years stems in part from a perception politics is very responsive to those at the top and those at the bottom, but not so much to those in the middle.”

The Australian recently revealed sweeping reforms to the APS, with confirmation that the secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, ­Martin Parkinson, will retire.

His successor, former Treasury secretary Phil Gaetjens, will lead the implementation of recommendations from a review into the APS by former Telstra boss David Thodey, which will be handed to government in the coming weeks.

Since announcing Mr Gaetjens’ appointment, and his replaceme­nt in Steven Kennedy as Treasury secretary, Mr Morrison has made key appointments to agencies including ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, as well as the appointment of former ­Abbott and Howard government security adviser Andrew Shearer as cabinet secretary. The widely respected secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Frances Adamson, is tipped to move into another portfolio.

Mr Morrison said: “The Australian people need to be at the centre of APS service delivery. That is the thinking behind ­Services Australia. This isn’t some fancy rebranding exercise.

“It’s a message to the whole of the APS, top to bottom, about what matters to people. It’s about doing the little things well, everything from reducing call waiting times and turnaround on corres­pondence through to improving the experience people have walking into a Centrelink office.

“I want to send a message to every single member of the APS, in whatever role you have: you can make a difference to the lives of the Australian people.

“In rugby, my coach used to describe­ it as the bacon and eggs principle: the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.”

 



And a link plus quotes from the Mandarin article:

Prime Minister bucks up the troops of the public service in a call to remember the ‘quiet Australians’


Prime Minister Scott Morrison (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

Prime Minister Scott Morrison chose to begin Monday morning with his first major speech to the Australian Public Service, hosted by the Institute of Public Administration Australia at Parliament House.

A web stream was arranged to show the speech live and a written preview was provided by the PM’s office. Morrison provides six “guideposts” for employees of the APS, “to show the way forward for the evolution of our public service” and reinforce his priorities.

---

“I want to send a message to every single member of the APS, in whatever role you have: ‘You can make a difference to the lives of the Australian people.’

“We all have a job to do and that is to serve the Australian people.

“I’ve talked about the need for a culture of regulatory congestion busting in our bureaucracy.

“That doesn’t mean cutting corners or not meeting regulatory obligations.

“But it does mean being relentless in finding ways to help Australians make things happen and reach their goals. Not sitting passively while families and businesses struggle to navigate rules and regulations.

“We need interactions with government to be simpler and less bureaucratic.

“It’s why I have tasked my Assistant Minister Ben Morton with revitalising our regulatory reform and deregulation agenda, with a new Deregulation Taskforce in the Treasury.

“A key focus is on working with business to identify and remove unnecessary barriers to investment, with a focus on sectors and activities which have the most to gain.

“At the departmental level, Secretaries will need to be proactive in identifying ways to bust congestion in the Commonwealth bureaucracy. And all Ministers will continue to remain responsible for ensuring that regulations in their portfolios are fit-for-purpose.

Hmm...as Thorny says : 

"..So the big question Mr Morrison is are you really serious about the statements in the above press release or is it just Pie in the Sky?.."


Finally coming back to our useless, head up his a*** miniscule McDonaught...

"...Your Minister, despite the recommendations from many inquiries and industry groups, obfuscates, and ignores the voices of the industry while CAsA runs amok, killing investment, stifling growth, innovation, incomes and in some cases denying natural justice..."

We'll definitely be Belling the Cat on these ScoMo statements...

“One of the worst criticisms politicians can make of each other is that a Minister is a captive of their department... 

P2 - Hmm...  

 

...That is not a reflection on the department, but on the Minister. It speaks to a Minister not driving their policy agenda. I have selected and tasked my Ministers to set and drive the agendas of our Government. I believe the public have a similar expectation...

“A public servant providing advice must exercise all due diligence and professional care in its preparation, but it is the Minister who must decide as it is they who will face the public and be held to account. This is how it should be...

“Only those who have put their name on a ballot can truly understand the significance of that accountability. I know you might feel sometimes that you are absolutely right in what you are suggesting, but I can tell you when it is you that is facing the public and must look your constituents in the eye, it gives you a unique perspective.”

Hmm...perhaps ScoMo could start by taking his DPM to task on his total disengagement on anything to do with aviation safety, the muppet doesn't even have the decency to reply to legitimate professional industry concerns..FFS!    

Examples (above posts) and: Glen Buckley to PM - "..Previous correspondence to the responsible Minister has been ignored, hence I bring this to the attention of the Prime Ministers Department.."

UFUA Aviation Branch Secretary: "..Your Union has reached out to our minister Mr McCormack who has totally ignored us. Great work by an elected representative of the people. Considering the great benefits an expanded ARFFS would have for regional Australia, its sad that a National Party leader is just not interested enough to even respond..."



MTF...P2 

It is completely unacceptable that a Minister doesn’t answer correspondence in a timely manner. Regarding responsibilities, the failed means of governance by independent Commonwealth corporate bodies, deliberately divorced from the Minister’s Department, is an affront to the Westminster system.

Ps 

Coach Morrison’s pep talk becomes a public spectacle

[Kharon]

Ahem -

[Peetwo]

The Hooded Canary's ATSB to face Senate Inquiry - 

#BellingCat: Angel Flight embuggerance cont/-

Via AOPA Oz:
 

---

Angel Flight Press Release responding to concerns with the ATSB final report issued 13th August 2019.




ANGEL FLIGHT IS AUSTRALIA’S LARGEST AND LONGEST-SERVING CHARITY FACILITATING COMMUNITY BENEFIT FLYING

Angel Flight has co-ordinated free flights for more than 100,000 disadvantaged rural Australians, whose only other option to attend city hospitals for specialist treatment is ground transport – often taking days each way, at times with the driver/ patients being very elderly or accompanying very young children, on dangerous outback roads. These people cannot afford commercial air travel, which is more often than not, unavailable from their hometowns. Angel Flight recognises, publicly and privately with the affected people, the consequences of tragic fatal accidents, wherever and in whatever circumstances they occur, and is (and has always been) committed to safety and welfare as its priority.

THE ATSB REPORT INTO THE ACCIDENT AT MT GAMBIER ON 20 JUNE 2017

Click to download a copy of the ATSB Final Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ATSB offered no safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather.

The safety recommendation made was  for the charity to book people on airlines for travel: this does not adequately factor in cost (particularly where two or more people are travelling, which is often the case); nor does it properly factor in the infrequent scheduling or non-existence of airline flights into country regions across Australia; the inconvenience and difficulties faced by the elderly and families with young children at major city airports, and the associated ground travel; and appears to work on the assumption that city specialists and hospitals will gear their appointment times around airline timetables.  Angel Flight does use airline flights where practicable and necessary, and will continue to utilise these services.

The rules implemented  by CASA were not directed to the cause of the 2017 accident,  or any other accident in the community benefit sector, and the ATSB has not given any support for those rules, save and except for that requiring pilots to write community benefit flights up in their log books, and note that fact on flight plans: the only flow-on from those rules is one of policing data –  the very same data has been given by the charity to the ATSB.

It is regrettable, that the Bureau made no relevant safety recommendations, nor gave any guidance whatsoever, to pilots flying in poor weather conditions – the  cause of the accident: it would have been of benefit to the flying community had the ATSB focussed on these aspects of the accident.

The safety message raised  – induction training and safety management systems, together with a pilot mentoring programme, had already been implemented by the charity prior to the ATSB report and recommendations.  Angel Flight takes, and has taken, a very serious and proactive approach to improving safety, and will continue to do so.  Angel Flight will continue to urge CASA to improve its Human Factors training in the pre-licencing stage of training, in addition to the refresher courses now offered.

THE DATA

The charity engaged two senior expert statisticians and an analyst, all of whom concluded that the accident rate was not significantly different from the rate for other private flying across Australia. The ATSB also chose to compare only the passenger-carrying sectors of flights coordinated by the charity –it disregarded the flights, also coordinated by the charity, where the aircraft flew from home base to the city collection points, the return trips back to base, and the positioning flights to collect passengers from their own home towns:  it did, however, include those flights when reporting ‘occurrences’ against the charity flights.  There was, and is, no reason for this failure. To remove up to two-thirds of the coordinated flights in order to make statistical conclusions  is unjustifiable.  Moreover, when comparing the data with private flights generally, it did not exclude the non-passenger flights for that group  – all flights were counted in the general private sector, but not in the charity sector.

Angel Flight has coordinated more than 46,000 flights for the purpose of travelling to, returning from and carrying rural Australians to the city for non-emergency medical appointments. The ATSB has excluded more than half of these flights when assessing accident rates, with the result being to substantially increase the alleged statistical accident rates.

THE EXACERBATION OF THE DATA ERRORS

The ATSB has not adopted its own protocols (and those followed in the US) of counting flight hours for general aviation accidents – instead it counted only flight numbers. An example of that  methodology,  further invalidating the findings, is (a common route), where the pilot departs home base in Tyabb, flies to Essendon to collect passengers, flies from Essendon to Hay, then returns to Tyabb (three sectors) – this is counted as one flight by the ATSB for its statistical purposes. The flight time for this route in a Cessna 182 would be at least 3.5 hours yet the ATSB gives it is given the same status as a 6-minute touch-and-go circuit at Essendon. To disregard both the actual flight numbers, and the flight hours, compounds the errors (and unreliability) of the findings to an extraordinary degree.

OCCURRENCES

The ATSB also looked at  ‘Occurrences’  in controlled airspace  (in comparison with private flights  generally, most of which occur in uncontrolled space, and therefore  are not reported).  The ATSB acknowledged that they have no data from flights OCTA, so they did not take that fact into account. The investigators also included in the occurrence data (adverse to the charity), instances where the admitted and conclusive report findings included ATC errors;  errors of other aircraft causing safety breaches (not the fault of the charity flight);  the proper reporting  by the charity-organised flights where others had caused danger (including, for example, a pilot reporting a model aircraft illegally on a flight path, causing the authorised charity aircraft to take evasive action:  this was included as a ‘negative’ occurrence against the charity; and diversions to other airports in the interests of safety.

This cannot be regarded as valid in the collection of statistical data, and nor was it found to be so by the experts.

OTHER FINDINGS

The ATSB, amongst its findings, noted that Angel Flight was planning a mentoring program: this is incorrect, and known to the ATSB – the charity implemented its pilot mentoring programme more than a year ago. It was required  to stop because CASA introduced rules which imposed restrictions on who could accompany a pilot, as was made very clear by the written advice of  a senior CASA executive that “another pilot can accompany a pilot on a CSF as operating crew, so long as the other pilot qualifies to be a co-pilot of the aircraft and has such duties in relation to the CSF”:  this clearly  precludes pilots from being on board for mentoring, familiarisation, and observation of  Angel Flight’s processes and safety culture.

FURTHER OVERLOOKED FACTS

It has not been acknowledged that all volunteers operating their own (CASA-approved and maintained)  aircraft for the purpose of these community benefit flights, are CASA-licensed, CASA-trained, and CASA-tested on a one or two-yearly basis. Angel Flight has ensured that the volunteer pilot qualifications are  not less than as permitted by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and for the entire period leading to the investigation (14 years), these pilots have had substantially more than the required experience for passenger-carrying private flights in Australia. The new Rules decreed by CASA would have had no bearing on the accident under investigation, and this has been acknowledged by CASA. The pilot under investigation had greater experience than that required by either the former or the current Rules.

Angel Flight has been urging CASA for a substantial time, to re-visit and strengthen the training of its pilots in the human factors area prior to issuing licences.  With the additional safety, risk-management and induction training that Angel Flight has already implemented, the addition of CASA training would be beneficial for all pilots in this and other general aviation environments.

This message has been authorised by Angel Flight Australia.

---

And from the ABC News:

Angel Flight hits back at 'grossly wrong' ATSB report into fatal Mount Gambier plane crash
By Rhett Burnie
Posted Fri at 3:20pm

PHOTO: The Angel Flight crash that killed Tracy and Emily Redding and pilot Grant Gilbert. (ABC: Stuart Stansfield)


The head of Angel Flight Australia is calling for a Senate review into an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report that found the charity was seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than other private flight operators.

Key points:

• Three people were killed in an Angel Flight crash in Mount Gambier in 2017
  
  
• ATSB investigators found the charity was seven times more likely to crash
  
  
• Angel Flight's CEO has hit back at the findings, labelling them "grossly wrong"
  

Marjorie Pagani slammed the ATSB investigation into a fatal Angel Flight crash in regional South Australia in June 2017, labelling it "demonstrably wrong".

Tracy Redding, 43, her daughter Emily, 16, and Angel Flight volunteer pilot Grant Gilbert, 78, were killed when the light aircraft they were in crashed into a paddock, 70 seconds after take-off at Mount Gambier on June 28.

A two-year investigation into the triple fatality found Mr Gilbert had taken off in low cloud, despite not being licenced to do so, and had likely become "spatially disorientated" before the plane flipped midair and nosedived into the ground.

The accident was the second triple fatal Angel Flight crash in Australia.

ATSB investigators calculated the number of flights Angel Flight had made since it started in Australia in 2004 and the two fatal crashes to conclude the charity was seven times more likely to be involved in a deadly plane crash than other private pilots.

However, Ms Pagani said the ATSB had not included the flights in which its volunteer pilots flew solo to and from passenger transfers.

"We've had three experts look at this — two of Australia's top statisticians and an analyst — all of who conclude that it is grossly, demonstrably wrong," she said.

"They have counted less than half our flights in order to arrive at this statistical conclusion.

"They're not [comparing] apples with apples … it's wrong, it's grossly in error.

"If they counted all of our flights there is a conclusion from them that our safety data would be not significantly different from any other private flight."

Better training needed for pilots

Ms Pagani said Angel Flight was only able to engage with qualified pilots from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the issue of training was squarely on the regulator.


PHOTO: The scene of a fatal Angel Flight crash near Horsham in Victoria. (ABC News)

"This accident was caused by a pilot making a poor decision to fly into cloud and lost control," she said.

She said CASA needed to "strengthen their awareness" and "their training prior to the licensing stage".

"If there is an issue in this area — provide better training prior to the licensing stage," she said.

"We have safety programs in place, but it is not the role of a charity to do the job of the ATSB or CASA.

"They are the ones who are responsible for training the pilots — we rely on it — we use their pilots.

"We do everything we can to prevent this sort of thing and our hearts are with those people."

Calls for Senate review of ATSB report

Ms Pagani said Angel Flight would appeal the investigation's findings if it could and would call on the Senate to review the report.

"Basically, without Parliamentary intervention, the ATSB can do and say whatever it likes because none of us can legally challenge it," she said.



PHOTO: Centre Alliance senators Rex Patrick said a review could take place in Senate Estimates. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)



South Australian Senator Rex Patrick said he believed the data in the ATSB's report "did not include the pre-positioning flight".


"So, for example the flight from an airport to the place where the patient needed to be picked up and indeed from where the patient was dropped off back to where the pilot originally started off from," he said.


"That has the effect of — in effect of — halving the number of flights for the same amount of instances.


"In that way it distorts the figures … I would have to talk to my colleagues in the Senate."


Senator Patrick said a review could be made during Senate Estimates or "it might end up being a Senate inquiry".


More concerns raised with charity


However, the ATSB's Dr Stuart Godley told The World Today the calculation was correct.


"That's the way we always do it when the data is available and its pretty consistent around the world," he said.

"Generally, when you're looking at operational risk, most of the risk is connected with the landing and the take-off in the flight, so really the most appropriate way to look at risk is to look at [it] per flight."


Dr Godley also said more people had come forward to raise their concerns over Angel Flight since the ATSB report was published.


"Generally, a lot of people are supporting our report and actually coming in with a lot of stories that we hadn't heard before that actually support the conclusions of our report," he said.


Ms Pagani countered that by claiming many people had contacted Angel Flight to express their support for the organisation.


On Friday, Angel Flight published two full-page advertisements in News Corp newspapers, refuting much of the ATSB's findings.

Ms Pagani said supporters of the charity paid for the advertisements, which cost $30,000.

And via the UP, some commentary etc..etc beginning and ending with Sunfish   :

Sunfish

But wait, there’s more.......

In using the safety system “occurrence” database for what is clearly a partisan political purpose - helping CASA destroy Angel Flight, the ATSB has not only utterly compromised its alleged independence but has destroyed any faith in the alleged anonymity of ALL reporting schemes, both mandatory and voluntary.

As for the analysis, I fail to understand why the ATSB has not discussed or commented on its startling finding that Angel Flight operations are seven times more dangerous than ordinary GA operations. The only reason I can think why is that at least someone is ashamed of this hatchet job.

It appears ATSB is now part of the problem, along with CASA.

To put that another way, I am aware, I think, of safety occurrence reports that are, to put it mildly, less than frank about what happened. The current ATSB behaviour seems to provide a strong disincentive to report anything at all if it can be avoided.

---

Lead Balloon

Angel Flight offers an invaluable service to families in regional and remote areas burdened with an ill or disabled family member. Only two nights ago I spoke with Senator Hollie Hughes’ who had used Angel Flight for her own autistic son, Fred, to access city services from remote areas of NSW. She described it as a Godsend.

The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.

Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.

The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.

Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.

If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads.

Hear! Hear! Senator Patrick.

Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.

---

Sunfish

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon  

Hear! Hear! Senator Patrick.

Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.

‘’But that matter is dealt with every day by actuaries and risk management professionals.

The ICAO understands it.

https://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyMa...alltext.en.pdf

---

IFEZ

Good to see Angel Flight defending themselves. That report is a joke. If that was a school assignment it would have been handed back with a big “F” stamped on it and an instruction to resubmit. Come on ATSB, that’s just embarrassing. What the hell is going on..? You’re trashing the legacy of what was once a world leading investigation agency. I just don’t understand how they can sign off on this tripe and think it’s acceptable or that no one will question its veracity.

---

Stickshift3000

Originally Posted by IFEZ  View Post

I just don’t understand how they can sign off on this tripe and think it’s acceptable or that no one will question its veracity.

It's pretty clear to me that CASA has 'influenced' the content of this report.

---

Lead Balloon


Irrespective of what ATSB continues to do to ensure its trashed reputation remains trashed, there should be:

1. More effective safety education, including more effective human factors education, not mere words parroting lessons already learned and not mere seminars and videos the equivalent of “drugs are bad”. They don’t count as “comprehensive safety education and training programs” in terms of CASA’s functions.

2. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to highly experienced private pilots to become instructors of key airmanship issues. Private VFR pilots with thousands of hours in their logbooks have a better insight into the practicalities and risks of VFR flight and human factors risks and, more importantly, more experience in how to mitigate them in the real world, than a freshly minted CPL Grade 3 instructor or an ATPL with 20,000 hours at 35,000’. Any idiot can say: “just don’t fly VFR when the weather’s IMC”. That’s not how to effectively mitigate the risks of ‘getthereitis’.

3. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to IFR ratings. PIFR has been stuffed by the complicators. (Yes I know that some theorise that the conditions at Mount Gambier in this case were not conducive even to IFR flight. That merely reinforces the other points.)

---

Old Akro

The problem with this ATSB report is that it has been used to pursue a political agenda against community service flights.

The accident itself was tragic and the cause pretty much black & white without any real extenuating circumstances. They pilot had trouble landing visually. What bigger sign do you need to not immediately turn around and take off??

All pilots like me who have cancelled Angel Flights due to weather know that the Angel Flight organisation is extremely understanding and supportive in such circumstances.

The ATSB maliciously misrepresents the Angel Flight accident rate. It does not count the full hours of Angel flights.

And the life’s of the poor passengers are no more (or less) special because its an Angel Flight. This accident should be examined as an accident regardless of who is on board.

The CASA argue meant that community service flights should be charter flights is completely flawed. A
private pilot should be safe to carry passengers. Period. The CPL training and study is about working in a commercial environment that runs to time, has last minute changes, carries minimum fuel and is done day in day out so that duty times are an issue.

The ATSB / CASA should be really use these accidents as cause for reflection on a) whether the PPL flight training requires improvement, b) if the CASA safety education mechanisms are working and c) whether CASA’s bureaucracy around IFR ratings is discouraging pilots from becoming IFR rated and how many lives would be saved if Australia had the same level of IFR ratings as the US.

There is a real argument that CASA’s over regulation of IFR is costing lives.

---

Sunfish

I know I am overreacting having spent the day introducing a Five year old to the joys of skiing. I also should add that I am NOT an Angel Flight pilot nor associated with them in any way.

I am simply pissed off at first of all CASA, who senses that Angel Flight is an organisation with credentials that make it a threat to CASA domination, so they have, like many others, to be destroyed, then with CASA's lapdog, the ATSB who have produced a turd of an analysis in an attempt to justify its masters position. Then along come players and axe grinders who want to stroke their own ego by sinking the slipper into Angel Flight.

Of course it was "getthereitis"! I can't think of any other reason either. However two incidents of it in 10,000 odd Angel Flight over ten years are statistically insignificant. By that I mean rigorous statistical testing of the hypothesis "Angelflight pilots flights are more likely than the rest of the pilot population to suffer from gethereitis" will draw a big ******* blank at the 99.999% confidence level or ATSB would have shouted it from the roof tops by now.

So since that fails, ATSB then invents a convoluted pseudo scientific analysis claiming Angel Flights are seven times more dangerous than ordinary private flying! I looked in vain for the causal link in that steaming pile of shit for the link between runway incursions and gethereitis but haven't found it.

So CASA and ATSB would have the general public believe that Angel Flight is populated by weak minded emotionally unstable pilots with sub human flying skills to boot - the very dregs of the private pilot population! That is the exact conclusion and the obvious corollary is that Angel Flight should be destroyed as a danger to the man in the street, just like a dangerous dog. Nice one CASA, protecting us all the time. At least Angel Flight was able to kick CASA in the balls over that one -you licenced those pilots CASA, didn't you?

And the ATSB, now in full Marie Antionette mode, ruffles its corsets and tells Angel Flight customers not to use Angel Flight but instead to use Regular Public Transport to hospital - Rex, Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar! What are they smoking in Canberra?????

....And then people, come here to PPRuNe and solemnly nit pick and criticize Angel Flight - for trying to help people??? CASA and ATSB make the pre revolutionary French aristocracy look grounded and in touch with the common man by comparison, they are the problem.

There is a cure to this madness and it doesn't involve ******* over Angel Flight. Maybe we need our own form of French revolution in Canberra.

*The asterisked word involved is a synonym for intercourse with the suffix -ing.

Finally comments in reply to last week's LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...ugust-2019

Mike Borgelt • 4 days ago

"shouldn't they be recommending that private operations be disallowed because they are dangerous?"

Careful Steve, that is already clearly CASA and ATSB's game plan. Of course they are less than honest about this goal and instead of an outright ban they will just load up our activities with so much pointless and unproductive bureaucracy and expense that everyone gives up

---

Sandy Reith • 4 days ago

Hitch is quite correct when he says that the regulator has given up looking for answers to one of aviation’s oldest and most common forms of accident. Visual flight into non visual conditions which can cause disorientation and loss of control. Such accidents commonly result in fatalities. Loss of visual reference can be largely overcome with low cost technology for pilots that normally only fly, and are only qualified for visual flight by regulation, in visual conditions. Around twenty years ago operators in Alaska set about developing and using hand held tablet computers capable of synthetic vision. Speaking with a leader of this program, called Operation Capstone, I was informed that their weather related accident rate was reduced by half.

Why not here? CASA is dysfunctional, absolutely hidebound and will not countenance any innovation. The other obvious route is to gain the Instrument Rating which has never been more expensive and difficult due to CASA’s extreme measures preventing new flying schools and caused hundreds of schools to close. CASA’s inappropriate mandating of the Cessna additional Inspection Documents, has caused huge financial losses on private pilots and again going against training for the Instrument Rating.

---

Ian • 4 days ago

There are a couple of semi-related issues. For which I have questions but no answers.

1) How do you measure pilot competence. The traditional measure is hours, and there seems to be a weak correlation between raw hours flown and pilot competence.

2) Who is responsible for a pilot's competence.The Pilot seems the obvious answer but that isn't bringing the results we desire. Angle Flight is the worst placed because they have no control over pilots or flights.

I would hesitate disparaging CASA investing in education because education is far more effective in achieving quality results that rules compliance. (rules compliance is the worst method of effective risk mitigation)

If people are going to quote Statistics it would be desirable that they made their raw data available. Extra marks for showing your working.

---

Sandy Reith in reply to Ian • 3 days ago

Ian, quite right, having CASA investing more in education is not the answer because CASA’s raison d’être is is to stiffen the straight jacket not to try a new cut or taylor it fit for purpose. Having persuaded a thoughtless Parliament into migrating the rules into the criminal code, with strict liability as the criterion for ease of convictions, there’s nothing to suggest the slightest willingness of CASA to alter it’s trajectory. On the contrary the practical implications of such wrong policy clearly demonstrate CASA’s mindset of supremacy and strict control. Its nearly thirty two years since it was divorced from Ministerial and Departmental control and tasked with rewriting the rules. It still hasn’t finished because it is incapable and has no incentive to change.

The independent Commonwealth corporate as means of undertaking this function of government has failed with disastrous effects for General Aviation and the thousands of jobs, businesses and services that have been lost.
Two factors stand out from the embedded CASA modus operandi; unwillingness on the part of aviation personnel to admit to, or share lessons from their errors, mistakes or even totally innocent misadventures, for fear of criminal prosecution leading to heavy fines and problems with criminal history such as gaining visas for international travel.
That is bad enough, arguably worse is the excessive fear factor that flows through the whole of one’s flight training, this factor has been evident in my experience as an instructor and flying school operator over very many years. This excessive fear factor stems directly from the fear of Big Brother CASA armed with it’s frightening legal weapons.
In the last few years risk aversion has increased and is more unhealthy than ever before. The fear factor means that the pilot has lost much of his or her adrenaline before takeoff. I have witnessed this phenomenon, and experienced it personally as have most pilots.

This comes to Ian’s question about the value of experience in flying hours. There’s much reduced value if judgement is impaired by psychological stress that leads to a loss of adrenaline and subsequent heavy and debilitating physical and mental weariness. This is precisely the point; l when inevitably circumstances will come together and an accident like this occurs.

There’s nothing odd or new about weather problems, but advances will require serious reforms by Parliament and new thinking in GA.

---

Ian in reply to Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

I'll try to be clearer

1a) Education: a good way to achieve desirable outcome.
1b) Rule Compliance: the worst way way to achieve desirable outcome.

2) We need a better method of measuring competence than raw hours flown.

---

Finally Hitch in reply to all:

SteveHitchen Mod • 2 days ago

Guys. Isn't better training a form of education? We need to continue to educate, but more seminars and bigger, shinier posters doesn't cut it. There is always the thinking that "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" and that training VFR pilots to save themselves in IMC might encourage them to enter IMC deliberately, but considering that it's happening anyway, maybe we need to revisit that thinking.

Finally, without top cover from Barry O'obfuscation, the Hooded Canary and crew have been referred to a Senate Inquiry...

Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry into the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).

Committee Secretariat contact:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600 

Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
Fax: +61 2 6277 5811
rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

Hmm...now where do I start with a submission...

How about here: #SBG 18 August 2019: Belling the Cat?? & Time to ‘Bell the Cat!’ or maybe here: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...0#pid10520 etc..etc..   


MTF? Definitely!...P2