[Kharon]

Homework for the RRAT committee.

Should the McDolittle committee ever get off it's beam ends again and actually do something useful; (about now) there is a question (or two) that could be asked, the answers enlightening.

'We' (a few of the BRB) have been running a count of the legislation changes made in Australia and a comparison graph to map out the 'changes' other 'grown up' administrations, such as the UK, USA and NZ have made in the same time frame.

To do this exercise properly, it is important to 'register' - HERE - for the true Australian count. Failure to do so provides a different 'count' and the data received 'on the street' differs somewhat from the 'official' count (curious ain't it). It is a remarkable difference; the overseas administrations tally of change notifications match the official count and those transmitted to industry.

So, the homework questions:-

Since 2017 there have been 232 email notifications of changes to regulation sent to Australian subscribers: a half a dozen of which describe re write of an entire suite. How many of those were obtained by those not 'registered?


How many of the notified changes were fully explained in terms of benefits to industry by way of savings, ease of operational restriction, added 'safety' value' and alignment with ICAO?

I say we have for 33 long, weary, expensive years lived with a regulatory suite in a constant state of flux. The cost to the taxpayer and industry into the Billion dollar realm. The regulations are not ICAO compliant, are cumbersome and onerous. How much more time and money must be expended before the Minister and government realise that the regulatory reform program is a long standing waste which is killing off an industry which, overseas, is flourishing?

Final question - how much easier and cost / operationally effective would it be to simply adopt the world wide gold standard?  The savings; cost benefits and operational increased activity stand alone would affect the national budget and increase revenue for the nations coffers.

What would the savings be if the regulatory reform program were dumped and the ICAO compliant rule set transitioned in, without interference?

There you go - a question or two worth the cost of having a Senate committee ask. Should the McDolittle coven ever reconvene and actually do something that is..

Toot - toot. (and yes, we do have definitive answers). NFP.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

To add to Kharon's post above..

The email notifications numbered 232.

The actual changes to various bits and pieces of legislation numbered 299.  296 if you discount the legislation relating to yet another inquiry into CASA..

Of these 296, the Civil Aviation Regulations suite was re-compiled three times, on 16/11/2018, 5/04/2019, and 3/08/2019.

On the other hand, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations were re-compiled.....wait for it....a staggering 14 times.  Once, in October 2020, only a couple of days apart.
4/03/2017, 5/04/2018, 21/09/2018, 12/04/2019, 7/08/2019, 20/08/2019, 13/11/2019, 17/07/2020, 4/09/2020, 13/10/2020, 15/10/2020, 23/12/2020, 11/02/2021, and 23/03/2021.

Notice the two dates in 2021.....after St Commodius resigned.  Hang on a second...didn't he say it was all done and dusted?  He wouldn't tell a porkie pie now, would he?

Some other stats...

There are 91 exemptions for various things, some appearing more than once.

There are 9 amendment instruments for CAO 48.1.  Which appears to have been re-written 6 times.

Prescription of aircraft and ratings — CASR Part 61 starts with Edition 3, then goes Editions 5, 6, 7 and 8.  What happened to Edition 4?  Did it fall down behind the tea lady's trolley to get trampled to death?

Urgh....this is doing my head in!

P7 -

Well done CW - the troops say thanks - sorry about the headache, Tim Tams on the way to enjoy with "a vanilla latte with two sugars" - Cheers...

[thorn bird]

As so many people have said before, the whole "Regulatory reform" program is simply a giant farcical make work exercise by a completely incompetent out of control government agency.

The same exercise was conducted in Europe which decimated the industry there, yet we chose to follow their example allegedly aligning our rules with their rules, which we didn't, just cherry picked bits and pieces that suited our agenda.

Hundreds of millions of dollars, thirty years in the making, to what end? what was the end game?

How does CASA measure its success? Is it measured against the complete collapse of general aviation? or the highest airfares in the world (We used to have that, remember the two airlines policy).

They say its all about safety, measured against what? Are we really safer than other developed countries? Statistics would suggest we are not, so what was the point?

If the point was to destroy general aviation they could simply banned private flying, saved everyone a fortune and angst instead of death by a thousand cuts. Think of the fortune the treasury could have made selling off airports at their market value, instead of defrauding the people of Australia by giving them away to development sharks to allegedly run as airports then allowing them to bite chunk after chunk off to build industrial warehouses compromising their utility and their very safety operationally.

When measured over the past thirty years has the draconian regulation rewrite done anything to achieve that nirvana, they promised? Do we have the safest in the world?

The industry itself must carry a lot of the blame for its current demise, they should have seen it coming and revolted long ago, unfortunately its too late now, fait accompli. Its all so sad and in a way tragic that one day our grandchildren will look back and say "what were they thinking"?

[Peetwo]

VALE SENATOR ALEX GALLACHER

Via the Prime Mover Mag: https://www.primemovermag.com.au/vale-se...gallacher/

Industry this week has mourned the loss of Senator Alex Gallacher.

Gallacher, who passed away after a two year battle with lung cancer, was described as ‘a transport man to the bootstraps’.

Having worked as a truck driver, labourer and airline ramp operator before joining the Transport Workers’ Union in 1988, Gallacher became the Branch Secretary of South Australia in 1996 before being elected to the Senate of Australian Parliament in 2010, where he served until his recent passing 30 August 2021.

In the Senate he was a staunch advocate for road safety, also chairing several parliamentary committees, including on foreign affairs, trade and economics.

As a director of industry fund TWUSUPER, Alex advocated for the financial interests of transport workers in retirement.

In a statement issued overnight, TWUSuper called Gallacher a voice in the Senate for the transport Industry, for safety, and countless other issues serving the Australian community.

“We hope that some of what he took to the Senate was honed during his time serving on our Board and the various Committees,” TWUSUPER said.

Gallacher was also chair of the Investment Committee where he established protocols and culture which are still followed today according to the Victorian Transport Association.

“Alex had the skill to solve complex problems by using common sense and the wisdom gained over many years of listening to people to people from all walks of life,” said VTA CEO Peter Anderson.

“He possessed an uncanny ability to separate fact from fiction. The VTA was fortunate to work with Alex in his various transport industry representative roles, developing a respect for his genuine interest in advocating for the prosperity of the industry and its workers,” he said.

“We extend our sincere sympathies to his wife Paola, his four adult children, and his many friends and colleagues.”

TWUSUPER said Gallacher knew what it felt like to work, earn a living and to be embedded in the transport industry — an industry he cared so much about.

That care went beyond just trucking and logistics, but extended to all aspects of transport and involvement in many issues including road safety and saving lives.

He brought a sharp mind, a no-nonsense attitude and sense of responsibility to the Senate and to the TWUSUPER Board where he served from 1996 according to the TWUSUPER statement.

Current Chair of the TWUSUPER Investment Committee Paul Ryan, served with Gallacher said he was respected by fellow TWUSUPER Board members from both the TWU and those representing transport businesses.

“His ability to ‘cut through’ complex investment issues with common sense made it much easier for the Board to make crucial investment decisions with members’ interests at the heart of their decision-making,” said Ryan.

“I recall several occasions when serving on the Investment Committee, where a slick sales presentation by a fund manager selling their wares would be pulled apart by Alex. He didn’t suffer fools and could quickly separate fact from fiction.”

Sentiments that are echoed by Frank Sandy, TWUSUPER CEO, who remembers Gallacher as a gifted intellect and persuasive speaker.

“At TWUSUPER, we were fortunate to have Alex Gallacher as a long-serving Board member where Alex’s views and insights brought clarity to issues and always with a strong sense of service. He was a man of deep intelligence, passion and care,” he said.

Plus from BJ, via Twitter and Youtube: 

Alex Gallacher was a man of great conviction whose presence on the Senate benches will be sorely missed. Our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time.

Vale, Senator Gallacher.

A man of great conviction indeed -  the following are a couple of examples of Sen Gallacher taking it up to Airservices CEO Harfwit in RRAT Senate Estimates:

And finally in questioning of Beaker and the ATSB over the dodgy MH370 deep sea search contract:

RIP Senator Alex Gallacher - you Sir were a true Statesman!!

P2 - 

[Peetwo]

AQON 181 - Don't mention ICAO??

Ref Mount NCN thread:

QON answered - QON unanswered?? -   

Via RRAT Estimates page: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat

IMO the bigger QON here is why QON 181 remains unanswered and is now overdue? 

1. In response to Committee Question Number 112, Airservices Australia said that it is regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). a. As its regulator, has Airservices informed CASA about (i) any internally raised safety concerns with regards to ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) safety standards not having been applied correctly to the Brisbane airspace design, and; (ii) any Airservices' internal investigation into such safety concerns employing their in-house operational integrity and standards specialists? What has Airservices reported to CASA? b. As the regulatory authority overseeing Airservices, what has been CASA's response? c. In response to Committee Question Number 101, Airservices confirmed that, "Airservices did not engage another air navigation service provider to review the closed STAR option [at Brisbane Airport]." And further in response to Committee Question Number 105, Airservices stated, "No consultants were used by Airservices Australia in the Flight Path Design work for the parallel runway airspace [at Brisbane Airport]." - Considering the common practice by Airservices to engage external and independent "air navigation service providers on parallel runway systems and parallel runway operations from a number of countries including the Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, France, United States of America and Canada" (Airservices' answer to Committee Question Number 103), why was Brisbane's airspace designed without independent review from external experts when others have been? As the regulatory body overseeing Airservices, why did CASA not insist on Airservices engaging external and independent peer reviewers considering the calibre and scale of this project and its long-term impact on Australia's third largest city? d. Did CASA conduct any of its own reviews of Airservices' design for Brisbane's airspace before it was finalised and launched? And if so, were any issues or flaws identified - either with regards to ICAO safety standards, or with regards to the stark imbalance between maximising capacity whilst minimising noise abatement outcomes for local communities?  

Finally, some 3 months overdue, AQON 181??

Answer:
a (i) No safety concerns have been raised.
(ii) As no safety concerns have been raised, no reports to CASA were required.
b. Not applicable.
c. CASA assesses an airspace proposal in accordance with the Airspace Act 2007 and is not required to
recommend an independent review, nor considered it necessary.
d. CASA was regularly engaged during the airspace design process to ensure the outcome was fit for purpose, safe and compliant with airspace regulations. CASA was satisfied with the aviation safety aspects of the proposed change. CASA was not involved in approvals or conditions related to flight path noise. Airservices Australia is responsible for considering noise outcomes from flight path designs

"..The ONLY reason the Commonwealth is able to regulate aviation is because Parliament DOES have a 'Treaty Power'. The Chicago Convention 1944 is effectively a 'Treaty' so the Federal Government uses it's 'foreign affairs power' as the front from which it is able to make laws to give effect to the Articles of the Convention..."

Now refer back to this post: Mount NCN shrinking but Airports still loom as biggest risk??

"..with regards to ICAO safety standards" - So were the ICAO standards (again) O&O'd and simply not considered? 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

RRAT Supplementary Estimates - 

Via the APH website:

2021–22 Supplementary budget estimates
Monday, 25 October 2021

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications

Tuesday, 26 October 2021
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment
Program 25 to 26 October 2021 (PDF 204KB)

Friday, 29 October 2021
Cross-Portfolio Murray Darling Basin Plan matters
Program 29 October 2021 (PDF 172KB)

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA & ASA Estimates sessions - It's all about the SOE??

Via Youtube:

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

CASA & ASA Estimates sessions - It's all about the SOE??

Via Youtube:

Hansard out:  PDF or HERE

Senator PATRICK: I might go to a small issue first and then move to a slightly bigger issue. At one stage I happened to be in Arkaroola, in the middle of the sticks in South Australia, and I bumped into a pilot who suggested that CASA were considering changing the regulations in relation to SAR aircraft. Basically, in South Australia the SAR aircraft that do a lot of stuff around Adelaide are single engine. The proposed rule change was to be that those single engine aircraft could fly with crew, but the moment they got a passenger on board they would be outside of a requirement, which was then to have two engines. I want to explore whether or not that is actually being considered by CASA?

Ms Spence : At that level of detail, I'm not too sure whether Mr Monahan has any background on that in relation to our new flight operations regulations, and whether it's related to that or not. Otherwise we can take it on notice.

Mr Monahan : If I understand your question, it's around search and rescue helicopters. I would perhaps need some more detail. There is a question of the dwell time you have in the area where you're hovering, your inability to recover if there's an engine failure or have enough power to recover the aircraft. It would depend on the circumstances and the aircraft itself. With more detail I could provide more.

Senator PATRICK: The aircraft that I've seen look like an Iroquois style aircraft—single engine, red and white, and fly regularly out of the RRA.

Mr Monahan : I'd be happy to look into it. I don't know the specifications of the aircraft or the loading.

Senator PATRICK: If you could take that on notice in the context of South Australian aircraft. They have clearly been operating safely for some period of time. If you are going to change a regulation that in some way would require them to upgrade to a twin-engine aircraft, that is a costly proposition. I'd like to know the rationale behind the change and how you have come to the conclusion that operations that have been occurring quite safely are no longer safe. I only know that in the context of South Australia. I think most SAR aircraft, Westpac and so forth, are all twin-engine.

IMO the part in bold from former US Military Spook Monahan provides an excellent example of how entrenched the Iron Ring attitude is towards industry concerns of draconic, excessive, criminal code  regulations ie. they don't give a rat's arse...

Another comment from KC...   "Monahan out of his depth.."

Ms Spence : It's a really good question. I was actually in the department, as the relevant deputy secretary, when that piece of legislation went through, so I'm well aware of the changes. Essentially, we now require anyone who is taking forward a standard, as required in the legislation, to demonstrate how they've taken into account cost impacts and ensuring risk proportionality, which is what's required in the legislation. I could bore you with templates, but basically we do have arrangements to make sure that everyone does take those factors into account.

Senator PATRICK: In some sense, the low-level question I've asked might be a test of how you're approaching these sorts of things—

Ms Spence : Although, Senator, the flight operations regulations would have been made prior to that amendment to the legislation, but it's a good test to make sure that we're taking actions that relate to safety but not having a disproportionate impact on the industry.

Senator PATRICK: Sure. The general view of many members of the committee— I know Senator Sterle shares this view—is that pilots are now so focused on meeting CASA requirements that they are not focusing on flying. They just about need to double the size of the aircraft in order to carry all the documentation. That is an exaggeration—

CHAIR: Not a small one!

Senator PATRICK: but, it goes to Airservices Australia's annual report that says there's been an eight per cent decrease in general aviation over the last financial year. Indeed, I know Senator McDonald, the chair, has great concerns in this area, because we thought it was as low as it could go.

Ms Spence : We take the concerns very seriously. I've spoken to quite a few representatives from the GA sector since I started, and we are looking at what is within our regulations so that we can provide some support or relief for the GA sector. There are already some activities underway which will go some way to providing some relief for the GA sector.

Senator PATRICK: Where are we at with Angel Flight Australia?

Ms Spence : The instrument has got an expiry date of March next year, I think. We're currently working through what the appropriate options would be. Whichever way we go, if it's a renew, the instrument would certainly be making sure we do that in consultation more broadly but also by talking to Angel Flight and, obviously, Little Wings as well.

Senator PATRICK: Alright. So it's a case of watch this space.

"..I could bore you with templates, but basically we do have arrangements to make sure that everyone does take those factors into account..." - Yes please, bore me with templates - could we have those templates tabled please...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Supp Estimates AQON 56 & 66

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...istics.pdf

Senator Rex Patrick asked:

Senator PATRICK: Is there any possibility that you could give, on notice, the GA statistics that you have for the last, say, four or five years—just the total number of movements? Mr Harfield: We can provide you a breakdown of movements. We would classify general aviation as aircraft maximum take-off weight below 5,700 kilograms, as a general rule. We can provide that data. Senator PATRICK: And obviously it would be a commercial pilot if it's GA—as opposed to a private pilot, which is not necessarily my concern here. Mr Harfield: No, no; it would be anything that is 5,700 kilograms or less. Senator PATRICK: What I'm trying to do is understand the total number of movements over the last five years, and perhaps also by state as well if that's possible. Mr Harfield: We can give it by location. Senator PATRICK: Okay. That would be helpful, on notice

Answer:

Attachment A lists General Aviation movements for the 5 financial years to June 2021. The data includes:
 flights marked with ‘G’ (General Aviation) in the Flight Plan, operated by aircraft with a maximum take-off weight below 5,700kg
 flights by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters
 flights operated by commercial, private, and recreational pilots and may include training flights.

The data is for flights managed by Airservices Australia, either through an air traffic control tower during opening hours or through the filing of a flight plan at non-controlled airports (i.e. without an air traffic control tower). Actual General Aviation movements at non-controlled airports may therefore be higher.

A movement is defined as either a take-off or full-stop landing. Touch-and-go movements during circuit training operations are recorded as only one full-stop landing.

Attachment
 Attachment A – General Aviation movements over 5 years by state and financial year

Attachment A

General Aviation movements over 5 years by state and financial year



* Flights to or from locations without an International Civil Aviation Organization designator (such as private grass strips) and not specified in Airservices’ database.

(P2 comment - Pity the stats didn't include the previous 5 years but regardless of the pandemic there is a notable drop in each year of the 5 collated.)

Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ge-2-1.pdf

Senator Rex Patrick asked:

Senator PATRICK: I might go to a small issue first and then move to a slightly bigger issue. At one stage I happened to be in Arkaroola, in the middle of the sticks in South Australia, and I bumped into a pilot who suggested that CASA were considering changing the regulations in relation to SAR aircraft. Basically, in South Australia the SAR aircraft that do a lot of stuff around Adelaide are single engine. The proposed rule change was to be that those single engine aircraft could fly with crew, but the moment they got a passenger on board they would be outside of a requirement, which was then to have two engines. I want to explore whether or not that is actually being considered by CASA? Ms Spence: At that level of detail, I'm not too sure whether Mr Monahan has any background on that in relation to our new flight operations regulations, and whether it's related to that or not. Otherwise we can take it on notice. Mr Monahan: If I understand your question, it's around search and rescue helicopters. I would perhaps need some more detail. There is a question of the dwell time you have in the area where you're hovering, your inability to recover if there's an engine failure or have enough power to recover the aircraft. It would depend on the circumstances and the aircraft itself. With more detail I could provide more. Senator PATRICK: The aircraft that I've seen look like an Iroquois style aircraft—single engine, red and white, and fly regularly out of the RRA. Mr Monahan: I'd be happy to look into it. I don't know the specifications of the aircraft or the loading. Senator PATRICK: If you could take that on notice in the context of South Australian aircraft. They have clearly been operating safely for some period of time. If you are going to change a regulation that in some way would require them to upgrade to a twin-engine aircraft, that is a costly proposition. I'd like to know the rationale behind the change and how you have come to the conclusion that operations that have been occurring quite safely are no longer safe. I only know that in the context of South Australia. I think most SAR aircraft, Westpac and so forth, are all twin-engine. Ms Spence: I think it will tie in with the new flight operation regulations that come into effect later on this year. But, as Mr Monahan said, we'll get some detail and come back to you on notice.

Answer:

Search and Rescue (SAR) activities are regulated predominantly in Part 138 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR). Part 138 is an element of the Flight Operations Regulations which commence on 2 December 2021.

Part 138 provides risk-based requirements for aviation activities that range from the simple visual search to more complex operations such as a winch recovery.

In some areas Part 138 takes a more risk-based approach, based on industry input, and allows activities that would have otherwise been prohibited under the current rule set. An example of the risk-based approach is where Part 138 does not prevent the operation of single engine aircraft for SAR activities. For example, operating today under the night visual flight rules and carrying a passenger requires a twin-engine aircraft. Whereas Part 138 allows the carriage of up to two aerial work passengers in a single engine aircraft at night with additional risk mitigation.

The South Australia Government Attorney General’s Department, South Australian State Rescue Helicopter Service (SRHS) has been engaged proactively in discussions with CASA on a number of occasions during the development of Part 138, the development of Part 133 and the future heliport standards under consideration.

MTF...P2 

[Cap'n Wannabe]

The time has come....sorry to take so long, P7....to post the latest on legislative changes.

According to my little spreadsheet (to which I've done a few changes in order to make it easier to read..) since 04/03/2017 we have had 366 changes foisted upon us.
Breaking it down year by year:

2017 (starting 04/03/1027) 49 changes.
2018 66 changes
2019 62 changes
2020 82 changes
2021 106 changes (congrats on the century, people..)
2022 1 change. But the year is still young..

CASRs have now been amended 16 times, a further 2 times since my last posting, and CARs 4, up once.

I would be very interested to find out how many changes to the FARs have occurred in the same time period.....but that's for someone else to do.

It still does my head in...

[Peetwo]

2021–22 Additional estimates

Monday, 14 February 2022
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications
Tuesday, 15 February 2022
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment
Program 14 to 15 February 2022 (PDF 204KB)

---

Friday,18 February 2022
Cross-Portfolio Murray Darling Basin Plan matters
Program 18 February 2022 (PDF 172KB)


MTF...P2 

[Gentle]

MNG midair - Death of 4 pilots - Does anyone care?

Suppose it would be too much to expect from Estimates this week...

Confirmation that the senators of the RRAT committee cared about GA and the lives of GA pilots would be proven if they could produce from:

ATSB - production/publication of final investigation of midair at MNG
CASA - production/publication of airspace review of MNG
AsA   - production/publication of list of changes activated / proposed as a result of the midair at MNG

Victorian Government - when the coroner's inquiry might take place.

As per BLA without a coroner's inquiry the shortcomings of the ATSB report willl never exposed.

2 years and nothing

[Wombat]

MNG midair - Death of 4 pilots - Does anyone care?

Suppose it would be too much to expect from Estimates this week...

Confirmation that the senators of the RRAT committee cared about GA and the lives of GA pilots would be proven if they could produce from:

ATSB - production/publication of final investigation of midair at MNG
CASA - production/publication of airspace review of MNG
AsA   - production/publication of list of changes activated / proposed as a result of the midair at MNG

Victorian Government - when the coroner's inquiry might take place.

As per BLA without a coroner's inquiry the shortcomings of the ATSB report willl never exposed.

2 years and nothing

CASA and AsA are still working out how they can cover their posteriors and blame the pilots. Until that is achieved, there will be no final report from ATSB.

[Gentle]

Was it a dream / nightmare or was it real?

CASA’s Ms Sue Spence marched out of Senate Estimates for not doing her homework?

Employing ex cops to blackmail/force witnesses in cases against pilots / GA.

Was this CASA or the Sicilian mafia?

Senators from all sides inc. Chair putting boot in…

Might have something to do with an election…

P2 comment: Sorry to say Gentle that it was real - see below...

[Peetwo]

CASA/ASA Supp Estimates: 14/02/22

After watching the Su_Spence performance last night, I also add my voice to the growing chorus calling for her to resign. Simply staggering that this Senior public servant is earning in the order of 650K pa and yet she presents so ill prepared for Estimates - UDB! 

A call out to Senator Greg Mirabella for an outstanding 1st RRAT Estimates performance. Senator Mirabella brought good common sense and intelligence to the CASA inquisition...  

Watch and weep:

When the Hansard is available I will publish. Also note that apparently there will be a spillover hearing, the date for which is yet to be decided (according to the Secretariat).

Finally for those interested here is the ASA segment:

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

My comment to S McD's FB page:-

"Congratulations Senator McDonald on your articulation of the ills of General Aviation in Estimates and your view that there would be a great deal of Opposition questioning if the CASA CEO ($650k pa) was a Minister.

This is the nub of the 34 yr failure of ‘independent’ CASA corporate body administration, an experiment away from the Westminster system of responsible governance through a regular Department with Minister at it’s head.

Please fight for the GA community, and for the welfare and opportunities for all Australians, by promoting a Department of Aviation.
The Coalition will gain great kudos and we know that only a Coalition Government would make such a change."

Senator McDonald might now. hopefully, make the obvious step, to promote having a Minister in charge through a regular Department of Government. This is the only way to provide any real hope for the regeneration of GA.

[Wombat]

Too late for anyone hoping for a smooth pathway for CASA reform. I will explain at the end.

My comment on the committee hearing: the problems of CASA, as demonstrated by the good Senators and Pip Spences valiant efforts to answer the unanswerable are that firstly, her senior executive team set her up to fail and secondly, it is impossible to codify "safety" in a set of legalities. if you try, the regulations you write will just get more and more complex as you try and cater for new eventualities.

For example take the questions raised by the Senators about single engined rescue helicopters in SA and fire fighting Blackhawk passenger carrying; can anyone NOT see that the solution to those matters will be another ten pages of regulations and exemptions? Furthermore those regulations will only be written after direct pressure from the Senators.

Of course what SHOULD happen when an issue like this surfaces is reference back to first principles that should be contained in the preamble and wording of the Aviation Act, but our Aviation Act is rotten and offers no guidance, so instead we rely on pitiful legal bullshit that poor Pip has to try and justify but can't.

....And all of that is without allowing for the personal vendettas and corruption embedded in CASA as exemplified in the opening questions.


As for CASA reform it is now a question of whose metaphorical blood is going to be on the floor in Six months time. It is now too late for any reform before the federal election.

If the coalition win and the Nationals numbers don't collapse then Joyces SoE stands, we then have no choice but to get rid of CASA senior management and start again - this is the "quick and dirty" reform option. The slow and clean option is out as CASA senior management won't change. They have to go and quickly and with them, the old Aviation Act. That means management metaphorical blood on the floor.


if labor wins, then there will be no reform. GA and recreational flying will be sacrificed as petrol guzzling dinosaurs to the green voters - they hate farmers and regional Australia anyway. Senior Management will remain, take revenge on their critics and preside over the end of most GA and recreational flying. Labor has already said as much if you can read the code.

[Peetwo]

CASA/ASA Supp Estimates: 14/02/22

After watching the Su_Spence performance last night, I also add my voice to the growing chorus calling for her to resign. Simply staggering that this Senior public servant is earning in the order of 650K pa and yet she presents so ill prepared for Estimates - UDB! 

A call out to Senator Greg Mirabella for an outstanding 1st RRAT Estimates performance. Senator Mirabella brought good common sense and intelligence to the CASA inquisition...  

Watch and weep:

When the Hansard is available I will publish. Also note that apparently there will be a spillover hearing, the date for which is yet to be decided (according to the Secretariat).

Finally for those interested here is the ASA segment:

MTF...P2 

My comment to S McD's FB page:-

"Congratulations Senator McDonald on your articulation of the ills of General Aviation in Estimates and your view that there would be a great deal of Opposition questioning if the CASA CEO ($650k pa) was a Minister.

This is the nub of the 34 yr failure of ‘independent’ CASA corporate body administration, an experiment away from the Westminster system of responsible governance through a regular Department with Minister at it’s head.

Please fight for the GA community, and for the welfare and opportunities for all Australians, by promoting a Department of Aviation.
The Coalition will gain great kudos and we know that only a Coalition Government would make such a change."

Senator McDonald might now. hopefully, make the obvious step, to promote having a Minister in charge through a regular Department of Government. This is the only way to provide any real hope for the regeneration of GA.

Too late for anyone hoping for a smooth pathway for CASA reform. I will explain at the end.

My comment on the committee hearing: the problems of CASA, as demonstrated by the good Senators and Pip Spences valiant efforts to answer the unanswerable are that firstly, her senior executive team set her up to fail and secondly, it is impossible to codify "safety" in a set of legalities. if you try, the regulations you write will just get more and more complex as you try and cater for new eventualities.

For example take the questions raised by the Senators about single engined rescue helicopters in SA and fire fighting Blackhawk passenger carrying; can anyone NOT see that the solution to those matters will be another ten pages of regulations and exemptions? Furthermore those regulations will only be written after direct pressure from the Senators.

Of course what SHOULD happen when an issue like this surfaces is reference back to first principles that should be contained in the preamble and wording of the Aviation Act, but our Aviation Act is rotten and offers no guidance, so instead we rely on pitiful legal bullshit that poor Pip has to try and justify but can't.

....And all of that is without allowing for the personal vendettas and corruption embedded in CASA as exemplified in the opening questions.


As for CASA reform it is now a question of whose metaphorical blood is going to be on the floor in Six months time. It is now too late for any reform before the federal election.

If the coalition win and the Nationals numbers don't collapse then Joyces SoE stands, we then have no choice but to get rid of CASA senior management and start again - this is the "quick and dirty" reform option. The slow and clean option is out as  CASA senior management won't change. They have to go and quickly and with them, the old Aviation Act. That means management metaphorical blood on the floor.


if labor wins, then there will be no reform. GA and recreational flying will be sacrificed as petrol guzzling dinosaurs to the green voters - they hate farmers and regional Australia anyway. Senior Management will remain, take revenge on their critics and  preside over the end of  most GA and recreational flying. Labor has already said as much if you can  read the code.

[Gentle]

P2 - one question, at my age and health I’m a occasionally bit slow.

Did I miss something in your post this morning?

Or was it just to reinforce the enormity of the consequences of comments and questions of Senators MdDonald and Patrick?

Thanks…

[P7_TOM]

Gentle - "Or was it just to reinforce the enormity of the consequences of comments and questions of Senators McDonald and Patrick?"

No mate; although the questions were fairly mundane of themselves. The response to those questions IMO highlighted much deeper 'issues' within, apart from other matters of significance. More when we get the 'gos' -  and Hansard. The second innings may provide more data - for the 'spill over' was definitely planned and played for. Interesting though, ain't it.

P2 - "When the Hansard is available I will publish. Also note that apparently there will be a spillover hearing, the date for which is yet to be decided (according to the Secretariat").