[Peetwo]

WOFTAM awards nominee? - Senate Estimates.  

---

Ref: Dirty RRATs, government grants, charter stink and a plea for harmony. Read more & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...6#pid10676

---

For what it's worth, I note that the WOFTAM Supp Estimates program for the miniscule's lapdog RRAT committee has finally been released...  

2019–20 Supplementary Budget estimates
Monday, 21 October 2019
Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development—Senator McKenzie
Tuesday, 22 October 2019
Agriculture—Senator McKenzie
Program for 21 and 22 October 2019 (PDF 47KB)

If you wanted any further evidence that the Dirty RRAT committee is running a protection racket for the Hooded Canary's aviary then note the ATCB glaring omission from the Supp Estimate proceedings - 

Kind of makes you wonder what HVH has on the miniscule? Perhaps pictures of the miniscule in a compromised position at one of Hoody's famed toga parties? Which doesn't really make sense when you consider GGGGG Mick Mack's homophobic tendencies? ref: Homophobic slurs haunt McCormack


Ref: https://safeskiesconference.com.au/plenaryspeakers/

ATSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATION

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.

ANGEL FLIGHT RESPONSE

Angel Flight has considered the recommendation carefully and has determined that
it maintain its current policy of giving priority to using private flights where possible
and to continue to use regular public transport flights when private flights are
cancelled or unavailable, and for transfers between capital cities.
The reasons for our decisions are:

- Angel Flight rejects the claim in the ATSB report that, for Angel Flight
passenger carrying flights, the “fatal accident rate was more than seven
times higher per flight than other private flights” as invalid.

A valid analysis addressing passenger risks would require comparison of
passenger carrying Angel Flights and other passenger carrying private
flights. Since no such data are available for other private operations, the
only reasonable comparison is between all Angel Flight operations and all
other private operations. Even then, results must be treated cautiously
because an unknown proportion of private operations involve circuit
training and short local flying whereas all Angel Flight operations involve
flights with an average sector length of 1.5 hours.

The analysis in Table B2 on page 69 shows that, when all Angel Flight
sectors are included, the fatal accident rates are 0.5 and 0.2 per 10,000
flights for Angel Flight and other private flights respectively, and the
difference is not significant. Furthermore, when all accidents are included,
the rates are 1.1 and 1.5 per 10,000 flights for Angel Flight and other
private flights respectively.

- Angel Flight rejects the claim in the ATSB report that “community service
flights conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia (Angel Flight) had
substantially more occurrences …… per flight than other private operations”
as invalid.

ATSB has compared Angel Flight operations, approximately 95% of which
operate to and from Class C and D airspace with other private operations
where an unknown, but undoubtedly much lower, proportion of flights are
in controlled airspace. Angel Flight has been unable to find any data that
would permit a valid comparison of similar operations for other private
flights.

The ATSB report acknowledges, in the Safety Summary, that “The types of
occurrences where flights organised by Angel Flight were statistically overrepresented
(as a rate per flight) compared to other private operations
were consistent with these operational differences.” However, the report
then immediately ignores the vastly different operating environments and
claims that the difference “indicated an elevated and different risk profile in
Angel Flight”.

Oh well back to ToRs and I note that the ATCB is still yet to acknowledge &/or update their SR (AO-2017-069-SI-01 ) to reflect the categorical rejection by Angel Flight above? Shirley 3 weeks is long enough to make this simple clerical addition? Could it be the Hooded Canary is holding off (ie obfuscating) publishing this potentially embarrassing rejection of his (very rare) SR until such time as the Safeskies (plus other gobfests in coming weeks) are all past...  



MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

And so it go’s.

The Patrick move to have a ‘Legislative instrument’ disallowed came to a very predictable end – the killer? Oh, that was our old mate Bi-Partisan responsibility ducking. Hardly worth mentioning the reasons why the motion was raised. AP’s resident Bookie managed to break even on the result, some had high hopes and lost – enough to cover the odds on favourite romping home, barley out of breath or a hair out of place.

Accurately predicted; not by some magical insight, but on rumour and hearsay – seems our incum-bent miniscule (according to scurrilous gossip leaked from within) put the ‘fix’ in before the committee was done scribbling their notes. I hate to think this was true – the minister – a bully? No way. The RRAT committee browbeaten into writing a load of dribble? Nah, can’t be.
Can it?

No way to prove it of course. But the facts and result stand – Angel Flight brought up the rear, while government strolled home, barely out of breath. Not a new outcome of course. Check out Fearless Phelan from some years ago; even – Modern History – repeats in less than a decade.

We have today lost more than can be counted. A quiet Ale, alone, in my own workshop with the solace of honest tools and reliable timber for quiet company will suffice this night. I’ve always found mourning to be a solitary affair. Thought to action…….

“Give sorrow words; the grief that does not speak knits up the o-er wrought heart and bids it break.”

[Peetwo]

MOAS and Bipartisanship continues to kill off Australian Aviation...

Ref: 

And so it go’s.

The Patrick move to have a ‘Legislative instrument’ disallowed came to a very predictable end – the killer? Oh, that was our old mate Bi-Partisan responsibility ducking. Hardly worth mentioning the reasons why the motion was raised. AP’s resident Bookie managed to break even on the result, some had high hopes and lost – enough to cover the odds on favourite romping home, barley out of breath or a hair out of place.

Accurately predicted; not by some magical insight, but on rumour and hearsay – seems our incum-bent miniscule (according to scurrilous gossip leaked from within) put the ‘fix’ in before the committee was done scribbling their notes. I hate to think this was true – the minister – a bully? No way. The RRAT committee browbeaten into writing a load of dribble? Nah, can’t be.
Can it?

No way to prove it of course. But the facts and result stand – Angel Flight brought up the rear, while government strolled home, barely out of breath. Not a new outcome of course. Check out Fearless Phelan from some years ago; even – Modern History – repeats in less than a decade.

We have today lost more than can be counted. A quiet Ale, alone, in my own workshop with the solace of honest tools and reliable timber for quiet company will suffice this night. I’ve always found mourning to be a solitary affair. Thought to action…….

“Give sorrow words; the grief that does not speak knits up the o-er wrought heart and bids it break.”

The following is a pictorial (with Hansard link) of the Senator REX failed attempt to get bipartisan support to strike out the pointless, bollocks CASA inflicted CSF instrument:

And the part that hurts, the predictable 30+ year Laborial fear of all things aviation safety related (ie the MOAS strikes again) being exploited by the 'make work' aviation safety autocracy...

Note how nearly word for word the opposition and government spokespersons almost totally mimic each other...

Hansard link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus.../&sid=0000 

Laborial 1: (Opposition) ..We understand that community flight charities such as Angel Flight do indeed provide a valuable service to regional communities across Australia, and we pay credit to the organisation and the volunteers that give their time to help regional families who need to attend medical appointments in major centres. We also very much respect the role of CASA as the independent civil aviation safety regulator. There's no doubt in our nation that our community has the expectation that CASA will establish and enforce a regulatory system that keeps all passengers, whether fare-paying or not, safe when they take to our skies. Indeed, Senator Patrick highlighted to us his own experience as a qualified pilot and said in his own words that he wouldn't suggest people take a flight with him as a pilot.

The opposition take a bipartisan approach to aviation safety because we know that the community puts a very high premium on safety in our skies. We understand very much, however, the concerns raised by Angel Flight. It is also essential that we have the highest safety standards applied to these important flights. We will continue to monitor implementation of this instrument and any impacts on community service flights and the community service flight community. We will be working with the government to address any of these concerns going forward...

Laborial 2: ...The government acknowledges the great benefit provided by community flight charities such as Angel Flight in regional Australia. We appreciate the generous donation of time and expertise provided by volunteer pilots in support of this valuable work and the contributions that many make towards such organisations. We note that one of the two recommendations in the Senate committee's report includes a proposal to remove the provisions for additional aeroplane maintenance requirements which are beyond those required for airworthiness in general aviation. In this regard, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's view remains that the inclusion of the modest additional maintenance requirements for these flights is an appropriate and proportionate measure to address the identified risk of a high-use private aircraft undertaking passenger flights, and that these additional requirements are likely to affect less than 10 per cent of private aircraft engaged in these flights. The government supports CASA, our independent civil aviation safety regulator, to use its expertise and professional judgement to determine appropriate safety measures for flights carrying passengers.

Passengers, whether they are fare-paying or not, are generally less able to determine the level of risk in the service they are boarding and rely on the regulator to ensure aviation safety is maintained. While acknowledging that CASA's instrument places additional requirements on pilots—largely around the recency of experience and overall experience—these measures are a practical approach to mitigating any flight risk. Since commencing on 19 March 2019, we are not aware that the instrument has resulted in a lack of availability of pilots or their aircraft for community service flights. Therefore, given our regulator's advice, the government does not support the disallowance motion before the Senate...

   

Also note how - despite overwhelming evidence of a flawed report, miniscule Mick Mack's unconstitutional influence on the outcome of the Senate Inquiry report, with no findings/recommendations against the ATCB asking for the Mount Gambier report to be reviewed and/or withdrawn - has now had undue, undemocratic parliamentary influence on the outcome of the Senator REX DM...

Laborial 1: ...We note that the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport has inquired into matters associated with community service flights. We note that the committee made a couple of recommendations, which, as we understand it, the government are currently considering. So we in the opposition are looking forward to seeing the government respond to those in due course... P2 comment: Quite obviously Laborial 1 hasn't even read &/or understands  the basic premise of the Sen REX DM ie one of the committee recommendations was directly addressing the onerous maintenance requirements. Unfortunately Laborial 2 does - UDB!   

Laborial 2: ...As has been acknowledged, these issues were canvassed in the recent Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report, which looked at, among other matters, maintenance requirements relating to Angel Flight.

Finally I would like to go to the vote because IMO this is where the real depressing story lays...



To begin there is a positive with the new Chair Sen Susan McDonald crossing the floor to vote with the AYES...

Unfortunately that is where the positives stop...

1) From the RRAT committee which supposedly had bipartisan support for the ATCB inquiry report, there are two members, Sen Antic and Sen Watt that voted NOE - 
2) Long time active participating member of the committee Sen Gallacher, who supposedly was part of the bipartisan support for the report, also voted NOE - 
3) QLD Sen Stoker a quoted supporter of Angel Flight and who asked some extremely pertinent and probing legal questions of CASA about the AF instrument, also voted NOE - 
4) Newly minted Senator and former MP for Corangamite Sarah Henderson, also voted NOE -  (reckon Sandy might have a thing or two say about that... ) 

However the most disturbing observation from the vote, especially considering the NOE vote does not represent a majority of the Senate, is the notable absences in the vote, especially those who were actively involved in the committee inquiry and those members who couldn't even front up to vote - 

Picture worth a thousand words:



(hint the three pigs in the middle -  )

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Perhaps a light at the end of the runway?

Nearly missed this? As far as political scripts go it would seem a little bit arse-about but it would appear that only two hours after the vote on the Sen REX DM the official tabling of the RRAT report into the performance of the ATCB occurred - 

Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (17:58): I rise to speak on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's report on the Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia. Today it is 40 degrees in much of Western Queensland. This is not because of climate change; it's because it's October and it's summer. It is 24 hours by bus from Cloncurry to Brisbane; it is 12 hours to Townsville. Thanks very much to the Labor government in Queensland there are reduced medical services through much of regional and remote Queensland, so people have to travel to the big cities. It is currently $683 to fly to Brisbane and $881 to fly to Townsville.

I have long believed that regulation of any industry should be outcomes based. It should be effective and it should be reasonable. There should be transparency of the clear connection between the problem to be solved and the legislative solution. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that I chair has had the opportunity to hold an inquiry into the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and, in particular, its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia. It was the findings of this report that formed part of the rationale for the introduction by CASA of the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, the CSF instrument.

The CSF instrument introduces a number of requirements for community services flights in relation to pilot experience and date of last flight, the number and type of passengers allowed on board, allowable aircraft types, aircraft maintenance schedules, flight notifications and various flight rules. At the hearings, we heard extensive evidence from numerous industry representatives, stakeholders and observers, and we used the feedback from these people to make two very clear recommendations. These were: to amend the instrument to remove the provisions for additional aeroplane maintenance requirements beyond those required already for airworthiness in the general aviation sector; and, second, to further amend the instrument to clarify what constitutes 'operating crew' for community service flights, particularly as it relates to additional pilots and mentoring.

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee believe both these reforms would strike the right balance between safety, ease of implementation and the benefit of a service that does so much good for so many people, thanks to the generosity of volunteer pilots in our vast nation. Despite these recommendations, CASA, having indicated it will accept the second recommendation to provide further clarity on the mentorship, has made no changes to the words of the instrument in this regard. But, more importantly, CASA has not accepted the unanimous recommendations of the committee to reject the additional maintenance requirement, which, once again, adds cost to an increasingly unfinancial sector. The requirement for the additional maintenance was not able to be demonstrated by CASA either in its written submission or when appearing before the committee. Indeed, the idea that this was only a small increase to costs fundamentally demonstrates the extraordinary disconnection between this regulating body and the reality of life and services available in regional, rural and remote Australia—the very places that rely on Angel Flight. In taking this course of action, CASA doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration and consultation and shows a refusal to accept commonsense reform.

This lack of understanding of the gradual and relentless increase in cost and regulation within the aviation industry with no demonstrable link to safety improvement other than a precautionary principle concerns me enormously, as a resident of this huge outback country. We could be much better served if only aviation were affordable for general aviation and charter businesses.

CASA's proposed regulatory changes would not have prevented the June 2017 accident and, with no reference to additional maintenance requirements in the ATSB report, it is hard to understand to what end CASA had made the change, not to mention the fact that CASA's approach risks driving pilots out of the Angel Flight service, which is so critical to Australians living in rural and remote areas. Without pilots, people with chronic and serious conditions face driving many hours to obtain treatment, or face the extreme costs of regional airfares. It is painfully apparent that CASA imposes regulation simply for the sake of it.

Everyone elected to this place comes with a responsibility to represent the communities that sent them here. Those communities have an expectation that we will support the standards that they expect—the standards of transparency and common sense—and they expect government to direct these independent bodies to do their will. Of course, that is not possible. These independent statutory bodies have taken on a life of their own, but I am here to tell you that I could not and will not accept a report that so clearly and in depth examines the evidence and the challenges for regional and remote Australia and the challenges to the aviation industry and stands by while CASA, once again, imposes maintenance requirements that are unreasonable, costly and, once again, seek to strangle opportunity and aviation in this country.

You can only begin to imagine what Bert Hinkler, Charles Kingsford Smith, John Flynn and all the other great aviators of this land would think if they came back now and saw what we have done to our aviation industry. There are not only aspects of practical and reasonableness in opposing this instrument but also humanitarian aspects. Regulations need to be strict, but not so strict as to strangle, and I believe Angel Flight will be strangled by these proposals. So it is for this reason that I did support the disallowance motion moved by Senator Rex Patrick. This is not voting against government legislation; this is voting against an instrument that was created by an independent statutory authority that is slowly crippling our aviation industry.

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (18:06): I'd also like to speak to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's report in support of Angel Flight and the service that they provide to so many rural and regional families across this country, including the support that they provided to my own family for a number of years.

When my son was diagnosed with autism back in 2012, at that stage—pre the NDIS—we were reliant on assistance through state government. It took 12 months for the state government to get in contact with us in Moree to see how they may be able to offer assistance to my son through disability support programs. Thankfully we had not waited 12 months to help our son, because the key with autism is intensive and early intervention—the key to that being 'early'. Unfortunately, many families at that point in time were forced to wait.

We had endeavoured to start on a very good, high-quality early intervention program out of Sydney, but that was requiring us to travel to Sydney every month—my son, myself and, at times, therapists who we were training to conduct the in-home element of the program. The cost, when it was just my son and me, was often up to $2,000 return from Moree to Sydney because of the $500 per person each way that was required to be paid. As you can imagine, $24,000 a year that is not even for the therapy, let alone accommodation and other costs while you're in Sydney for four to five days a month, is not sustainable for many families. It certainly wasn't sustainable for us for a very long period of time.

Facetiously suggesting to the state government that they might be able to help fund my son's program, and them not being able to do that, their suggestion was that they could offer a referral to Angel Flight. Angel Flight was an absolute godsend to our family. It was the only service that we were able to access that we did not have to personally fund. The insinuation that I have heard over the last couple of months in what would appear to be an almost determined act by CASA over a sustained period of time to somehow strangle this absolutely vital community service, for reasons that are absolutely beyond me, that they are trying to take away a service that provides a vital lifeline for families is just absolutely incomprehensible. And the most offensive part that I have heard is the suggestion that somehow rural and regional families do not understand that these flights are being conducted by non-commercial pilots. I can assure you that we understand that. Angel Flight does an exceptional job in educating the people who use the service. We are spoken to by Angel Flight and we are given lots and lots of information to read. We are signing pieces of paper, not only when we first use the service but every time we use it. We are aware that we will be flying in various types of aircraft. We had one flight in a wonderful, brand new, incredibly impressive aircraft that had just been purchased by the managing partner of a very large consulting firm. We also had trips in much less salubrious, smaller aircraft, in which we had a much less-comfortable flight to Moree, but these flights were equally gratefully received by my family and particularly by my son and I.

It is offensive to suggest that people in rural and regional communities are somehow unable to make an educated decision about using the service. Whilst any accident that results in the death of anybody is tragic, the fact of the matter is that there are more deaths on our roads than have ever been caused in accidents by this service, and we do not see cries to shut down the transport via road of people with chronic illnesses or those requiring care and access to therapy. People need to be able to access these services. At one stage we flew on a quite large plane from Moree via Brewarrina with a number of families, including people who were suffering from breast cancer who could not make the trip via road. This was a vital service for helping these people to continue their lives and prolong their lives for as long as possible. So it is incredibly important that Angel Flight receives the support it can get and that it is not overly burdened by regulation, such that it is put in a position where it is unable to provide this service, which is so vital to so many families across rural and regional Australia.

I particularly would like to commend Senator Rex Patrick, Senator Susan McDonald and Senator Slade Brockman. All of us share a passion for this service, and we appreciate the important role that it plays within the communities we live in and represent. We understand the important work that it does. I, for one, wish Angel Flight a very long existence. To all the families currently utilising the service, I hope you don't need it for very much longer, but for the families that may require it in future, I hope the service is there for you far into the future.

---

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:12): I too rise to take note of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. I acknowledge, as Senator Hughes did, all those who participated in the inquiry. I particularly would like to thank the secretariat for their work on the inquiry. I was a full member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee when the inquiry on the promulgation of the particular regulations we're talking about kicked off. Senator Patrick, Senator O'Sullivan—who has now left us—and I did have some concerns about those regulations. These concerns led us through the inquiry, which was very ably chaired by Senator McDonald, having done so as a relatively new senator. It was probably a difficult issue, and I acknowledge and thank her for her chairing of the inquiry hearings.

As Senator Patrick mentioned earlier today, I did have some concerns about the ATSB report. You cannot blame government agencies for the way that their reporting is sometimes sensationalised in the media—for example, talking about the flights of Angel Flight being seven times more dangerous. Unfortunately, it was made easy for the media to come up with those very inflammatory headlines, because of the report the ATSB produced. I still remain concerned with the fact that their principal conclusion was based on two data points, separated by six years, over a 10-year period. I find it very difficult to believe that you can draw statistically significant conclusions from such a dataset. It worries me when that information is then used by a large number of media outlets to paint a particular view of the risks, because these risks, as Senator Hughes and Senator McDonald have so ably outlined, are risks that are weighed up by people living in very remote parts of Australia.

If you live in Newdegate, in my home state, you've got a 1,800-kilometre round trip to Perth if you need to see a specialist, if you need any particularly invasive hospital care or regular treatments for things such as cancer. If you live in Cue, you've got a 1,300-kilometre round trip. But these are not on major highways; they are on country roads. Anyone who's driven on country roads or anyone who has even looked at the statistics for driving on country roads knows that there is a level of risk involved in taking those long trips on those country roads, of durations of sometimes 10 hours or more. Yes, there is risk involved in flying in light aircraft; there is no doubt about that. I think everyone in Australia, particularly everyone in the bush, knows that there are risks involved in flying in light aircraft. But to put the idea out there that somehow the statistics we use are an accurate portrait of what those risks are—I don't think that is fair or reasonable.

I didn't disagree with all the regulations. In fact—although I don't want to put words into the mouths of others—I believe that most of us on the committee actually supported the majority of the regulation that was put forward, in particular the requirements for pilots to have a certain level of experience, competence and time in the particular aircraft, and felt that they were sensible changes that would seem, on the face of it, to deliver a safety benefit. However, the one I found particularly difficult to accept—and this is the one that was highlighted in the committee's report—was the requirement for an additional level of aeroplane maintenance. If I'm the owner of a private aircraft and that aircraft is safe enough for me to take my friends up in, is safe enough for me to take my children up in, has met the requirements of being considered a safe aircraft for the purpose of general aviation in Australia, then I see no reason to add on to that a further maintenance requirement that risks more people leaving general aviation.

All of us in this place who have anything to do with the bush spend some time in light aircraft. All of us in this place who have an interest in rural and regional affairs spend some time in light aircraft, because there is just no other way of getting around rural and regional Australia. My experience, talking to GA operators and GA pilots throughout Western Australia, is that that part of the industry feels under significant pressure from regulations such as these. Additional maintenance requirements are not something to just be shrugged off. Pilots take them seriously—they have to be taken seriously. So, additional maintenance requirements beyond the requirements for any planes in the general aviation sector did not seem to me to be warranted. However, as I've already stated, I agreed with large parts of the regulation.

As such, I did not support Senator Patrick's disallowance. It's a very blunt instrument, a disallowance. Unfortunately, it means you knock out everything. You literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is something where I do have a great deal of concern both for the Angel Flight pilots—the community flight pilots—and for that sector. Giving rural and regional Australians access to those services is very important, and I will continue to monitor this area very closely and look to see whether the regulations as promulgated have a negative impact on that sector.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:20): I rise to take note of the report. I wish to congratulate Senators McDonald, Hughes and Brockman for their statements. Senator McDonald, as the chair of the committee, clearly articulated how the committee felt in relation to the ATSB report and, indeed, the instrument. In her speech she talked of an instrument that imposes maintenance requirements that are unnecessary and of how these are slowly crippling our aviation industry. Senator McDonald, with great courage, crossed the floor this afternoon to support the disallowance. Her standing has certainly gone up significantly in my mind. I often criticise but I'm never afraid to talk about it when I think people have stood up and said something really sensible. I'm not a party to government in any way, shape or form; I just call it as it is.

Moving to Senator Hughes: she spoke from the heart. She's someone who has used Angel Flight. She has talked to me privately and said—and I hope she doesn't mind that I share this—it was a great saviour for her. I know that she's so very grateful for the service that Angel Flight provides. I was with her up in Papua New Guinea, with Save the Children, and she spent some amount of time talking about what they did for her family.

Senator Brockman spoke very sensibly on his analysis of the ATSB report. Very correctly, he indicated that there were many sensible things in the regulation. Indeed, I wasn't opposing everything that was in the regulation. I was basically very concerned about the mentoring arrangements, although I accept what has been said in the chamber tonight, which is that that may well be adjusted. But, certainly, in relation to maintenance, I do have a problem. He's still monotone—but very sensible!—and I thank him for his contribution in relation to the report.

The role of senators is one of leadership; and we shouldn't just accept that, because CASA say something, we need to back CASA. We need to look at things that CASA present to this chamber and analyse them. We need to look at them and apply judgement on what it is that they have to say. We shouldn't simply tick things because CASA say, 'This is the case,' and because we need to support CASA as people have to have confidence in CASA. We should call them out when things are wrong. In that respect, the government—and I'm referring not to the senators who have spoken tonight but the government—has been weak. Indeed, I'm going to be critical of the opposition. I think the opposition is weak. I exclude Senator Sterle, who I note abstained from the vote. He abstained in clear view of everyone. It is not acceptable for us to simply tick and flick things that come through this place, certainly when they are going to have a very detrimental effect on a most valuable service to regional Australia.

It is clear, there is no question, it is undisputed, it is undoubtable that CASA has erred in respect of this particular instrument. I might say, and I say this in a considered manner, that Mr Carmody has exercised poor judgement, and it's my view that, in the context of all of the regulation that has been imposed upon CASA and in respect of this fundamentally flawed instrument—and, to tap into what Senator Brockman said, there are only certain aspects of this instrument that are flawed, particularly with respect to maintaining his tenure at the head of CASA must be reconsidered.

Question agreed to.

Hmm...kind of fills in SOME of the gaps?? Brockman abstained from voting and didn't cross the floor because he thought the DM process is a 'blunt instrument'. IMO the only blunt instrument here is the CASA CSF instrument, about as blunt as a 10lb sledge hammer...

And Sterle abstained because Labor MPs are not allowed to cross the floor - FFS! So the issue lies with Albo who is obviously still paranoid (after PelAir) with anything to do with aviation safety. IMO it is still no excuse Sterlo, you could have exerted influence so that a lot more Labor MPs abstained...    

However this still doesn't answer the question about the bloody big elephant parked in Mick Mack's office?? -

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Perhaps a light at the end of the runway?

Nearly missed this? As far as political scripts go it would seem a little bit arse-about but it would appear that only two hours after the vote on the Sen REX DM the official tabling of the RRAT report into the performance of the ATCB occurred - 

Senator McDONALD (Queensland) (17:58): I rise to speak on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's report on the Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia. Today it is 40 degrees in much of Western Queensland. This is not because of climate change; it's because it's October and it's summer. It is 24 hours by bus from Cloncurry to Brisbane; it is 12 hours to Townsville. Thanks very much to the Labor government in Queensland there are reduced medical services through much of regional and remote Queensland, so people have to travel to the big cities. It is currently $683 to fly to Brisbane and $881 to fly to Townsville.

I have long believed that regulation of any industry should be outcomes based. It should be effective and it should be reasonable. There should be transparency of the clear connection between the problem to be solved and the legislative solution. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that I chair has had the opportunity to hold an inquiry into the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and, in particular, its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia. It was the findings of this report that formed part of the rationale for the introduction by CASA of the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019, the CSF instrument.

The CSF instrument introduces a number of requirements for community services flights in relation to pilot experience and date of last flight, the number and type of passengers allowed on board, allowable aircraft types, aircraft maintenance schedules, flight notifications and various flight rules. At the hearings, we heard extensive evidence from numerous industry representatives, stakeholders and observers, and we used the feedback from these people to make two very clear recommendations. These were: to amend the instrument to remove the provisions for additional aeroplane maintenance requirements beyond those required already for airworthiness in the general aviation sector; and, second, to further amend the instrument to clarify what constitutes 'operating crew' for community service flights, particularly as it relates to additional pilots and mentoring.

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee believe both these reforms would strike the right balance between safety, ease of implementation and the benefit of a service that does so much good for so many people, thanks to the generosity of volunteer pilots in our vast nation. Despite these recommendations, CASA, having indicated it will accept the second recommendation to provide further clarity on the mentorship, has made no changes to the words of the instrument in this regard. But, more importantly, CASA has not accepted the unanimous recommendations of the committee to reject the additional maintenance requirement, which, once again, adds cost to an increasingly unfinancial sector. The requirement for the additional maintenance was not able to be demonstrated by CASA either in its written submission or when appearing before the committee. Indeed, the idea that this was only a small increase to costs fundamentally demonstrates the extraordinary disconnection between this regulating body and the reality of life and services available in regional, rural and remote Australia—the very places that rely on Angel Flight. In taking this course of action, CASA doesn't display a desire to act on collaboration and consultation and shows a refusal to accept commonsense reform.

This lack of understanding of the gradual and relentless increase in cost and regulation within the aviation industry with no demonstrable link to safety improvement other than a precautionary principle concerns me enormously, as a resident of this huge outback country. We could be much better served if only aviation were affordable for general aviation and charter businesses.

CASA's proposed regulatory changes would not have prevented the June 2017 accident and, with no reference to additional maintenance requirements in the ATSB report, it is hard to understand to what end CASA had made the change, not to mention the fact that CASA's approach risks driving pilots out of the Angel Flight service, which is so critical to Australians living in rural and remote areas. Without pilots, people with chronic and serious conditions face driving many hours to obtain treatment, or face the extreme costs of regional airfares. It is painfully apparent that CASA imposes regulation simply for the sake of it.

Everyone elected to this place comes with a responsibility to represent the communities that sent them here. Those communities have an expectation that we will support the standards that they expect—the standards of transparency and common sense—and they expect government to direct these independent bodies to do their will. Of course, that is not possible. These independent statutory bodies have taken on a life of their own, but I am here to tell you that I could not and will not accept a report that so clearly and in depth examines the evidence and the challenges for regional and remote Australia and the challenges to the aviation industry and stands by while CASA, once again, imposes maintenance requirements that are unreasonable, costly and, once again, seek to strangle opportunity and aviation in this country.

You can only begin to imagine what Bert Hinkler, Charles Kingsford Smith, John Flynn and all the other great aviators of this land would think if they came back now and saw what we have done to our aviation industry. There are not only aspects of practical and reasonableness in opposing this instrument but also humanitarian aspects. Regulations need to be strict, but not so strict as to strangle, and I believe Angel Flight will be strangled by these proposals. So it is for this reason that I did support the disallowance motion moved by Senator Rex Patrick. This is not voting against government legislation; this is voting against an instrument that was created by an independent statutory authority that is slowly crippling our aviation industry.

Senator HUGHES (New South Wales) (18:06): I'd also like to speak to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's report in support of Angel Flight and the service that they provide to so many rural and regional families across this country, including the support that they provided to my own family for a number of years.

When my son was diagnosed with autism back in 2012, at that stage—pre the NDIS—we were reliant on assistance through state government. It took 12 months for the state government to get in contact with us in Moree to see how they may be able to offer assistance to my son through disability support programs. Thankfully we had not waited 12 months to help our son, because the key with autism is intensive and early intervention—the key to that being 'early'. Unfortunately, many families at that point in time were forced to wait.

We had endeavoured to start on a very good, high-quality early intervention program out of Sydney, but that was requiring us to travel to Sydney every month—my son, myself and, at times, therapists who we were training to conduct the in-home element of the program. The cost, when it was just my son and me, was often up to $2,000 return from Moree to Sydney because of the $500 per person each way that was required to be paid. As you can imagine, $24,000 a year that is not even for the therapy, let alone accommodation and other costs while you're in Sydney for four to five days a month, is not sustainable for many families. It certainly wasn't sustainable for us for a very long period of time.

Facetiously suggesting to the state government that they might be able to help fund my son's program, and them not being able to do that, their suggestion was that they could offer a referral to Angel Flight. Angel Flight was an absolute godsend to our family. It was the only service that we were able to access that we did not have to personally fund. The insinuation that I have heard over the last couple of months in what would appear to be an almost determined act by CASA over a sustained period of time to somehow strangle this absolutely vital community service, for reasons that are absolutely beyond me, that they are trying to take away a service that provides a vital lifeline for families is just absolutely incomprehensible. And the most offensive part that I have heard is the suggestion that somehow rural and regional families do not understand that these flights are being conducted by non-commercial pilots. I can assure you that we understand that. Angel Flight does an exceptional job in educating the people who use the service. We are spoken to by Angel Flight and we are given lots and lots of information to read. We are signing pieces of paper, not only when we first use the service but every time we use it. We are aware that we will be flying in various types of aircraft. We had one flight in a wonderful, brand new, incredibly impressive aircraft that had just been purchased by the managing partner of a very large consulting firm. We also had trips in much less salubrious, smaller aircraft, in which we had a much less-comfortable flight to Moree, but these flights were equally gratefully received by my family and particularly by my son and I.

It is offensive to suggest that people in rural and regional communities are somehow unable to make an educated decision about using the service. Whilst any accident that results in the death of anybody is tragic, the fact of the matter is that there are more deaths on our roads than have ever been caused in accidents by this service, and we do not see cries to shut down the transport via road of people with chronic illnesses or those requiring care and access to therapy. People need to be able to access these services. At one stage we flew on a quite large plane from Moree via Brewarrina with a number of families, including people who were suffering from breast cancer who could not make the trip via road. This was a vital service for helping these people to continue their lives and prolong their lives for as long as possible. So it is incredibly important that Angel Flight receives the support it can get and that it is not overly burdened by regulation, such that it is put in a position where it is unable to provide this service, which is so vital to so many families across rural and regional Australia.

I particularly would like to commend Senator Rex Patrick, Senator Susan McDonald and Senator Slade Brockman. All of us share a passion for this service, and we appreciate the important role that it plays within the communities we live in and represent. We understand the important work that it does. I, for one, wish Angel Flight a very long existence. To all the families currently utilising the service, I hope you don't need it for very much longer, but for the families that may require it in future, I hope the service is there for you far into the future.

---

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:12): I too rise to take note of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. I acknowledge, as Senator Hughes did, all those who participated in the inquiry. I particularly would like to thank the secretariat for their work on the inquiry. I was a full member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee when the inquiry on the promulgation of the particular regulations we're talking about kicked off. Senator Patrick, Senator O'Sullivan—who has now left us—and I did have some concerns about those regulations. These concerns led us through the inquiry, which was very ably chaired by Senator McDonald, having done so as a relatively new senator. It was probably a difficult issue, and I acknowledge and thank her for her chairing of the inquiry hearings.

As Senator Patrick mentioned earlier today, I did have some concerns about the ATSB report. You cannot blame government agencies for the way that their reporting is sometimes sensationalised in the media—for example, talking about the flights of Angel Flight being seven times more dangerous. Unfortunately, it was made easy for the media to come up with those very inflammatory headlines, because of the report the ATSB produced. I still remain concerned with the fact that their principal conclusion was based on two data points, separated by six years, over a 10-year period. I find it very difficult to believe that you can draw statistically significant conclusions from such a dataset. It worries me when that information is then used by a large number of media outlets to paint a particular view of the risks, because these risks, as Senator Hughes and Senator McDonald have so ably outlined, are risks that are weighed up by people living in very remote parts of Australia.

If you live in Newdegate, in my home state, you've got a 1,800-kilometre round trip to Perth if you need to see a specialist, if you need any particularly invasive hospital care or regular treatments for things such as cancer. If you live in Cue, you've got a 1,300-kilometre round trip. But these are not on major highways; they are on country roads. Anyone who's driven on country roads or anyone who has even looked at the statistics for driving on country roads knows that there is a level of risk involved in taking those long trips on those country roads, of durations of sometimes 10 hours or more. Yes, there is risk involved in flying in light aircraft; there is no doubt about that. I think everyone in Australia, particularly everyone in the bush, knows that there are risks involved in flying in light aircraft. But to put the idea out there that somehow the statistics we use are an accurate portrait of what those risks are—I don't think that is fair or reasonable.

I didn't disagree with all the regulations. In fact—although I don't want to put words into the mouths of others—I believe that most of us on the committee actually supported the majority of the regulation that was put forward, in particular the requirements for pilots to have a certain level of experience, competence and time in the particular aircraft, and felt that they were sensible changes that would seem, on the face of it, to deliver a safety benefit. However, the one I found particularly difficult to accept—and this is the one that was highlighted in the committee's report—was the requirement for an additional level of aeroplane maintenance. If I'm the owner of a private aircraft and that aircraft is safe enough for me to take my friends up in, is safe enough for me to take my children up in, has met the requirements of being considered a safe aircraft for the purpose of general aviation in Australia, then I see no reason to add on to that a further maintenance requirement that risks more people leaving general aviation.

All of us in this place who have anything to do with the bush spend some time in light aircraft. All of us in this place who have an interest in rural and regional affairs spend some time in light aircraft, because there is just no other way of getting around rural and regional Australia. My experience, talking to GA operators and GA pilots throughout Western Australia, is that that part of the industry feels under significant pressure from regulations such as these. Additional maintenance requirements are not something to just be shrugged off. Pilots take them seriously—they have to be taken seriously. So, additional maintenance requirements beyond the requirements for any planes in the general aviation sector did not seem to me to be warranted. However, as I've already stated, I agreed with large parts of the regulation.

As such, I did not support Senator Patrick's disallowance. It's a very blunt instrument, a disallowance. Unfortunately, it means you knock out everything. You literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is something where I do have a great deal of concern both for the Angel Flight pilots—the community flight pilots—and for that sector. Giving rural and regional Australians access to those services is very important, and I will continue to monitor this area very closely and look to see whether the regulations as promulgated have a negative impact on that sector.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (18:20): I rise to take note of the report. I wish to congratulate Senators McDonald, Hughes and Brockman for their statements. Senator McDonald, as the chair of the committee, clearly articulated how the committee felt in relation to the ATSB report and, indeed, the instrument. In her speech she talked of an instrument that imposes maintenance requirements that are unnecessary and of how these are slowly crippling our aviation industry. Senator McDonald, with great courage, crossed the floor this afternoon to support the disallowance. Her standing has certainly gone up significantly in my mind. I often criticise but I'm never afraid to talk about it when I think people have stood up and said something really sensible. I'm not a party to government in any way, shape or form; I just call it as it is.

Moving to Senator Hughes: she spoke from the heart. She's someone who has used Angel Flight. She has talked to me privately and said—and I hope she doesn't mind that I share this—it was a great saviour for her. I know that she's so very grateful for the service that Angel Flight provides. I was with her up in Papua New Guinea, with Save the Children, and she spent some amount of time talking about what they did for her family.

Senator Brockman spoke very sensibly on his analysis of the ATSB report. Very correctly, he indicated that there were many sensible things in the regulation. Indeed, I wasn't opposing everything that was in the regulation. I was basically very concerned about the mentoring arrangements, although I accept what has been said in the chamber tonight, which is that that may well be adjusted. But, certainly, in relation to maintenance, I do have a problem. He's still monotone—but very sensible!—and I thank him for his contribution in relation to the report.

The role of senators is one of leadership; and we shouldn't just accept that, because CASA say something, we need to back CASA. We need to look at things that CASA present to this chamber and analyse them. We need to look at them and apply judgement on what it is that they have to say. We shouldn't simply tick things because CASA say, 'This is the case,' and because we need to support CASA as people have to have confidence in CASA. We should call them out when things are wrong. In that respect, the government—and I'm referring not to the senators who have spoken tonight but the government—has been weak. Indeed, I'm going to be critical of the opposition. I think the opposition is weak. I exclude Senator Sterle, who I note abstained from the vote. He abstained in clear view of everyone. It is not acceptable for us to simply tick and flick things that come through this place, certainly when they are going to have a very detrimental effect on a most valuable service to regional Australia.

It is clear, there is no question, it is undisputed, it is undoubtable that CASA has erred in respect of this particular instrument. I might say, and I say this in a considered manner, that Mr Carmody has exercised poor judgement, and it's my view that, in the context of all of the regulation that has been imposed upon CASA and in respect of this fundamentally flawed instrument—and, to tap into what Senator Brockman said, there are only certain aspects of this instrument that are flawed, particularly with respect to maintaining his tenure at the head of CASA must be reconsidered.

Question agreed to.

Addendum to last...  

Via the Twitterverse:

---

Senator Susan McDonald
@SenMcDonald

Yesterday I voted against new rules being imposed by CASA on charities like Angel Flight. The General Aviation sector is drowning under regulation that is not leading to safer outcomes. Regional Australia needs aviation and I am going in to bat for more practical regulation.



Ref: https://twitter.com/SenMcDonald/status/1...8849488896

---

Hmm...pending approval from the BRB Sen Mcdonald's chocfrog nomination has been upgraded to a packet of TimTams...

[Kharon]

Infrastructure – Wat - the Duck?

@ 1905 – if you ever feel the need to define, in a nutshell, why Australia is going backwards due to relentless, time wasting, gutter politics, watch and listen......

So determined to make the opposition seem bad, so determined to score what he believes are ‘points’ this goose has just wasted time the committee could have put to good use, attacked a minister, been incredibly rude and achieved not only nothing of value to this nation, but shown a dreadful lack of statesmanship. His little performance could have been saved for that theatrical farce – ‘question time’. But no, the little man in the cheap suit brings gutter politics into the Estimates hearing. Inappropriate self promotion and cheap hits – at Estimates? ‘Orrible little man.

Perhaps he could study the Malcom Roberts, (@19:26) style and learn how a real Senator approaches the big, important issues at hand and maybe get things moving.

But then, Roberts only wanted to discuss the small, insignificant matter of providing our growing population with water and no restrictions– nowhere near as important as Wat TD taking a free kick at the government and wasting everyone’s time.

Well I had to do something – no CASA, no ASA; just a bombastic, opinionated, snake oil type of politician left to watch. Love the I-Pad – park it on a shelf in the workshop, get on with stuff and let it work away – the modern version of the faithful transistor radio – magic.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Infrastructure – Wat - the Duck? - Part II

@ 1905 – if you ever feel the need to define, in a nutshell, why Australia is going backwards due to relentless, time wasting, gutter politics, watch and listen......

So determined to make the opposition seem bad, so determined to score what he believes are ‘points’ this goose has just wasted time the committee could have put to good use, attacked a minister, been incredibly rude and achieved not only nothing of value to this nation, but shown a dreadful lack of statesmanship. His little performance could have been saved for that theatrical farce – ‘question time’. But no, the little man in the cheap suit brings gutter politics into the Estimates hearing. Inappropriate self promotion and cheap hits – at Estimates? ‘Orrible little man.

Perhaps he could study the Malcom Roberts, (@19:26) style and learn how a real Senator approaches the big, important issues at hand and maybe get things moving.

But then, Roberts only wanted to discuss the small, insignificant matter of providing our growing population with water and no restrictions– nowhere near as important as Wat TD taking a free kick at the government and wasting everyone’s time.

Well I had to do something – no CASA, no ASA; just a bombastic, opinionated, snake oil type of politician left to watch. Love the I-Pad – park it on a shelf in the workshop, get on with stuff and let it work away – the modern version of the faithful transistor radio – magic.

Toot – toot.

Ad nauseum -   

Told you so "K"   However I do think the Chair was very fair and measured with the little parasitic, WOFTAM Senator (I'm an arse clown) Watt; giving him just enough rope to hang himself - watch...

But enough of Watt, how about the current crop of Dept stooges supposedly headed up by the mumbling, condescending Acting Secretary Miss (roll-my-eyes) Spence? - Watch:

 1st Senator Sic'em'REX - All over them...

2nd Sen Gallagher - trained killer...

Addendum: RAAA letter to miniscule 5G Mick Mack 

---

---

Senator Perin (I'm new here and still a bit dopey) Davy...

Except for the adept Mr McFixit the rest were a complete and utter rabble, perhaps the fact there is no Minister with any balls at the helm is having a profound effect? And what is it with there not being a replacement Secretary? I would of thought the Mandarin of the Infrastructure Dept would of been one of the most plum jobs in Can'tberra, so how come it hasn't been filled??  
        
Hmm...poisoned chalice comes to mind? 

MTF...P2 
ps Waiting to see if ASA and CASA are slated for a spillover hearing - 

[Peetwo]

RRAT Estimates update - 24/10/19

Hansard now out - see HERE.

Except for the adept Mr McFixit the rest were a complete and utter rabble, perhaps the fact there is no Minister with any balls at the helm is having a profound effect? And what is it with there not being a replacement Secretary? I would of thought the Mandarin of the Infrastructure Dept would of been one of the most plum jobs in Can'tberra, so how come it hasn't been filled??  

Following on from "K" and my last OBS (above), I was very interested to read the Hansard from the last segment which was questioning the Surface Transport Division and again I saw the same frustrations from the Senators boiling to the surface (  ) culminating in this very last statement from Sen Sterle:

Senator STERLE: This is just highly unprofessional. If I was talking about Seaford drinks the minister was having with mates and big business, I'd understand your protecting them. For something as simple and as important as this is absolutely disgraceful. Honestly, under Mike Mrdak the department would have had the answer.

  

So for shit's and giggles I decided to regurgitate in pictures that whole session because in my mind it perfectly highlights how much of a listing, rudderless ship the Dept has been allowed to become under this useless, spineless Minister...  

(Sen Sterle statement from 13:35)

By proxy - P9 - Addendum _HERE _ I reckon, slowly but surely, 'they' are working out how to 'work around' a non minister. This guy is the pits; I even miss whatzizname - Chester. He was about as much use as three men from home (courtesy of 'advice') but at least he was a real target - this bloke is so lost in the smoke and mirrors I doubt he could find his fundamental if it was afire, you rang a bell and threw a bucket of his own his own inadequacy over him.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

A fair question.

“Yes; but what have they achieved?”

A few of us sat about, Estimates had crept into the casual conversation – the usual general stuff, no heat, more of a rumination. Gallacher, Sterle and a couple of others got a mention. General agreement that Gallacher was a good unit, some of his better exchanges with ‘the Department’ were being mentioned. The sheer frustration of dealing with the various departments and the way in which even dogged persistence was turned aside, the endless delays, the waiting for QoN to be answered and the time between a question being asked, the time between the answer to that question and the next opportunity to examine the answer enough to make a stone idol restless. Tough work was a consensus.

“Yes; but what have they achieved?”

PAIN keeps a rough ‘scorecard’ – nothing fancy; some questions are noted, the response to that question noted and the final result of response to Senate Estimates questions noted, as related to an actual ‘result’ (completion) or resolution of the ‘thing’ is noted. On request I dug it out of the archives; and it is a bleak, bare page – for the Committee.

Despite the Senatorial rhetoric, pointed questions, sound and fury – the bureaucrats are ahead by a country mile. The ‘stats’ don’t favour the brave or those who ask the big questions, so it’s a false reading – Fawcett for example has not had a result from one question and changed SFA; same Sterle, same Gallacher in fact they’ve been bowled out for a Duck at every innings. I admire their tenacity and willingness to keep the ship of state on a true course. But seriously, how can an inquiry like Pel-Air for an example be consigned to history without one positive change being visible?

Anyway – it all came down a couple of questions on notice for the Senators to ponder.

1) “Can the minister explain how the NTSB investigating the crash of a B17 in the USA took less than a fortnight to provide the ‘basic’ data, just the plain facts relevant to the event. ATSB in the same amount of time failed to publish the ‘basic’ facts, but managed in less than ten days to blame the whole accident on Angel Flight and pursued that line through to a less than useful conclusion, which still stands today? “

Read the initial B17 accident report; compare it to the AF initial accident report (even watch the TV coverage and Henwood interview) and spot the differences.

2) Can the minister explain why no post mortem examination results are available for the Essendon accident and why Hood announced that it was, most certainly, pilot error almost before the wreck stopped burning?

Results on the scoreboard are all that matter at the final whistle. Handing over…….

Toot - toot.

[Kharon]

More QoN for the Committee to delve into.

From 'The Australian'

"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has employed lawyers from the big end of town to threaten editors of the free press in a failed bid to suppress expert critic­ism of their actions, and has banned private-sector contractors from speaking to the media."



"In one FOI refusal, ATSB senior­ officer Colin McNamara said to release the information could damage international ties; while in another, ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood invoked laws under which bureau officials can be jailed for two years if they provide information to the media."



"When The Australian published analysis from a team led by senior Canadian air crash investigator Larry Vance concluding that the aircraft had been ditched by a pilot, the ATSB hired law firm Minter Ellison to write to the editor­s in a threatening tone asking­ that they “refrain” from publishing that style of article."



"The ATSB banned the leader of the search conducted by Dutch underwater survey firm Fugro, Paul Kennedy, from speaking, and ATSB spokesman Paul Sadler would not say why."


Lots of folk would like those questions answered; along with why government persists in defending a clearly dysfunctional 'Safety Agency'. Are we at a stage where government must begin questioning the actions of both ATSB and CASA? No brainer really - what say you GGGGG Mick Mac. Happy to risk your career betting on these outfits?

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Just a stray, quiet thought.

It is probably best that I put this as simply and plainly as possible and hope the minister grasps the message. The Glen Buckley case ain’t a shit-storm; not just yet. It could however become a serious matter when Angel Flight, Essendon, MH370 and a couple of other ‘items of interest’ get rolling. The matter of the Forsyth Report and some other ‘smoking guns’ in combination may not, as yet be ringing the tiny alarum bell in political circles; it should be.

Buckley is taking a legal approach – industry is watching; knowing, full well the battle he faces. We would all hope he can win a resounding victory and the government takes note of the outcome. Indeed, it is to be hoped that he manages to get the lid off the can of worms which is the aviation safety culture, as espoused by CASA. He may not; manifold are the ways of the unshriven.

Isolated and standing alone, Buckley’s chances are slim. This could be remedied by a call for everyone, who has – imagined, real or otherwise –complaint  to make a submission to the Senate. Clear the air, examine, in the blaze of jurisprudence, whether or not CASA are acting honourably and for the benefit of the nation.

If it turns out to be so, then those with ‘complaint’ must ‘shut-up’ – end of – no further discussion required.

If it turns out that CASA have been making a pig’s ear of managing aviation; then the government will have just cause to reform and correct the aberrations. With industry expertise and support, to make Australian aviation a thing of national pride again.

What must not; cannot, be allowed to continue is the doubt. Investors, career seekers, business – small and large simply cannot continue where there is doubt in the integrity, actions, expertise and ‘honour’ of the regulator.

There are some big questions out there. They need answers, faith in the integrity of government ability to honestly and openly address the major problems aviation faces, allegedly, sheeted home to the regulator must be addressed. World wide aviation is booming – everywhere – except in Australia. “Why is it not?” Seems like a fair question a reasonable man could expect an answer to.

There is a problem minister – your problem at the moment. The only sure bet is that it ain’t going away. Pretending there isn’t one is foolhardy. Your call.

“Is this glass leaking?”………….

Yesterday on miniscule Mick Mack's FB page he posted this -   :

---

Michael McCormack MP
Yesterday at 7:51 AM · [url=https://www.facebook.com/pg/MichaelMcCormackMP/posts/?ref=page_internal#][/url]

When the small business sector is healthy, all Australians are better off.
It means more jobs, more choice, better living standards and more vibrant and connected communities.
Wonderful to address the Southport Chamber of Commerce on the Gold Coast with Angie Bell MP - Member for Central Gold Coast.

---

Obviously BM and Mike Smith couldn't let that ride unchallenged...  

 

Benjamin Morgan You’re right... that’s why AOPA Australia has been calling on you to reign in CASA’s over regulation of Australia’s general aviation industry, seeking to stop small businesses from being pushed into closure... But instead of backing small businesses, you have continued to back Big Government!

---

Mike Smith You are right Michael McCormack and there is a lot more you could do within your own portfolio to create more jobs, more choice, better living standards and more vibrant and connected communities. Australia's aviation industry, from light aircraft operation through to the major airlines is suffering under the weight of over regulation and unique Australian regulation. The whole Australian industry is missing out on a global boom starting from pilot training through to airline operations. Australia has for example, excessive and expensive regulation for flying training such that it is dwindling in our country when it is booming in the U.S.A. If you were serious about promoting Australian small business, you might look long and hard at the regulation of flying training and aircraft maintenance in Australia and compare that with how it is done in the U.S.A. where safety standards are arguably better than they are in Australia but with far less restrictive regulation. As well as the cost imposed by the regulator, look also at the cost of ensuring and maintaining compliance. A good place to start might be to review the Forsyth report and ask industry how many of its recommendations have really been implemented.

And on behalf of AP...

Sam Jackson What about the Glen Buckley small general aviation business? On track to become a successful mid-size business that was completely compliant with the civil aviation safety regulations with a tick of approval from CASA and then the next minute it was not?? https://auntypru.com/sbg-27-10-19-the-bu...-blind.../ & https://auntypru.com/glen-buckley-v-civil-aviation.../ 2nd the Benjamin Morgan leadership and proper oversight where your mouth is Minister Senator Susan McDonald Senator Rex Patrick Senator Glenn Sterle

Addendum:


Via Sen Mcdonald's FB page...

Senator Susan McDonald
October 27 at 2:08 PM ·

*CIVILIAN FLIGHT LAW CHANGE*
The Liberal and Nationals Government has passed the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill to ensure the economic and cost impacts on aircraft operators are considered when the Civil Aviation Safety Authority develops safety standards.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Michael McCormack, said the Bill sought to maintain safety as the highest priority without unnecessarily restricting innovation and growth.

“This amendment is one element of the Liberals and Nationals Government’s support of aviation which also includes the new Regional Airports Program, the Women in Aviation initiative, continuation of the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Program and the increase to the student Higher Education Loan Program loan limit," he said.

And in reply  :

Bob Fulton Or a joke on the aviation community? Which part of that amendment forces CASA to do anything?

Glen Buckley tried to implement some common sense initiative and innovation to collectively establish, improve and monitor training standards and look what he got for his effort! It is not that the Leopard won't change his spots, but like CASA, the leopard CAN'T can't change it's spots.

Last month was the 31st anniversary of the commencement of the regulatory re-write at an unknown cost way north of $500 million and all we have is a truck load of ambiguous, micro management regulations that will one day cost another $500 million to resolve, condense and sensibly re-write or face Australia totally losing it's general aviation sector. New Zealand and Canada took five years to re-write their regulations ..... 31 years so far for Australia and the job still isn't done!

This the calibre of those involved regulating our industry and re-writing the regulations:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 Feb 2005 - over 14 years ago!

Mr Byron—"I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister."

Fortunately Australia has a history of departmental change or "rebirth".

1921 - 1938: Civil Aviation Branch (Dept of Defence)
1938 - 1973: Dept of Civil Aviation
1973 - ????: Dept of Transport, Air Transport Group
???? - 1995: Civil Aviation Authority
1995 - ????: Civil Aviation safety Authority

CASA can't be made to work, it has passed its 'Use By Date'. We can only hope one day a politician of sense, understanding and responsibility calls Time Out and creates a new, workable Civil Aviation Act and creates a more responsive and responsible Department of Civil Aviation.

---

Sandy Reith Bob Fulton is totally correct in his analysis of this token piece of legislation, a useless amendment to the Civil Aviation Act. A complete waste of time by the Parliament. Only Senators Susan McDonald and Rex Patrick have an understanding of the huge and ongoing disaster that is the sorry plight of General Aviation in Australia. $billions of good economic value, jobs, businesses and services all forgone for no good reason.

Safety? What a dumb joke. Safety the primary consideration? Well fine, stop flying altogether, drive your cars instead. Safety is a by-product of a healthy industry, not by the invention of complex rules and massive fees for unnecessary permissions. The waste incurred by the inappropriate forcing of Cessna special inspections resulting in the unnecessary destruction of capital value of aircraft that we can ill afford given the sorry state of our weak dollar. The CASA induced collapse of flying training has resulted in our airlines having to look overseas for pilots. Where we had many locally trained and experienced commercial pilots who graduated from charter flying and experienced all the rigours of single pilot operations in our great continent, now more likely the simulator trained pilot. Where’s the safety in that? Its well known that pilots that fly regularly are safer, if they can’t afford to fly because of the numerous government hurdles, including the very costly Aviation Security Identity Card, then this primary safety issue suffers. The whole CASA induced fear of retribution psychology towards flying is completely wrong and thoroughly counterproductive to safety. By migrating the rules into the criminal code (strict liability) no one will admit to any transgression. Even many minor such matters, and some that don’t even get a mention in the US, can land you with a criminal conviction. Try traveling or getting a job with that thrown around your neck.

Where’s the safety in that?

Pushing out hundreds of experienced instructors, where’s the safety in that? Causing outback folk to drive hundreds of miles on rough roads, where’s the safety in that?

High time for truth to be told and for politicians and regulators to stop hiding behind the pathetic mantra of “safety.”

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Aunty Pru awards TimTam to LMH -   

Via the Yaffa:

---

– Steve Hitchen

In a moment known as "the prestige", the illusionist steps to centre stage, doffs his hat and bows. The audience breaks into applause worthy of a king's retirement and whisper words of amazement amongst themselves. He had them totally fooled. They know it was all an illusion, but they still can't figure out he did it. Right now, we are going through a prestige moment for the Federal Government. With the changes to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 now law, the government is stepping into the spotlight to take the acclaim of having made good on their promise to do so. They have presented us with a momentous achievement that is nothing but a grand illusion: the changes to the Act will cause no changes in the aviation community. With the primacy of safety still in place, CASA retains legal ground for imposing anything they want and ignoring cost. Copying and pasting the requirement for them to consider cost from the Statement of Expectations to the Civil Aviation Act is paper change only. At the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) convention this week, Shane Carmody said "This was recognised in the second reading speech in the House ‘Existing regulatory practice is already based on this approach’." So it has been spoken in the house and it has been highlighted by the regulator: nothing is going to change. What CASA was doing before they will continue to do. However, the government is still stepping up for the prestige. "Applause please! See how we made you think we were on your side when we really did nothing?" Master illusionists at work.

"..Is he trying to tell us that they found tin-foil hats in the wreckage?.."

In the same speech, Carmody aired an observation that people who criticise CASA seem to end up in serious accidents. He believes that attitude is the tether than binds the two things. Most of us didn't need to be told that attitude is often a causal factor in fatal accidents, but the bow he has drawn here is longer than the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Firstly, I don't know why he brought it up at all. The same effect could have been achieved from simply mentioning that pilot attitude is a problem. Secondly, linking it back to criticism of CASA and Facebook posts is a dynamite statement that is not easily understood. Is he trying to tell us that they found tin-foil hats in the wreckage? Is he trying to say that if you criticise CASA you increase your chances of having an accident? In fairness, Carmody did not state that most people who criticise the regulator have accidents and nor did he say that most people who had accidents were critics of CASA, but he did use the word "often", which means he believes these instances are regular. Personally, I believe that attitude is the biggest single threat to aviation safety in Australia, so in that respect, Shane Carmody is right. Press-on-itis is an attitude, beat-ups are the result of attitude, unauthorised aerobatics are the result of attitude, short-cut "quickie" endorsements are a result of attitude; there are so many. I think CASA would be better focusing on them rather than tying tragic accidents to criticism of themselves...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...qBYp7Lv.99

---

Plus the Oz rejects Sandy comment in reply...

Carmody and the crashing critics (his report that we critics likely to crash). Oz comment pending

Mr. Carmody must be thanked, sounds like we are making some headway at last, those of us that haven’t crashed are pleased to be noted.  Likewise all those who have been regulated and fee gouged out of General Aviation (GA) will also be quite chuffed, if they haven’t crashed their cars on outback roads. 


CASA critic Senator Susan McDonald will be pleased that Mr. Carmody is critically aware Please don’t go flying Senator, you and Senator Rex Patrick are the only MPs who are standing up for GA, which is jobs and services, especially for regional Australia. 

Its thirty one years since the greatest aviation disaster in Australia’s history occurred, that of the creation of the independent Commonwealth corporate body CASA (and forerunner by name only) in 1988, a failed model of governance. 

As previous comment says it would be raining crashing aircraft and there’d be none left in a week or two if Mr. Carmody’s extraordinary outburst had a modicum of substance. 

CASA, the biggest failure, at huge expense, of public policy in Australia’s history. 31 years to rewrite the rules and still not finished, its simply not capable. . 

By an avalanche of ever changing rules of ever more complexity, commanding more and more fees, we have slowly lost lost hundreds of flying schools and charter services, thousands of jobs, businesses and services in General Aviation, many $billions lost and still losing daily. Why? To justify the rogue regulator’s existence and it’s out of control trajectory including it’s huge wages bill starting at the top about $600,000 p.a. 

Flying training is the bedrock of General Aviation (GA). The most recent tranche of flying training rules has finished off most of the few GA schools remaining. Our rules require permissions that might cost $50,000 in CASA fees for paperwork and negotiations that can take months or years. USA, get your instructor rating (no gradings as Oz), no extra permissions, and start teaching, better safety outcomes.

---

Comment re the Carmody convulsion not accepted by the Oz 

This is a surprise, they’ve published plenty of other of my comments in a similar vein?? 

Hmm..no comment   

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Sort, sharp and I hope to the point.

1969
1970
1971

In the USA this type of accident had become ‘less frequent’. In the USA one may gain an Instrument Flight rating in a fairly straight forward manner; the ‘rules’ for use of said rating are simple, cost effective and manageable. QED.  Less accidents with Visual pilots flying into instrument conditions.

The gaining of and ‘maintaining' instrument flight qualification in Australia are notably different.

Angel Flight is not a travel agent for scheduled services, never was, nor can it be – considering.

What have CASA and ATSB  actually done tom prevent a regularly reoccurring accident type? (Bugger all would be the right answer).

I rest my case.

[Peetwo]

"Put another log on the fire.." - 

Okay a few more additions (logs -  ) for our useless NFI miniscule's aviation safety shitlist, which IMO the Senate RRAT committee should equally be concerned about...

As the man with a wooden leg said -

Aleck - '"..Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur..."

"It’s a matter of a pinion."

IMO – I never heard the like before -

IMO, this half baked type of ‘supported lunacy’ is what Buckley is dealing with. Opinion. We are all entitled to one of course – but.

I believe CASA was most satisfied with the shambolic ‘new’ method of ‘training pilots. Despite the fact that since Pontious, the basics have never, ever changed. Up – Down - Left – Right – Don’t hit ‘nuffin. What has changed, significantly, is the way pilots are ‘legally’ demonstrated to have ‘ticked all the boxes’ during training. CASA’s new system is an excellent example of how to waste valuable training time, and instructor time, filling out reams of ‘paperwork’.

Now them some, like Buckley went to a lot of trouble and expense to meet and comply with the ‘new’ system. Buckley went through the hoops, worked hard and long with ‘accredited’ CASA ‘subject experts’; together, they got the business over the approval line. Job done – time to recoup the horrendous costs.

Meanwhile, back at the asylum, someone has had a brain fart – an ‘opinion’ – with as much logic and tenable legal support as the fatuous remarks made by Jonathon (where’s me marbles) Aleck – (above) created doubt, fanned into outright paranoia; leading to Buckley’s ticket of leave being cancelled – Sine Die.

It is the validity of this ‘opinion’ which must be tested. The Aleck (no marbles) approach to safety is based on a risk matrix which any insurance company would love to use. “There is chance that we may have a regulatory risk here; if the Moon is upside down and a Zebra gets hit on a crossing in Bourke at 0137, on any Tuesday, which falls on the thirteenth and the Bogan moths fail to appear before dawn; then CASA and all who feed in the Cornucopia provided will be at risk of penury – you should have seen that loophole. No matter, we can all relax – I have a cunning plan.

Buckley must – categorically challenge the root cause of his troubles. Have the CASA ‘opinion’ tested – in court. Keep it simple, impersonal and to the pertinent points of law. Alek’s opinion is just that – an opinion. Be interesting to see what a crackerjack legal mind makes of it. There are some brilliant ones out there you know; they all don’t work for CASA. They will however toil in the very pits of Hell – if the money is right.

And: IMO it is not my shout.

And also related:

ATSB World Class? - My ASS: Version III  

Via LMH: 

---

ATSB reinforces Recommendation in Letter to Angel Flight
7 November 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has urged Angel Flight to reconsider its response to their recommendation to place passengers on airlines rather than private flights.

The recommendation was contained in the investigation report into the fatal accident of VH-YTM at Mount Gambier in 2017, but Angel Flight rejected the recommendation, preferring to stay with private flights as the primary service.

In a letter to Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani dated 4 November, ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said he would give Angel Flight another chance to reconsider their position before posting the response on the ATSB website.

"The reasons outlined for the decision by Angel Flight to maintain its current policy of giving priority to private flights where possible do not address the evidence on which the recommendation was made," Hood states in the letter.

"As outlined in the final investigation report, that evidence centred on that commercial passenger flights have an established lower safety risk for passengers than private operations. The reasons stated in your response only addressed your disagreement with other evidence in the ATSB final report concerning the relative safety of Angel Flights and other private operations.

"The ATSB Commission believes that Angel Flight should firstly consider the safety of Angel Flight passengers. Regional and rural people should not be exposed to unnecessary levels of risk as a passenger on a private community service flight, and as such, Angel Flight should consider the safer option as the primary option, where available, before considering private operations.

"The ATSB Commission is therefore asking you to reconsider your response to the safety recommendation."
Pagani told Australian Flying that the ATSB seemed out of touch with what it meant for Angel Flight to put passengers on RPT flights.

"They completely overlook the very personal nature of the service; the difficulties with families and elderly people navigating major city airports to find the pick-up spots and of course the drivers themselves, who prefer not to have to negotiate those airports. 

"You would be surprised at the high number of people we have who strenuously object to having to use RPT – they don’t like the waiting, the queuing, the big arrival airports and the lack of personal contact.

"We even have abusive responses at times when we want to move passengers to RPT."

It is believed that Angel Flight will not be reconsidering their position.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...vm9VPw3.99

---

Hmm...sounds like the Hooded Canary is a bit miffed that Angel Flight is basically saying up yours to the bollocks safety recommendation his top cover organisation issued...  

I also wonder why it took him so long to respond remembering that AF issued their response (post [b]#282[/b] ) and made public on the Angel Flight Senate Inquiry web page over a month ago?? Probably wanted to keep it all hush...hush until  the bollocks Safeskies etc talk fests were over...

I also note a passing strange parallel disconnection when yesterday the ATSB issued the following media release in conjunction with the issuing of two preliminary investigation reports...

---

Weather a focus of fatal accident investigations


Following the release of two preliminary investigation reports into multiple fatality accidents where the aircraft involved were operating under visual flight rules (VFR), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is again highlighting to pilots the actions they can take to avoid a weather or low-visibility related accident.

---

Funny thing about that MR is when you delve into the helpful Hooded Canary links you come across some even more bizarre passing strange dichotomies...

Exhibit 1 link:  Accidents involving pilots in Instrument Meteorological Conditions

In the decade from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2019, 101 VFR into IMC occurrences in Australian airspace were reported to the ATSB. Of those, nine were accidents resulting in 21 fatalities. That is, about one in 10 VFR into IMC events result in a fatal outcome.

Exhibit 2 link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/200...e_weather/

The work of this study is based on a set of 491 aviation accident and incident reports drawn from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) occurrence database. The study compares three groups of pilots who differed in their response to adverse weather conditions encountered during their flight...

Now refer to the PDF link provided - HERE - and go to the reference pages (57-58). All that decades of factual evidence, statistics and repeated findings and yet the Mount Gambier accident final report slates the blame on Angel Flight? - Yeah right...   

&..

The LMH 8 November 2019: Angel Flight, a rod for the ATSB's back, who we pay the big money and some thanks. 

Via the Yaffa...

– Steve Hitchen

Sometimes draining the swamp does nothing but release crocodiles, and it seems that's what happened when the Federal Government took steps to curtail the activities of Angel Flight. Using creative interpretation of data, both CASA and the ATSB have come down on the charity pretty hard then vigorously defended their positions against missiles of simple logic. The ATSB this week has implored Angel Flight to adopt their recommendation of ditching private flights in favour of putting people on RPT. Quite rightly, Angel Flight has metaphorically told them to get stuffed; it is not reasonable to ask a charity to surrender their reason for existence. If people who need to travel long distances to medical appointments could use RPT they would! There's nothing stopping them from getting on webjet and making a booking on REX or Qantaslink. Doing that regularly costs time, raises stress levels and forces people to adhere to the airline timetables. Angel Flight alleviates all of that, which is why they've conducted over 46,000 missions. That sounds to me like a demand that needs to be met, and only through volunteer private pilots giving their time and lots and lots of their hard-earned money can that happen. But this Federal Government is not one willing to brook any embarrassment and I suspect a heavy hand is about to be laid on Angel Flight.

"..it's hard to believe that the conditions played no part in these accidents.."

That recommendation was contained in the accident investigation report into a crash in Mount Gambier that contained no conclusions about the fact that the pilot took off VFR into IMC. This week, the ATSB released preliminary reports into two accidents in NSW that have a factor in common with Mount Gambier: the flights were VFR and the conditions were IMC. In fairness, the ATSB has not put out any conclusion at this stage because the investigations are not complete, so there could be other factors. However, it's hard to believe that the conditions played no part in these accidents at all, and surely in a reflection of Mount Gambier, the weather will be listed as a contributing factor. The sticking point is that the continued flight into VMC at Mount Gambier was not considered crucial enough to warrant action and it's fair for people to believe that the same reasoning will be applied for these other two accidents. Does this leave the ATSB anywhere to go that will keep their integrity intact? I doubt it, but we'll have to wait.

Having a crack at people about their pay packets is considered a very cheap shot and one most people are reluctant to take, but sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. It was pointed out to me this week that CASA, the ATSB and Airservices are now obliged to make the salaries of their executives public knowledge. The mere mention of executive salaries always angries-up the people in the streets, especially when there are so many who are putting in hours just as long or even longer for take-home pays sometimes less than 10% of what top-level public servants get. It makes them only angrier when they consider the level of service returned from government bodies. Comparisons with private business execs are a common defence, but that is only likely to result in an acquittal if the salaries of private executives are considered reasonable as well, which generally they're not unless it is by the executive themselves. Seeing so much money flowing out of the industry at a time when the participants are struggling will result in much gnashing of teeth, but very little else. For the record: CASA CEO $688K, Airservices CEO $1021K, ATSB Chief Commissioner $474K.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...2W7RIjb.99

Hmm...I think we need to send a choccy frog or two to the Oz Flying/Yaffa editorial team...

And finally here's another log...

Dear CASA Board - L&Ks GlenB

Subject: Sorry Colin, cheers. Glen.
From: Glen Buckley <glen.buckley@mft.edu.au>
Date:  6/11/2019, 10:11 am
To: "McLachlan, Colin" <Colin.Mclachlan@casa.gov.au>

Dear Mr Colin Mc Lachlan,

Could you please pass this on to the Board. My expectation is that it will be shared with Mr Carmody.

May your days be filled with interest,

cheers. Glen.

---

To each and every Member of the Board:

My suggestion of making an allegation of malfeasance against Mr Carmody is sincere, well considered, properly intentioned, truthful, supported, and primarily intended in the interests of aviation safety.

I am calling on the Board for good governance to prevail, and to intervene if required.

On that “governance” consideration alone, the four personnel cannot continue to operate, in an operational role where they are making decisions that affect safety and businesses.

They must be stood aside until my allegations can be refuted, with no suggestion of innocence or guilt attached, and obviously on full pay and conditions. Obviously not my decisions to make, but that would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. That is what I would have done when I was CEO of my own “safety” organisation.

I am formally calling on the Board to intervene, and demonstrate the qualities that the industry, and the Australian public expect of any Board, and most certainly a Board with the Australian Coat of Arms hanging above it, and also as Australia’s safety regulator, CASA.  Seriously. It is reasonable.

Those four personnel must have the allegations made against them seriously considered, and especially  if they are to continue in an operational role.

If you will not act on good governance, I will clearly place the supporting safety case here.

The APTA 142 model provided all 10 members with a safety department with group funding of $250,000 per annum.

In the new CASA enforced system, being applied to APTA uniquely, and not other flight training organisations. The Ballarat Aero Club will become a 141 school, and lose any regulatory obligation to run a safety management system, or have a safety manager. I suggest the aero clubs safety budget will reduce to $5000, as it is forced out of APTA.

The new “direct operational” control model that is being forced on member schools against their clear preference is a system that provides significantly lower levels of auditing, mentoring, professional development courses, testing, feedback, safety resourcing etc.

The new CASA ‘model” is clearly failing, as I advised. Accidents and incidents are increasing at a concerning rate CASA have the statistics. This is exactly, as I repeatedly, and in writing advised, it is not the individual operators fault, it is the CASA  system being forced on flying school against their clear preference. Any system with less auditing, mentoring, professional development, testing, feedback, safety resourcing, funding etc will most likely result in degraded safety outcomes.

If you have any doubt, simply ask the Ballarat Aero Club, any of the instructors, any of the aircraft owners, committee members, the students, and their families. “Was the previously approved APTA system safer, or do you think the “direct operational control” model is safer.” You will be alarmed, I can assure you. I think you will find an overwhelming response.

This matter can only grow, and gain more attention. It will simultaneously become more “embarrassing’. If it wasn’t such a hazardous behaviour, I could only describe it as child like. It must be stopped at Board level.

At this stage, I have no intention to publish this letter, but will do so on Friday at 5PM, if important safety matters are not addressed.

For clarity. In my professional opinion, I believe that CASA actions and decisions being made by those four personnel, unacceptably increase the chance of an aviation incident or accident.

There are Board Members of CASA  who are, or have been, pilots. On that alone, and with that knowledge, those particular board members will be compelled to act.

This is not a matter to be engaging in bullying or intimidation.

I simply ask the same questions of you, that you should be asking of Mr Carmody:

1. What is the “safety case” supporting the initial action  over 12 months ago, against APTA?
   
2.     If there is no supporting safety case, please open the regulations and show me clearly and concisely the regulation/s that were broken if any.
   
3. If there is no supporting safety case, and there have been no regulatory breaches identified, we are dealing with opinion. Whose “opinion” is it? We need a name.
   
4. Are we (Mr Carmody and the Board), prepared to fully stand behind those four personnel that Glen Buckley has named?
   
5. Are we all (Mr Carmody and the Board) aware of CASAs regulatory philosophy, and other obligations and expectations placed on us.
   
6. Is it true that a number of businesses have closed down, and people have lost their livelihoods?
   
7. Please outline what we are now intending to achieve, and any positive safety outcomes achieved.
   

As I have repeatedly advised. I am fully available to travel anywhere in Australia, to meet with any two members of the Board, at short notice.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the Board with time to consider their actions and decisions.

In the interests of safety, and to encourage good decision making. I require only an acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received by all members of the Board. If CASA are compelled to provide a written response, I understand. I believe that there will be less pressure, and better decisions will be made if the obligation is a simple acknowledgement of distribution and receipt to all Board Members.

Respectfully, Glen.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Dictatorial Dichotomy.

"The reasons outlined for the decision by Angel Flight to maintain its current policy of giving priority to private flights where possible do not address the evidence on which the recommendation was made," Hood states in the letter.

So, ‘do as I say – not as I do’, is still a valid safety management directive then.

This latest missive from Hood to Angel Flight is a remarkable example of the terminal arrogance our so called ‘safety agencies’ display. Consider; with about 5 minutes of starting through my own small data base, I can cite over 100 recommendations made by various Senate Inquiry, International audit and Coroners. There’s more, but the idea of wasting an hour producing a list would not advance the cause.

ATSB aided and abetted by CASA have treated the last Senate Inquiry recommendations as ‘opinion’ and ‘suggestion’. Which, standing alone is bad enough, when one considers that those ‘recommendations’ were made based on rock solid evidence provided by considered, expert research and study of fact. What makes the Hood chest beating appear more bizarre is the ATSB ‘statistics’ used to arrive at their conclusion.

Aleck - '"..Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur..."

The fatal accident rate for the past 30 years involving Visual Flight pilots persisting into Instrument conditions has been remarkably consistent. Only two of the many Loss of Control (LoC) accidents have been attributable to Angel Flight (AF) arranged transport. 

How was AF supposed to prevent the Mount Gambier accident? The pilot elected to depart from home base and proceed through weather which was clearly suitable only for instrument flight. Once landed at Gambier, it was a pilot decision to continue; NOT AF's, this despite the rules, regulations, common sense and AF ‘recommendations’ and other options.

Since then there have recently been two ‘similar’ fatal LoC accidents to add to the historical pile. Neither ATSB or CASA have attempted to address ‘this’ recurring statistic. I must say that ‘travel by RPT’ is hardly a solution. Yet in the national media, Hood and his two best boys seem to feel that brow beating AF into becoming a travel agency is an acceptable solution to a chronic ailment. Bollocks.

If it weren’t so serious it would be hilarious. There are better solutions available, much, much better. A reasonable man could be forgiven for expecting that two very expensive ‘safety agencies’ could come up with a ‘better’ solution to a known killer than ‘put ‘em on a jet’, using ‘cock-eyed’ data to support one of the most fatuous, inutile ‘recommendations’ ever made. AF should simply play the ATSB/CASA game card and reply in kind. “Thank you for your considered opinion, we will consider it and respond at some time in the future”.


Beyond reason, beyond help and beneath contempt.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Dictatorial Dichotomy.

"The reasons outlined for the decision by Angel Flight to maintain its current policy of giving priority to private flights where possible do not address the evidence on which the recommendation was made," Hood states in the letter.

So, ‘do as I say – not as I do’, is still a valid safety management directive then.

This latest missive from Hood to Angel Flight is a remarkable example of the terminal arrogance our so called ‘safety agencies’ display. Consider; with about 5 minutes of starting through my own small data base, I can cite over 100 recommendations made by various Senate Inquiry, International audit and Coroners. There’s more, but the idea of wasting an hour producing a list would not advance the cause.

ATSB aided and abetted by CASA have treated the last Senate Inquiry recommendations as ‘opinion’ and ‘suggestion’. Which, standing alone is bad enough, when one considers that those ‘recommendations’ were made based on rock solid evidence provided by considered, expert research and study of fact. What makes the Hood chest beating appear more bizarre is the ATSB ‘statistics’ used to arrive at their conclusion.

Aleck - '"..Our objective here is not to specifically address what caused those two accidents; it's to address what kinds of things can cause incidents and accidents of this kind. We're being prospective. If we were to wait for sufficiently robust data to support an evidence based decision for every individual decision we took in this space, we would have to wait for a dozen or more accidents to occur..."

The fatal accident rate for the past 30 years involving Visual Flight pilots persisting into Instrument conditions has been remarkably consistent. Only two of the many Loss of Control (LoC) accidents have been attributable to Angel Flight (AF) arranged transport. 

How was AF supposed to prevent the Mount Gambier accident? The pilot elected to depart from home base and proceed through weather which was clearly suitable only for instrument flight. Once landed at Gambier, it was a pilot decision to continue; NOT AF's, this despite the rules, regulations, common sense and AF ‘recommendations’ and other options.

Since then there have recently been two ‘similar’ fatal LoC accidents to add to the historical pile. Neither ATSB or CASA have attempted to address ‘this’ recurring statistic. I must say that ‘travel by RPT’ is hardly a solution. Yet in the national media, Hood and his two best boys seem to feel that brow beating AF into becoming a travel agency is an acceptable solution to a chronic ailment. Bollocks.

If it weren’t so serious it would be hilarious. There are better solutions available, much, much better. A reasonable man could be forgiven for expecting that two very expensive ‘safety agencies’ could come up with a ‘better’ solution to a known killer than ‘put ‘em on a jet’, using ‘cock-eyed’ data to support one of the most fatuous, inutile ‘recommendations’ ever made. AF should simply play the ATSB/CASA game card and reply in kind. “Thank you for your considered opinion, we will consider it and respond at some time in the future”.


Beyond reason, beyond help and beneath contempt.

Toot – toot.

 This fits - Ruddles in reply to LMH... 

Richard RUDD • 20 hours ago

Like CAsA, ATSB will no be bested in any argument,,they will have the last word, regardless of the logic.

Does not the Hooded Canary understand that..

1..many remote towns these days have neither RPT services, and any Charter operator is long gone.(Thanks CAsA)
2. And the road accident statistics make a joke of his call ..RPT may be safer, but with no Angel Flight, going by road is not safer, and from remote regions long and tiring.

Time to prick the Can'tberra bubble !!


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...HBoJyQ7.99

Hmm...speaking of strange dichotomies...(reference Oz article yesterday)

Helicopter crash pilot was not qualified to fly after dark: ATSB



A warbird helicopter that crashed into the sea off Port Stephens in September, killing all five people on board, plunged more than 3000 feet in under 30 seconds after striking severe weather.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released its preliminary report on the crash of the Bell UH-1H helicopter flown by David Kerr, who held private and commercial helicopter pilots’ licences but was not qualified to fly after dark.

The flight set off from Archerfield Airport in Brisbane at about 2.30pm on September 6, bound for Bankstown in Sydney after a stop at Coffs Harbour to refuel.

Mr Kerr was accompanied by two friends, Jamie Ogden and Grant Kuhnemann, and Sydney couple Jocelyn Villanueva and Gregory Miller, who were believed to be interested in buying a share of the helicopter.

According to the ATSB report, the pilot requested to operate between 3000 and 3500 feet in the coastal visual flight rules (VFR) lane near Anna Bay.

When the Williamtown Tower controller checked on the pilot after a drop to 2700 feet, Mr Kerr reported a sudden wind gust affecting the helicopter’s altitude.

“The pilot also commented on the turbulent conditions that were being experienced,” the ATSB report said. “The controller acknowledged the conditions and made a further offer of assistance should the pilot require it.”

Shortly afterwards the helicopter made a left turn to the south, heading further offshore and out of the coastal VFR lane but maintaining its altitude.

About 90 seconds later, the aircraft was seen to be making a rapidly descending left turn, plummeting from 3400 feet to under 500 feet in just 22 seconds.

Subsequent attempts by the controller to contact the pilot were unsuccessful. The time was 6.13pm, and last light in the area was reported as 6.01pm, but visibility is likely to have been reduced by bad weather.

The next day, sightings of possible helicopter debris were reported but poor conditions made search and rescue efforts too hazardous and it was not until September 26 that the wreckage field was located. Along with human remains, a large section of tailboom was recovered for further examination.

The ATSB report said the investigation would focus on weather conditions and pre-flight preparations, the pilot’s qualifications, experience and medical history, recorded flight data and any aircraft details.

Australian Warbirds Association CEO Mark Awad said it was very disappointing to read the pilot was flying outside of the parameters of his qualifications.

“We advocate that pilots operate within their qualifications and approvals and anyone operating an aircraft that is not suitably equipped for the conditions and/or they’re not qualified is asking for trouble,” Mr Awad said.

  
Anyone else spot the dichotomy when compared to the ATSB Angel Flight persecution?? 

[Peetwo]

Dear CASA Board - L&Ks GlenB

Subject: Sorry Colin, cheers. Glen.
From: Glen Buckley <glen.buckley@mft.edu.au>
Date:  6/11/2019, 10:11 am
To: "McLachlan, Colin" <Colin.Mclachlan@casa.gov.au>

Dear Mr Colin Mc Lachlan,

Could you please pass this on to the Board. My expectation is that it will be shared with Mr Carmody.

May your days be filled with interest,

cheers. Glen.

---

To each and every Member of the Board:

My suggestion of making an allegation of malfeasance against Mr Carmody is sincere, well considered, properly intentioned, truthful, supported, and primarily intended in the interests of aviation safety.

I am calling on the Board for good governance to prevail, and to intervene if required.

On that “governance” consideration alone, the four personnel cannot continue to operate, in an operational role where they are making decisions that affect safety and businesses.

They must be stood aside until my allegations can be refuted, with no suggestion of innocence or guilt attached, and obviously on full pay and conditions. Obviously not my decisions to make, but that would be the fair and reasonable thing to do. That is what I would have done when I was CEO of my own “safety” organisation.

I am formally calling on the Board to intervene, and demonstrate the qualities that the industry, and the Australian public expect of any Board, and most certainly a Board with the Australian Coat of Arms hanging above it, and also as Australia’s safety regulator, CASA.  Seriously. It is reasonable.

Those four personnel must have the allegations made against them seriously considered, and especially  if they are to continue in an operational role.

If you will not act on good governance, I will clearly place the supporting safety case here.

The APTA 142 model provided all 10 members with a safety department with group funding of $250,000 per annum.

In the new CASA enforced system, being applied to APTA uniquely, and not other flight training organisations. The Ballarat Aero Club will become a 141 school, and lose any regulatory obligation to run a safety management system, or have a safety manager. I suggest the aero clubs safety budget will reduce to $5000, as it is forced out of APTA.

The new “direct operational” control model that is being forced on member schools against their clear preference is a system that provides significantly lower levels of auditing, mentoring, professional development courses, testing, feedback, safety resourcing etc.

The new CASA ‘model” is clearly failing, as I advised. Accidents and incidents are increasing at a concerning rate CASA have the statistics. This is exactly, as I repeatedly, and in writing advised, it is not the individual operators fault, it is the CASA  system being forced on flying school against their clear preference. Any system with less auditing, mentoring, professional development, testing, feedback, safety resourcing, funding etc will most likely result in degraded safety outcomes.

If you have any doubt, simply ask the Ballarat Aero Club, any of the instructors, any of the aircraft owners, committee members, the students, and their families. “Was the previously approved APTA system safer, or do you think the “direct operational control” model is safer.” You will be alarmed, I can assure you. I think you will find an overwhelming response.

This matter can only grow, and gain more attention. It will simultaneously become more “embarrassing’. If it wasn’t such a hazardous behaviour, I could only describe it as child like. It must be stopped at Board level.

At this stage, I have no intention to publish this letter, but will do so on Friday at 5PM, if important safety matters are not addressed.

For clarity. In my professional opinion, I believe that CASA actions and decisions being made by those four personnel, unacceptably increase the chance of an aviation incident or accident.

There are Board Members of CASA  who are, or have been, pilots. On that alone, and with that knowledge, those particular board members will be compelled to act.

This is not a matter to be engaging in bullying or intimidation.

I simply ask the same questions of you, that you should be asking of Mr Carmody:

1. What is the “safety case” supporting the initial action  over 12 months ago, against APTA?
   
2.     If there is no supporting safety case, please open the regulations and show me clearly and concisely the regulation/s that were broken if any.
   
3. If there is no supporting safety case, and there have been no regulatory breaches identified, we are dealing with opinion. Whose “opinion” is it? We need a name.
   
4. Are we (Mr Carmody and the Board), prepared to fully stand behind those four personnel that Glen Buckley has named?
   
5. Are we all (Mr Carmody and the Board) aware of CASAs regulatory philosophy, and other obligations and expectations placed on us.
   
6. Is it true that a number of businesses have closed down, and people have lost their livelihoods?
   
7. Please outline what we are now intending to achieve, and any positive safety outcomes achieved.
   

As I have repeatedly advised. I am fully available to travel anywhere in Australia, to meet with any two members of the Board, at short notice.

The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the Board with time to consider their actions and decisions.

In the interests of safety, and to encourage good decision making. I require only an acknowledgement that this correspondence has been received by all members of the Board. If CASA are compelled to provide a written response, I understand. I believe that there will be less pressure, and better decisions will be made if the obligation is a simple acknowledgement of distribution and receipt to all Board Members.

Respectfully, Glen.

Para 377 off the UP with a very humorous (but unfortunately not too far from the truth) response from the Board...

The pigs are busy at the trough

---

Glen, the Board are too busy at the moment to deal with your allegations. As Board members and business people, they are much to busy serving on other Boards and managing personal business than to attend to your accusations. There are luncheons to attend, investments to oversee and bank accounts and superannuation funds to keep topped up. There are deals to be made, mates to look after and high level connections to maintain if future plum positions are to be assured. There are taxpayer troughs to indulge in, a Ministers back passage to lick and corporate credit cards to rack up!

And I don’t want to forget that the Board is also busy trying to avoid personal accountability, any form of commitment, answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on any matter, holding the DAS or the departments public servants to account, ensuring obsfucation is at their forefront, writing reports containing no teal purpose other than to fill up pages and pages of bureaucratic spin and departmental wank words.

But I’m sure they will get back to you Glen when they find time.



Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...0#pid10500

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Embuggerance – in a nutshell.

Buckley – “The "crushing" that CASA will bring to bear on me, has already been done.”

GB is, unfortunately, tail end Charlie in a long line of those CASA have ‘crushed’ – or attempted to crush, on very slim (anorexic) ‘evidence’ on SFA of legal certainty. There are some who survived ‘the crush’ but they patter about the place, easily spotted – heads down, mouths closed and without any boat rocking equipment. There are others, known through CASA not so subtle hints, as ‘untouchable’. Presenting a serious CASA threat to any operator who dares hire ‘em. As no one will bet a business on CASA audit and delayed approval, this practice is accepted. Its real, its out there; and, fear of retribution serves to aid and abet the CASA manufactured ‘safety’ case against any who defy the whispered, implied threat. Evidence ? They howl. Sure thing, make it a plank in the next inquiry, offer some protection and watch as the real facts pour in.

Buckley – “Or, this not getting the industry support that it should.”

There lays the greatest abomination of all. Its not that industry ‘don’t give a continental’ ; more like they either don’t fully understand the deeper implications of what Buckley faces; or, they know full well that open support will bring a surety of retribution. Fact.

Some of the unheard cases would seriously ‘knock your socks off’. Some of the on going embuggerance would turn the guts of a honest man. Fact.

The lack of governmental interest in examining how CASA run aviation in this country is a national disgrace. I vote for ‘Embuggerance’ to be a line in the terms of ‘reverence’ should there ever be an open, honest inquiry into ‘matters aeronautical’. Followed by ‘value of safety return for money spent’. Ayup, us old farts can still dream.

[P7_TOM]

“When a crisis comes, as it will do,”

Item 1. A comparison of recent completed accident reports from near neighbours to the home made variety.

Item 2. Accidents and incidents, normally related to training events occurring on scheduled service flights.

Item 3. The focus on minority events and actions taken compared to events such as ‘heavy landings’, engine relights, damage sustained to operational aircraft on passenger service and other near miss disasters – such as the Newcastle Coal Loader event.

Item 4. Tick-a-box training, pilot seasoning and management input to flight operations.

I’ve called a formal (as formal as it gets) full house (BRB/IOS) meeting – Skype conferencing – the works. A little unusual, but as may be seen from the media – its getting really ugly out there in aviation land. For example; the VARA heavy landing, there are so many things ‘wrong’ with the accident and the report and the remedy; many (a lot) believe that the entire system is becoming a part of a causal chain leading, inevitably, to a serious event.

I don’t expect our little Indaba will change anything – but – it will be on record and; should a general inquiry ever be launched – it will provide the basis for an informed submission. Not that even that will initiate change – but at least many consciences will be clear.

When we have done with the idiotic hard landing and how it eventuated, I’ll post the results. Till then, I’d best crack on and get this party started.

“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”

[Peetwo]

Ref: Its the Bullshit which baffles, bothers and bewilders.  & https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-111/ 

Gloves off. Part 61; fate, and all that. - AP forum version.



Yep. Your system minister, despite the whispering, is well buggered, beyond tolerance and operational belief. Only my opinion, but, when the time comes, as it must – I will ask you to explain why, despite senior industry warnings, you did SFA about it. Yes mate - You.

The ‘pilot training’ inquiry almost a decade ago was a fair warning; Pel-Air was more warning than any minister ever needed; the Canley Vale accident was more than fair warning; the ATR (s) 72 continued incidents are fair warning; Essendon was a fair warning; the Mildura fiasco was a fair warning; the Coal loader was fair warning; the Canberra crash was fair warning; the Sydney near in flight break up a fair warning; the Swan River was fair warning. Oh, there’s lots more – want a list? Apply to Aunt Pru.com. We’ll tell you. Problem is when you’ve got your head stuck up your own posterior and you are trying to keep your hands warm by setting fire to your feet – your ears get blocked.

Ref: AIOS - & the 21st Century?? & https://auntypru.com/auntypru-monday-qua...dies-time/

Addendum:'Ad nauseum'

"...‘pilot training’ inquiry almost a decade ago was a fair warning;..."

If you ever wanted overwhelming proof that AIOS (acquired, institutionalised, ostrichitis syndrome - see above link) is not only alive and well but endemic inside the Can'tberra bubble, then go no further than reviewing the recommendations that came from the Pilot Training Inquiry, then consider the Laborial (standard Motherhood) preamble to the Govt (read bureaucratic) response to those recommendations:

Government Response tabled in the Senate on 22 November 2011

 ....then consider what has actually changed in the preceding (from today) 2920 days since the Govt response was finally tabled...

Err..no further comment -

MTF...P2