[Sandy Reith]

Allow me to condense; It wasn’t easy to delay the RRAT conclusion because it would have been too easy for “political carnivores” to ignore the findings which could normally be ignored. The inquiry was initiated by the Senate and Minister Joyce is more likely to “appreciate” the findings than the outgoing Minister McCormack. After nearly two years the findings will be far more credible if it keeps on for another month or two because critics would say it didn’t probe far enough. So they had to keep digging. 

“Keep digging”  ….  The exhumation of General Aviation was well and truly carried out by the Government’s 2014 Forsyth report and I think 35 of 37 recommendations, after 269 submissions, were accepted by Government.

Senator McDonald’s RRAT Committee struggled to get 63 even after appeals and Sen. McDonald’s disappointment.

My petition that gained almost 3000 signatories, of which there were 1000 particular comments. Many with detailed stories of the miserable treatment by CASA, and the expensive unworkable and impractical regulatory environment which has been devised and rubber stamped by successive governments across the last thirty years.

The forensic examinations have been carried out year on year for years, its a complete nonsense to believe that “digging” will reveal the secret bullet that killed what should be a great Aussie industry.

[Peetwo]

Submission 66 & 67 - Enough Already! 

Via McDolittle's McIrrelevant GA Inquiry webpage (administered at a price tag of -  ):

66 Mr Mark Newton (PDF 195 KB)
67 Name Withheld (PDF 3474 KB)

IMO Mark Newton's excellent but lengthy (21 page) submission provides the perfect final footnote to the McDolittle inquiry eg. :

Perverse incentives

The departmental headcount required to administer a regulation increases if the regulation is more
complex. What we have seen across the last 30 years is that the size of the airworthy Australian aircraft
fleet, the size of the industry it serves, the number of pilots, and the number of flight hours have all been
declining; And yet CASA’s budget and headcount keeps expanding. There is no reason for this, except for
the fact that the complexity of CASA’s administrative function is a direct outcome of CASA’s inability to
write clear and efficient regulations. The burgeoning size of the CASA bureaucracy needed to regulate a
declining industry is a warning sign which should be taken a lot more seriously than it is.

As an example: Both CASA and the FAA administer medical certification for private pilots.

FAA regulations have, for many years, provided a system called “BasicMed” which enables private pilots
to manage their own medical fitness in consultation with their GP without involving FAA administrators.
While CASA has paid lip service to similar principles, its “Class 2 Basic” medical certification carries
enough operational limitations to make it impractical to use, so the lion’s share of medical certification for
Part 61 RPL and PPL holders requires mandatory oversight from a burgeoning (and, ofttimes, interfering)
CASA AVMED bureaucracy.

FAA and CASA both administer pilot medical certification systems which deliver roughly equivalent levels
of safety, but the method chosen by CASA to perform that function insists on the maintenance and funding
of a staff of expensive and prescriptive administrative specialists who apply expensive and time
consuming requirements on some of their applicants of a type and magnitude that the FAA has
successfully abandoned.

Applying that principle to other regulatory realms yields similar observations: CASA, when confronted with
a plethora of different ways of attaining a public policy outcome, tends to gravitate towards ones which
create cost and administrative complexity instead of ones which serve the same outcomes but minimize
its own involvement. Which is probably why CASA in 2021 has 832 employees, which is nearly one staff
member for every ten airworthy aircraft on their Australian civil aircraft register.

I invite the committee to consider the effect on the public purse if similar ratios applied to the safety
regulation of motor vehicles, boats or forklifts, and ask themselves what makes aviation so special?

CASA’s budget

Having established that CASA’s two primary functions are writing regulations and administering the
regulations it has written, we can now turn to a question of how much it costs.

To carry out those functions, CASA’s 2021-22 budget appropriation was $217 million4. Slightly over half of
that budget is funded by a levy on aviation fuel, the other half comes out of Commonwealth general
revenue.

When you compare CASA’s annual budget to the aviation industry statistics collected by the Department
of Transport and Regional Development’s BITRE program, you can see that CASA’s regulatory activities
cost the Australian economy more than $60 per flight hour5.

For comparison: CASA spends about as much per hour to regulate each flight hour as I spend on fuel
(which is the largest share of the total cost of aircraft ownership) and about twice as much per hour as I
spend on comprehensive aircraft insurance. Over the ten years I’ve owned my airplane, CASA has spent
more to regulate it than its entire resale value.

But that isn’t even a complete picture: Many of CASA’s administration functions are supplied on a cost
recovery basis6, meaning that its budget appropriation isn’t paying for all of them, and $60 per flight hour
is therefore an underestimate.

Evaluating CASA’s performance as a regulatory agency

The aims of The Act are stated in Section 3A:

The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and
promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and
incidents.

Has CASA’s regulatory framework “maintained, enhanced and promoted the safety of civil aviation?”
Happily, we don’t need to leave this to a question of opinion, because the Australian Transport Safety
Bureau (ATSB) maintains aviation safety statistics, particularly those concerned with aviation accidents
and incidents.

CASA has been pursuing a program of regulatory reform for more than three decades. If the resulting
regulations had been serving the purposes of the Act, we would be able to see a concomitant
improvement in ATSB accident statistics as new regulations “... maintaining, enhancing and promoting
the safety of civil aviation...” came into force..

That is: Unlike many other areas of government regulatory activity, where the actions of a regulatory
agency are quite distant from the metrics used to measure their efficacy, we possess detailed
independently maintained statistics which measure the degree to which CASA is supporting the aims of
the Civil Aviation Act. If they’re doing a good job of enhancing and promoting safety, we should be able to
directly observe trends in the ATSB’s safety occurrence data.

So: Can we?



The chart above depicts 7 ATSB incident, serious incident and accident statistics, including injuries and
deaths, for the ten years to year end 2019.

The ATSB report containing the infographic notes, in its Safety Summary section, that “... the number of
[general aviation] operational-related accidents and serious incidents, per year, increased over the period,”
with instructional flying as the main contributor. It should be noted that GA instructional flying is one of
the most heavily regulated activities in the aviation industry, with CASA involvement required at almost
every turn. CASR Part 61 flight crew licensing rules were launched during this timeframe, with new
Manuals of Standards and new CASA oversight.

The report also notes, later in the same section, “The accident rate for recreational flying decreased
between 2014 and 2018, with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) registered aircraft having the
greatest contribution to this reduction.” RAAus aircraft over this timeframe were operating under the
auspices of their own operational manual via CASR exemptions, with virtually no CASA involvement or
oversight whatsoever.

Correlation is not causation, and we should recognize that one of the reasons these statistics are “noisy”
is because they rely on self-reporting obligations, but it can’t escape attention that the ATSB has observed
that the worst reduction in safety has occurred in places where CASA is involved the most, and the best
improvement in safety is in places where CASA is involved the least.

Putting that observation to one side: The other thing we can extract from ten years of ATSB data is that
there has been no notable improvement. The decade depicted here has included some of CASA’s most
significant regulatory reforms, including the culmination of more than 28 years of regulatory development
to deliver the redrafted CASR Part 61. The same timeframe featured the implementation of almost the
entire suite of maintenance regulations in the form of CASR Parts 42, 66, 145 and 147 in June 2011, under
development since 1988.

CASA has consumed uncounted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Commonwealth funds over more
than three decades to produce those regulations, and the result is no obviously discernible improvement in
Australia’s aviation safety.

But it is actually worse than that, because the replacement regulations arising from their regulatory
reform program place a heavier burden on the industry they’re regulating.

As a consequence of Part 61 reform, I now require (and must pay for) two biannual flight reviews, where
previously I only needed one, because Part 61 treats day-VFR and night-VFR separately. This doubling of
compliance costs has added nothing to safety -- otherwise it’d be reflected in the infographic above -- but
it has obviously increased my cost of operations.

As a consequence of CASA’s CASR Part 66 airworthiness regulation reform, it is more difficult for me to
find LAMEs who can maintain my aircraft. I fly it from Sydney to Adelaide every year for its annual
inspection, because that’s how far I must travel to find appropriately qualified and experienced
maintenance personnel who specialize on my aircraft type. The population of LAMEs is ageing, with few
apprenticeships to provide for generational refresh, partly due to the overabundance of regulation and
licensing requirements. It’s notable that CASR Part 66 is arguably one of CASA’s most successful
regulatory reforms, but has nevertheless contributed to the steady decline of the entire industry.
Long-time CASA observers find this unsurprising.

CASA’s unceasing regulatory churn creates safety deficiencies. For example, if you gather any five pilots
into a room, you’ll get three different opinions on which is the correct radio frequency to use in the circuit
area of an uncharted airport in regional Australia because CASA has had three different positions on what
the right answer is over the last ten years, even though the underlying regulations have not changed. It’s
critically important that aircraft operating in the vicinity of each other can maintain radio communications
on the same frequency to facilitate “Alerted See and Avoid,” the primary means of mid-air collision
avoidance for VFR aircraft. It is baffling that a safety regulator should promote so much confusion about
such a fundamental requirement.

I find myself drawn to the inescapable conclusion that CASA simply isn’t very good at safety. This
shouldn’t be surprising, because their primary role isn’t safety, it’s regulatory drafting. That is what they do.

Given the extraordinary investment of money and talent into CASA’s regulatory reform program, it should
be possible to point to beneficial outcomes that serve the purpose of The Act. The fact that a safety
regulator can draw a $217 million budget appropriation and produce safety outcomes that aren’t
meaningfully different from those of ten years ago qualifies, in the opinion of the author, as an horrific
governance failure. It’s even worse if you go back further than ten years, and note accident trends in
Australia’s aviation industry have barely improved for half a century.

To summarize: If we’re paying CASA more than $60 per flight hour to regulate aviation safety, we should
see an improvement in aviation safety. That simply isn’t happening, and I’d like to know why we would be
any worse off if we wound the clock back to when CASA was less well funded: If pouring money and
expertise into CASA’s maw yields no identifiable safety improvements, shouldn’t we stop doing it?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submission 64 & 68 - Livestock export?

Via the APH website:

64 LiveAir Australia (PDF 126 KB) 

And in support of the Liveair Oz submission:
68 Australian Livestock Exporters Council (PDF 183 KB)

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submission 69: Kingston Council (Rating: excellent -   )

Via the 20/20 Inquiry submissions page: 69 City of Kingston (PDF 4481 KB)

Moorabbin Airport Preliminary Draft Masterplan 2021


Council recently made its submission to the MAC draft Masterplan 2021 process. A primary issue
reinforced through its submission was safety. The submission reinforced the critical role of aviation
regulators to examine the substantive non-aviation building encroachments into areas in very close
proximity to both fixed wing and helicopter approaches.

An objective assessment of the evolution of non-aviation development in very close proximity to aviation
infrastructure over recent years, will illustrate how encumbered the airport approaches have now become.

Council considers that Moorabbin Airport presents a very useful case study into the management of
federally leased airports when considering the non-aviation developments that have dominated over the
past 25 years.

A copy of Council’s submissions to the Moorabbin Airport preliminary draft masterplan has been attached
for the Committee’s viewing. It illustrates the extent to which development has occurred within the
proximity of the runway thresholds. Council do not support the preliminary draft masterplan and are calling
upon the Federal Minister to refuse it in its current state.

Operation and Effectiveness of Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Other Relevant Aviation
Agencies

With regards to safety and development that has occurred near the runway thresholds, Council has raised
both through the preliminary draft masterplan process and also at any other opportunity, its concerns as to
how these substantial factories were approved. Council have been assured by the MAC that these have
been approved by CASA.

It is recommended that the enquiry critically examine the degree to which these developments comply with
the relevant guidelines from the National Airport Safeguarding Framework in areas including obstacle
limitations and windshear, with a particular focus on any variations to the technical requirements. Further,
the enquiry should turn its mind to the level of independent technical oversight that has occurred.

Council is concerned that, on occasion, development on airport land may not meet the technical
requirements under a NASF guideline that would appear to receive some discretion when considered by
CASA. It would be most appropriate that this decision-making process better mirror that which occurs in
State or Territory planning systems where significant decisions are publicly determined.

The community have a right to understand how such decisions are made, particularly given the regulatory
regimes being established off the airport that can have the consequence of restricting development.

Over the past 12 months the State Government of Victoria, through an Advisory Committee, attempted to
ensure that planning around airports consider the potential safety and amenity impacts on the surrounding
communities and that airport operations are protected. The Melbourne Airport Environs Safeguarding
Standing Advisory Committee (MAESSAC) is now trying to determine how the NASF can be implemented
into planning schemes in Victoria.

Many local councils and residents have participated in this advisory committee process, making numerous
submissions and appearing throughout the hearing. On the one hand the State Government and local
government are actively trying to protect and safeguard the aviation industry by way of what occurs around
airports, yet significant development (non-aviation) can occur seemingly unabated on airport land. The
City of Kingston continues to advocate for the safeguarding of our aviation assets.

‘any related matters’

The Committee are also seeking comment on d) any related matters. Council believes that a more
focused look into the management of federally leased airports is required to review the depletion of
aviation activity on airport land to expedite non-aviation development.

Council respectfully submits this inquiry should consider the amount of non-aviation development
occurring and planned on federally leased airport land.

increase in non-aviation development is seen as a critical factor, inhibiting existing aviation tenants
remaining on airport land into the future, with insufficient regard given to future needs. It is worthwhile the
Committee consider the land use intent in the preliminary draft masterplan for Moorabbin Airport in 2021,
when compared with the level of land set aside and protection for aviation at the time of airport
deregulation, particularly in the context of a large city like Melbourne. This land cannot be replaced
elsewhere limiting the reach of regional Australia into Australia’s biggest cities.

The Airports Act 1996 (the Act) sets out the regulatory arrangements between airports formerly owned and
operated on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC). It requires, as set
out in Part 1, Section 3 that airports “promote sound development of civil aviation in Australia”.

The Moorabbin Airport is also subject to Part 5 of the Act and the corresponding regulations. As per Part
5, ‘Obligation to use airport site as an airport’. The Airport is declared to be an airport site within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Act and Regulations.

The Lease agreement by the Commonwealth to the MAC over the Airport states that the MAC “must
provide for the use of the [Airport] as an airport” and may “permit the [Airport] to be used for other lawful
purposes that are not inconsistent with its use as an airport”. The legislation that underpins the role of the
Airport clearly seeks to ensure that an efficient and fully functioning airport is provided which gives priority
to its core aviation function.

Council acknowledges that non-aviation development has some role to play in providing sufficient income
for the Airport Lessee Company to ensure sufficient resources are available to maintain the airport.

Consideration must, however, be given to the appropriate balance being struck between development and
the risk of directly undermining aviation.

When the then FAC privatised airports in 1996, from the readings of the Act and the justification for selling
off the leaseholds, it was not the intent of the Federal Government to legitimise business plans geared to
maximising shareholder returns at the expense of the aviation industry.

The privatisation of federal airports was meant to do the exact opposite by assisting in bolstering of the
aviation industry. It is a now a unique situation where privatised airport leaseholders are able to hold
unique and often unregulated monopoly powers which negatively impact the aviation industry and sidestep
State and Local planning powers. Developments (non-aviation) can completely disregard existing
residential neighbours and provide serious negative amenity outcomes with no checks or balances
available. Practical examples are reinforced through Council’s submission to the 2021 preliminary draft
masterplan.

The critical role that Moorabbin Airport, as well as other regional and rural airports, cannot be downplayed.
They are a vital part of the nation’s transport infrastructure. The ongoing viability of Moorabbin Airport is
now being called into question with aviation tenants questioning whether there will be enough space set
aside for aviation both now and into the future.

Following the impact of Covid-19, this industry has been significantly impacted. The classifications of the
runways at Moorabbin are proposed to be reduced, which according to airport tenants will deplete the core
number of aircraft based at Moorabbin.

Tenants are being removed from the site, which has a huge flow on effect to other tenants on site. For
example, where a maintenance company is no longer able to remain on site, this has a huge impact to
operators who rely on that maintenance company to ensure planes do not remain grounded.

Council and the aviation community share the concern that the MAC require much greater regulation to
ensure that they not only provide a safe efficient airport but also do not put warehousing/industrial
developments ahead of the land’s intended purpose.

There is very significant tension between the MAC’s role in managing and future proofing Moorabbin
Airport as an aviation asset, whilst advancing lucrative non-aviation related commercial endeavours.

During the consultation phase of the preliminary draft Masterplan process, Council was contacted by a
number of aviation tenants at Moorabbin Airport who expressed significant concerns for the future of their
businesses. The feedback indicated that existing aviation tenants believe that there is not enough space
for each tenant on the site and that multiple tenants are now competing for the same hanger space.

Noting the extent of land already developed for non-aviation uses, it is critical that existing aviation
operators are provided with the ability to remain on site.

Regardless of whether the preliminary draft masterplan for Moorabbin Airport is approved or refused, the
concerns raised throughout this submission are vitally important.

The extent of non-aviation development needs closer examination and the Senate enquiry provides a
useful platform in which to consider the implications of what is occurring at Moorabbin at a broader
national scale.

For the future of our small and medium aviation businesses, as well as residents who are adjacent to our
airports and are impacted by decisions to construct major warehouses immediately adjacent to their
properties without meaningful consultation, we submit that issues associated with the deregulation of
Airports warrants review.

Council would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity and respectfully request the Committee’s
consideration of our submission.

Yours faithfully

Cr Steve Staikos
MAYOR

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Submission 70: Jim McDowall

Via the 20/20 Inquiry submissions page: 70 Mr Jim McDowall (PDF 388 KB)

Conclusion

Despite numerous claims by CASA that safety outcomes will be improved, there has been no evidence presented
that this regulatory model will result in any improved safety outcomes. Part 149 is simply an administrative rearrangement.
Further “The Australian Government Guide to Regulation” Edition 1 (p.4) observes:
“The Government has a clear approach to regulation: we will reduce the regulatory burden for individuals,
businesses and community organisations.
From now on, cutting existing red tape and limiting the flow of new regulation is a high priority.
Every policy option must be carefully assessed, its likely impact costed and a range of viable alternatives considered
in a transparent and accountable way against the default position of no new regulation.”

This was amplified in the Statement of Expectations issued to the CASA Board by the Minister in 2017.
Obviously, this regulatory approach has an increased complexity and cost that can only been borne by the members
of those organisations that choose to participate in the scheme.

Towards a simpler arrangement

The USA has the largest privately operated aircraft fleet in the world and yet does not have a system similar to our
Part 149 approach. It is hard to compare safety statistics as data is not uniform across jurisdictions but it arguable
that the US safety statistics for privately operated aircraft are at least as good as Australia’s if not better. So CASA’s
totalitarian approach to regulation cannot be argued to be producing superior results.

A simpler approach could be:
1. Aircraft registration - Registration has nothing to do with airworthiness. Currently RAAus is required to maintain
a register of aircraft for which it charges annual fees and allocate registrations like 24-9999. VH registered aircraft
do not pay any fees once registered. In Germany, for example, ultralight aircraft registered as D-1234 are
distinguished from other aircraft which registered as D-ABCD.
The solution - transfer the RAAus register to CASA and remove the costs associated with annual renewals from the
owners and RAAus (ie collection costs)

2. Aircraft operations - all RAAus aircraft are operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) as are most privately
operated VH aircraft. RAAus aircraft are currently limited to 600kg MTOW and have some operational limits placed
on them. These is no reason that these cannot be codified or reviewed as required. In addition if these details were
codified CASA would not be required to renew exemptions bi-annually. This also apples to gliders.

3. Pilot licencing - CASA already approves RAAus training material. CASA could adopt those sytems and issue
delegations to individuals to oversee the training system and issue authorisations in a manner similar to the
delegations issued for CASR Part 21 authorisations for the issue of special airworthiness certificates (AKA
“certificates for experimental category aircraft”). CASA already has systems in place for the auditing of delegations
and audits the GFA and RAAus.

4. Maintenance and repair - private operations
CASR 201.003 provides:
Commonwealth and CASA not liable in certain cases
(1) Neither the Commonwealth nor CASA is liable in negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage
incurred by anyone because of, or arising out of, the design, construction, restoration, repair, maintenance
or operation of a limited category aircraft or an experimental aircraft, or any act or omission
of CASA done or made in good faith in relation to any of those things. (emphasis added)

EASA has recently enacted Part ML which provides for owner maintenance for aircraft upto 2760kg MTOW in
private operations. CASA is proposing to issue Part 43 arrangements that will provide less stringent maintenance
arrangements for experimental and LSA category aircraft. Canada has had owner maintenace provisions for nearly
two decades. The US FAA holds the Canadian model in high regard.

Proposal - make all RAAus and GFA privately operated “experimental aircraft” unless owners elect to have them
maintained under the CASA managed Part 43 system (ie LAMEs) . Existing commercial RAAus and GFA
maintainers can be “grandfathered’ into the CASA system with restrictions.

5. Maintenance and repair - commercially operated aircraft (training and hire)
Existing commercial RAAus and GFA maintainers can be “grandfathered’ into the CASA system with restrictions.
Otherwise LAMEs will be required to undertake maintenance (as many already do for RAAus aircraft).

6. Outcome - GFA and RAAus become true advocates for their sectors of aviation without the fear of causing
offence to CASA which may cause loss of priveleges. GFA would continue as a sporting body. All CASA has to do
is register aircraft (once) and manage the delegations which is what they do now under Part 149. If pilots or owners
commit offences they can be dealt with according to their policies and procedures in a manner which Parliament
intended their role in aviation.

At the very least:

If we must have P149 organisations then the regulations should be amended to provide that:
1. Organisations must accept membership applications from any person without restriction.
2. Organisations may not expel any financial member
3. Organisations may not require membership of any other organisation as a condition of membership
4. Make provision in Part 149 covering the event where a Part 149 body becomes insolvent or legally incapable.

Organisations issue authorisations and the only way to lose an authorisation is by a breach of operational rules or
breach of aviation law. The loss of an authorisation is appealable to CASA and AAT. Expulsion from organisations
can only be challenged by court action which is Dr Aleck's claim that P149 avoids.

CASA must deal with all comers, irrespective of their personal qualities or views. The Part 149 organisations should
mirror this position. Clearly if you lose an authorisation and can longer fly you won't renew membership

Jim McDowall

Well said that man! -  

Also on the 20/20 McDolittle WOFTAM inquiry an update from the resident GA rumour-monger EWH:

At the time of writing this I am waiting confirmation that more public hearings of the senate GA inquiry are scheduled for December. At the moment, there are indications that a hearing will happen on 7 December and streamed online via the Australian Parliament House website. No other details are to hand right now, but I am expecting something more solid very soon. This is good news; as I wrote last week time is the enemy of the inquiry at the moment and we need the senators to get their skates on and take more evidence. Right now there isn't enough for the government to take notice of a report that they didn't commission. Having put that out there regularly, I am seeing signs that the current minister may be more receptive to a report that recommends immediate reform than some who have come before. As soon as we get more details on the hearings we'll get them to you.

Ref: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...ember-2021

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Public (video conference) Hearing: 7/12/21

Via the GA inquiry APH webpages: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...alAviation

07 Dec 2021 PDF: Program PDF: Submissions



Parlview link: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/W...tent-panel

P2 comment: When you review the associated submissions, this is a very interesting line up. However as usual so much depends on the Senators asking the right questions, especially with the bureaucrats?... 

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Will there be anything said here that will add, with any degree of significance, any new justification for the scandalous wasting of General Aviation and what to do about that?

When Senator McDonald announced a new two year inquiry into the woes of GA I think you could hear a communal gulp and gritting of teeth. The thought being that we’d better go along with it because there was nothing better on offer and some newbies might need educating. In particular for the odd reason that the enormity of the thirty year long destruction of GA is not easily described.

[Peetwo]

GA Inquiry witnesses rating - From Gold Star (chocfrog) to WOFTAM??   

Fascinating and at times very disturbing evidence presented today to the McDolittle inquiry. 

My rating from Gold Star to WOFTAM follows:

No1. Angel Flight and Marge Pagani for completely exposing the CASA executive for what they are...

The video should be read in conjunction with the Angel Flight submission just released prior to the hearing: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...sion-1.pdf

Recommendations

• The Minister should commission an independent audit of the performance of both the ATSB
and CASA in relation to theirindependence, quality, analysis and research and the relationship
between ATSB, CASA, and the aviation industry.
• The Civil Aviation Safety Act and Regs must be urgently amended to ensure:
- CASA must use valid empirical valid data for determinations and rule-making, and publish
the data and analyses used to justify those determinations and rules.
- CASA’s protocols must be mandatory and adhered to, not optional as at present.
- CASA must be reviewed regularly to ensure the present poor culture, evident from many
of the submissions to the current Senate inquiry into general aviation, does not continue.
- CASA should not be empowered to make arbitrary decisions which affect the aviation
industry financially, and which have an adverse impact on rural and regional Australians
without an open and properly conducted safety case.
- CASA cannot continue to mislead the Minister, the Parliament and the general public with
inadequate, incomplete and unjustifiable reasons for its actions. Note: In the various RAAT
inquiries, CASA stated repeatedly that it had a safety case, but failed to present it. The
court proceedings show that no safety case existed.

No2. City of Kingston

No3. SAR Aviation Medicine

No4. Ken Cannane 

P2 comment: Very important historical context to why we are currently in total non-compliance with our obligations to the Chicago (ICAO) 1944 convention (Treaty). 

No5. AMROBA/AFTIA

No5.

P2 comment: A totally insipid performance from our new CC where he totally drops the ball on the disjointed, false data provided and shared between the ATSB and CASA on the ongoing Angel Flight embuggerance - Scorecard D minus.

No6.

P2 comment: Another example of total arrogant, bureaucratic (Can'tberra bubble) ignorance on the reality of aviation businesses trying to survive in a privatised aviation 'ecosystem' where the odds are seriously stacked against them -     

No7. WOFTAM - If you ever wanted a clearer example of how recalcitrant, dysfunctional and (again) totally disconnected with reality our aviation regulator is, look no further than this -   

  

God Save Our Industry! Because CASA and/or the Parliament never will...UDB!   

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

I am now starting to think about the packing requirements to put my aircraft in a container for export. i had hoped Spence might have been tasked with reforming Australian regulation. If she was, she has failed.

[Peetwo]

GA Inquiry witnesses rating - From Gold Star (chocfrog) to WOFTAM??   

Fascinating and at times very disturbing evidence presented today to the McDolittle inquiry. 

My rating from Gold Star to WOFTAM follows:

No1. Angel Flight and Marge Pagani for completely exposing the CASA executive for what they are...

The video should be read in conjunction with the Angel Flight submission just released prior to the hearing: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...sion-1.pdf

Recommendations

• The Minister should commission an independent audit of the performance of both the ATSB
and CASA in relation to theirindependence, quality, analysis and research and the relationship
between ATSB, CASA, and the aviation industry.
• The Civil Aviation Safety Act and Regs must be urgently amended to ensure:
- CASA must use valid empirical valid data for determinations and rule-making, and publish
the data and analyses used to justify those determinations and rules.
- CASA’s protocols must be mandatory and adhered to, not optional as at present.
- CASA must be reviewed regularly to ensure the present poor culture, evident from many
of the submissions to the current Senate inquiry into general aviation, does not continue.
- CASA should not be empowered to make arbitrary decisions which affect the aviation
industry financially, and which have an adverse impact on rural and regional Australians
without an open and properly conducted safety case.
- CASA cannot continue to mislead the Minister, the Parliament and the general public with
inadequate, incomplete and unjustifiable reasons for its actions. Note: In the various RAAT
inquiries, CASA stated repeatedly that it had a safety case, but failed to present it. The
court proceedings show that no safety case existed.

No2. City of Kingston

No3. SAR Aviation Medicine

No4. Ken Cannane 

P2 comment: Very important historical context to why we are currently in total non-compliance with our obligations to the Chicago (ICAO) 1944 convention (Treaty). 

No5. AMROBA/AFTIA

No5.

P2 comment: A totally insipid performance from our new CC where he totally drops the ball on the disjointed, false data provided and shared between the ATSB and CASA on the ongoing Angel Flight embuggerance - Scorecard D minus.

No6.

P2 comment: Another example of total arrogant, bureaucratic (Can'tberra bubble) ignorance on the reality of aviation businesses trying to survive in a privatised aviation 'ecosystem' where the odds are seriously stacked against them -     

No7. WOFTAM - If you ever wanted a clearer example of how recalcitrant, dysfunctional and (again) totally disconnected with reality our aviation regulator is, look no further than this -   

  

God Save Our Industry! Because CASA and/or the Parliament never will...UDB!   

Addendum: Tabled Documents

 Document tabled by Senator McDonald at a public hearing in Canberra on 7 December 2021









MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

Survey, that’s fine but it’s been known for years and neither Senator McDonald nor any other MPs have ever kicked up enough fuss or been prepared to buck the usual niceties and jostling for a leg up in the hierarchy of party politics to make any difference.

Blame CASA? Who has the final responsibility for a body that is empowered by an Act of Parliament?

Same old playbook over and over, some of the new players are sincere enough but lack the understanding that they are playing their parts in accordance with an unwritten script.

The old puppeteers of Government Industries have been refining their set pieces and dressing up the stage to suit the audience and make their puppets look good for so many years that they’ve completely forgotten that they are supposed to serve the public interest. They have colossal salaries and the very best superannuation plans combined with splendid working conditions, thus they have much to protect.

The arrogance of Australia’s growing bureaucracy is permeating throughout and particularly noticeable in our artificial capital.

Ministers and MPs wring their hands but prefer the perceived safety of do nothing.

In the absence of inspired leadership, and there’s nothing to indicate it’s forthcoming, do nothing will probably continue until there’s a real crisis of National importance. This will reveal the decades of neglect and the unsustainable grinding down of General Aviation’s people and all of it’s assets, including irreplaceable airport land.

[Peetwo]

Tabled Docs & Supp submissions??

Via GA Inquiry webpages: 

To begin I note that the Angel Flight submission has been mysteriously taken down?? So in case you missed this excellent, fact based and clinical document I managed to crib a copy when I got notified of it's existence on the morning of the hearing - see HERE.  

Next I note that today Su_Spence has tabled her opening statement, which in retrospect the veracity (after the performance of her and her executive cronies in that hearing, plus in evidence provided by Angel Flight) of which is absolutely laughable...  -  see HERE. 

Then there was the (un-notified) additions to the AMROBA submissions: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...tion-2.pdf & https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...dendum.pdf

The 2nd one calls into question the motives of the new ABC AFTIA in their presentation to the Senate Committee:

Hmm...well said that MAN! 

While on the subject of AFTIA I note that EWH did a piece on their inquiry appearance: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...-ga-pilots

This is what EWH said on FB to promote that piece:

Apprentice pilots! This scheme would take a lot of regulatory massaging, but it seems to have some support from the outset. What do you think? Is this the solution to GA sustainability? http://www.australianflying.com.au/.../aftia-proposes...

Hmmm...definitely much, much MTF...P2 

ps I note that EWH also did a piece on the Kingston evidence: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...e-rejected ...but to this point in time has not made any mention of the incisive evidence provided by Angel Flight (with strong evidence of CASA contempt for the Senate) and the consequential diabolical performance of CASA that followed?? - UDB! 

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight submission back up unaltered?? 

Apparently someone had objected to the part of the original submission that contained extracts of the court hearing transcript ie Table 1: (extracts of three pages from table 1, refer to parts in bold) 

---

---

Hmm...reckon I know who objected - 

Anyway I note that for some reason the full court transcript has now been attached to the Angel Flight submission: Ref - 71 Angel Flight (PDF 482 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 519 KB)

For those interested in doing the reading, here is a link for the full Federal Court decision: https://jade.io/article/808275

Question: Did Monahan, Dr Aleck & CO lie/mislead the Senate or the Federal Court (ie It can only be one or the other)?   

Next here is the HANSARD:

This part almost wants to make me vomit...

CHAIR: I'm going to ask you one last question on Angel Flight, because we don't have all day, and this is about general aviation. How much are the costs that you asked to the courts to award to Angel Flight?

Ms Spence : I'm sorry; unless Dr Aleck knows, I'll have to take that on notice. I'll try to get that to you tomorrow, but I just don't have that.

CHAIR: I suspect that Dr Aleck might.

Dr Aleck : Chair, [inaudible] the dollar amount. It wasn't so much a question that we asked for it; it was a question of what the court [inaudible] and [inaudible] we can provide specific [inaudible]—

Senator STERLE: You have that look of frustration, Chair.

CHAIR: I do. I am really frustrated that, having heard the evidence this afternoon, Dr Aleck didn't come prepared for questions about Angel Flight, about the costs. He is the head of the legal team. He would have been directing the proceedings. I imagine that he had to sign off on what the requests to the courts were and then what the courts decided. I would be fascinated to know what amount you asked the court to award and then what the court did award. I cannot believe, Dr Aleck, that you do not know the answers to this question. I appreciate that Ms Spence is covering for you, but I am very, very unhappy with the horrible abuse of your position with CASA. It's not right. For regional people [inaudible] general aviation, they are terrified of what you do to people.

Finally here is the EWH take on the latest public hearing:

The RRAT committee made up a fair bit of ground in the GA inquiry this week with another public hearing, exploring some  meaty material and posing some very good questions. The senators took on the Angel Flight restrictions, the loss of infrastructure at Moorabbin, the drain of instructors from GA to the airlines, maintenance training woes and several other issues. But there was a discernible difference with this hearing: Senators Susan McDonald and Glenn Sterle displayed an understanding of the depth of the decay of general aviation and the length of the slippery slide the industry has been on. McDonald went so far as to describe 2021 as a line-in-the-sand year for the GA community. I am not suggesting they haven't understood before this, but this was the first time they displayed the understanding and asked some very good questions of exactly the right people. Case in point: McDonald almost lost it with CASA when they couldn't tell the committee the value of the court costs CASA had been awarded in the Angel Flight case. McDonald clearly didn't believe him and let frustration boil over, and Sterle piled on as well. I got the feeling the senators were mad as hell and they weren't going to take it anymore. The committee got a first-hand experience of the obfuscation GA has been battling for a quarter of a century, turning sympathy into empathy. There are no more hearings scheduled, but if the senators haven't got the point by now, they were never going to.

Hmm...I actually agree with EWH -   

If the pollies don't realise by now that the only way that CASA and the aviation bureaucracy can be fixed is for there to be proper Ministerial oversight with appropriate legislative amendments to the applicable Acts then the GA industry is doomed for failure...   

Maybe..just maybe the ongoing, disturbing CASA embuggerance of Angel Flight could be the catalyst for real reform of the regulator??

MTF...P2 

[Wombat]

To borrow a few words from our DAS, God bless her, CASA is engaged in prioritising the development of appropriate options for the establishment of an articulated work plan in the general aviation space to potentially support effective communication and monitoring of our focus, proportionately, going forward.

[Sandy Reith]

The RRAT hearings, an interpretation.

CASA annually c. $200 million, CEO Ms Spence c. $630,000 and senior managers c. $500,000.
Running costs of the RRAT and Senator’s expenses, $$$?

Between them couldn’t even get the video and sound right for an online meeting.

CASA wouldn’t own up to its misleading of the Senate Committee about its lack of a safety case to justify its punishing and illogical regulations against Angel Flight. Similarly wouldn’t, in effect refused, to answer what sum of court costs was awarded to CASA. Talk about breathtaking arrogance, thumbing its nose to the Senators and citizens alike.

It beggars belief that CASA would request costs against the exemplary Angel Flight charity that is one of the only bright spots in our declining General Aviation community.

CASA won its case by defeating AF’s attempt to have unjust regulations on its operation removed.

It seems that CASA can regulate any way it likes and doesn’t need reasons for its regulations, i.e. power unlimited and unbridled which has been given to it by the Parliament.

We see the Senators in hand wringing mode, even angry, but all has been sitting there mouldering away for years, better have another inquiry rather than get up on your hind legs in the Parliament and demand reform action for General Aviation and Angel Flight. Or set up a media conference and enlighten the Australian public to the antics of CASA and garner support for the big changes that must be effected. Yes such action would embarrass the government but would be in the interests of all citizens which is the job of MPs.

And then there’s the case of Glen Buckley, the smashing of his business without a shred of reasonable justification, what are our MPs doing to correct and recompense for this glaring injustice?

Lastly don’t even think about what our international friends are thinking about the dark, incompetent, careless and fee gouging shenanigans that’s supposed to be the responsible governance of Australia’s aviation industry.

How much lower can we go before a Minister takes charge in the manner of democratic responsibility in the Westminster tradition?

[Wombat]

Sandy, the Ministers lack of control is a feature, not a bug. CASA is a Faustian bargain. It gets to do what it likes (its unaccountable) and is paid a reasonable amount to do so. In return, the Government and Minister of the day cannot be held liable when the inevitable happens and a Qantas, Virgin or other heavy goes in with huge loss of life.

To put it another way, if Joyce asserts control of CASA, then he wears liability for all accidents that occur during his tenure.

CASA protects itself internally by writing complex and inconsistent regulations taht create a climate ideal for the diffusion of responsibility defence tactic in case of accident. This was on display after the Norfolk Island ditching where the ATSB, AsA and CASA combined with the support of the pilots employer to hide their own responsibility for the accident and instead blame the pilot.

In the case of the Ansett failure, the ATSB conspired with CASA to obscure CASA's total failure to supervise or detect that anything was amiss prior to the "surprise discovery" that the B767 fleet was not airworthy followed by the shocking revelation that the airworthiness of the rest of their fleet couldn't be guaranteed. To this day, nobody has asked the question: "Why was the Ansett mess not discovered by CASA?".

My spies tell me nothing has changed. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that CASA could or do regulate Qantas for example, CASA lacks the technical capacity and hasn't had it for years, perhaps even for decades, let alone having the will to take on such a well connected political beast. We just have to pray that QF, VB and their ilk are following Boeing and Airbus instructions to the letter. As a pilot friend told me "when CASA appears, we tell them BS and they go away again. They wouldn't know anything about our operation".

Nope. CASA amuses itself by prosecuting hang glider pilots and persecuting the GA industry, it is out of its depth anywhere else. Cue "The Bold Gendarmes".

[P7_TOM]

Had it not been for the latest McDolittle 'inquiry' session, Wombat's post above would have had a Tim-Tam awarded, instead of a Choc frog. However, I was working with the lad last week making a couple of doors and we had the whole Mc Dunnaught session 'on screen'.

There were some excellent submissions made and apart from one obscene attempt to mine the government gold seam, 'industry' represented itself well. Sterle was, as is usual, incisive and (importantly) to the point; the less said about McDolittle, the better. IMO.

If the usual run of the mill stuff was trotted out, it is easy enough to see why both sides of politics are quite content to shelter under the expensive, Teflon coated umbrella CASA provide. But, I do wonder how much longer that protection can last - all things considered.

DPM Joyce has some first class, trustworthy advice available; he has the best advice of the industry 'on tap' free of charge. The man also has two eyes, two ears and a considerable intellect and I believe a fair dollop of common sense and integrity. So, what would a man of good conscience make of the Angel Flight v CASA bun fight? When you weigh in the Kingston Council (Moorabin) logical arguments and then listen to the DoIT waffle; it is abundantly clear that something must be done. DPM Joyce must know this.

The solutions have been writ large for a number of years now; these solutions have been presented - ad nauseam - for a number of years now - and either ignored or given a lick of glitter and quietly taken out the back and disposed of. The Forsyth report being a prime example.

It all boils down to one simple question - who is actually running the country? If it is the departments then what need have we of the politicians; if it is the politicians, then its time to reign in the non elected aristocrats who have unlimited power and funds to match. I could wear out another dozen keyboards on this and achieve SFA; Joyce with the stroke of a a pen, in a political heartbeat, could put a stopper in the madness. It begs the question - Why has it not been done? There was North of 2.5 million dollars of tax payer money a year sat about that table in CASA HQ; can the DPM explain exactly how that money has benefited the nation or the industry? Do not go down the 'safety' road; that is a dead end.

The Old Man's two bob, spent as pleased him best.

[Kharon]

Also ran;

Working my way through P2's ratings I eventually arrived at No.5. AFTIA. Warning Will Robinson - AFTIA ya money seems the best interpretation of this neatly worked confection.

I can, well and truly understand the need for apprentice engineers to be subsidised; only makes sense. If the government are going to rubber stamp the existing system (talk to Ken Cannane) then its reasonable for them to subsidise it. But then AFTIA Money trot out a ridiculous notion - subsidised junior pilots. WTD.

The Sterle ears picked up on this - but its a non starter and a short 'think' would serve to discard that card. I doubt there's an operator in the country who would take up the offer; simple arithmetic will explain why. Take a 'joy' or 'scenic' flight operator out in bush - using say the venerable C210 - five paying passengers, one pilot. Can you see the operator giving up the passenger revenue from multiple flights to carry an 'apprentice' on a subsidised wage? I cannot.

Or; take the tried and tested method of building hours; once again, in the bush, same C210 only this time cargo/ post operation. Operator contracted to carry maximum payload - only now 90 Kg of revenue must be left behind to accommodate a government sponsored apprentice - like that's ever going to happen.

If there is a need for an improved 'training' system the the Buckley notion is a good option. But is there a need? Are there enough GA operations left out there to warrant more pilots? Sure the airlines are stuck for 'experienced' crew and the feed from GA is reduced, but this has not always been so. When Charter and Cargo operators were plentiful, there was always a ready supply of pilots for the majors. But, as it stands now, the restrictions imposed and actions taken by CASA have closed down more operators than any recession we had to have.

Throwing money at apprentice pilots is no solution. Reviving a once flourishing, enthusiastic section of the commercial sector would be a better investment. But, before spending dollar one of tax payer funds the regulations and the regulator must be realigned with reality.

Toot - toot.

[Kharon]

Also ran; part 2.

ATSB Angus -

Oh oh -  "without wanting to dodge the question" and immediately does. I would recommend careful study of the ATSB session (tedious though it is) for what is not said. Personalty, I wouldn't play cards with Angus, although if I ever wanted to change my nine dollar note for three three's he be my go-to man.

The legerdemain on display related to the Angel Flight 'data', the nifty footwork around the insidious CASA connection and the MoU combined with artful fast talking which sketches around the ATSB's woeful recent track record of muted response to accident where not mentioned. Mind you the fluffy questions served by McDolittle had all the penetrating power of a fart in a tornado, providing more than enough wriggle room for 'professional' wrigglers.

IMO, more than in any other 'session' in the McDolittle Quixotic quest we see just how far out of her depth the Senator is. Too many large scary windmills protected by clever, dangerous beasts. Where is Sen. Fawcett when industry needs him? A Sterle/Fawcett bipartisan inquiry is needed to unscramble the bipartisan mess.

7000, investigations - how many complete? How many passed on to CASA? How many tangible, realistic 'safety' improvements have resulted from the ATSB efforts? Where is the report into the Essendon DFO approval? Who is responsible for the 'statistical data' which damaged Angel Flight?  Aye so many serious questions lost in the confusion of a simple teleconference; a thing managed thousands of times every day in any city you care to name. Pathetic don't quite cover it; but t'will suffice.

Toot - toot.

[Kharon]

With a loud clang - the Penny drops.

CHAIR: "I do. I am really frustrated that, having heard the evidence this afternoon, Dr Aleck didn't come prepared for questions about Angel Flight, about the costs. He is the head of the legal team. He would have been directing the proceedings. I imagine that he had to sign off on what the requests to the courts were and then what the courts decided. I would be fascinated to know what amount you asked the court to award and then what the court did award. I cannot believe, Dr Aleck, that you do not know the answers to this question. I appreciate that Ms Spence is covering for you, but I am very, very unhappy with the horrible abuse of your position with CASA. It's not right. For regional people [inaudible] general aviation, they are terrified of what you do to people".

Aye, but; did it land on Heads or Tails? No one knows until the 'spinner' calls it. Angel Flight and Buckley are but two, the latest to join onto the end a long line of the 'embuggered' all hoping that somehow, someway one of the multiple 'inquiry' into the behaviour of the aviation regulator will see to it that 'they' are the last to join the queue. The form guide is against it; track record positive proof.

Technically, the most damaging (to industry) of the two episodes is the Buckley saga; however, to the man at the back of the room, the loss of a flight training system, no matter how beneficial to industry it may be, simply don't signify. In fact the dire state of the non airline industry is way down the list of voter concerns.

Angel Flight is a horse of a different colour. So far the media, politicians and the great unwashed seem pretty indifferent to it's fate. And, it is complicated; technical and in some ways of little significance, considering the state of play at the moment.

That said, while the public may not be too concerned, the politicians should be made very, very aware of both matters. In fact, the entire series of 'interview' from the McDolittle inquiry are of serious consequence to the well being of this nation; even if only on a fiscal level. The cost, to a debt ridden nation of each inquiry (and there have been many) is outrageous; and have achieved absolutely nothing of either practical or intrinsic value for the populace or the aviation industry. The entire series of farce have clearly demonstrated that politicians have almost zero control over the 'agencies' which rule this land, managed by the faceless who were not elected and can, with impunity, tell crown ministers to 'go and boil your bottom'. This, stand alone, to those who have laboured to bring important matters to government attention, leaves only one thought - (fill in your three word answer here).

Despite the amateur theatrics from McDolittle and the excellent, logical, accurate representation through submissions to yet another 'inquiry' the writing is on the wall; clear as day. Compare the first class Kingston Council dialogue to the DoIT waffle; compare Angel Flight's clearly enunciated case to the CASA performance; compare the ATSB's antics to their international counterparts. Then, sit back and answer but one simple question - What can McDolittle really achieve from the cost of this inquiry to the benefit of this nation or the aviation industry?

Its all there; in one full colour, scrambled sound session - Aye: "abandon hope a ye who enter here." Hoping will not help - getting a crown minister to get off his arse and see, even if just for self preservation, that this cannot be allowed to continue and to break the bipartisan nodding system of rubber stamp, can the changes aviation desperately needs be made. I say if - just one sick child dies because Angel Flight could not provide their service, due to some ridiculous dictate CASA made; then there will be some serious questions demanding answers. Answers from those who sat back and let it happen without taking the actions clearly defined, from multiple 'inquiry' into exactly, what in the seven Hell's are the national safety administrations playing at.

I borrowed that two bob from TOM;

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