[Peetwo]

Supplementary Estimates - WQON.

(N.B AQON for Sup Estimates are due 06/12/19)

Airservices:

Question on notice no. 366

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
In August 2019, Airservices Australia announced that a review into organisational
culture was to be commissioned and performed by Elizabeth Broderick.
Can you provide a status update?
What are the initial findings from the review, if any?
Please provide a copy of the review's Terms of Reference.
Will the review process incorporate staff from all functional areas of Airservices?
What is the timeline for the different review processes within the review period?
A report issued in August 2019 by Tony North QC which initiated this review noted
that 50% of all respondents to the report's survey (75% for women) reported
inappropriate touching, bullying, discrimination or sexual abuse over the past decade.
Over the last 10 years, what has been done at a corporate level to address bullying,
harassment and discrimination?
Does Airservices Australia's employee assistance provider provide reportable data
that would allow you to proactively address specific problem areas for staff health and
wellbeing?
o If yes, please provide the numbers on how many staff have accessed EAP services
and a breakdown of what services were accessed, for the past three financial years?

---

Question on notice no. 367

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
The Accelerate Program was due to be completed by 30 June 2017 with a postimplementation
review due by 30 December 2017. Could you please provide a copy
of that review?
Airservices Australia performs a variety of technical functions, including the
operation and sustainment of air navigation services and its infrastructure. Over the
past five years, has the amount of work for technical staff increased or decreased in
that period?
Can you provide a progress update on the Network Enterprise Modernisation Project
(NEMP) ?
What is the projected total impact upon full-time equivalent (FTE) levels for APS
staff through the NEMP?

---

Question on notice no. 368

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
Is it correct that under the new harmonised, automated civil and military air traffic
control system (CMATS) under OneSky, the idea would be that an air traffic
controller in Brisbane Airport could take over operations in Tullamarine Airport?
o Are there plans for situations such as this to be a regular occurrence, or only used as
a backup in exceptional circumstances (e.g. network equipment failures or local
incidents) ?
o In those circumstances, is there a risk of human error, should an air traffic controller
monitoring the air space of half the continent to be able to identify a potential
localised event in the other half?
o Is it realistic to expect this system to be effective, with so much responsibility
concentrated in one place?
With the centralisation of air traffic control operations in one tower, could such
circumstances have an impact to either the aviation industry or aviation safety?
With this remote tower technology, is there a planned reduction of staff in air traffic
control towers across the country?

---

Question on notice no. 369

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Airservices Australia on 8 November 2019—
How much has the Chief Executive Officer received in bonuses since his appointment
to the position in 2016?
In each financial year, what were those bonuses tied to?

Aviation & Airports:

Question on notice no. 317

Senator Louise Pratt: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and
Regional Development on 4 November 2019—

Is the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities aware that
Jandakot Airport Holdings (JAH) has approval for a 2010 Master Plan to develop
Jandakot Airport?
Is the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities aware that JAH
has environmental approval from the Commonwealth Department of Energy and
Environment to implement the 2010 Master Plan to develop Jandakot Airport with
conditions?
Is the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities aware that one
of the conditions
(3
(a) ) associated with the environmental approval from the Commonwealth
Department of Energy and Environment to implement the 2010 Master Plan to
develop Jandakot Airport requires JAH to conserve, in perpetuity, a 119ha parcel
of bushland in Conservation Precincts 1A, 1B, and 2 which consists of the
Commonwealth-listed Threatened Banksia woodland ecosystem and supports
Commonwealth-listed Threatened species Carnaby's Cockatoo and Grand Spider
Orchid, three Matters of National Environmental Significance, and that JAH
agreed to that condition?
Is the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities aware that
JAH is preparing a 2020 Master Plan to further develop Jandakot Airport, in line
with the requirements of their lease of Jandakot Airport?
Is the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities aware that,
as of June 2018, JAH proposes to clear 76ha of the vegetation in Conservation
Precincts A, 1B, and 2 for commercial, not aviation, development, as part of its
proposed 2020 Master Plan.
Is the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities aware that
JAH has re-named Conservation Precincts A, 1B, and 2 as part of an effort to
obfuscate the matter and give the impression it is not contravening its condition
to not clear any of this land (ever)
Does the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities agree
that clearing 76ha (or any) of the vegetation in Conservation Precincts A, 1B, and
2, as proposed in JAH's proposed 2020 Master Plan, would be contrary to the
environmental approval associated with the approved 2010 Master Plan, and
should not be permitted
Can the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advise whether
JAH has held any discussions with the Department or the Jandakot Airport
Environment Officer regarding its 2020 Master Plan, when these occurred, and
what the outcome of those discussions were with respect to clearing vegetation in
Conservation Precincts A, 1B, and 2

---

Question on notice no. 318

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and
Regional Development on 8 November 2019—
Can you please advise:
How many airports are there in Australia?
How many airports are currently using airport screening equipment for either
passenger or freight services (i.e. have planes that land and meet the current security
thresholds) ?
How many airports will be required to use the new airport screening equipment (i.e.
have planes that land and will meet the new security thresholds) ?
When the new security rules were originally announced, was the Department
consulted by the Department of Home Affairs about the deadline advised to the
industry that the new security rules will need to be in place by?
What feedback are you getting from the operators of regional passenger services
(airlines and regional airports) ?
In relation to these transport security upgrades, who is meeting the costs of:
Equipment
Terminal modifications
Ongoing staffing costs
Has any assessment or modelling been completed to indicate what these new costs
could mean for regional airfares? Is the Department aware of any regional airlines
already considering cutting routes in anticipation of these new costs?
The Government has announced $50.1 million to assist regional airports with upgrade
costs.
o Which Department is administering this funding?
o Is this one-off funding or on-going funding?
o If non-on-going, will airports that have not have previously had to cover security
costs, now will have to pay for security where they didn't before?
o How many requests for funding have been received?
o How many of the requests received, will be funded in full?
o How many of the requests received, will be funded partially?
? Please provide a summary of the reasons why the requests will only be partially
funded?
o How many requests have been denied?
? Please provide a summary of the reasons for denial?
Some state governments are quite involved in regional air travel. NSW provides
subsidies for Qantas to fly to Moree and Lord Howe Island. The Queensland
Government contracts Qantas to operate some routes (for example Brisbane-Roma-
Charleville) , and WA has a licencing regime for some routes.
o Has the Department had any interactions or representations from state/territory
governments or state/territory ministers about the security upgrades?
? If yes, from which state/territory governments or which state/territory ministers?
o Has the Minister had any similar representations?
Has the Department provided advice to the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of the
letter from the Regional Aviation Association of Australia requesting that the
Government conduct a full independent review of industry capability and readiness
ahead of the commencement of the policy, or at the very least delaying the
implementation to line up with the US and Hong Kong timeframe of June 2021?
o What was that advice?
In relation to mandatory domestic screening of airfreight:
o How are the new rules being applied? What do freight companies and/or regional
airports need to do to comply?
o Does the Department believe that there is capacity/capability within the industry for
the cargo volumes to be screened with current screening equipment and also meet
overnight flight schedules? If not, what impact will this have on the movement of air
freight - especially in regional locations?
o Has a regulatory impact statement been prepared?
o When will consultation take place with the industry in relation to the RIS?
o As per Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, have alternative measures of
compliance been assessed (for example detection dogs, sampling freight for
screening, passenger only aircraft screening etc) ?
o Why has the Government mandated domestic airfreight screening 12 months ahead
of international jurisdictions?
o Is the Department aware of technology under development in the US that will allow
pallet sized screening of airfreight?
In relation to the six case studies being developed by the Department of
Infrastructure:
o What decision making process of government will these feed into? Will they trigger
a re-consideration of the policy by government? Are the case studies in addition to the
Department of Home Affairs regulation impact statement?
o A reduction in the demand for airfreight due to higher screening costs, may
significantly impact the viability of regional air routes as freight supplements
passenger revenue. Has a reduction in demand for airfreight been considered as part
of the department's six case studies? Will this be modelled in addition to the increase
in passenger screening costs?

---

Question on notice no. 319

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and
Regional Development on 8 November 2019—

On 29 October 2019, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government
would be developing a Regional Aviation Policy Statement. Can the Department
please advise:
The purpose of this policy statement.
Timeline for development of the statement, including consultation with stakeholders.
Issues to be included in the statement.
Will the statement include regional aviation security (impacts on regional airports,
costs to consumers/airports/freight forwarders) ?
Is the policy statement being developed within the Department, or will a consultant be
appointed to undertake the work (in part or in full) ?
Will the Government be responding to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport References Committee report in the Operation, Regulation and Funding of
Air Route Service Delivery that was presented to the Senate on 7 June 2019?

ATSB:

Question on notice no. 387

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 8 November
2019—

What is the status of the following investigations?
o AO-2016-084
o AO-2017-066
If these investigations are still classified as "pending", when do you expect them to be
finalised?
Is there a time period within which ATSB would normally expect investigations to be
complete?
In the case of AO-2017-066 why was the aircraft diverted to Perth rather than landing
at its nearest alternative, Learmonth? Is this considered best practice?
In relation to investigation AO-2015-084:
o What recommendations were included in this report?
o Have all recommendations been adopted by the airline?
o Does ATSB hold any concerns about the safety of this airline to operate in
Australia?

P2 - These are the ATSB investigations in the order that Sen Sterle mentions them:
 

AO-2016-084

AO-2017-066

AO-2015-084

---

Question on notice no. 388

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 8 November
2019—

Please provide staffing profile (by FTE and classification) for ATSB's investigation
work for each financial year since 2013/14

---

Question on notice no. 389

Senator Nick McKim: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 11
November 2019—

(1. Was flight EK441 grounded at Adelaide Airport on 25 July 2016?
a. If so:
b. what was the reason for the grounding?
c. has an incident report been lodged?
i. If so, please provide a copy.

CASA:

Question on notice no. 390

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 8 November
2019—

How many Flying Operations Inspectors are employed at CASA?
On average how many hours of flying currency training was completed by Flying
Operations Inspectors last year?
How many applications for flying currency training put forward by staff have been
rejected by CASA in the last year? On what grounds?
Are CASA meeting the ICAO requirements to maintain the skills and currency of
their staff to the same level held by industry?
How many Flying Operations Inspectors are 'not current' (ie training not up to date)
on the aircraft types they are required to oversight?

---

Question on notice no. 391

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 8 November
2019—

Is it correct that any engineering/maintenance organisation that wants to conduct any
maintenance on the aircraft conducting high capacity regular public passenger
services needs an approval issued by CASA under Civil Aviation Safety Regulation
(CASR) 145?
What are the steps involved in assessing and approving Part 145 approvals? Where
are these published?
What is the normal practice for reviewing Part 145 applications to conduct onsite
inspections of overseas operators and facilities who are seeking Part 145 approvals?
In the last 2 years, how many physical site inspections have been conducted as part of
145 approvals within Australia?
In the last 2 years, how many physical site inspections have been conducted as part of
145 approvals overseas?
What are the risks posed by organisations not being properly scrutinised in the Part
145 approval process?
Were CASA regulations followed in the assessment and approval of EFW's Part 145?

---

Question on notice no. 392

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 8 November
2019—

Does CASA agree that there are serious issues with workplace culture?
What steps is CASA taking to improve workplace culture?
How many vacant positions exist in the technical workforce?
What is the impact on industry and aviation safety of these positions being unfilled?
When does CASA plan on filling these vacancies?
CASA's corporate plan recognises that staff lacking skill or not having the capacity to
perform their role is a risk to aviation safety, why has CASA allowed so many
vacancies to remain in the technical workforce?

---

Question on notice no. 393

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 8 November
2019—

(1. The Australian reported on the 2nd September 2019 that Australian airports are at
serious risk of a Gatwick style shutdown because laws are too weak to rein in rogue
operators of drones. The article continues to say that despite the number of drones in
Australia now exceeding 350,000, legislation is still not in place to tackle the threat of
an airspace breach at a major airport.
a. Does CASA agree with this? What has CASA done or what is CASA doing to
ensure that a Gatwick style shutdown does not happen at airports in Australia?
b. Has the Government consulted CASA on the need to strengthen legislation to
ensure that this does not happen at Australian airports?
2. On the 25th of August 2019, Blake Foden wrote an article in The Canberra Times
titled "Air Travellers 'at risk', safety authority blasted over maintenance approvals".
The article begins by saying that "The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been
accused of putting air travellers at risk after it approved three overseas facilities to
carry out maintenance work on Australian aircraft without its airworthiness inspectors
every laying eyes on the facilities". The article reported that these maintenance
facilities are located in South Korea, Fiji and Germany.
a. Why couldn't the aircraft maintenance facilities be located in Australia?
b. How did CASA decide on the facilities in South Korea, Fiji and Germany?
c. Was there a tender process?
d. Does CASA or the Australian Government provide funding to assist with the
operation of these facilities? If so, how much?
e. Did CASA inspect these facilities before they became operational to carry out
safety checks? If not, why not?
f. Does CASA plan on auditing these facilities? If so, when?

P2 - Always remember the golden rule with WQON: Don't ask questions that you don't already know the answers for - hmm something afoot me thinks...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight embuggerance update 27/11/19: A tale of a captured Minister and a complicit Laborial parliament destroying an industry through sheer bloody ignorance...  

References: https://auntypru.com/sbg-24-11-2019-thre...-fountain/




Plus: https://aopa.com.au/angel-flight-founder...his-wings/

Well done that man.

A good, valuable innings, nicely played. You’d have to take your hat off to man like Bristow and wish him well to enjoy his retirement.

“Mr Bristow set up a remarkable system of linking health professional registrations and referrals between all large city hospitals, to outback clinics, remote area nurses and specialist institutions, as well as a network of essential skilled volunteer pilots and drivers.  All services are free and at no cost to any person needing medical attention or to the government.”

No small achievement, a remarkable one when you consider the work, determination and effort involved stringing all the diverse elements into a cohesive, working system – all voluntary. The energy and dedication required phenomenal. 

I wonder what his thoughts must be on the ATSB report into Mt Gambier event and the CASA response to that report? A fellah with the amount of drive, intelligence and determination to set up and run Angel Flight would have to be a little taken aback by it; probably with good reason.

One could understand a reasonable man’s disappointment with a punitive regulatory philosophy. Take the two ‘fatal’ events involving Angel Flight ‘missions’ (I do wish they’d call ‘em something else): both essentially pilot error. Errors made by pilots trained, qualified and licenced under the current system. Both persisted into weather conditions which they were neither trained nor qualified to be operating in; deadly mistakes, made by the pilots; not Angel Flight.

Yet rather than address the ‘core’ issues, CASA prefer to bring in a new rule set, which punishes the many and changes nothing. Why can’t some of the alleged CASA ‘experts’ be sent to work with AF, help draft up some guidelines for the aircrew involved? Simple stuff like weather forecast analysis training; promoting early awareness leading to early notice that it may not be possible to carry out the assigned flight. Or, even a ‘checklist’ in the style of Flight Safety’s CFIT checklist system; which encompasses fatigue, weather, destination and in flight awareness of potential high risk elements. There are lots of things which could be done to foster, promote and reduce potential risk. The ‘rules’ CASA dreamed up do nothing to promote a real safety culture; they just punish those remaining ‘law abiding’ citizens who have not – as yet – made the wrong decision. I call that unfair, unreasonable and counter productive.

Only my opinion of course; but I say a lot of time, money, effort and aggravation has been expended to produce a negative outcome, which will not prevent another Loss of Control (LoC) in instrument only conditions. It will however force underground open reporting and determined addressing of an accident series which has been around for a long, long time. But I digress.

Enjoy your retirement Bill; well done. There may just be a few out in Bush who would second my best wishes. Cheers. (Cue round of applause).....

AOPA Oz - ..Today Angel flight has provided free flights and airport/city specialist drives totaling more than 20 million kilometres.  With in excess of 47,000 fights, carrying over 100,000 rural Australians from every Australian State and Territory, and every age group, Angel Flight continues to grow, ensuring rural people no longer need to drive up to 14 hours each way on dangerous outback roads to obtain medical check-ups and treatment, and for compassionate visits for those who must be close to loved ones in often very difficult situations...

Indeed Bristow should be lorded for his original concept and the tenacity with which he has promoted and grown that original concept...

However the following is an indictment and unfortunately a perfect example of how our democratic processes are being constantly eroded and corrupted by a self-serving, self-preserving bureaucracy scuttling around the protected, sterile, fantasy world inside of the Can'tberra bubble...

To begin the following Govt response to the Senate ATSB performance inquiry was tabled on 19 November while parliament was not sitting:

  Government response presented out of sitting on 19 November 2019.  

This response was also conveniently closeted away inside of the Additional Documents web page associated with the inquiry.

Then yesterday in the Dynamic Red this tabled document was listed for debate under item 13 'Consideration of documents' but was deferred due more important Govt business. Today at item 14 it is listed last on the agenda, so I wouldn't be holding my breath on any debate occurring today...  

Finally here is the disgusting, puerile but typical response from our useless and captured Crown Minister...

---

...The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Legislation Committee’s report on the inquiry into the Performance of the Australian
Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight
conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia (the report).

The Government is pleased that the Committee recognised the expert analysis conducted by
the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in examining the Angel Flight operations.
While the Committee provided comment on whether non-passenger carrying positioning
flights should have been included in the ATSB’s main calculations of risk, the Government
notes the ATSB’s focus on passenger carrying operations is consistent with the
Government’s Statement of Expectations to the agency.

In providing this response to the Committee’s report, the Government reiterates the
importance of the independence of regulatory bodies, such as the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA). CASA’s independence is set out in the Civil Aviation Safety Act 1988 which
also allows CASA to issue legislative instruments relating to the safety operation and
maintenance of aircraft where it deems necessary. For these reasons, the Government
notes the two recommendations in the report.

The Government is committed to maintaining a safe aviation environment for all
Australians. Passengers, whether fare paying or not, are generally less able to determine the
level of risk involved in the service they are boarding and rely on the Government to ensure
an appropriate level of aviation safety is maintained. The Government supports CASA, as
Australia’s civil aviation safety regulator, using its expertise and professional judgement to
fulfil that responsibility...

Running along the same theme of a broken democracy and self-serving bureaucracy, I note the following (unfortunately interrupted but TBC) speech debate from our former, now disgraced DPM and Minister Barnaby Joyce :

Mr JOYCE (New England) (19:00): I rise tonight to talk on an issue that I don't believe is going to get me many friends, but it's incredibly important. The issue is that we have to believe in our sovereignty as a nation. We have to believe in it in our philosophical approach, in our ethical approach and in our legal approach. We have to believe in our sovereignty when it comes to who owns what in our land. We have to believe in our sovereignty when it comes to defending our land. And we have to believe in our sovereignty when it comes to the rule of law in our land.

On the issue of Mr Julian Assange, I do not give any endorsement of his character whatsoever, but I do hold in great respect the legal principle of jurisprudence for this nation. It is a reflection of what we are as a nation. It is a reflection of our sovereignty. Mr Assange never committed a crime whilst in the United States. In fact, you might go so far as to say that Robert Mueller, in his investigations, has never called for an indictment of Mr Assange. It has been said, by the United States, that they wish to have Mr Assange convicted of espionage. But Mr Assange was in Australia; he was certainly not in the United States.

If we create a precedent in this nation where a third party, a third nation, can say, 'We believe you've committed a crime in our country, even though you were never here, and Australia has to extradite you to our country to face those charges,' that is an appalling precedent. What happens when the autocracy of China says, 'We believe someone in Australia has committed a crime, the way we see it in China; therefore, you must extradite that person to China to face charges.' It is a ridiculous precedent.

In 2010, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard wanted to take away Mr Assange's passport and charge him with a crime. The problem was, he hadn't committed a crime—not in Australia. And this process goes on. Once more, I don't think I'd even like the guy if I met him. I look at him from a distance and there's not much I like about him at all. But that's not the issue. Law is not just there for the people we like. Law is not just there for the issues we think are conducive to our view of the world. Law is there as a constant, as a permanent, as a compass. It's a compass so that we can understand what the sovereignty of our nation means to us on a personal level.

Remember, Mr Assange never broke or hacked into any computers. That was done by a person who was at the time a private in the army, whose name at the time was Bradley Manning, now Chelsea Manning. Bradley Manning is now a free person. Bradley Manning was given a pardon by President Obama. Bradley Manning is now walking the streets as Chelsea Manning. Yet we are sitting back contemplating or being silent in a process that might involve the extradition, from the United Kingdom to the United States, of an Australian citizen for a crime that has been alleged, or has been charged, or the process has started, in a third country, the United States of America. (Quorum formed)

If Mr Assange committed a crime by reason of reporting what was given to him by Mr Manning, then surely everybody who reported what was obviously printed by Mr Assange also committed a crime. Therefore, every newspaper and every editor in this nation has committed a crime. Maybe they should all be deported to the United States to face the music there!

I have to say that hypocrisy reigns supreme when people from the fourth estate, who have campaigned about protection of journalism, seem, in many instances, to have lost their tongues on this issue. Whether it's The Australian or The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald or the ABC or Channel Nine or Channel Seven or The Guardian—whoever it is—if they have reported on information that was taken by Mr Manning in the United States and then subsequently reported on WikiLeaks, which has an involvement and of which Mr Assange was a co-founder, then surely all those people in that train of printing things are now up for the same charge.

The only way that you can stand by this is to go back to core principles. If you believe that we are a nation that is good enough to have a process of law that has been tested by time which reflects our sovereignty, which reflects the nature and the tenor—almost the sanctity—of what a nation is, and if we are saying, 'We are not the United States of America and we are not China; we are Australia,' then you have to say that we must stand by our own process of law and not abscond from it from time to time at the behest of what is a strong and powerful ally but is not us. The United States of America knows it's a liberal democracy and that it must stand behind the principle of law. There are certain processes in law—such as habeas corpus—which you cannot just arbitrarily dismiss. I say once more that I do not give any endorsement to the character of Mr Assange in any way, shape or form, but I do give an endorsement to the process of law in this nation. And in the past, much to people's disgust—and, people said, to my disgrace—I stood by and tried to make sure that David Hicks—

Hmm...much like Assange people will either love him or hate him and will continue to be divided on BJ's obvious flaws in character but IMO one cannot argue with the point he is trying to make in regards to the sovereignty and principles of a once proud Liberal Democracy - just saying...


MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

"The Government is committed to maintaining a safe aviation environment for all
Australians."

The key words here are "The Government".

So just who are the Government?

Do the Government serve the people, or do the people serve the Government?

People talk about the Canberra bubble and having spent a few days inside that so called bubble I developed a strange impression that there is some merit in that description. People there seem to me to be "different" to ordinary Australians one finds out in country towns, in the bush if you like, or in the working heart of our cities and regions. The people who live and work in Canberra live in an artificial world, Canberra after all would not exist as a city, only for the fact it was created because of interstate rivalry between the two most powerful "Colonies" at the time of federation. The whole place has an artificial feel to it, its citizens imbued with a sense of entitlement and superiority, them outside the bubble, us within it, them outside are there to serve us and keep us in a style to which we have grown accustomed almost a modern day Feudal system, Canberra being the Castle, housing the aristocracy, those outside, the serfs who toil to serve the castle.

Our parliament has become in reality a farce, its occupants playing a modern day game of thrones. Listening to question time one can see the constant self serving jousting, verbal, point scoring exchanges over irrelevancies, while "real issues", issues that affect the whole of the nation, get ignored and left to the bureaucrats to administer as they see fit.

It would be interesting to examine exactly how much per hour our parliament costs us to operate, I think the figure would startle us all especially when one considers just how much time gets wasted on irrelevancies. In business time is money, no different in government.

"Passengers, whether fare paying or not, are generally less able to determine the level of risk involved in the service they are boarding and rely on the Government to ensure an appropriate level of aviation safety is maintained."

What a demeaning statement. It displays a certain arrogance we see so often in Australia, "all the rest of the world is wrong, only we are right" The people are ignorant and stupid and need the protection of the "Castle". Who decides what is "appropriate"? Price more than anything is the main driver behind the majority of those that utilise aviation.

"The Government supports CASA, as Australia’s civil aviation safety regulator, using its expertise and professional judgement to fulfil that responsibility..."

What expertise?

What professional judgement?

[Peetwo]

Supplementary Estimates - WQON.

(N.B AQON for Sup Estimates are due 06/12/19)


ATSB:

Question on notice no. 387

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 8 November
2019—

What is the status of the following investigations?
o AO-2016-084
o AO-2017-066
If these investigations are still classified as "pending", when do you expect them to be
finalised?
Is there a time period within which ATSB would normally expect investigations to be
complete?
In the case of AO-2017-066 why was the aircraft diverted to Perth rather than landing
at its nearest alternative, Learmonth? Is this considered best practice?
In relation to investigation AO-2015-084:
o What recommendations were included in this report?
o Have all recommendations been adopted by the airline?
o Does ATSB hold any concerns about the safety of this airline to operate in
Australia?

P2 - These are the ATSB investigations in the order that Sen Sterle mentions them:
 

AO-2016-084

AO-2017-066

AO-2015-084

---

Given the context of the above questions, in relation to AirAsia X, I thought the following articles in regards to a just released ATSB report into an occurrence of a subsidiary airline, AirAsia Indonesia, should be of interest/concern to Senator Sterle?

Via Airlineratings.com : 

---

INVESTIGATORS CALL FOR CLEARER INSTRUCTIONS AFTER AIRASIA CHAOS


A passenger on the AirAsia Indonesia flight. Photo: Seven News

Cabin crew shouting inappropriate instructions such as “brace” and “crash position” contributed to passenger confusion and panic during a cabin pressurization problem on an AirAsia Indonesia flight from Perth to Bali, according to Australian investigators.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators also found the Indonesian carrier’s pre-flight safety briefing did not include clear instructions about the operation of oxygen masks deployed during the incident.

As a result,  the bureau issued a safety recommendation calling on the airline to review its passenger safety briefing material and ensure instructions on how to activate the masks are clear and effective.

The AirAsia Indonesia Airbus A320 was about 30 minutes out of Perth on October 15, 2017, when it dropped quickly from 34,000ft to 10,000ft and the pilots manually deployed the passenger oxygen masks.

The pilots were responding to a master caution warning of a malfunction of the aircraft’s pressurization system.

“During the emergency descent, some oxygen masks did not deploy or passengers felt they were not receiving oxygen,’’  the ATSB said.

“Consequently, some passengers then moved around the cabin to find a functioning oxygen mask unit.

“Passengers later surveyed by the ATSB recalled that the cabin crew shouted commands such as ‘BRACE’, ‘GET DOWN’ and ‘CRASH POSITION’, increasing their level of confusion and panic.”

Investigators found that AirAsia Indonesia’s pre-flight safety briefing and safety information card did not include a clear instruction on how to activate the flow of oxygen in emergency masks or that a bag on the masks may not inflate when oxygen is flowing.

It said this may have resulted in some passengers failing to understand whether or not oxygen was flowing to the mask.

“Further, cabin crew provided additional commands to passengers that were inappropriate for a depressurization, which had the potential to increase confusion in the cabin and likely increased the level of panic experienced by some passengers,’’ it said.

ATSB transport safety director Dr Stuart Godley said the incident highlighted the importance of a crew’s ability to recall and use appropriate standard commands in managing passengers.

“Passengers generally responded well when appropriate commands were used, but incorrect commands resulted in some confusion and panic among (those) in the cabin,” he said.

“Cabin crew emergency procedures training that includes role-playing of the full range of expected passenger behavior, including panic and confusion, can better prepare cabin crew when exposed to more complex real-world scenarios.”

Dr Godley said the inclusion of information highlighting that oxygen was flowing through the mask even though the bag may not inflate would improve passengers’ knowledge and reduce anxiety and their susceptibility to a hypoxia-related event.

The ATSB report also indicated the entire incident could have been avoided if AirAsia Indonesia had followed manufacturer advice to improve the pressurization system.

The pressurization problem was traced to an intermittent rare fault with one of two independent cabin pressure controllers.  The fault resulted in warnings of excess cabin altitude and prompted the emergency descent.

“The ATSB found that the operator had reviewed and elected not to incorporate the manufacturers recommended, but not mandatory, improvements to the pressurization system,’’ investigators said.

“The improvements were communicated to the airline by service bulletins. Incorporating the bulletins would have likely prevented the emergency descent incident.”

AirAsia said in a statement that it had cooperated fully with the ATSB.

“Since this incident in 2017, AirAsia has reviewed our processes to ensure we always remain fully compliant and that our safety procedures continue to be robust,” it said.

“Given the findings in this latest ATSB report, we will review the recommendations, including our pre-flight safety briefing and cabin crew emergency training procedures, as a matter of priority.

“Australia’s aviation safety standards are amongst the highest in the world and AirAsia operates within the same strict guidelines as any airline operating in Australia.

“All AirAsia operated flights to and from Australia have achieved IOSA certification which is the global benchmark for upholding the highest safety standards.”

---

Via the Oz:

---

AirAsia review ordered after flight chaos


ROBYN IRONSIDE
AVIATION WRITER
@ironsider

5:42PM NOVEMBER 27, 2019

Low cost carrier AirAsia Indonesia has been urged to review its pre-flight passenger safety briefing after an incident on a Perth-Bali service which descended into mayhem when the pressurisation system malfunctioned.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s final report on the incident on October 15, 2017, found incorrect commands from cabin crew resulted in “confusion and panic”.
As the aircraft descended from 34,000 feet to 10,000 feet at a rate of 2300 to 4300 feet a minute in response to cabin pressurisation warnings, crew announced over the public announcement system “emergency descent, emergency descent, emergency descent”.
Oxygen masks were deployed but some passengers felt they were not dispensing oxygen and started moving around the cabin to find a spare despite the seatbelt sign being illuminated.
In response, cabin crew began shouting “brace”, “sit down” and “crash position” which increased confusion and panic among some passengers.
The A320 returned to Perth and on arrival it was noted that several passengers had donned life jackets.

“During disembarkation, the cabin crew manager received several passenger reports of cabin crew members at the rear panicking, shouting and alarming children,” the report said.

“When she followed up with those members, they reported that they were shouting as this was the procedure.
“One reported that she shouted at a passenger who stood up during the descent due to the risk of a fall.”

The pressurisation issue was found to stem from a rare fault with the cabin pressure controller one circuit board, resulting in incorrect control of the outflow valve.

“This led to the over-pressurisation of the aircraft cabin and activation of the cabin safety valve,” the report said.

ATSB Transport Safety Director Dr Stuart Godley said in an emergency, cabin crew were required to perform a safety leadership role for passengers.

“This incident highlights that an important aspect of managing abnormal passenger responses is the cabin crew’s ability to recall and use appropriate standard commands,” Dr Godley said.

“Passengers generally responded well when appropriate commands were used, but incorrect commands resulted in some confusion and panic in the cabin.”

A formal safety recommendation had been made to AirAsia Indonesia to review its safety card and pre-flight briefing to better inform passengers about the use of oxygen masks.

“Inclusion of information highlighting that oxygen is flowing through the mask even though the bag may not inflate will improve passengers’ knowledge and reduce anxiety and their susceptibility to a hypoxia-related event,” said Dr Godley.

He said cabin crew emergency procedures training that included “role playing of the full range of expected passenger behaviour” would also better prepare cabin crew when exposed to more complex real-world scenarios.

The incident followed another involving AirAsia in June 2017, in which the pilot told passengers to pray when their aircraft began shaking and vibrating during a flight from Perth to Kuala Lumpur.

The A330 returned to Perth without further incident.

Of the depressurisation incident, an AirAsia spokeswoman said the airline had cooperated fully with the ATSB throughout the investigation.

“Since this incident in 2017, AirAsia has reviewed our processes to ensure we always remain fully compliant and that our safety procedures continue to be robust,” she said.

“Given the findings in this latest ATSB report we will review the recommendations, including our pre-flight safety briefing and cabin crew emergency training procedures, as a matter of priority.”

She said all AirAsia operated flights to and from Australia met the high safety standards of the regulator.

“AirAsia operates within the same strict guidelines as any airline operating in Australia,” the spokeswoman said.

---

And for reference here is a link for the report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-098/

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Rex Patrick

@Senator_Patrick Following the recent Angel Flight debacle, this latest story is evidence that @CarmodyCASA

and @CASABriefing have lost the statutory plot. It’s time the @AuSenate RRAT Committee inquired into the performance of this out of touch regulator #auspol

--> Finally a voice in the wilderness.
 
Patrick; batting at number three opens his scorecard with a neatly guided ‘4’. Past the keeper and across the rope for a nice opening to what, all hope will be a long, substantial innings. McDonald is at the other end, holding a low average run rate but not getting bowled out or caught behind, despite formidable ‘pressure’ fielding. Playing against the Canberra Bubble first XI is a tricky match at the best of times, their pitch ain’t level and the wickets have a habit of sagging, either left or right – depending on the prevailing wind conditions. There’s always plenty of hot air blowing on the Canberra Bubble home pitch. But, there is hope and good odds for the batsmen; some of the bowling has been 'lackluster’ - to say the least and just a little ‘off’. No matter, they have their rightful innings and must play up as best they may. It will be tough for ‘em, hostile crowd, home grown umpires and rules which only Methuselah could comprehend – on his better days.
 
Outside of the members bar, stands the crowd of supporters, the unwashed, the unshriven and the poor sods who’s tax dollars pay for the luxury in the members area. No matter, their support and hope for a plebeian victory is strong, unanimous and unshakeable.
 
It is a lot to load onto our two combatants out there at the wicket; but they carry the hopes (and potential tote winnings) of the oppressed on their pads and in their gloves. Bring it on; I say. Turn up Queen, Rock ‘em – hard, long and as often as need be.
 
Wait for it – best guitar riff ever – bar non.

[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry into General Aviation announced -    

Via the RRAT Committee webpages: 

---

Australia's general aviation industry

Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia.

The committee will consider the operation and effectiveness of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and other relevant aviation agencies, with particular reference to:

a) the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA's aviation safety management functions, including:
  (i) the application of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to Australia's     aviation sector, and whether the legislation is fit for purpose;
 (ii) the safety and economic impacts, and relative risks, of CASA's aviation safety frameworks; and
 the engagement of CASA with other relevant Australian Government agencies;
  (iii) the immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small businesses,   agricultural operations and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia;

(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:
  (i) its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation   and training sectors;
  (ii) the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation; and
  (iii) its ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, considering the associated benefits   of an expanded aviation sector; and
  (iv) any related matters.

The committee will present its interim report on or before the final sitting day of December 2020, and will present its final report on or before the final sitting day of November 2021.

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

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

---

And via Oz Flying:

Senate to launch Two-year Inquiry into CASA and GA
3 December 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (RRAT) will conduct a two-year inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to gauge the effectiveness of regulation it has applied to general aviation in the past 10 years.

RRAT Chair, Nationals Senator Susan McDonald from Queensland, is believed to be set to make a formal announcement in the next day or so.

Senator McDonald said the aim of the inquiry is to establish how regulation imposed on GA had achieved CASA’s stated aim of balancing safety, relative risk, and economic costs.

“[the inquiry] will look at the social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on charter businesses, helicopter mustering, agricultural operations and maintenance operators across regional, rural and remote Australia,” she said.

“We want to examine the relevance of the Civil Aviation Act in relation to maintaining the highest safety standards while encouraging general aviation and training.

“I have spoken with participants in the general aviation industry who feel the past 10 years of rulemaking by CASA has not achieved the stated aim of balance.

“This inquiry will look at people’s concerns with CASA and deliver interim findings in December 2020, followed by a final report in November 2021.”

Senator McDonald has established herself as a champion of aviation in Australia, most famously crossing the floor to vote with independent senators on the Community Service Flight legislation disallowance motion in October. McDonald was the only coalition member to do so. She was elected to the Senate for QLD in the 2019 Federal Election and made RRAT Chair in July.

At the time of writing, the inquiry had not been listed on the RRAT website, so information on public hearings and submission is not yet available.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...RR1fVUE.99

Hmm...question is will we remember this day as the day the tide finally turned - 


MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Posted on behalf of Sandy:-

Dear GA proponents and colleagues,

Not again. I think we say we will resend all our previous submissions but that the only difference in the last five years is that our forecast loss of pilots and General Aviation businesses is being born out. Otherwise we do not support another inquiry in the absence of a plan of immediate reforms.

Inquiry repetition is the never ending modus operandi of Government Industries and this latest iteration will barely cause a ripple of concern in Aviation Hearse, oops, typo, Aviation House.

Two years of inquiry? Truly this is soul destroying, sorry Susan and Rex, your heart is in the right place but the inquires have all been done.

Members of Parliament who can see that by handing over the totality of power to unelected bureaucrats is wrong must demand change. MPs duty is to protect our freedoms, freedoms badly eroded since the handover to the independent regulator CASA. It is a wrong model of governance that does not work. Furthermore the Nation’s prosperity has suffered by this loss of freedom. Our loss of freedom, causing huge losses of businesses, jobs and services, has been enacted (for the most part unquestioningly, nod to Susan & Rex) by Parliament at the behest of the out of control regulator.

In 2014 the Aviation Safety Regulation Review was the most high powered review in some years and we were invited to submit contributing papers. It cost $millions in GA industry time and money and in taxpayer funds. We, in the main General Aviation industry personnel, spent probably some thousands of hours writing our opinions, experiences and suggestions to assist the Parliament to reform a glaringly underperforming sector, a sector in obvious decline.

The trajectory of decline has, if anything steepened since that time.

To all who have any interest in the legitimate exercise of our freedom of action to advance aviation in Australia, to allow the making of jobs and services, we must promote and insist upon change now, not in two years time.

In particular flying training must be unshackled by allowing independent instructors the same freedom to teach as in the USA. CASA must be brought under Parliamentary control, it’s regulatory function is a function of the government not of unelected functionaries whose main concern has to be their own position by human nature. Remove ASICs and reform LAME education, medicals. Reassign most of the rules out of the criminal code back to the previous appropriate classification, I think civil misdemeanours.

Its obvious what needs action now. 


Sandy

[ventus45]

Yet another inquiry ?
Really ?
It is nothing but a - "do nothing tactic".
It is straight of the "Sir Humphrey" MOSP !!

Sadly, yet again, Sandy is "bang on target".

"Members of Parliament who can see that by handing over the totality of power to unelected bureaucrats is wrong must demand change.
MPs duty is to protect our freedoms, freedoms badly eroded since the handover to the independent regulator CASA.
It is a wrong model of governance that does not work."

The Senate (Nero) has, yet again, decided to fiddle (with reams of paper) whilst our once great General Aviation Sector (Rome) gets ever deeper into it's wind up spiral dive, to inevitably crash, and (Burn(s)).

We have had dozens of inquiries over the years.
How about actually doing something - anything ?
How about actually implementing some of the recommendations (in good faith - as intended - without bastardisation) from some of them, just for a start.
That may at least give a chance for commencing recovery.
Then again, it may not.
Once beyond VNE, beyond VDF, and beyond the G limit, options are ......... limited.

Dick Smith recently suggested the use of the yellow and black handles.

Sadly, I think he is probably correct.

Don't wait too long.

[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry news - 

Ironsider catching up, via the Oz:

Red tape’s impact on air safety queried



An inquiry will examine whether red tape imposed on Australia’s general aviation industry has led to improved safety.

Queensland LNP senator Susan McDonald has ordered the inquiry as chair of the Senate standing committee for rural and regional affairs and transport, after observing fewer aircraft operating in the outback. “I have lived in regional Queensland for much of my life and it’s been my observation over the last 40-odd years that with the cost of aviation and the regulation of aviation the outcome has been ... fewer planes both on the strips and in the air,” she said.

“The best way to really get to the bottom of whether or not that’s true and what the challenges might be I thought would be to have an inquiry.”

The committee was now seeking submissions, with public hearings to be held. A final report was expected by November 2021, allowing for a thorough examination of the regulation of “helicopters, drones, charters and more broadly general aviation”.

“It’s very important to me that we as Australians live in an environment where regulation is outcomes-based as opposed to the number of pages-based,” said Senator McDonald.

“We should be able to quite easily measure whether the industry has had a safer outcome since the introduction of additional regulation, or if we’ve just had more costs imposed on the industry.”

Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief executive Shane Carmody said the regulator was committed to participating in “yet another high-level review of our activities, administration and governance”.

Over the past 20 years, CASA had participated in more than 10 major inquiries or reviews involving aviation safety and regulation.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association executive director Ben Morgan said it was disappointing that the general aviation industry had deteriorated to the point where an inquiry was needed.

 

St Commode: ...said the regulator was committed to participating in “yet another high-level review of our activities, administration and governance”. 

Code for..."we'll wait out yet another tiresome, irrelevant parliamentary inquiry before getting back to business as usual with ensuring the never ending supply of coffers to the mystique of aviation safety trough is perpetually maintained..."

Once again we get to see the sheer bloody arrogance and contempt that self-anointed patron Saint of aviation safety has for any potential threats to the gold plated,  taxpayer and industry funded, Iron Ring trough. Regardless of the self-assured confidence of the runt of the Carmody public service dynasty he does currently carry the can for the current iteration of the big R-regulator. Therefore it would seem to me that if the good Senators are to have any hope in hell in breaching the Iron Ring of aviation safety, they need to bring into full focus and review the entire history, performance and contribution of St Commode in the advancement of Australia's aviation safety system/ICAO Annex 19 SSP ever since he first set foot inside the halls of Aviation House. 

To kick it off here is some handy AP references, starting with the entire St Commode thread: The Carmody Hour.

And more recently: 

#SBG 18 August 2019: Belling the Cat??



#SBG 3/11/19: An Ode, to an Odious Commode.

 

St Commode strikes a low blow on CASA critics??



And who could forget...

Plus: 





Hmm...and I'm just getting warmed up - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry into General Aviation announced -    

Via the RRAT Committee webpages: 

---

Australia's general aviation industry

Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia.

The committee will consider the operation and effectiveness of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and other relevant aviation agencies, with particular reference to:

a) the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA's aviation safety management functions, including:
  (i) the application of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to Australia's     aviation sector, and whether the legislation is fit for purpose;
 (ii) the safety and economic impacts, and relative risks, of CASA's aviation safety frameworks; and
 the engagement of CASA with other relevant Australian Government agencies;
  (iii) the immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small businesses,   agricultural operations and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia;

(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:
  (i) its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation   and training sectors;
  (ii) the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation; and
  (iii) its ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, considering the associated benefits   of an expanded aviation sector; and
  (iv) any related matters.

The committee will present its interim report on or before the final sitting day of December 2020, and will present its final report on or before the final sitting day of November 2021.

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

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

---

And via Oz Flying:

Senate to launch Two-year Inquiry into CASA and GA
3 December 2019
Comments 0 Comments
    

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (RRAT) will conduct a two-year inquiry into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to gauge the effectiveness of regulation it has applied to general aviation in the past 10 years.

RRAT Chair, Nationals Senator Susan McDonald from Queensland, is believed to be set to make a formal announcement in the next day or so.

Senator McDonald said the aim of the inquiry is to establish how regulation imposed on GA had achieved CASA’s stated aim of balancing safety, relative risk, and economic costs.

“[the inquiry] will look at the social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on charter businesses, helicopter mustering, agricultural operations and maintenance operators across regional, rural and remote Australia,” she said.

“We want to examine the relevance of the Civil Aviation Act in relation to maintaining the highest safety standards while encouraging general aviation and training.

“I have spoken with participants in the general aviation industry who feel the past 10 years of rulemaking by CASA has not achieved the stated aim of balance.

“This inquiry will look at people’s concerns with CASA and deliver interim findings in December 2020, followed by a final report in November 2021.”

Senator McDonald has established herself as a champion of aviation in Australia, most famously crossing the floor to vote with independent senators on the Community Service Flight legislation disallowance motion in October. McDonald was the only coalition member to do so. She was elected to the Senate for QLD in the 2019 Federal Election and made RRAT Chair in July.

At the time of writing, the inquiry had not been listed on the RRAT website, so information on public hearings and submission is not yet available.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...RR1fVUE.99

Via Sen McDonald's FB page yesterday...

Celebrate civil aviation

Senator Susan McDonald

---

*HAPPY CIVIL AVIATION DAY*


Civil aviation keeps regional Australia connected to the cities, and to the world. So today it is fitting to thank and congratulate all those civilian pilots, engineers, crew, and other support staff.

I have also launched a Senate Inquiry in to regulation impacts on general aviation and I invite anyone with an interest to make a submission.

Click this link for details: https://www.aph.gov.au/…/Rural_and_Regional…/GeneralAviation

MTF...P2 

Ps How to fix it, via Para 377 (Gobble's Kiwi bro -  )

Via the UP:

Dissecting a turd

---

Agreed. How many enquiries has it been now? Never any real outcome. The entire Australian aviation community know they are a basket case. Around $500m spent on a regulatory reform program that commenced in 1988 and is still not finished. They have been a dysfunctional utopia unto themselves since then. An organisation who thrives on bureaucracy, adding red tape, destroying individuals and businesses, wasting taxpayer money, adding rules and laws while repealing none, and the list goes on. CASA has been a loss making, economy destroying/inhibiting nightmare. Frankenstein has morphed into a beast of biblical proportions. They have cost the economy billions and will continue to do so. Save the Government our taxpayer money and do the following items as a starting point. And considering that Morrison isn’t afraid of dismantling and axing Departments and their non-performing Secretaries and bringing back former reputable bureaucrats to head up the changes, now is the perfect time to act;

• Appoint an interim Director to disband and replace the Board, the DAS (Carmody), Aleck, Anastasi, Crawford and the regional managers and start a fresh. A 2 year restructuring under a temporary position - Dick Smith to head it up.
  
  
• Put together a large disciplined team that will copy the NZ ruleset and implement a 3 year introduction program to bring those rules into place in Australia. Set milestones, goals and accountability.
  
  
• Assign a serious budget to undertake this reform of what was formerly CASA, into its new identity.
  
  
• Create an entirely new framework implemented even down to a corporate uniform which identifies them as what they are meant to be - regulators and public servants who are accountable under the public service act.
  
  
• CASA needs to be a Regulator, not a facilitator. Yet it needs to understand its impacts and that its decision making processes cannot unjustly or unfairly disadvantage businesses and the economy. It cannot act as a bully, interpret laws in a manner it chooses, and it has to be held to account and under constant scrutiny and oversight at the Ministerial level.
  

Restructure of the Frankenstein needs to start at the top and then work it’s way all the way down to the landscapers and the cleaners. Top to bottom reform, restructure, reset.

[Kharon]

So; for the money.

Quite apart from the punctuation and grammar; the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the never ending story of ‘investigation of’ and ‘inquiry into’ CASA etc. beg some questions of their own – for instance:-

(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:

(i) it’s maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors;

“Efficient and sustainable” bring cost/benefit analysis to mind. The Angel Flight imbroglio for an example of the total cost weighed against benefit.

Let us set aside the mind bending cost of the whole AF ‘thing’ for the moment; it is estimated to be on the ‘significant’ side of expensive and leave it at that. That money has been spent; so we must look to see the benefit realised from the expenditure; what did we (Australia) get for the investment? Qui Bono?

Pivotal to the CASA argument were two cases of ‘pilot error’ which led to fatal accidents, due to Loss of Control (LoC) in instrument flight conditions by pilots not trained or qualified to fly in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).

So, for the money.

What steps and initiatives have CASA put in place to prevent a reoccurrence of a long standing, well documented and investigated fatal accident series?

How has the ATSB/CASA response to AF increased the efficiency and sustainability of industry?

How has the rural community benefitted from the expenditure and new regulation?

The answers are clear; despite the cost and rhetoric; nothing has been done which improves ‘safety’ or benefits the community AF has served. The Senate need to know why not. But that is a minefield question; one which CASA will be reluctant to answer; if they can. For it is a question as old as aviation itself.

In part, the Australian weather is responsible, unlike Europe and the USA, clear skies and benign weather condition preclude the need for instrument flight qualifications. Qualifications which are expensive to gain and complicated to maintain, in Australia. Not so in the USA, where the legislation encourages and supports the increased safety an Instrument Rating (IR) provides and the requirements for maintaining an IR are inexpensive, practical and user friendly. Increased safety through sensible regulation.

There is of course two sides to the coin; there is a strong case supporting an increase, at basic training levels, of instrument flying and continued independent practice. An equally weighted argument supports minimum exposure as a deterrent to pilots entering IMC. Despite reasoned argument, the death rate from ‘accidental’ (no such animal) entry into IMC continues to increase annually. Neither CASA nor ATSB have addressed the radical in relation to AF or more recent events of this nature.

As we are to have an ‘inquiry’ – then let us at least try to get down to brass tacks. The current massive, complex, rule set has been designed to benefit only one element of the nation – CASA. It has been proven, many times over that the regulations are neither operationally efficient nor financially sustainable. If we are to do this inquiry; let’s get it right this time.

Toot toot.

[P7_TOM]

Of the Devil and the details. (Part 1).

Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia. Etc.

a) the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA's aviation safety management functions, including:

Right there; from the off, the Committee is at sea. Various iterations of the ‘aviation watch dog’ have been Beavering away, weaving a web which, no matter which string is pulled, ensures that the power garnered over the decades from politicians, frightened of having ‘blood’ (not metaphorical) on their hands; remains inviolate. It is the gifted power of ‘control’ over minister and parliament which has led Australian aviation to a dark place. No one dares challenges the assumption that CASA is always right. Minister after minister (bar Sharpe) quite happy to sit back and let the ultimate responsibility for ‘safety’ rest in someone else’s hands. The notion of ‘Bipartisan’ an anathema. A cop out; a gutless shedding of responsibility which had led to yet another inquiry. How many is it now? What has been the total, heat breaking cost to taxpayers. But, most damning of all is the result of this completely undemocratic, shiftless, lazy, self protective attitude – an industry in crisis is the least abhorrent result. The continued, blatant, ignorant, uncaring avoidance of ‘the facts’ despite a King’s ransom spent on ‘inquiry’ has led to the current disgraceful low.

(i) the application of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to Australia's    aviation sector, and whether the legislation is fit for purpose;

It has been publicly stated, by the CASA folk involved in ‘drafting’ “the Act” that it is unconstitutional, but no one could afford to challenge it. It is the root of all evil and must be overhauled to meet current world best standard; the FAA and NZCAA even the EASA crowd are, in some responsible manner, governed under democratic process and held responsible. CASA ain’t. Why?– Take a long hard look at “the Act” and the way ‘powers vested’ – by parliament have been abused, manipulated and used to keep ‘ministerial’ busy-bodies out of the way, silent: despite loud, long protests from an industry sinking in a sea of meaningless ‘regulation’ and revised regulation, and untrammelled power.

(ii) the safety and economic impacts, and relative risks, of CASA's aviation safety frameworks; and the engagement of CASA with other relevant Australian Government agencies;

Whoa! There is a monster. Each element deserving of immediate, judicial and expert consideration. Each, standing alone deserving ‘inquiry’. Have CASA improved ‘safety’ to a world best standard? Have CASA reduced the statistics to be comparable with first world aviation nations? Have CASA managed to provide a ‘better’ mousetrap – on a dollar for dollar comparative basis? Have CASA addressed and reduced ‘relative’ risk? Then we get the howler – ‘engagement with other agencies’. Sure they have – all is well; ATSB and CASA are the best of mates, they even have a Memorandum of Understanding. This works brilliantly well – read through the last, incredibly expensive non event – ‘the Pel-Air’ inquiry. There you see the collusion; sorry – cooperation rampant, hard at work preserving Australia’s fine aviation heritage. Better still – ask the last FAA/ICAO auditors how close they came to downgrading this nation. Ayup, it’s all very cosy and friendly – not a shred of collusion or favours or even quid pro quo to be seen. (Oh, the music? – “believe it if you like” a classic).

(iii) the immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small businesses,  agricultural operations and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia;

A quick visit to almost any aerodrome (like Bankstown) will clearly define the ‘immediate’. A short read of the Angel Flight or Buckley matter will certainly define the ‘social’ impact. A short telephone call to any operator in Australia will clear up any misunderstanding about the impact CASA has and continues to have on ‘small business’. Fill your boots, plenty to go around. Mind you, it’s best done ‘sub rosa’ lest CASA pay a ‘friendly visit’. Protection before speaking – Oh, you bet…..

I will work through the Senate shopping list; (b) looks ‘interesting’.  But not tonight.

There is an Ale on the bar with my name on it, the Canadians are at the board practicing and; as it is a grudge match – best I focus on the more important matters; like winning.

[Peetwo]

Of the Devil and the details. (Part 1).

Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia. Etc.

a) the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA's aviation safety management functions, including:

Right there; from the off, the Committee is at sea. Various iterations of the ‘aviation watch dog’ have been Beavering away, weaving a web which, no matter which string is pulled, ensures that the power garnered over the decades from politicians, frightened of having ‘blood’ (not metaphorical) on their hands; remains inviolate. It is the gifted power of ‘control’ over minister and parliament which has led Australian aviation to a dark place. No one dares challenges the assumption that CASA is always right. Minister after minister (bar Sharpe) quite happy to sit back and let the ultimate responsibility for ‘safety’ rest in someone else’s hands. The notion of ‘Bipartisan’ an anathema. A cop out; a gutless shedding of responsibility which had led to yet another inquiry. How many is it now? What has been the total, heat breaking cost to taxpayers. But, most damning of all is the result of this completely undemocratic, shiftless, lazy, self protective attitude – an industry in crisis is the least abhorrent result. The continued, blatant, ignorant, uncaring avoidance of ‘the facts’ despite a King’s ransom spent on ‘inquiry’ has led to the current disgraceful low.

(i) the application of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to Australia's    aviation sector, and whether the legislation is fit for purpose;

It has been publicly stated, by the CASA folk involved in ‘drafting’ “the Act” that it is unconstitutional, but no one could afford to challenge it. It is the root of all evil and must be overhauled to meet current world best standard; the FAA and NZCAA even the EASA crowd are, in some responsible manner, governed under democratic process and held responsible. CASA ain’t. Why?– Take a long hard look at “the Act” and the way ‘powers vested’ – by parliament have been abused, manipulated and used to keep ‘ministerial’ busy-bodies out of the way, silent: despite loud, long protests from an industry sinking in a sea of meaningless ‘regulation’ and revised regulation, and untrammelled power.

(ii) the safety and economic impacts, and relative risks, of CASA's aviation safety frameworks; and the engagement of CASA with other relevant Australian Government agencies;

Whoa! There is a monster. Each element deserving of immediate, judicial and expert consideration. Each, standing alone deserving ‘inquiry’. Have CASA improved ‘safety’ to a world best standard? Have CASA reduced the statistics to be comparable with first world aviation nations? Have CASA managed to provide a ‘better’ mousetrap – on a dollar for dollar comparative basis? Have CASA addressed and reduced ‘relative’ risk? Then we get the howler – ‘engagement with other agencies’. Sure they have – all is well; ATSB and CASA are the best of mates, they even have a Memorandum of Understanding. This works brilliantly well – read through the last, incredibly expensive non event – ‘the Pel-Air’ inquiry. There you see the collusion; sorry – cooperation rampant, hard at work preserving Australia’s fine aviation heritage. Better still – ask the last FAA/ICAO auditors how close they came to downgrading this nation. Ayup, it’s all very cosy and friendly – not a shred of collusion or favours or even quid pro quo to be seen. (Oh, the music? – “believe it if you like” a classic).

(iii) the immediate and long-term social and economic impacts of CASA decisions on small businesses,  agricultural operations and individuals across regional, rural and remote Australia;

A quick visit to almost any aerodrome (like Bankstown) will clearly define the ‘immediate’. A short read of the Angel Flight or Buckley matter will certainly define the ‘social’ impact. A short telephone call to any operator in Australia will clear up any misunderstanding about the impact CASA has and continues to have on ‘small business’. Fill your boots, plenty to go around. Mind you, it’s best done ‘sub rosa’ lest CASA pay a ‘friendly visit’. Protection before speaking – Oh, you bet…..

I will work through the Senate shopping list; (b) looks ‘interesting’.  But not tonight.

There is an Ale on the bar with my name on it, the Canadians are at the board practicing and; as it is a grudge match – best I focus on the more important matters; like winning.

Addendum: Some AQON now available??

16 CASA -1 

15 ATSB - 1

13 Airservices

I say some because in light of the SMH article yesterday, the 2 most topical AQON (390 & 392) appear to be MIA??   

Para 377:

 Admission of guilt?

---

"A CASA spokeswoman said the agency was in the process of "transforming the way we operate to provide more consistent and standardised safety oversight", and was developing a new "oversight model" that would identify staff roles and capabilities."

So CASA are admitting;
1. They don’t provide very good consistent and standardised safety oversight? That should scare the Australian public and the Minister.
2. They are developing a new oversight model? The current one isn’t effective? The current one is out of step or touch with oversight expectations?
3. The new oversight model will identify staff roles and capabilities? So they don’t know what there staff are doing, or whether they are even capable of performing the roles that they currently do?

Wow. What an admission. A dysfunctional steaming heap. All time low morale, Inspectors speaking to the media about safety concerns, and an organisation that can’t even balance it’s budget let alone provide safety oversight. If the Minister isn’t listening, well he ought to be now. Mr Carmody is presiding over an epic failure.

C’mon Scomo, while you are on a roll and boning public servants, surely this mob could do with a giant enema? I’ve got the hose ready!!

Perhaps our useless NFI miniscule could prompt St Commode and his executive goons to provide the AQON before treasurer Josh makes the MYEFO statement, as surely it would not be a good look for ScoMo, Josh & co to have unannounced fiscal blowouts inside of the aviation safety autocracy (MOAS trough fund) -   

Ps As an aside I note that St Commode has firmly planted his middle finger in remembrance to Bruce Rhoades and in  reply to both the Glen Buckley and Angel Flight embuggerances along with Senator McDonald's announced General Aviation inquiry, by promoting one of his faithful accolytes Craig Martin to the executive ranks:

Craig Martin

Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance at Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Pps Note what CM has shared/Favorited on his Linkedin page:

Shane Carmody FRAeS
• 3rd+
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
1mo • 

My latest aviation safety message from the recent Regional Aviation Association Conference.



CASA links Serious Incidents to Pilot Attitude - Australian Flying
australianflying.com.au

Hmm...says it all really - 

[Sandy Reith]

My answer to Mr. Carmody’s contention that a bad attitude towards CASA will make pilots more likely to have accidents.
Mr. Carmody shows with his attitude and beliefs that he fails to appreciate that 90% of General Aviation’s (GA) bad attitude towards CASA is due the record of CASA. In the earlier phase of my career in GA, in particular before 1988, most of the industry granted a measure of respect to the regulator even though it was paternalistic, rule bound and inefficient. The regulatory framework was sorely in need of updating as was the administrative function of CASA (or predecessor by other names) but flying businesses could operate. In it’s circular letter, 3rd April 1989, written to operators it stated that it would rewrite the rules to provide “more business-like procedures....with view to reducing requirements, and their associated costs, to a minimum.”
In the one crucial area of GA, by wiping out most of Australia’s flying schools, by steadily increasing the paperwork burdens and more and more stringent, complex and impractical rules, CASA has failed spectacularly to honour it’s promise.
The Government’s action to create an independent Commonwealth corporate body and task it with rewriting the rules, thirty-one years and still not finished, has been a colossal failure of governance that has cost Australia dearly.
The lines of government responsibility back to the electors was effectively discarded and needs to be re-established. In the meantime some interim measures must be ordered by government if it wishes to create GA jobs and services. Measures like independent instructors and maintenance engineers, self declared private pilot medicals, and the removal of the majority of the super expensive two year Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) requirements will have to be implemented quickly to prevent further debilitating GA industry decline.

[P7_TOM]

Of the Devil and the details. (Part 2).

Under Standing Order 25 (2) (a), the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will inquire into and report on the current state of Australia's general aviation industry, with particular reference to aviation in rural, regional and remote Australia. Etc.

(b) CASA's processes and functions, including:

(i) its maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including viable general aviation and training sectors;

Hatch - “CASA is facing a $3.4 million budget shortfall this financial year, amid uncertainty around domestic aviation fuel excise revenue. Revenue from the 3.5¢-a-litre excise tax has been flat because” - etc……….

Uhmmm? Let me guess – Gee Whiz, that’s a tough one though ain’t it? Less flying, ergo less fuel purchased; therefore less revenue from a tax which should have been repealed years ago – that about sums it up. I begs the question, why is there less flying?

(i) [“its] maintenance of an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”

Strange concept: CASA do not ‘maintain’ the aviation industry; it is up to the business operator to be efficient and sustain the business – sod all to do with CASA. The only input CASA should have (in theory) is providing a rule set and ensuring compliance within the business. There’s the rub. To simplify the complex problem of bad rules, applied and manipulated to suit, an anecdote may help. The ‘Pie in Sky’ company, being smart, routinely call in an independent auditor to make certain that their contractual and regulatory requirements are met. At audit end, there will be a meeting, recommendations are made, discussed and action taken to meet any short fall or oversight. Not a problem; as it benefits the business. A ‘bad’ area is identified, rectified and the changes applied. Big tick and smiles all around. This is not the case when the CASA team lob in; far from it. Some of the end results from CASA subjective, even agenda driven audit have been horrendous, counter productive, pointless and; in some cases, downright dangerous, not to mention vindictive. We have three documented cases where ‘evidence’ and result have been falsified and manipulated; one of these will be made a formal, public submission to the Senate committee. It is time that CASA were exposed for what they really are.   

  (ii) the efficacy of its engagement with the aviation sector, including via public consultation; and

‘Engagement’ is not a word I’d use to define the relationship between industry and regulator; it implies a two way street – not true. CASA talk – you listen, nod and get away as fast and as far as possible. In any company office, the sighs of relief and cussing after CASA have left are a routine result of any ‘engagement’ with CASA. Even making a call to CASA is a trial of will and a test of patience; almost everyone has a tale of pure frustration to add to the growing heap. It is a battle, every time – forbearance, time and money must be available before any form of ‘engagement’ with CASA – a ‘brave pill’ taken beforehand greatly assists.

‘Public consultation’ is a standing joke. There is no such animal. There is carefully selected elements of industry which may sit in the hallowed ‘meetings’. Those of a similar mind-set always welcome, it reduces the chance of resistance to whatever CASA have decided the outcome will be – very cosy. Then there is the other type of ‘consultation’ done in private where hints whispered and promises are made which ensure division; providing a perfect platform for saying the GA industry is splintered and in disarray; can’t even agree on the type of tea to be served; thus CASA simply enforce whatever they want, claiming to be acting in the 'best interest of industry’.

(iii) its ability to broaden accessibility to regional aviation across Australia, considering the associated benefits  of an expanded aviation sector; and

This is a ‘doozy’. The finance world considers investment in aviation ‘high risk’ – the returns expected on monies invested are onerous, when other investments return the equivalent with much less risk. Accountants and such regard any form of Air Operator Certificate (AOC) as a liability, not an asset these day. If you can obtain one that is. Years ago, It was possible for a couple of mates to get together, pool resources and begin an air service of some description, this is basically how operations like Rex, began – Hazelton (Cudal) started out crop dusting and grew into a regional airline; Kendell in Wagga same-same; there are many others. They all ‘grew’ through there own abilities and determination; but, they all worked through ‘the department’ of the day. It was never a stroll in the park, but it was achievable and, importantly, affordable. ‘Compliance’ was achieved through a sensible, practical process, overseen by a ‘practical’ regulator. This is so far removed from the present day system as to be almost a faery tale. But, back in the day, you could with perseverance, set up an operating company and grow it. I know of one operator who took two years and spent almost a quarter million dollars to achieve what is, in essence, a simple AOC.  Flight schools the same; almost every country town had a facility where, those who wanted to, could learn to fly – there is barely an aircraft a week landing at these aerodromes now.


  (iv) any related matters.

Oh, there’s plenty of those to go around – but why bother. We all know where the problem lays; a decent minister would sort it out and claim a resounding success – but no, we have to wait two years for actions which may or may not be of benefit. Action is needed – NOW not after another inquiry which will ‘discover’ the same ‘facts’ return the same results and be treated exactly the same as the previous ‘inquiry’.

You do realise that had a DAS who knew what he was about been appointed; non of the current situation would be happening; had the minister an advisor and DAS with the first clue, he’d be famous as the man who saved this nation’s aviation industry. Someone tell the fool – please: save us the expense, delay and mountainous piles of pony-pooh another inquiry would produce.

[Sandy Reith]

Four years ago David Forsyth and his team came up with about 37 recommendations, government accepted all bar around three or four. Steve Hitchen asked me to write my opinion about the government’s response. I found that about half of the accepted recommendations were only accepted in principle.

Australian Flying published my opinion under my chosen heading “High Hopes or Soft Soaps.”
Has there been any discernible turn around, real improvements of substantive nature? No there has not because the government had no willpower to follow through and the whole exercise was a huge waste of time and money. Instead of seeing or finding the root cause of the disaster the Senate Committee embarks upon yet another time and money wasting inquiry which will only send more aviation participants into despair or resignation. More will simply give up and its a moot point if a new and younger cohort of aviation personnel will make up replacement numbers.

The only difference presently is the good motivation of the Senate Committee, it is not soft soaping but it is on a wrong course. It should be demanding immediate government action at Cabinet level. They have reams of material and scores of industry people to draw upon.

[Kharon]

Four years ago David Forsyth and his team came up with about 37 recommendations, government accepted all bar around three or four. Steve Hitchen asked me to write my opinion about the government’s response. I found that about half of the accepted recommendations were only accepted in principle.

Australian Flying published my opinion under my chosen heading “High Hopes or Soft Soaps.”
Has there been any discernible turn around, real improvements of substantive nature? No there has not because the government had no willpower to follow through and the whole exercise was a huge waste of time and money. Instead of seeing or finding the root cause of the disaster the Senate Committee embarks upon yet another time and money wasting inquiry which will only send more aviation participants into despair or resignation. More will simply give up and its a moot point if a new and younger cohort of aviation personnel will make up replacement numbers.

The only difference presently is the good motivation of the Senate Committee, it is not soft soaping but it is on a wrong course. It should be demanding immediate government action at Cabinet level. They have reams of material and scores of industry people to draw upon.

 --> Spot on and choc frog.
 
Boycott or KBO?
 
“The learning point: when all around you appears to be in a state of collapse, just keep going. You may find that seemingly overwhelming events have a way of working themselves out. As Churchill famously put it, “Keep buggering on” (KBO).
 
Both notions have merit; I confess to a sinking feeling when I look over the reams of material available and anticipate the hours of work required to condense it into a cohesive, final argument which may – maybe bring about some sanity into the regulator and the regulations. All unnecessary, all avoidable for the wont of a decent DAS and a minister with more brains than a well trained rabbit and the sensitivity of a pub toilet seat. Alas…
 
One of the heart breaking things is IMO the focus points of the proposed inquiry. Perhaps the first thing industry could do is to draft a list of ‘real’ issues for the RRAT to investigate. Gods alone know how long that list would end up; but, I dare say ‘the list’ could be condensed into a few broad categories. Industry complaints for example. There is an item which would rock the Senators socks. Real issues, in real time, in the real world; who gives a toss about once again defining why CASA is a failed experiment – we know the answer to that. Its writ large across every aerodrome in this land – bleak, empty and surrounded by developers seducing the town Council.
 
Major flaws in the RRAT inquiry focus–
 
(i) Time. By the end of the two year period a new director will be appointed. It will take a whole year after the final report for CASA and the minister to respond; the new boss will then ‘re-organise’ which will take another twelve month – it will then take a further two years for the results to become apparent. Forget it – bring in a new director now with a brief to reform CASA. Import some sensible regulation and within the two years the Senate proposes to be poncing about industry will be up and running – properly. We don’t need another inquiry – we need a honest regulator and sane regulation – now; before Christmas would be great.
 
(ii) Many years ago, there was the longest running Senate inquiry into aviation. (Stand corrected here) from memory the Morrison Inquiry – that ran (from memory) just shy of a full year. Since then there have been other ‘inquiries’ (many) all of which archived sweet Fanny Adams except bring about the current unholy Pooh fight. The Iron Ring simply built defences against future attack on the issues raised and continued along, unchallenged to the place it holds today. Wholly and totally responsible for the mess industry is in.
 
There’s lots more to consider – but if the Senate is ‘fair dinkum’ then they need to call for submissions from ex ATSB, ASA and CASA employees (in camera); revisit every act of embuggerance against operators and get a grip on the real reasons why aviation is failing. Another round of recommendations treated as opinion is about as much use as a chocolate firewall.
 
There is a real temptation to say ‘Ah Duck it’ and spend the time demanded doing something useful – like campaigning for land rights for gay whales.
 
Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

ToARE: 1988 till - ?? 

Given the proud pronouncement from St Commode that after 31 years the RRP is officially over (see here:  https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...7#pid10897 &/or http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...s3kJLCK.99 ), this week on the AP we will look back on where it all began because over the next 12 months we approach some more infamous, industry demoralising, milestones. For example the 30 year failed model of turning the CAA into a Government Business Enterprise and a quarter of a century since the "S" was added to CAsA; combined with ATC officially being divorced from the regulator...

To begin my RRP review (or ToARE - timeline of aviation regulatory embuggerance) here is a rather lengthy 2009 philosophy Doctorate thesis from Carol Durkin; that provides a fairly concise summary/review of most of the period in question i.e 1988 to now: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu...m/PDF/view (refer from 

Now let's refer back to the LMH and associated article where St Commode makes the bollocks statement that the RRP is finally over...  

Hitch with last LMH for the year..etc. - 

First after the CASA Iron Ring deckchair announcement above there was this proclamation from St Commode:

---

 CASA completes Aviation Regulation Reform Program
16 December 2019


    

Late last week, the Governor-General signed three pieces of aviation regulation that signified the end of a 31-year reform program.

The three parts–103, 105 and 131–complete the regulation reform started in 1988 to migrate the Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) and other instruments into the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR).

CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody said he was pleased the reform program was finally complete and praised industry representatives that assisted with the program.

"Two years ago we had 10 regulations to complete the CASR suite. I made a commitment to industry that we'd get them done and today I am pleased we have finally got there," he said.

“I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the regulation development program, particularly the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel and associated Technical Working Groups in the past couple of years. It is testament to the willingness of the aviation industry to get behind our commitment to streamline the aviation safety regulations.

“Now a significant part of CASA’s focus turns to continuing to consult on the detail of some of the supporting standards and transition arrangements and preparation of guidance material to ensure the aviation community has the support they need."

The final three parts were:

• CASR Part 103 – Sport and Recreational Aviation Operations
  
  
• CASR Part 105 – Sport and Recreational Parachuting
  
  
• CASR Part 141 – Manned Free Balloon Operations
  

The length of the reform program has been seen as a plague on the industry, with many changes increasing costs and regulatory burden. Some regulations, such as CASR Part 61, are under heavy post-implementation scrutiny, which may see more change in the future to make them more workable.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...s3kJLCK.99

---

Finally Hitch wraps it all up with his final LMH for the year...  

---

The Last Minute Hitch: 16 December 2019

16 December 2019

– Steve Hitchen

Several of the CASR Parts were ill-informed and rushed into law

Yes! After 31 years of embarrassing regulation reform the project looks to be finally done. With CASA announcing the last three CASRs signed into law, they can put their quills back into their ink wells. That's the theory anyway. The reality is that although we're sticking out the "Mission Accomplished" sign like George W Bush, there is still a lot of work to do. Several of the CASR Parts were ill-informed and rushed into law without regard to whether or not they were actually functional. The boxes were ticked, but the products need a lot of re-work. There has been plenty said about Part 61, but there is still a lot to come to the surface over the next year and that will mean we'll all have to take up our pens once again. In the case of Part 61, the issue of flight training (also handed to Stakeholder Engagement) has become the paramount issue. To put it as basically as possible: we're running out of them and Part 61 makes it hard to get more. So there's still plenty to do on regulation. Consider also that some CASRs never existed as CARs (for example, Part 149) and are still effectively under construction. It seems there's still so much that needs to be done that it will never feel like the mission has indeed been accomplished ... just like George W Bush.

...May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

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

Plus some comments in reply...

Grant McHerron • 2 days ago
Sure, they're signed into law but the details & coverage of these laws are in their MOS and (for Part 131 at least) those don't exist, not to mention many of the aspects they were supposed to cover aren't included in the regs yet.

This is like saying the building is ready to use when all you have is a shaky frame but no walls, windows, doors or interior systems.

I guess they'll get around to all that eventually but without Carmody pressing them to deadlines (& based on "progress" over the last 20 years), I guess we'll be trying to get everything tidied up for the rest of this century

---

Richard RUDD • 3 days ago

Regulatory reform program at an end And it isnt even April Fools Day.

Try a pull on the other one.

I posit this pre Xmas "gift" to the aviation nation is a direct result of the announcement of the 2020 RRAT Senate Inquiry.

After the disgusting waste of $ billions over 31 years !!!, CASA can now say its all done and dusted and all is right in the GA world. Rubbish !!

So now any submitter to RRAT cant talk about CAsA's unfinished symphony..although we do get the 'phony'' bit.

And as for 'stakeholder group' uptake of more coverage and a bigger badge, from this little acorn a great oak ( ie empire ) will grow. Another head for the CAsA Hydra.

Its the bureaucratic way.
Happy Xmas, GA !! 

In typical RR style, Rudders nails it -     



Okay scene set, let's begin with what I think were three pivotal historical moments on the aviation regulatory embuggerance timeline;

Reference links: Hansard 16 May 1990 

1) 1989 Pilot strike: The reasons the pilot strike was important in the ToARE;

a) led to a mass exodus of nearly a whole generation of experienced, seasoned pilots to ex-pat jobs overseas; or becoming dispirited and leaving the industry totally;

b) due to the subsequent economic downturn within the industry the regulator's coffers also shrunk leading to layoffs of essential frontline staff and purges within executive and middle management;

Quote from Mr Jull (Hansard link above):

...In the Estimates committees last night we learned that the CAA in fact had lost something like $60m in charges during that particular dispute and that the Federal Airports Corporation was facing the prospect of some very large losses this year as a result of the pilots dispute...

  
2) Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1990  (16 May 1990): As Sandy continuously reiterates the making of the then CAA into a GBE is clearly a failed form of governance of any number of Federal govt agencies but none more so than the aviation safety regulator: see PDF link Hansard HERE (from page  for that particular infamous historical moment in time:

(PDF page 30)

...In line with the philosophy of moving from oversight of day to day operations to an emphasis on results and Board accountability, the Bill removes a range of day to day controls exercised by government, including controls over the terms and conditions of individual borrowings, the approval of individual contracts, the purchase of shares and the establishment of subsidiaries and partnerships. These are now appropriately the responsibility of the Board.

Other provisions in the Bill relating to appointment and dismissal of Board members, conduct of Board meetings and the appointment and powers of the chief executive officer reflect more clearly the respective roles of the Minister and the Board and clarify issues of administration of the Authority. Although the CAA currently pays a range of Commonwealth and State taxes and duties, it is exempt from payment of Commonwealth income tax. This Bill removes that exemption and provides for the CAA to be fully subject to Commonwealth income tax with effect from 1 July 1991.

As I indicated earlier, other provisions in the Bill, unrelated to the reform measures outlined above, include measures to implement, as far as practicable, the recommendations of the Air Safety Regulation Review Task Force first report that the cost to industry of proposed standards of aviation safety should be taken into account by the Authority, and that significant offences in the regulations relating to crucial areas of air safety should be included in the Act...

 
3) The 1995 Plane Safe inquiry report (refer page 83 of the Carol Durkin thesis); and in particular Chapter 10 (pg 105) dealing with the 'Terrell report':

The Terrell Report

10.6 The Terrell study group was appointed in February 1993 by
the CAA board to report on, as interpreted by the committee, the
effectiveness of the operations of the Safety Regulation and
Standards (SR&S) Division. The inquiry was short and the report
brief. The 11 page report included an outline of the major issues,
themes raised and a proposed course of action.

10.7 The committee points out that the report did not contain any
recommendations. The proposed course of action can be divided into
three parts, namely, subject matter, mechanisms for further
examination of subject matter including implementation timetables
and responsibility for oversight.

10.8 The report said, that of highest priority is the need to address
the future funding of DASR. The other tasks identified were a
strategic plan for the management of safety, regulatory changes,
information systems, human resources management plan,
surveillance plan, control and monitoring, operations, administration
and documentation.

10.9 The mechanism for developing these projects (other than
funding) were task forces of experts drawn from industry, unions and
the CAA. Task forces would report action plans including
implementation timetables. Responsibility for oversight lay with a
committee including the chief executive officer appointed by the CAA
board.

Adequacy of the CAA response to the findings of the Terell Report

10.10 The report was completed on 12 March 1993 and presented
at the board meeting on 31 March 1993. A steering committee and
three working groups were established to implement the report. The
working groups were an organisation and management group, an
operational group and a financial and charges group. The
membership of the working groups consisted of CAA, union and
industry representatives.

10.11 In June 1993 the steering committee presented its Action
Plans, detailing its responses to the matters raised in the Terrell
Report. That committee made 59 recommendations. All except one
were accepted, by the CAA board. The board rejected the
recommendation that a directorate of aviation safety regulation be
established within the authority.

10.12 An examination of the adequacy of the CAA board's response
to the Terrell, report can be made by ascertaining whether there is a
link between the recommendations of the steering committee and the
major issues identified in the Terrell report. Table 9 on page 105
shows the relationship between the areas of the Terrell report and
the recommendations of the steering committee.

10.13 The 1993-94 CAA annual report said that 40 of the steeringcommittee
recommendations had been implemented. These included
a restructure of the directorate and the preparation of a long-term
funding strategy to cover the cost of safety regulation in Australia.
In a later part of this report there was reference to a project team
which, with the assistance of Anderson Consulting, prepared a
detailed report outlining arguments which identified the ultimate
beneficiaries of safety regulation.

10.14 As at September 1995 forty seven of the fifty eight
recommendations had been implemented. CASA gave the committee
details of the implementation status of the remaining
11 recommendations (submission 246, submissions pages 2489-2493).

Conclusions

10.15 An examination of the Terrell Report reveals little evidence
of any attempt by the study group to critically analyse the issues
outlined in the report. While this may have been a consequence of
the brevity of the study, section two in the main body of the Terrell
report, 'major issues and themes', merely amounts to a collation of
the various opinions expressed to the study group in the course of its
investigation. Referring to the Terrell Report and its
implementation, the 1992-93 annual report of the CAA said the
'process resulted in identification of a number of changes needed to
redress perceptions that safety standards may have been
compromised by the pace and extent of reform in the safety
regulation area'.

10.16 Despite raising a wide range of issues and calling for
immediate action by the CAA to overcome the problems, the Terrell
Report failed to provide specific recommendations that would
directly address any of them. The proposals left significant scope for
interpreting the issues and hence determining the appropriate
remedies.

10.17 It is apparent from looking at the distribution of the steeringcommittee
recommendations that the issues targeted in the Terrell
proposals have been covered, some more thoroughly than others. The
committee is satisfied that the CAA has provided adequate responses
to the proposals for change in the Terrell report.

10.18 This conclusion accords with the findings of the
Vincent/Harrison report (1993) which was established to review the
action plan of the steering committee. The Vincent/Harrison report
concluded that the action plan adequately addressed the principal
issues raised by the study group and that it was sound and
consistent with current day management trends. Further, the
Terrell/Ward report has an interview record with Alan Terrell who
credits Roser with developing the recommendations in the Terrell
Report.

Alan Terrell had no concerns with the way the report was
proposed to be implemented.

That chapter of Plane Safe inquiry report finished with this rather prophetic statement from the committee:

10.19 Perception and prejudice, mistrust and misinterpretation -
this has been the currency of aviation safety regulation. The question
that has to be asked is has anything changed for the better.

My question is; Q/ Was the 'Terrell Report' the start of the Iron Ring 'Law unto itself', authoritarian,  push back to any form of serious Parliamentary scrutiny of the regulator's (now officially sanctioned) function to enforce aviation safety above all other considerations, including the economic viability of the industry while trying to comply with the slowly evolving (31 year 19th Century RRP) draconian aviation safety rule-set ?

Much MTF...P2 

Ps Here are the 2 CASA AQON for Sen Sterle QON 389 and 391...

Senator Glenn Sterle asked:

 How many Flying Operations Inspectors are employed at CASA?
 On average how many hours of flying currency training was completed by Flying Operations Inspectors last year?
 How many applications for flying currency training put forward by staff have been rejected by CASA in the last year? On what grounds?
 Are CASA meeting the ICAO requirements to maintain the skills and currency of their staff to the same level held by industry?
 How many Flying Operations Inspectors are ‘not current’ (ie training not up to date) on the aircraft types they are required to oversight?

Answer:
 70. Note that not all these staff will be required to, or undertake, operational flying as part of their duties within CASA.
 The total flying currency training hours for 2018-19 was 888.98. Providing an average of these hours is not a true reflection of hours for each Flying Operations Inspector due to their varied operational requirements.
 In 2018-19, 6.3 per cent of applications were declined because the request was inconsistent with CASA’s operational capability needs at that time, an insufficient level of training or currency request or not meeting procurement requirements.
 Yes, however the ICAO’s requirements for Flying Operations Inspectors relate to currency in support of the taskings they accomplish rather than ‘the same level held by industry’.
 Nil.

---

Senator Glenn Sterle asked:

 Does CASA agree that there are serious issues with workplace culture?
 What steps is CASA taking to improve workplace culture?
 How many vacant positions exist in the technical workforce?
 What is the impact on industry and aviation safety of these positions being unfilled?
 When does CASA plan on filling these vacancies?
 CASA’s corporate plan recognises that staff lacking skill or not having the capacity to perform their role is a risk to aviation safety, why has CASA allowed so many vacancies to remain in the technical workforce?

Answer:
1. CASA’s findings from the 2019 APS Employee Census show that employee engagement remains strong at 72 per cent.
2. The CASA Workforce Plan 2019-2023 includes a wide range of initiatives that will further improve CASA’s positive workplace culture, including:
a. implementing a new Work Health and Safety Strategy to foster CASA’s safety culture;
b. refreshing the CASA Award Scheme to continue the promotion of a high-performance culture; and
c. reviewing CASA’s performance and communication scheme to foster employee development and performance.
3. As at 31 October 2019, there were 41 vacancies of the 381 technical roles in CASA.
4. CASA continues to meet industry oversight obligations. Planned surveillance for FY 2018/19 consisted of around 1100 planned safety audits with the current year achievement rate running at 93 per cent.
5. CASA continues to recruit to technical roles with three offers under consideration. If accepted, this will reduce the current technical vacancies to 38 noting additional offers will be made.
6. The industry from which CASA recruits its technical staff is highly competitive which makes it challenging to recruit and retain staff with technical skills who are in demand across the industry.
CASA manages vacancies by having in place a longitudinal recruitment program, rolling induction and training modules and by implementing programs to make best use of all the staffing resources available.

Obviously MTF on those typically obfuscated AQON - 

[Peetwo]

ToARE: Part II

Backtracking slightly and referring to the official Parliamentary timeline of regulatory embuggerance - Aviation safety regulation timeline 1982-2011 (which you'll note is desperately in need of an update??) - note the following extract which was dated 4 May 1994:

..Opposition Transport spokesman Mr John Sharp MP labelled Seaview Air as operating dangerously and a passenger risk. The CAA upgraded Seaview's licence from charter to regular public transport operator on 27 July...

Now FFWD to April 1996 where John Sharp had then became Minister after the 1996 election:

CASA board members rejected calls for their resignations from the new Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon John Sharp MP.

 
Now FFWD to this extract dated 2 October 1994: 

..A fatal accident of Seaview Air Rockwell Aero Commander en-route to Lord Howe Island killed nine aboard. On 17 October, the Minister announced a judicial inquiry to be conducted by Sir Lawrence Street into the handling of operations of Seaview Air by the CAA. On 23 December, the Minister announced the appointment of a second commissioner, Mr James Staunton who later replaced Sir Lawrence Street. The Commission of Inquiry into the Relations Between the CAA and Seaview Air commenced on 16 January 1995. The intended reporting date was 31 May 1995, to the Minister for Transport, the Hon Laurie Brereton MP, but the report did not appear until 8 October 1996 (see below) with a new Government and Minister the Hon John Sharp MP. Three other inquiries were conducted through the Parliamentary (Morris) committee, the Federal Police inquiry into dealings between some CAA officers and Seaview, and by the BASI investigation. Some CAA staff were dismissed...

This of course led to the very damning Staunton (commission of inquiry) report. The following are Hansard extracts from former Minister John Sharp's response to the tabling of the Staunton report and then Joe Hockey's 11 December 1994 speech in relation to the Ministerial response to the Seaview commission of inquiry :

..In July last year, the commercial air traffic services operations of the CAA were placed with a government business enterprise, Airservices Australia, and the safety regulatory functions vested in a separate statutory authority, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. But changing the name does not solve the problems. While there have been some worthwhile changes, particularly at Airservices, I am not satisfied that sufficient change has taken place within the safety regulator. I expect, and the public will demand, that CASA take strong and swift action in re sponse to the recommendations of Commissioner Staunton.

I reiterate my concerns about the lack of aviation experience on the board of CASA. Since their appointment more than 12 months ago, I am not aware of the board having made any serious attempt to change the culture of CASA, and I cannot think of a CASA non-executive board member having ever addressed an industry meeting or conference outlining a vision for reform of CASA.

There is a need for strong leadership and a knowledge and understanding of the industry by board members to enable them to keep ahead of the bureaucracy. I remain dissatisfied with the performance of the board in this regard and this report reinforces the importance of appointing to the board of CASA strong individuals with relevant aviation experience and the drive for reform. The role of the board is to lead and not merely rubber stamp or monitor.

In light of my concerns developed through my investigations into the Monarch disaster, and now equipped with the findings of Commissioner Staunton, I am totally convinced that substantial change within CASA is absolutely essential. This can best be achieved by having in charge of CASA a board with appropriate skills and relevant experience. I appreciate that individual members of the present board are highly qualified in their respective professions. But, just as it has taken them years of diligent effort to gain those qualifications, it will also take them years to become aviation experts. The millions of Australians who climb aboard an airplane each year can't afford to wait for them to gain that expertise.

It is for this reason that I repeat my request for them to step aside; to enable people who are expert to take charge; to implement change; to make CASA a better safety regulator; to make flying safer. I am not empowered under the legislation to remove board members who lack appropriate skills. As the minister responsible, I am required to assure the safety of the Australian public. And yet I cannot state that I have confidence in the skills of the board to ensure that their statu tory responsibility to protect the travelling public is carried out.

I find this personally distressing, particularly when I know there are many fine and capable people within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority who are desperately awaiting the right leadership and vision from the board. I can only hope that Commissioner Staunton's report will have sufficient impact to motivate the board to resign and make way for others.

P2 comment: Thinking on the above parts in bold and comparing those particular statements to the present status quo makes for depressing reading. Also consider that then Minister Sharp was very motivated to reform the regulator but less than a year after he made that speech he was forced to resign after becoming involved in the 'travel rorts' affair (a strong minister having to resign - now why does that sound familiar -   ), in this day and age he would probably have kept his job! Hmm..what might have been??    

---

..On 4 May 1994, in the House of Representatives, Minister Sharp, as he is now, when speaking about Seaview's operations, said:

. . . this airline which was operating so dangerously and which was putting people's lives at risk continued to fly.

The minister has subsequently said that it gives him no satisfaction that those concerns were most sadly proven correct by the Seaview crash in October that year...

...The report's 39 recommendations are well considered and insightful. They are the result of the contribution of 142 witnesses, over 900 exhibits, 224 days of sitting, and almost 17,000 pages of transcript. They are, given the most essential standards of air safety, absolute commonsense. In this two-volume report, Commissioner Staunton has noted a number of serious issues which require further attention and almost immediate action. Included amongst these are: firstly, an attitude that characterises breaches of the Civil Aviation Act, regulations and the orders—the attitude is called `aviation trivia'; secondly, a practice of cross hiring that enables an operator to use an aircraft of a type not endorsed on the AOC; thirdly, what can at times be considered widespread disregard by general aviation maintenance organisations for the manufacturers' requirements; fourthly, a practice of pilots overstating flying hours to obtain employment with larger operators; fifthly, the standards and adequacy of pilot training; sixthly, allowing new or relatively inexperienced pilots to fly alone and with passengers with very close to the minimum required flying hours for that particular aircraft type; seventhly, and again, the inadequacy of the maintenance release system; and, eighthly, the importance of the regulatory authority to have adequate information about operators and pilots...

...Out of all the concerns that have been expressed by Commissioner Staunton in this report, the underlying question has to be: was the Civil Aviation Authority competent in its activities and considerations in the lead-up to the very tragic Seaview aircraft crash? It is absolutely crucial that the now safety regulator, CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which was hived off out of part of the body of the Civil Aviation Authority, has as its key consideration the safety of fee paying passengers...

...The member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) has given me some level of comfort out of his briefing with CASA this morning. He said that there will be an increase in the number of staff, particularly in relation to regulation. He said that there will be better training for regulators and that there is an increased oversight of international airlines, which is a major problem at the moment. So there is some comforting factor but there is still some way to go.

In this report, Commissioner Staunton said:

The public safety demands high standards of diligence and integrity by both the regulator and the industry.

There is an obligation to ensure that the regulator is not institutionally timid, as was the criticism of the CAA with regard to Seaview. The regulator is there to protect the passengers. The nine people who died off Lord Howe Island deserved better than what they received. Air passengers, in trusting their lives to airline operators in every plane flying in and out of Australian skies, deserve better than that. (Time expired)

During this extremely fractious period (1993-1999) it became strongly evident that the regulator had been captured (refer 6.2.1 pg 205 of Durkin thesis). This evidence in turn left successive Goverment's grappling with how best to properly oversight CASA?? 

The destructive inner turmoil this created within the regulator, was to continue right up until mid-1999 (refer link HERE), till a new period began under then Minister John Anderson (TBC).

MTF...P2 

Ps Like a foul smelling CB over Aviation House, the questions that still linger (after 31 mostly miserable years of trying to reform both the regulator and the regulations) is: Q/ What has changed for the better and at what cost to the industry?

[Peetwo]

Being Bipartisan-ed - 



Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-27-10-19-the-bu...bull-dust/

New Years heads up for the Senators...  

Ref: ― William Shakespeare, Othello plus: Google pic links 1) https://images.app.goo.gl/2f7HznwGsWKmEkFPA & 2) https://images.app.goo.gl/CpQfv64GLm8GLhgw9

She swore, in faith 'twas strange, 'twas passing strange;

The end of a ‘most peculiar year’ is drawing nigh. What are we, the Hoi Polloi, to make of it? For ‘tis a fair question. I can’t make Heads or Tails of it.

“The phrase may have its beginnings all the way back in Ancient Rome, in a phrase used by Cicero, ne caput nec pedes which means neither head nor feet, referring to a state of confusion.”

...Standard response – but our correspondent fails to mention the vehemence with which a ‘complainant’ will be dealt with. CASA have and still do pursue ‘personal grudges’ and the CASA line to a point which can, seriously damage reputation, earning ability and even a career. Should this latest Senate inquiry wish to be taken seriously; and, genuinely want to set matters aeronautical to rights; they should call for ‘Complaints’ from industry folk. In camera – fine; but if ever the truth gets loose in the corridors of power – well!



This bipartisan bollocks and ministerial protection racket just has to stop. At a stretch, you could take it back as far as Lockhart River; without too much effort you could go back to the ‘Staunton report’ – which not only rocked the minister to the soles of his boots, but the rest of ‘em too. The only quarrel we have with Staunton is that he knocked off early – CAA assisted manslaughter was, IMO, on the cards. Instead of a righteous reform we drew today’s paranoia. Rot this deep must be ruthlessly cut out – the Kiwi’s did it; miles ahead now.

"My advice is to forget tribunals and courts and go political. If you can get a politician onside money becomes meaningless. Your issues can be raised in parliament under privilege and reported on verbatim by the media. That will really put the pressure right back where the Minister does not like it - in plain view.

Amen to that. Until the ‘government’ stop hiding behind so called ‘expert’ advice and taking the easy way out of Dodge; nothing will change for the better. The minister should be ‘responsible’ and made to defend the actions of CASA against the ‘opposition’. That, in my book is democracy in action – not the farcical inaction we see from the DPM’s office. Disgusting, cowardly and cheap. Not the democracy we pay for – not by a long shot.

Should you, perchance think I’m drawing the long bow of total lack of political interest apart from ‘protection. Take a coffee and read the results of P2’ research – on the tip of the iceberg. Post 1 – Post 2. Read ‘em and weep.


Ref: https://auntypru.com/red-rag-post/ & 4G leaves it to the experts (CASA) on airport safety - TICK..TOCK! & Times up for Pel_air MkII & https://auntypru.com/sbg-17-11-19-gloves...-all-that/

P2 comment: Not sure what 'Old Mate' Thorny is playing at 'Trumping' the SBG with Snippets but in case you missed it Mr A on the Glenn Buckley thread on the UP 

Mr Approach:

To respond to Duck Pilot, Mark Skidmore told me that he was leaving CASA because he was sick of "banging his head against a brick wall".

In his case that would have be the Department, acting on behalf of the Minister, because he otherwise controlled the CASA agenda.

Regardless of press releases, the Department is mortified about change, they need the status quo so that the Minister can never be blamed if something goes wrong.

When something does go wrong, as with Angel Flight, then the response must be more regulation, regardless of whether it actually addresses the problem. the Minister is then seen to have acted and all is now well again.

Well done Minister!

Followed by - 

It is satisfying to have Aunty Pru re-quote me in her blog however she claims that I failed to mention the "Standard response – but our correspondent fails to mention the vehemence with which a ‘complainant’ will be dealt with. CASA have and still do pursue ‘personal grudges’ and the CASA line to a point which can, seriously damage reputation, earning ability and even a career."


I did that because it would have moved the focus from Glenn to myself, my issues are not the problem and never will be in my posts. Having said that I agree with Aunties summation of the CASA view about "messengers" - "will be shot on sight" - to quote an old table of corporate culture. Personalities, cliques, favourites, in-crowds, old boys clubs, they are allowed to operate unchecked, to become part of one is the average employees dream. Therein lies a long career, plenty of overseas junkets, lots of time to contemplate life and eventually a rich retirement. The Aviation Industry - outside of Defence, the major airlines, and essential vote winners such as the RFDS, is just a nuisance.

To quote my executive manager when I first joined CASA - "I want to know about something if it affects a politician, will get in the media, or concerns Sydney Airport" deal with everything else yourselves!

MTF...P2 

ps Dear Senators if you want a starting point for the last decade of the aviation industry being embuggered by a self-serving, self-preserving big R-regulator playing on the 'mystique of aviation safety' and the consequential political bipartisanship that follows, then go no further than this post here: 

 Red Rag Post:-  Or:  Red Rag Post:-