[Peetwo]

Perhaps opportunity knocks?? - GOOD CATCH HITCH!! - 

From this week's LMH:

"...The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is in the throes of reviewing the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia’s Transport Sector) Bill 2024. This is a bill that is still before parliament, but the review is all about making sure the security regulations are appropriate and updated. And, that they are risk-based. That caught my eye when I read that: risk-based. One of those security regulations is the demand for Aviation Security Identification Cards (ASIC) for general aviation aircrew when using airports that have regular public transport. If the regulations are genuinely risk-based, then it follows that the Federal Government believes that general aviation pilots are a risk to aviation security, and furthermore, that they have to be background checked every two years or aviation security is at risk. Really, it doesn't take long for that logic to whither and die under the searing rays of scrutiny. If general aviation pilots were a risk to aviation security then the government would be plagued with incidents and it would be all over the news. It's not. You see, the ASIC doesn't stop qualified pilots from carrying out any form of terrorism; it's the pilots themselves that do that. And the fact that nothing is happening is proof positive that ASICs are not needed, just as they aren't required in just about every other country in the world. The parliamentary committee is taking submissions right now. Perhaps we need to open our mouths..."

This is the description and TOR for this Joint Parliamentary inquiry:

Review of the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024

The Minister for Home Affairs, Hon Tony Burke MP, wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) on 13 January 2025 to refer the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia’s Transport Sector) Bill 2024 for inquiry and report.

The Bill is part of the implementation of a reform agenda in response to the Independent Review into Australia’s Aviation and Maritime Transport Security Settings.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to update and strengthen the [i]Aviation Transport Security Act 2004[/i] (ATSA) and the [i]Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003[/i] (MTOFSA).

Key elements of the Bill include amendments to either or both Acts to:

• amend the definition of ‘unlawful interference’ to capture a broader variety of acts, including cyber security incidents, and attempts as well as successful acts
  
• impose reporting requirements for cyber security incidents
  
• provide for the introduction of ‘all-hazards’ security obligations into both legislative schemes, by authorising regulations to be made relating to security programs and plans, minimum security standards that must be met, security assessments and annual reporting
  
• introduce system testing requirements for maritime security controls, and ‘vulnerability testing’ in both the aviation and maritime sectors
  
• update provisions relating to ‘test weapons’ to allow the Department to use new test weapons reflecting current and emerging threats
  
• broaden and align provisions across both Acts for the issuance of security directions by the Department of Home Affairs
  
• enable the establishment of a non-compliance ‘demerit points scheme’ for the aviation sector
  
• amend definitions of ‘port’ and ‘security regulated port’ to ensure that security regulation includes infrastructure, operations, assets and anchorages as part of port facilities.
  

The Bill includes other technical and administrative updates to the ATSA and MTOFSA.

The Committee invites submissions to the inquiry by 13 February 2025.

Further information about making a submission to a parliamentary committee is available here.


Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
PO Box 6021
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 2360
pjcis@aph.gov.au

Plus from the Transport Security review:

In the final report, the review made 26 recommendations and 66 sub-recommendations across five key themes:

• Update legislative and policy frameworks to enable iterative, risk-based and scalable regulation.
  
• Increase integration of intelligence and data analysis for the CISC as the regulatory body.
  
• Improve partnerships between the CISC and industry through better communication and engagement.
  
• Re-design of compliance processes and enforcement strategies.
  
• Raise, train and sustain appropriate transport security capability for both the CISC and industry.
  

LMH makes a good point in favour of scrapping the ridiculous ASIC card requirement for GA pilots but is there anyone left out there that is willing to take on the time and political advocacy effort to bring this to the attention of the numpty Senators and MPs?? - 

Sandy's submission - 

Dear Committee Secretary,

In regard to the Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) and the requirement for General Aviation (GA) pilots to maintain this expensive imposition.

I would ask the Committee to enquire from Home Affairs;  since inception of the ASIC has it delivered any safety benefits by virtue of preventing any unlawful acts around any of the many airports where it is required? And is it thought that it would be difficult for a criminal with no ASIC to obtain access to most airports?

The validity of this card is only two years, and for each renewal the pilot has to provide birth certificate and all details to prove one’s identity and visit a designated Post Office, or authorised place for photo and personal identification. The ASIC cost is about $300, plus time and travel for each renewal, a particularly onerous task for the many GA pilots who live in the bush.

The ASIC, brought about by 9/11 to counter what is I think proven to be a non existent problem, is thought to be, by virtually the whole of the GA community, an overreach and a painful waste of time and money.

In reality the ASIC requirement is:-

1/.  Against the safety of operations around airports because it deters pilots without the ASIC from visiting those ‘security controlled airports.’ There are hundreds of these airports which serve small towns like Winton QLD.

There are plenty of pilots whose ASIC has run out or don’t have a current ASIC for whatever reason, including a reluctance to spend money for no practical purpose.

2/. Against safety because more GA pilots being on those airports will have experienced eyes to assess untoward behaviour in the extremely unlikely, and remote possibility, of such activity. 

3/. Against safety and the well being of our GA industry because those without the ASIC may put off taking their aircraft to airports for maintenance due to their lack of an ASIC. Most maintenance bases are at ‘security controlled’ airports. This also means loss of business to those towns. 

I ask the Committee to revisit the Government’s own 2014 Forsyth Report and recommendation to delete the ASIC for GA pilots, and please also refer to the Wheeler report as it bears on this question.

Wheeler noted that the ASIC security investigation is only current at the time of issue, there being little or no interdepartmental follow up of incidents that might inspire security concerns about ASIC holders. Wheeler also noted that it’s a crime if an ASIC holder does not advise the authorities if one has committed, or been prosecuted for a crime and doesn’t report same promptly. An ASIC holder bent on nefarious purpose is hardly likely to obey this stricture in my opinion.

As to the practicality and real life experience of flying around Australia, a very experienced commercial charter pilot and pilot instructor (now retired, was Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor at a busy city airport) confided to me that the original ASIC card was obtained and served this person for the next some eighteen years. This demonstrates, and from personal experience, that the actual level of practical field surveillance of the ASIC in detail is extremely low.

Please inform me of the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations, I’m hopeful of a commonsense outcome because GA is an important industry that has been hampered by regulation churning and other unnecessary and expensive requirements from CASA resulting in loss of flying schools and maintenance jobs and businesses.

Thanking you for your invitation to make a submission. I am available at short notice by phone if Senators wish me to elaborate.

Kind regards,  Sandy Reith

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FWIW -  : Add Estimates Program for Betsy's minions    

Via the APH website:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

2024-25 Additional estimates

Program

Monday, 24 February 2025 

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts

Tuesday, 25 February 2025

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Program (PDF 186KB)

MTF...P2 

PS: FWIW some interesting AQON are finally being tabled...

[*]Question
The announcement of initiative 40 to review the Airports Act 1996 by 2030 via a comprehensive review is welcomed.
Are there any decisions that could occur in the interim prior to 2030 when the review is to be finalised, that could undermine our federally leased airports across Australia?
[*]Answer
Please find answer attached
Download question with answer
Answer Attachment

• 146. Initiative 40 of the Airports Act 1996.pdf
  

Answered Date
15/01/2025

---

[*]Question
1. Who makes decisions about general aviation businesses on site at our Federally leased sites?
2. Who is the regulator of Federally Leased Airports?
3. What role does the Department see itself in terms of the regulating federally leased airports?

[*]Answer

Please find answer attached
Download question with answer

Answer Attachment

• 147. Australian Government leases.pdf
  

Answered Date
05/02/2025

Answer:
1. The relevant Airport Lessee Company for each federally leased airport makes decisions around subleasing arrangements with the respective tenant, including arrangements for general aviation businesses on the airport site. These commercial decisions are made in the context of requirements under the Airports Act 1996 (the Act), associated regulations, and the airport lease for the respective airport site. 2. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts regulates federally leased airports in line with requirements under the Act and associated regulations, and the airport lease for each airport. The department performs these regulatory functions in line with the Statement of Expectations and Statement of Intent—Transport Regulation. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is the decision-maker for a range of matters under the Act, including matters such as approving, or refusing to approve airport master plans and major development plans. The department provides advice to the Minister in relation to decisions under the Act.
3. Refer response to question 2.

Hmm?? -  "Statement of Expectations and Statement of Intent—Transport Regulation"
That would be this: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/statement-of-intent-transport-regulation-february2024.pdf
What a cop out...

---

[*]Question
1. What is the process within the Department to assess a Major Development Plan MDP?
2. What Departmental oversight occurs on the processes or outcomes between the Airport Leasing Company (ALC) and the Airport Building Controller ABC?
3. Does the Department audit the applications between any of the ALC and their respective ABC to ensure that compliance is maintained?
4. How would the Minister of the day have any oversight on the processes or outcomes between the ALC and the ABC if the Department does not have any oversight?
5. Are these costs ever audited?
6. What is to stop the ALC and ABC from colluding to negate the need for a MDP?
7. Are the ALC's allowed to develop the land at the airport?

[*]Answer

Please find answer attached
Download question with answer

Answer Attachment

• 148. Airport Leasing Company (ALC) and the Airport Building Controller (ABC).pdf
  

Answered Date
03/02/2025

---

[*]Question

1. In the Moorabbin Airport Masterplan for 2021, the Department was made aware that multiple aviation tenants who were either unable to obtain a lease from the airport or unable to obtain a lease longer than 5 years.
2. How does the Department ensure that ALC are in fact providing for the use of Airports as an airport and having regard to 'actual and anticipated future growth'?
3. How does the Department regulate what is occurring on federally leased airport sites?

[*]Answer

Please find answer attached
Download question with answer

Answer Attachment

• 150. Moorabbin Airport Masterplan.pdf
  

Answered Date
05/02/2025

[Peetwo]

Review of the Transport Security Amendment Bill 2024 - Inquiry Update.

Via the APH:

Submissions

1 Mr Sandy Reith (PDF 194 KB) 

2 Canberra Airport (PDF 3734 KB) 
3 Australian Logistics Council (PDF 212 KB) 
4 International Forwarders and Custom Brokers Association of Australia Limited (PDF 235 KB) 
5 Department of Home Affairs (PDF 617 KB) 
6 Mr Clinton McKenzie (PDF 286 KB) 

7 Shipping Australia (PDF 302 KB) 
8 Australian Airports Association (PDF 2994 KB) 

No announcements of upcoming public hearings as yet but this inquiry could be kyboshed by the calling of an election, so standby...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Review of the Transport Security Amendment Bill 2024 - Public Hearing 20/02/25

Via APH YouTube channel:

Australian Airports Association (AAA)

Submission link: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=776488

Opening statement:

Mr Westaway : Thank you for this opportunity to appear today. The Australian Airports Association represents over 340 airports across Australia. This includes our major international hubs and regional and small aerodromes. We also have 150-plus corporate members which support aviation nationwide. Our members are essential in connecting communities, facilitating trade and tourism and supporting livelihoods. Today, 40 per cent of Australians interface with a local airport annually, which we think is an important point.

The AAA supports strength in our aviation security. However, we have genuine concerns about the Transport Security Amendment Bill 2024 which remain unaddressed, and we detailed these in our considered submission. The AAA notes the inadequate consultation process by the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre, or CISC. Whilst we appreciate the pre-election cycle that we now all feel like we're in, only two formal consultation phases with industry have actually occurred. The first allowed for minor feedback, and legitimate concerns were overlooked. The second, a first-pass impact analysis, was a rushed process. There was just a week for stakeholder response before the bill came before parliament.

Regulatory duplication caused by CISC's proposed all-hazards security framework remains a significant issue. Contrary to CISC's claims, comparable international frameworks do not adopt such a model for aviation security. Examples from the UK, the USA and the EU that the CISC used in their submission touched on natural hazards in passing or were focused on critical infrastructure but not aviation security. Australian airports already manage natural hazards under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. CASA's manual of standards, MOS, part 139 requires aerodrome emergency management plans to align with the International Civil Aviation Organization's, ICAO, annex 14. Meanwhile, ICAO's annex 17 governs aviation security and does not integrate natural hazards. This is a further example of unnecessary regulatory duplication, a disappointing constant across Australian aviation today.

Compliance costs are a major concern for us. By the CISC's own estimates, implementation costs could cost our sector nearly $1 billion over the next decade. This is an additional expense for airports across Australia, particularly for our small regional airports, who will find it very difficult to absorb these costs. In 2023-24, our major airports had over 97 million passenger throughputs while our regional and rural airports had a little over 18 million passenger throughput movements. These costs will inevitably be passed on to the flying public. Further increasing travel expenses in a disproportionate way will impact regional and rural aviation harder.

Finally, while security is paramount, pushing legislation without due consideration is problematic, and we believe it's actually bad public policy. The AAA recommends a minimum 24-month compliance timeline, rather than the proposed one year. This is to ensure effective implementation without the unintended consequences.

In conclusion, the AAA urges the committee to refine this bill to eliminate regulatory duplication, ensure a proportionate risk based approach and mitigate the cost burdens.

Qantas | Virgin Airlines | Airlines for ANZ

ANZ submission link: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=776498

Department of Home Affairs

DoHA submission link: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=776480

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


MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

FWIW - Additional Estimates - D.I.T.R.D.C.A: 24/02/25

Hansard link: 24 February 2025 - Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts (HTML & PDF)

Additional/Tabled docs:  Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts

Courtesy of the APH YouTube channel, who have now cut out all of the tedious editing etc required to put together the estimate video segments...

ASA:

However the APH team are yet to get to CASA, so here you go (FWIW)...  

Hmm...the RAOz/CASA v Coroner issue has much MTF it would seem...  

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Listen – carefully.

Then listen again: it is not a long journey; from 0400 minutes to about 08.30 minutes. Lost inside the words is the true focus of the CASA used car salesman; as dictated by the iron ring. Consider:-

“looking at generally how CASA acquits itself from oversight responsibilities”

“We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out.”

Aye; its a slim line; but, IMO it sums up the entire CASA 'mind-set'. There's no hint of 'assistance' directly from CASA to reduce the number of accidents; there's no push to ensure tht ATSB are obliged to investigate; there is even less of an appetite for developing ways and means to provide any form of 'safety' improvement. This is a matter which one day, may, just, maybe result in a light aircraft lost in IMC colliding with a aircraft carrying 'for hire and reward' one dark and rainy day mid way through a legitimate IMC approach. Slim chance, I'll grant you, long odds.– But why not reduce the odds even further? Prevention has always been much better than cure.

Perhaps its time CASA stopped creating and inventing regulations which cover their arse and adopt world best practice and take an active interest in generating a 'real' safety culture, rather than one which only ensures 'their' safety; through the fear of 'getting done over'. 

Toot-toot.

PS. Obliged to mention - this short (much abridged) missive provided at the behest of some very serious aviation expertise and a very cranky BRB after carefully considering the Coroners report. Unanimous vote - Spence must go and take the salesman with her. We hope the door don't hit anyone on the way out.

[Peetwo]

FWIW: Betsy's minions and Aviation in Estimates??

Via YouTube:

Summary, election coming cues racked...'err nothing to see here!'

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Cor blimey REX:- (again?).

First cab off the rank is a huge 'Thank-you' to the ever efficient, unfailingly polite, ever helpful 'back room crew' who took the time to provide the sessions on the 'You-Tube' channel. Much obliged. The 'support' provided to Estimates is a credit to them all and their management team; wish all departments had the same approach to their work – on behalf of the public.  Cheers.

So; Observations, comments and just a soupçon anger. I like to set up a screen in the workshop to listen and watch the Estimates video, that way I can work during the 'discussion'. This afternoon – I watched this one:- REX sale/ Corporate.

The vast differences between the good (Secretariat) and the Betsy's 'drones' is stark. What a surly, arrogant crew they are. Who is this Betts character anyway? Had he spoken to me in the manner he addressed the good Senator McKenzie; he'd have a lovely time at the dentist soon afterwards. Rude, and discourteous about sum it up; no tie and that ridiculous lanyard? He'd last about seven minutes in any other world. Apology and attitude adjustment required; he is, when all said and done only another a public servant, not the bloody Messiah. Disgraceful.

Always had a liking for Sterle; before we developed the Albo syndrome of providing spoiled children with more lollies and excuse clauses; he would team up with the Likes of Heffernan, Fawcett, Xenophon etc and give the public servants something to think about. Then came the tragic mark down on the election ticket and since then he's been IMO, a stranger to himself. No matter, he's no match for Sen. Mackenzie.  Wow!! I don't know how she does it; but for a while now, she has not missed a target; even when pushed, shoved or misled. This is what a Senator should be; a full day's work for a full days pay. Bravo Sen. Mack. Remember -

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

FWIW - Last Estimates for Betsy and his minions?? -

Corporate session, via YouTube:

For those interested - HERE - is the Hansard for the full session. Plus go - HERE - for the tabled docs.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Timing and simple arithmetic.

In the latest offering from Buckley – HERE – (long read) there are, without doubt, some valid points raised. One point of interest is the referral to the 'Robodebt' bun fight, which ended needing a Royal Commission to sort out. Should you have a few spare, idle moments, 'Google' that one word, then roll down the page and count the number of government agencies who have 'published' reports related to the event , on the first page; then seek out 'independent' commentary on same. They exist, but you need to look to find 'em.

The RC into Robodebt, in essence, happened because of the sheer weight of numbers involved and (of course) the dollars and, by extension votes. It was a matter of public interest therefore it became a matter of political interest (just a bit) and it cost millions of tax payer dollars (lots of) up front. Behind the 'spend' there was another impost; government employees hired to do 'other' work were seconded to the 'defence' - which left primary work on the desk.

In short, it was an expensive operation in time, money and productivity loss. It begs the question; can one person raise the ante to a level where the government de jour would feel inclined to invest in another Royal Commission on the grounds that Buckley has been 'unfairly treated'. The odds are not good; indeed, a better bet would be that every effort is made to keep the lid firmly fastened on this small can 'o worms. Even if the genie got out of the bottle, look back no further into history than the 'Pel-Air' final report from a Senate inquiry to gauge the 'real' changes effected. Does Buckley have a cat in Hell's chance of a RC?

Short answer, no. Long answer NO ducking way.

And yet – IMO – there exists a slim chance; a long shot, probably in the mission impossible class, but worth a thought or two. Consider; If, big one (huge) Buckley was a 'one off' – the only aviation business operator, pilot, aircraft owner, or maintenance organisation that had been 'handled' by CASA then we could all say Buckley was a rogue operator and CASA have done well to weed him out of the game. Amen and good-night Vienna.

But he ain't Robinson Crusoe is he? No by a long march he ain't. Standing alone, pilloried, he 'don't signify'. IF; collectively, from Qantas down to Joe Blog's flying academy in Kickinatinalong, to the Wup-Whoop spanner twister academy, there was cohesive, collective shout for real reform and ICAO standard of governance; then perhaps, just maybe, there would be hope, not only for Buckley but for this nation's aviation businesses.  Gods know, it is desperately needed. No bets taken; the 'book' is locked away...

There, my two bob, spent as pleased me best..Toot toot..

[Peetwo]

FWIW - Supplementary Budget Estimates: 7-8th October

Tuesday next week is the first round of Estimates for this new Parliament. Probably be a total dud but it should be interesting to see where political and bureaucratic lines have been redrawn - FWIW the program:





MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Supplementary Estimates: 7/10/25

Courtesy APH Hansard link: Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, SPORT AND THE ARTS PORTFOLIO 

Via YouTube:

Corporate: Betsy and crew 1st session

Airservices:

CASA:

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

1::120  Weight per unit Volume; or-

Of games; and candles.

It is a neat expression, the notion that the game is not worth the cost of the candle. It can be loosely used in many applications, i.e. is the return worth the expenditure; or, value for money? The expression begs that question of the 'Estimates' sessions. I find I cannot just sit and watch, the best time is when I have a job on the workbench, (Victorian sliding window frame), as the work is all hand done the noise levels are low and with the latest session playing it is easy to pick up on the subtle changes in voice delivery, a quick glance defines the change in body language. Fascinating stuff for a student of human kind. But I digress.

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.”

Consider the 'nuts and bolts' of the Estimates session, then rough out the cost of the entire thing. The first video (above) where the behermoth of the DOIT etc (silly bloody title) face off against Sen. McKenzie (legend). The mathematics of the 'cost' are mind bending. I counted no less than 28 heads sat behind 'Betsy' cowering in the front row like a puppy caught piddling on the carpet. Then work out the cost of the Senators and their 'teams', the cost of the crew behind the scenes; the furnishings, equipment, time away from productive work done etc. etc. It is a huge, tax payer funded number. For what? In real terms, what was achieved through this great expenditure?

"I am distressed, not by a tempest, but by sea-sickness.”

There was no benefit to the 'world' at large, not a scrap of easement for the man in the street, stock markets ignored the whole, industries failed to listen, and not one single, solitary matter was resolved to the benefit of this nation.

In short:- why bother? This nation is being run by 'the Agencies' and 'Departments, Estimates clearly define the complete abrogation of Ministerial desire to exercise any sort responsibility or control over these massive, ever more expensive agencies, living the dream in an expensive bubble, far removed and remote from the rest of Australia. Not good enough; nowhere bloody near.

Selah..

[Kharon]

HO- HOFO- FFS.

The stultifying effects of the CASA @ Estimates video – HERE – IMO accurately reflect their effect on industry advancement; the pace of advancement and investment in expansion. The lies, damned lies and statistics back up this notion. To prove the theory will cost you 27 minutes of life, a high price no doubt, but until proven, just once, for yourself, the numbers multiplied by the just the last five years of CASA at Estimates will stagger you.

Short example: just count the number of questions asked in the session above and the number of 'take on notice' replies. Simple ratio solves the puzzle e.g 20 questions asked :: 15 taken on notice. 75% of questions disappear, the answers never heard; not by the public anyway. It would be a fine thing to hear a Senator say something along the lines of - “ last session you took this question (cite) on notice; this is the response.”  Then, the real questions could be asked and perhaps, just maybe, some sense could be made of the answers and the reasoning behind the original inquiry needing to be taken 'on notice' and the time taken to respond.

Take the Sen. Whitton question, asked at about the 20 minute mark. A small operation in Broome; caught short when the HOFO quits, no back up so operations are suspended, not the bills though. After a while they apply to the Senator for assistance to get matters resolved in a timely manner. The Senator is essentially, told 'don't call us, we'll call you, when we are ready; or, “Sod off” in the vernacular.

Now, the Broome operator has all the permissions needed to operate, CASA approved in place. They only need a HOFO interviewed; say that took a morning to complete, via a video link. Easy as pie in this day and age. But “No” is the stern reply, “we'll get to it when it suits us best”. Barring exigent circumstances and solid reason, then we must ask why CASA arrogantly dismissed a valid request for 'assistance' from an established, approved operator., assisted by a Senator who now must await the CASA reply.  “We'll get back to Senator” -

Seriously? What was the CASA budget lat year and they can't find a half day to sort out a routine essential? No wonder Spence looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights. 

Toot toot..

[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry into Regional Aviation? 

Via X three days ago: https://x.com/senbmckenzie/status/1983077600064070142

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Great news this afternoon with the announcement of a Senate Inquiry into regional aviation. This a big win for the Coalition, Crossbench and the Greens, against Labor's attempts to shut down scrutiny over the challenges faced by regional aviation service providers.

The inquiry will take a hard look at how to deliver reliable, affordable air services to rural, regional and remote communities - something Minister King's preferred option of a Productivity Commission inquiry will also look at but which won’t report on until 2027.

Its broad terms of reference will examine long-standing issues such as security and regulatory cost-recovery, airport disparities, service competitiveness, and government fees and levies that make regional flying more expensive.

Regional aviation is a lifeline - connecting people to health care, emergency services, business, tourism and family. This inquiry will help ensure those connections remain strong, affordable and fair, no matter where Australians live.

By reviewing past recommendations and exploring practical reforms - including how to fund regional airport security costs - the Senate is taking a proactive step to strengthen the regional aviation network and support regional development.

Via the Senate Hansard the TOR: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/28859/&sid=0000

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (16:28): At the request of Senator Lambie, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 February 2026:

The state of Australia's aviation sector and its ability to deliver reliable and affordable services to rural, regional and remote communities, with particular reference to:

(a) costs, fees, levies, taxes and charges that are core components to the pricing of airfares and associated services;

(b) disparities of these costs across rural, regional and remote airports and the basis for the disparities;

© mechanisms for recovering federally mandated security and regulatory costs and options for achieving greater financial equity across the aviation sector, including the merits of a uniform national levy to cover security arrangements;

(d) competitiveness of the aviation sector to service regional, rural and remote communities and the implications of reducing or withdrawing those services;

(e) adequacy of government fees and levies to equitably address costs for airline services incurred due to federal legislation and regulations;

(f) effectiveness of government processes and mechanisms to identify and quantify capital and ongoing costs due to federal legislation and regulations;

(g) policy and practical measures in place, or that could be established, to assist the aviation sector to provide services to rural, regional and remote communities;

(h) review of government responses to recommendations from previous relevant inquiries and the status of associated actions; and

(i) any other related matters.

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

FWIW.

From Senate Estimates:- a classic game of Ducks and Drakes; big bucks v Ni idea. Caution the video starts @ the 33 minute mark so move it along to there. Another scoreless draw, not a bad result in a match between big business and the traveling public.

[Peetwo]

State of Australia’s aviation sector Inquiry - 28/11/25 Hearing

Having watched through this fairly mundane RRAT References Committee inquiry hearing, I became somewhat intrigued because this committee was actually appearing to act in a non-partisan collective way - WTF??...

Courtesy APH, via YouTube:

My question is: Are we seeing the RRAT committee renaissance of the non-partisan effective committee that we all used to love and respect??

See - HERE - for the submissions related to this hearing

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Senate Estimates 01/12/25: Aviation Safety Bureaucracy

Via APH, the Hansard: See - HERE

And in pictures, via YouTube:

..Senator COLLINS: So the commercial pilots flying different aircraft have to do two checks per year for each aircraft.

Mr Marcelja : Two checks per year for air transport, yes.

Senator COLLINS: Do you accept that for aircraft that are not supported by a simulator in the country—if you don't have a simulator for that particular aircraft—pilots are forced to repeat dangerous simulated engine-failure manoeuvres in every aircraft type they fly, which multiplies the risk for pilots who operate more than one type?

Ms Spence : I might see if my colleague Mr Campbell has any information on that. The way that you're posing the questions, I wouldn't mind taking them on notice because we don't have the information in front of us. I'm just worried we're going to say that it's exactly as you've described it and we just need to, particularly around the actual numbers that we're talking about here—I think Mr Campbell can certainly answer on the simulator question.

Mr Campbell : Yes. We've had in place for many years an international standard that, above a certain size of aircraft—generally air transport category aircraft—the requirement is to use simulators. That's standard. Below that, there's an option that, if it's available in Australia, they can use it in Australia.

Senator COLLINS: Simulators are very costly, and I understand it is around a million dollars for a simulator—

Mr Campbell : I'd say a lot more.

Senator COLLINS: A lot more than that. If you're a small general aviation company, you're not really going to be able to put your money into a simulator. If you don't have access to simulator, then you're going to have to do this in a real-life situation—sorry, in a practice, training situation.

Mr Campbell : It depends on what you're calling general aviation. The smaller general aviation that we know, below 5,700 kilos, won't be required to use simulators, but, for other aircraft that are in that sort of scope that requires simulator training, that's been in force for many decades.

Senator COLLINS: But you are expected to repeat it twice a year—to do these dangerous manoeuvres. Is that correct?

Mr Campbell : The emergency training, yes.

Senator COLLINS: Can you also confirm that in more than 20 years there have been zero fatal real turbine engine fatal accidents during take-off or missed approach—none in real life—but multiple fatalities during training.

Mr Campbell : I don't have that detail in front of me, sorry.

Senator COLLINS: Alright.

Ms Spence : If you've got a specific example that you would like us to provide more information on, we'd be very happy to take that on notice. I don't think we do anything that's dramatically different to what other national aviation authorities do in this space, and, genuinely, if there are specific examples you've got where someone has raised an issue with you we'd be very happy to look into that in detail.

Senator COLLINS: I do. I actually have a snapshot of some very specific examples where pilots have died while doing these training checks. In 1995, two pilots died doing a take-off decision speed cut in Tamworth. In 2003, two pilots died doing a loss-of-control asymmetric practice in Bankstown. In 2010, two pilots died doing a simulated take-off decision speed cut in Darwin. In 2017, three pilots died doing a simulated engine failure after take-off in Renmark, in South Australia. In 2019, two pilots died doing a simulated engine failure after take-off in Mareeba, in Queensland. In 2025, just a few months ago, two pilots died doing a proficiency check, which is still under investigation. One was a very experienced training officer and another a commercial pilot. The total, of the ones that I've been able to find on open source, is 13 people that have died doing very risky manoeuvres as part of the training checks. My understanding is that now they have to do more of them across a lot of different types of aircraft. Would you accept, having the understanding of that—and also the understanding that pilots are dying practising failures that almost never kill any pilots in real life—that you're forcing repeated exposure to known fatal-risk manoeuvres, and that contradicts the requirements of reducing risk?

Ms Spence : What I would say is that I'd like to go through the information in a bit more detail than that. I totally understand. We lost one of our own CASA employees as one of those people that you mentioned in those numbers. It is something we take very seriously, and we have looked at it. I suppose, with everything, there is that need to make sure that people have had that proficiency checking, but I'm happy to go through the numbers that you've provided in a bit more detail and also explain why we're doing what we're doing. We will take that on notice.

Senator COLLINS: That leads me to my next question, Ms Spence. Can you point to any evidence shown that repeating the same manoeuvres across aircraft types saves lives instead of risking them?

Ms Spence : I don't have that with me, no.

Senator COLLINS: Do you accept that piloting hand skills, required to safely manage and asymmetric and simulated engine failure manoeuvres, are fundamentally the same across different aircraft types and systems?

Ms Spence : That is why I would like to take the original answers we gave you and look at those to make sure we're not speaking at cross-purposes about what we're actually requiring people to do.

Senator COLLINS: Have you looked at modernising your training requirements? My understanding is that this legislation is based on aircraft technology from the 1970s. Have you looked at modernising the legislation so that you can look at the safety features of the aircrafts that pilots are flying these days?

Ms Spence : I think it's an excellent suggestion. We're constantly looking to see how we can improve things. There's a lot of work that's being done through the International Civil Aviation Organization. We're also looking at more competency based training rather than repeating similar activities. We don't have any obvious answers for the issues that you're raising, but we are always willing to engage with industry if they've got suggestions about how we can do things better.

Senator COLLINS: To come back to the question on notice that I submitted, have you ever counted the number of pilots killed in training while doing these exercises?

Ms Spence : I don't have that number. Sorry, my colleague just pointed out to me that, based on the information we've provided, there have been four accidents, and the four flights resulted in eight fatalities.

Senator COLLINS: The number that I managed to get from open source was a lot higher than that.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator COLLINS: Is it the responsibility of CASA to be tracking this? I mean, these are pilots that are doing the things that you're asking them to do, and now, more often, repeatedly every year—these pilots are people with children, and you're making them do more tests, and they're very, very risky tests. These single engine go-arounds can kill them instantly. This stuff happens in real life—there's almost zero chance, and you're making some of these pilots do it eight times a year, and they have families.

Ms Spence : Senator—

Senator COLLINS: If another pilot dies performing a mandatory simulated engine failure, will CASA accept responsibility for creating that risk?

Ms Spence : We will look at the information you provided. Obviously, it's always distressing when there are fatalities. As I said, CASA felt it very strongly when we lost one of our own. I totally understand what you're saying about real life—these are lives. They've lost their family; they've lost their future. We'll see what the ATSB recommends as a result of its investigation, which is currently underway for the most recent accident. And, as I said, we'll look to see the details. As we've said, we don't just make these things up to put people at risk.

Hmm...ambushed by a young Know nothing Senator...luv it - (PS: Please refer to P9's post above for his editorial on this embarrassing episode for Pup_Spence - )

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Why did they ask the office girl?

The video above is from Senate Estimates; above (Cheers P2). Questions are asked of Spence who, in her defence, would have NFI about the subject examined. Clerical staff are not 'operational' staff; but the questions linger and they do demand (absolutely) definitive answers. There is on Pprune a well writ post which begs answer to many, many questions. Questions which, IMO demand answers and a serious revision of a significant 'safety' matter. To wit; fatalities in multi engine aircraft during 'check & training' (C&T)  Why? Well, more have died during this particular element of T&C under discussion than in any other area. The 'engine failure after take off' (EFATO) scenario demands a 'check flight' twice a year, for every type operated in a general aviation (non airline) fleet. Three different types on line; equate to six high risk exercises; one every two months in aged aircraft with no 'guaranteed' performance; aircraft which work very hard for living.

“It is given to us to calculate, to weigh, to measure, to observe, this is natural philosophy; almost all the rest is chimera.”

Consider this; the FAA set the rules for the critical data which brackets an aircraft performance envelope – HERE - . Manufacturers use a factory fresh model to provide the 'performance' data; test pilot skills are 'factored' down to provide an envelope for 'general' piloting ability and maintenance. They do a pretty good job of this; no guarantees of course.  But general wear and tear and a range of piloting skills are accounted for. (Give or Take). Many (many) of the airframe engine combinations have aged gracefully, survived all manner of pilots, airstrips, weather, abuse and load for many, many decades and still going strong.

“When you have mastered numbers, you will in fact no longer be reading numbers, any more than you read words when reading books. You will be reading meanings.”

Consider the odds: take the number of take off and landing cycles conducted by the non airline sector (GA) in a year; then count the number of 'dead cut' engine failures events. Rarer than Rocking Horse pooh. Even rarer count the number of fatal events due to engine failure at low level during operations, now we are into Hen's teeth territory. Then count the fatalities due to 'simulated' engine failure in 'check' operations.

“99 percent of all statistics only tell 49 percent of the story.”

Two steps (hobble) from my desk, from number four shelf I drag out a random  flight manual for a 'light twin' – A Ted Smith Aerostar 601. From the manual sections it is easy to define several elements, critical to the 'higher risk' elements of the 'take off' component. The Minimum Single engine control speed is set between 80 and 86 knots. The single engine climb speed, is set at about 109 knots (Indicated airspeed). Working the data for an aircraft at max weight, on a 25c day; sealed runway etc. provides a clearly defined (on paper) distance (time too if you work in ground speed) between passing 'minimum control speed' and single engine climb speed. It is, in an accelerating aircraft but a heartbeat or two; BUT remains at the top end of the 'high risk' envelope for 'C&T' exercise for fatality.  So why is this 'check' mandated, twice a year? Seriously, what's the point?

“Ah, but my dear sir, the why must never be obvious. That is the whole point.”

In the AS 600 manual; there are 21 separate 'emergency' check lists within the 'Flight Manual' EP section. Each (every) one, has a higher statistical 'fail/problem' ratio than a 'dead cut' of an engine in a 'critical' situation. The maintenance logs will confirm this. These essential, potentially lethal items are not required to be checked twice a year, but they matter. Engine failure between rotate and clean up/ climb away is a drill. A simple drill; and must be as 'automatic' as retracting the undercarriage or closing the door. The 'basics' apply across the spectrum of operations, the 'time' between 'startle' and 'direct action' should be no more than a quick curse, no thought required; there isn't time. The initial training should be, and mostly is, done at altitude, calmly, with the rinse, wash, repeat method. Reaction and the response all carefully set in a stone cold, correct procedure. With an engine failed during a critical phase, (86 – 105 KIAS) 'things' are going to get busy and there's precious little time to be faffing about with shut down/ feather distractions. In a light twin, it should much less time to action than it takes to type it. Mixture, Pitch, Power - Identify, Verify, Feather and get on with the 'real' job. Reducing Drag by securing the engine is only the first stanza  in a very dangerous game. Getting the aircraft flying is the real job. That, not the drill is the secret to survival.

Repetition of the same thought or physical action develops into a habit which, repeated frequently enough, becomes an automatic reflex. Amen....

The 'secret' of surviving an engine failure (dead cut) is neither mystical nor magic; but it demands skill and understanding. The aircraft has just lost power, a lot of it. The pilot's job is to get it flying again; reduce the drag, trim for balance, sort out a 'plan' and act (now – now would be good) The first task is demanding; for much depends on it. The aircraft 'must' be 'balanced' and 'drag' reduced; airspeed must be gained, if height is to achieved; it takes skill, patience and understanding to achieve this. Banging about in a circuit, on a fine day at minimum load is of neither practical nor intrinsic value. A partial failure can present a whole raft of 'different problems, particularly with 'systems failure thrown in for fun.  In short: the whole CASA demanded, simulated box tick exercise is not only a a waste of time and money, counter productive but has cost more lives than the 'real thing'. Nuts and demanded twice a year???

The majority of multi engine aircraft, below 5700 Kg are, in essence, all the same, give or take. Fly one probably make a fist of flying the rest. A much better notion – for 'safeties' sake, for a newly minted junior twin engine pilots would be en-route check, twice a year, and a once a year 'Base' check. A real work out, in any multi engine aircraft available on the day; soup to nuts – paper work, trim sheet, loading, flight planning, weather assessment; alternate route and 'planning'. The during cruise, in say the Aerostar, systems failure drills; all 21 of them. Debriefing; honest and, importantly, providing guidance toward better performance in the 'rough' areas noted. How else are the 'Kids' to learn their trade?

“I never teach my pupils, I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.”

Aye well, IMO there is much 'wrong' with the CASA mandated 'check' system.  It promotes fiscal and operational resistance and 'work-around' box ticking while enforcing an unrealistic 'legal' tenant of no practical benefit to the 'junior' pilot. Furthermore; the statistics demonstrate, very starkly, a death toll far in excess of deaths in the normal course of operational flying. The ratio of actual engine failure related deaths to the ratio of those killed 'in training' is off the charts. But renders the 'philosophy' nugatory when compared to number of 'real' engine failure events during the small phase of flight between a take off speed and a 'safe' speed for single engine operations. Do the math, I have, acceleration : between 86 KIAS and 109 KIAS = in seconds. I'll wait for Spence to come back with that puzzle solved.  P.S. the 'smoke' comes out the back in the real world. Bunch of numpties. Maybe her Bag man with the mouth and 'all the answers' could assist.  No bets taken. 

Toot – 6 sleeps to freedom-- toot.