[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry: Airport & Aviation Security MKII

The strangely delayed inquiry into airport and aviation security has been temporarily re-incarnated in the 45th Parliament. Here is part of the inquiry preamble so far:

...Submissions should be received by 16 January 2015. The reporting date is 26 April 2015. On 26 March 2015, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 21 May 2015. On 14 May 2015, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 12 August 2015. On 12 August 2015, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 9 September 2015. On 9 September 2015, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 2 December 2015. On 12 November 2015, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 19 May 2016. On 9 May 2016, the inquiry lapsed with the dissolution of the Senate and House of Representatives for a general election on 2 July 2016.  

On 15 September 2016 the Senate agreed to re-refer the inquiry with a reporting date of 1 December 2016. On 10 November 2016, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 7 February 2017.

Submissions and additional information received are available on the inquiry webpage. 

      
Querying the last extension I noticed at the start of the week in Senate Hansard the committee notified a impromptu public hearing for 1600 LMT on 24 November 2016. Two days before this hearing the program was released and it was revealed there would be only one witness giving evidence, Mr Allan Kessing.

At about the same time Mr Kessing's submission was also made publicly available:

21 Mr Allan Kessing (PDF 102 KB)

    
Then yesterday Binger, in the Oz, wrote a late article summarising the Allan Kessing submission and evidence given in the inquiry:

Airport screening a ‘facade’
1:56pmMitchell Bingemann

Whistleblower Allan Kessing says passenger screening is a “useless facade”, and intelligence gathering needs resources.

Allan Kessing, a former Customs officer convicted of leaking reports about serious security flaws at Sydney airport, has described passenger screening terminals as a useless facade and said more resources must be poured into intelligence gathering to stop terrorists from launching attacks.

Mr Kessing wrote two damning reports on Sydney airport security in 2003 that dealt with a range of security concerns including alleged illegal activity by baggage handlers and surveillance “black holes”.

In 2007 he was convicted of breaching Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act after the courts found he leaked the long-ignored reports to this newspaper that revealed criminality and security flaws at Sydney Airport.

The exposure of those reports triggered a far-reaching probe into airport security, the Wheeler report, which prompted the Federal Government to spend $200 million establishing airport police commands and boosting Customs surveillance.

But fronting a Senate committee investigating airport and aviation security in Canberra last night, Mr Kessing said that despite those upgrades many security protocols in place at today’s airports were ineffective at stopping terrorist attacks from occurring.


Whistleblower Allan Kessing.

Mr Kessing, who worked as a Customs intelligence officer for 15 years, singled out passenger screening terminals as being an ineffective “facade”.

“Passenger screening as we know it is about doing something but it is not effective, and in fact I think it is deleterious,” he said.

Mr Kessing pointed to the examples of the so-called Shoe Bomber and Underwear Bomber.

Richard Reid, also known as the Shoe Bomber, evaded security checkpoints at airports and attempted to detonate explosives packed into his shoes while on board an American Airlines flight in 2001.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, known as the Underwear Bomber, attempted to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board a Northwest Airlines Flight in 2009

“Both of them were not detected and yet because they were failures (in security) is why we have to go through these screening procedures,” Mr Kessing said.

“I would not feel safe without passenger screening but (it’s there) only as a facade.”
Mr Kessing said passenger screening terminals were only effective at deterring lone wolf terrorists who did not possess the means to bypass security and who had been kicked out of criminal and terrorist organisations for being “loose cannons”.

“However I would advocate that real resources be put into intelligence gathering ... to ensure the real terrorists are caught before they have breakfast and leave home,” he said.

Mr Kessing took the opportunity of the Senate committee hearing to again protest his innocence in the leaking of the Sydney Airport security reports, saying that despite being charged, he was not the whistleblower.

“I was not (the person who leaked the reports),” he said.

Mr Kessing also said he was “very much” annoyed at being characterised as a whistleblower.

When asked who could have leaked the report, Mr Kessing said drafts were available to people in his covert Customs unit as well as other officers in intelligence organisations.

“The only person who had access to full draft was my senior officer but other members of our team also had access to select sections,” he said.
Mr Kessing was given a suspended jail sentence of nine months when he was convicted of the leaks in 2007.

Despite his protestations of innocence, the Federal Government has rejected a pardon application from Mr Kessing.

The Hansard from that hearing is yet to be released but the following is a video montage of the very revealing and disturbing evidence given by AK.

Video two probably should have the heading 'money talks' when (about 02:30) AK reveals that the reason his 2nd report was also rejected, by the customs airport manager at Sydney airport...

"..We were told, quite simply, that the commercial costs involved in complying with the Customs Act would be onerous..(sic), too onerous for the now privatised airport corporation (i.e. SAC)..."  

"That was all she wrote"... -The final video signals the end of the public part of the hearing and this was due in large part because Barry-O (with the braces on ) began to 'mechanically' ask for name, rank and serial numbers...

You know there is trouble afoot when Barry-O goes (01:42)...

"..let me place on the record my interest..(sic)..I am so disturbed by the evidence of this witness.." 

Will put up the Hansard once it is available...


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Blown out or blow dried?

“Mr Kessing also said he was “very much” annoyed at being characterised as a whistleblower.”

This has to be one of the most damning stories to ever surface about the way ‘government departments’ operate. Here’s a fellah that can see clearly and evidence, the same thing that almost aviation professionals agree with – security at airports is a risible farce. The ‘terrs’ must be rolling around the floor laughing at it.  When a man can be beaten to death, on the concourse of Sydney’s major airport and the ‘security’ do nothing – well, you get the picture.

This man is no more a ‘whistle-blower’ than the Rev. Forsyth or anyone else who has put a submission in to a Senate inquiry. Just like most in the aviation industry are prepared to provide expert, considered opinion on a sorry situation – only now Kessing can safely speak out.  The Senate crew can spot ‘pony-pooh’ at a mile and a half; they would not give this bloke the time of day – if they thought he was ‘full of it’.

The ‘departmental’ response has been totally characteristic. They have no one else to blame, except themselves, that this shame and scandal became public knowledge, but Kessing has been ‘managed’. The story treated in a classic manner; ‘The treatment’. First the prosecution (a threat others) the vilification (to frighten others), isolation (to publically define a ‘rogue’ element), ridicule (the derogatory ‘whistle-blower’ title to belittle) all define the first part. The second part is to dilute and dismiss the claims; then merrily do sweet bugger all about the matter except dig a hole to bury the facts. If the department ‘responsible’ is sitting on valid, valuable information and failing to act on it, then I say; they’ve prosecuted and vilified the wrong bloke.

Well, it’s game on now. Barry O’Braces, Nick X, Sterlo et al are paying attention. Kessing rings true. He deserves our thanks for having the balls and the brain power to speak of these matters. I wish there were more like him. You never know, then something may even get done before there is a need for a Senate panel, ‘in-camera’ evidence and a story for the press to feed on. Make no mistake – this is a big story; if the truth is ever fully known about the dreadful state of ‘matters aeronautical’ in this country, there’ll be changes – at government level. Hell, we may even get a minister who can think, act and speak independently, not just parrot the platitudes provided by his minders; now, wouldn’t that be nice?

Bravo Mr Kessing and well done (once again) the Senators.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

A Muppet for all seasons -

"..We were told, quite simply, that the commercial costs involved in complying with the Customs Act would be onerous..(sic), too onerous for the now privatised airport corporation (i.e. SAC)..."  

Still waiting on the Hansard but I believe the above (interpreted) quote from AK is quite close. Either way it is a very disturbing statement that you simply can't doubt the veracity of given that the witness is retired and no longer has any skin in the game other than the concern that the original safety/security risks are still yet to be effectively mitigated nearly 15 years later..  (Hmm..why does that sound so familiar... )

So to summarise, by association Mr Kessing is intimating that the SAC (McBank) is above one of the highest laws in the land, the Customs Act. Which means that the endeavours of McBank to basically print money from the income generated from Australia's largest international airport, should not be impeded in anyway.

This dodgy deal was apparently all done with the blessing of the relevant Federal Mandarins and their minions - UDB...

The comparisons to other dodgy deals in secondary airports and between CASA, the ATSB,  M&M's department in relation to the PelAir cover-up is quite remarkable.

Which is all very ironical when you consider who was responsible for setting up the whole Sydney airport 'dodgy deal' {Reference M&M's FOI disclosure log: 09/03/16 - Documents relating to Sydney Airport Lease (16–43) PDF: 4581 KB}:

Yes Beaker a Muppet for all seasons -

MTF?- Definitely, watch this space..P2

Ps And people wondered why we had issues with Beaker heading up the MH370 SIO search...

[Peetwo]

The truth about ASICs & airport screening.

Well finally the Hansard is out from the 24 November (A&A security Senate inquiry - Allan Kessing) public hearing - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
(Senate-Thursday, 24 November 2016)

Mr Kessing : Certainly. The passenger screening as we know it is about doing something. 'This is something; therefore, we have done something.' It is not effective; in fact, I believe it is deleterious. The really high profile cases, of which most people are aware, are the so-called shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Both of those individuals passed through the most highly regulated and security-conscious airports in the world. In the case of the underwear bomber, he passed through four of them on interchanges in Heathrow in Britani and Schiphol in Netherlands. They were not detected, and yet, because they were failures, we now have to go through these procedures. I maintain that I would not feel safe were there no passenger screening these days but only as a facade to stop the fool.
       
It has been often found both in criminal and in terrorist organisations that many put themselves forward to be warriors or participants and they are rejected by those organisations because they are just loose cannons. If it were not for screening, there would be a chance that such a loose cannon with no affiliation would try to do something stupid. So the screening, however ineffective, must remain purely as a very visible deterrent. However, I would advocate that the real resources be put into intelligence gathering, proper analysis and proper targeting to stop potential threats before they have breakfast and leave home.

Very much related to this statement from AK in regards to security screening & the overkill ASIC card, I note that earlier in the week Dick Smith sent a Dear John to miniscule 4D:

And today AOPA has swung their support behind the Dick submission:

Dear miniscule - ASIC card AOPA plea.

Via BM (AOPA Oz) this AM:

AOPA Australia calls on the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Darren Chester to effect the ASRR 2014 ASIC recommendation before the close of 2016, giving general aviation relief this Christmas.
 
Friday, 2nd December 2016
 
The Hon Darren Chester MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia.
 
Dear Minister,
 
I am writing to you on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia in full support of Mr Dick Smith’s recent submission to your office regarding Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) for general aviation.
 
As you are aware and have acknowledged recently with the announcement of your review into general aviation decline, Australia’s general aviation industry is suffering under the weight of a wide gambit of regulatory and economic pressures that have forced some 8,000+ pilots to exit in just the past 10 years.
 
The industry has experienced the largest decline in aviation businesses throughout the same period, along with the largest skills departure and shortage in the history of general aviation in this country. More than ever, our industry needs your leadership and attention for it to recover and achieve its potential.
 
The decline in general aviation been assisted by unnecessary regulatory overreach which includes the ASIC scheme that was identified during the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) May 2014 (“The Forsyth Report”) as having “… a significant regulatory impost on the industry..” and “… without delivering a commensurate security benefit”.
 
The ASRR put forward its recommendation to government in 2014, that specified;
“The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas (SRA), not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.”
 
Nearly two and half years have passed without action on this most important issue.
The AOPA Australia are calling on you Minister to give immediate effect to the ASRR ASIC recommendation, so as to remove this unnecessary regulatory burden before the close of 2016, providing our general aviation industry with your firm commitment for reform.
 
We would appreciate a formal response.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director – Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Mobile:  0415 577 724
 

Considering the track record of this NFI miniscule (i.e. ignore & do nothing) and given that it doesn't appear that AOPA or Dick previously made a submission highlighting these ASIC card issues to the committee, wouldn't now be an excellent time to make those same submissions to this inquiry? After all the inquiry reporting date has now been extended to the 30th of March 2017 and according to AK there is more criminals airside at Sydney airport than you are ever likely to find flying an aircraft and screening is just for shits & giggles, so now my be a perfect time to argue the toss on WOFTAM ASIC cards - just saying...


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

The art of non-compliance perfected

The security regs are a complete joke. The biggest risk to an airport comes not from a GA pilot who forgot his stupid ASIC, but comes from a Jihadist sitting off Botany Bay with one of the 300 SAM's missing worldwide. Or from the same Jihadist with a fleet of drones all carrying 1.5kg of C4 and being flown into multiple aircraft on the Tarmac refuelling at Mascot or Tulla.

Here is a great example of the standard airport security joke - Cairns airport, an international airport close to Asia. I've been flying in and out of there for 10 years and know for a fact;

* GA area. Nobody monitors the GA access vehicle gate. No camera there because it would cost the airport authority money and the GM of the airport and former CEO wouldn't spend up. People regularly enter by using their ASIC and they don't wait for the gate to shut behind them after they have entered. Other vehicles then follow behind the legitimate vehicle and enter before the gate shuts. No swipe card used, no vehicle identification on the side of the vehicle, nothing. I've seen it countless times. I know one person who did it in his personal car to take his kids for a drive airside! Hardly anyone at GA wears their ASIC airside, ever!
* Full body scanner. A little birdie told me that allegedly when the airport put in the full body scanner it was tested after it was installed and a glock went through undetected! A report went to OTS which was duly buried. They didn't want to make the 'Minister for hands in the air' Albo look like a complete twat. Not to mention the cost on industry of having to put in airport equipment, expensive equipment at that, which is flawed.
* Drones regularly fly near the airport in breach of civil aviation safety regulations. Everyone knows this except for the muppets working in the air conditioning in the airport security office.
* People regularly scale, climb and fish from
the airports ILS gantry which crosses the Barron river. Apparently the old CCTV on the gantry bridge doesn't work either! Gold!
* GA terminal gate. There is a small gate in the security fence out front of the shitty little asbestos building. The gate is constantly wedged open by placing small pebbles between the locking mechanism and latch, keeping it slightly ajar, just enough to not be noticed and enough to provide free unfettered access to Joe Blow and anybody else. Again - no cameras there.

My point? GA cop it in the arse for everything. But the issues go way beyond GA. The issues are caused by the Government, it's departments and the dodgy airports.

Tick Tock goes the GA clock.

[Peetwo]

WTD? - AQON on time & 4D beefing up airport security...

Well wonders will never cease, for the first time in living memory Murky, his minions & the miniscule have actually supplied the AQON by the due date...

1-15, 17-19, 21-26 Corporate Services Division PDF 257KB 02/12/2016

142,144 Civil Aviation Safety Authority PDF 18KB 02/12/2016

147-176 Airservices Australia PDF 17.6MB 02/12/2016

178-181 Aviation and Airports PDF 34KB 02/12/2016

183-188 Australian Maritime Safety Authority PDF 52KB 02/12/2016

189-196, 198-199 Surface Transport Policy Division PDF 2.07MB 02/12/2016

200 Policy and Research Division PDF 14KB 02/12/2016

204-205 Australian Transport Safety Bureau PDF 23KB 02/12/2016

206 Western Sydney Unit PDF 8KB 02/12/2016

No huge standout AQON but once again the whopper of the pack goes to Harfwit (17.6MB) and his dodgy crew at ASA...

However this time it is not to do with the OneSKY trough fund but some written questions from Senator Rhiannon on the Gold Coast airport PFAS issue:

Question no.: 172

Program: n/a

Division/Agency: Airservices Australia

Topic: PFCs Gold Coast Airport

Proof Hansard Page: Written

Senator Rhiannon, Lee asked:

I understand that a stakeholder meeting, including Air Services Australia, was held in August about the potential contamination of the aquifer at the Gold Coast Airport and previous use of PFCs. At that meeting ASA identified ASA has done additional testing to that previously available from the 2008 report on the issue, and that ASA had yet to put the new information into a formal report which would be available for dissemination in early September to interested parties.

a) Please provide a full copy of that report.

b) Please specifically provide a copy of the Phase 1 investigation at Gold Coast Airport within the framework of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of site contamination) Measure 1999.

Answer:

a) In July 2016, Airservices Australia conducted further investigations at the Gold Coast Airport which included targeted soil, groundwater and surface water testing for perfluorinated compound (PFC) contamination.

The objective of this investigation was to assess potential migration of PFCs across the airport by collecting samples taken from 18 perimeter locations around the airport. A copy of this siteinvestigation and sampling report for Gold Coast Airport completed in October 2016 is at Attachment A.

b) Airservices has previously provided your office with the Phase 1 Preliminary Site Assessment Report for Coolangatta Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) Drill Ground August 2008, which focused on the fire training ground. This was provided on 20 July 2016.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Airservices Australia – Gold Coast Airport Preliminary Site Investigation Report and

accompanying Sampling Analysis Report – October 2016

Back on airport security I note that, before the Pollywaffles knocked off for 2 months, miniscule 4D NFI Chester introduced amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act... :

New measures to strengthen airport security
Media Release
DC206/2016
01 December 2016

• Security at Australia's major international airports will be strengthened by legislation introduced today.
  
• Legislation will make airside areas of Australia's major airports more secure by paving the way for new and enhanced security screening.
  

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester has today introduced legislation into Parliament to strengthen security at Australia's major airports to guard against insider threats.

“Changes to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 will make airside areas of Australia's major airports more secure by paving the way for new and enhanced security screening,” Mr Chester said.

“Specifically, airports will be able to randomly select people, together with their vehicles and belongings, for screening when they are working inside the secure airside area of an Australian airport to make sure they do not have prohibited weapons in their possession.

“The changes are the first stage of the Government's plans to strengthen airside security by mitigating the insider threat. In addition to screening of airport workers, the Government will also introduce stronger access controls for airside areas and security awareness training for airport and airline staff.

“The Turnbull Joyce Government continues to counter security threats and is committed to providing the Australian public with safe and secure air travel.

“On successful passage of the legislation, it is intended that the enhancements to airside security will be progressively rolled out at Australia's major international airports from early next year,” Mr Chester said.

For more information on Australia's aviation security system, visit infrastructure.gov.au/security/

Call me cynical but why suddenly is the government deciding to do something about mitigating an identified security risk that has been obfuscated for more than a decade (see Kessing evidence above)??

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

More from the bollocks express

This pony pooh from Minister NFI is an absolute hoot;

“Specifically, airports will be able to randomly select people, together with their vehicles and belongings, for screening when they are working inside the secure airside area of an Australian airport to make sure they do not have prohibited weapons in their possession.

No doubt the underlying changes are brought to us from those same wankers who sit in their plush Can'tberra OTS offices bored shitless with reviewing airport boundary maps and spelling mistakes in TSP's.

Dear Darren, you really think this new 'enhanced' procedure is going to make airports safer? The risk area you talk about and mentioned is 'insider' risk, yes? Well old mate, any insider working airside will already have all the inside intel he or she needs to know when the Sheriffs are coming, and other things such as when or where the searches are likely to take place and other bits and pieces. And as I've said before, it's till doesn't stop some dipshit sitting off Moreton Bay, or Tulla, or  Sir Charles Kingsford Smith with a SAM or bunch of loaded up drones!!!!! FFS, just another Horsehit exercise in government stupidity that will do nothing more than create additional work for airport security staff and OTS Inspectors, at a cost to the taxpayer! Wankers!


Tick 'kaboom' Tock

[thorn bird]

No need for bombs or SAM,s drones or illicit weapons Gobbles. Jeez half the male "men of middle eastern appearance" population in Bankstown is carrying anyway. Much easier way to cause runctions.

Don a dish dash or Burka, your preference. Make sure your bushy beard is well brushed. Position yourself in the middle of the six am melee in the cattle pens before security at terminal 2, Kingsford Smith.

Throw your arm in the air with thumb cocked and scream "Allah Akba" at the top of your lungs.

The stampede should wipe out at least half a scare bus A380 load.

If you survive the stampede what can they charge you with??

[Kharon]

This stops. Right here; right now.

A ramble, which I will begin by being ‘polite’. I shall at the same time set aside a big shout of Bollocks and not mention the carefully prepared, artfully managed script regarding the disbandment of the indecent, infamous CASA ‘Ethics Committee’ (EC). It’s probably PC not to give that committee the public thrashing it so richly deserves. No; (as requested and required) I shall ‘play nice’.

So, the EC is ‘gone’ and a good riddance. We are led to believe now that the ICC and the Board will be the arbitrators between those embuggered and them as has done the embuggering of them. Good. So be it. But, before ‘we’ can believe a single word of it, ‘we’ demand proof: beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is change afoot.

David Forsyth expressed an opinion that industry had a complete lack of trust in the regulator. He also opined that CASA must regain that trust. Since that opinion was provided to a crown minister there has been no evidence and I do mean not a skerrick, semblance or trace of CASA even attempting to regain trust and respect. Even the flashy Skidmoron allowed the travesty McConvict drafted for the ‘Enforcement manual’ to stand. That item, standing alone is to his eternal shame, let alone the rest of his despicable, grossly offensive performance; nuff said.

P1’s loop and Skype went into overdrive last night; agreement was rapidly achieved; a plan of action defined and a clearly enunciated expression of interest in not allowing the grass to grow was adopted.

In short: If the CASA Board and the ICC want us to believe that embuggerance is now a thing of the past; they must prove it. A demonstration of their determination to restore industry faith must be given. It is a simple enough request that shall be delivered to the ICC on Monday; and, if the ‘out of date card’ is played then we shall see the true nature of the ‘reform’.  The ICC and the Board will be asked to re-examine three cases; only three, as a gesture of conciliation and demonstration of willingness to engage with the very real complaints made by industry directly related to CASA officers. A failure to do so indicates that the spirit and intent of the Board is not to actually repair the faith, but to obfuscate it; ala Skidmore.

The Aunty Pru crew will monitor and publish the progress of this request; nothing will be kept under wraps – except the names of those who have agreed to be used in this experiment. There are some Senators who will be provided updates, not confidential, to disseminate as they wish.

So children, tomorrow we begin with a brief letter to the ICC, on behalf of the three little Guinea pigs. The patience clock has stopped ticking; time is up.

MTF ?– I do, most sincerely, hope that is rhetorical.

[P7_TOM]

The following; posted by TB, on forum typifies 'industry attitude to the CASA . Disliked, disrespected, distrusted. Things did not get this way because of one isolated incident; matters ended in this sorry state because of the ongoing, unrelenting, underhand pointless bastardy which flows from CASA on a daily basis; all day, every day. It is the only work they do - after hours. High time it was stopped - dead.

Thron bird:-
"K, what are the odds currently that the reports findings are

"The Pilot Dunnit"?

He must have Dunnit because McComic said so.

His head henchman in NSW "Wodger", conducted the death sentence by a thousand requirements.

His lesser underlings followed up to make sure the pilots career was well and truly dead by rumour,
innuendo, and subtle threats.

If they find that the pilot didn't dunnit after all, there would be a rather large risk of compensating to the pilot surely for unwarranted execution?

Oh sorry CAsA is NEVER wrong are they, and the ATSB is well under control of the VooDoo doctor, the outcome of the enquiry was ordained years ago, why was I imagining it would be a "real" investigation? silly boy!

Silly question, sorry.

[Kharon]

Cats: and the skinning thereof.

There are many ways of expressing a request; I expect that given time a thousand way of expressing same could be found. No matter, the letter to the CASA ICC has been delivered. Now we must await the response.

December 12, 2016. 1630 EST.

Jonathan Hanton.
Industry Complaints Commissioner.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Aviation House | 16 Furzer Street | Phillip | ACT 2606.
T   +61 2 6217 1249| E jonathan.hanton@casa.gov.au

By E-Mail.

Dear Mr. Hanton.

1) The disbanding of the CASA Ethics and Conduct Committee (ECC) has created much interest within the aviation community. Of particular interest are those industry complaints which have been ignored, unanswered or arbitrarily dismissed by the ECC when made against the actions of individual CASA officers.

2) As it is understood, the revised system now exclusively involves both the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) and the CASA Board. The ASSR presented by Mr. David Forsyth particularly mentions the almost total lack of trust in not only the governance of the CASA; but in individuals who are employed by; or, contracted to the CASA. Many industry notables remain unconvinced that the ‘new broom’ will directly address the very real matters of conflict which have led to the current levels of anger and distrust. In short; without genuine, demonstrated ‘change’, for better, industry will remain cynical of and hostile to any form of lip service reform of CASA.  Proof of spirit and intent, through direct open actions toward CASA reform is considered an essential element of regaining lost trust. There is a deep distrust of any ‘stated’ CASA intention toward meaningful change. There is absolutely no faith in the CASA ability to act in a “firm but fair” manner. This is deep seated, long standing, entrenched attitude. The evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming and very well documented.

3) I write on behalf of three individuals, each seriously affected by the actions of CASA. It is requested that you, as ICC, make a formal representation to the CASA Board proposing that these three cases be reviewed. This will be seen as a statement of good intent from the CASA Board to foster reform, learn from past aberrations; and, as a tangible gesture supporting the purported ‘change’. Fair arbitration made without the influence of previous ECC members, or the protections previously afforded by the ECC.

4) These cases may be considered as prime, demonstrated examples of why a Board led reform of the internal CASA culture is essential to not only the well being and moral of industry, but to the credibility of the department; and, by extension, the incumbent Minister.

5) It is appreciated that the cases fall outside of your promulgated, arbitrary time constraints. We submit that had industry any faith, whatsoever, in the ECC, then these complaints would have been examined, ‘firmly but fairly’ in a timely manner. It is considered unreasonable that an arbitrary time line, internally decided, should deny a review. A review which would provide valuable knowledge and insight to the Board and a reassurance to the industry that real reform, in real time of the CASA system for managing complaint is valid, vital, robust and credible.

6) The following page provides the names and contact details for the persons requesting your consideration of proposing this review for what is, essentially, simply a request for a ‘fair’ hearing relying on sound judgement.

7) The participants are happy to agree to non disclosure or confidentiality caveats, should this assist the Board arriving at the fair and equitable decision, to review the cases; on their merit.

Your timely response will be much appreciated. I am the primary contact person for the group and may be contacted directly with any and all communication.

Your sincerely. etc

.

Aye, toot toot indeed.

[Kharon]

Whistle blows- game on.

In keeping with a growing reputation for prompt response and a straight down the middle approach; the CASA ICC has responded.

Dear ----

Thank you for your email, I acknowledge receipt.

Prior to any consideration being given as to whether any issues fall within what I am empowered to review, I require specific consent from the named individuals that you are authorised to represent them for the purposes of making a complaint. The next step will then be to provide specific grounds of complaint.

Regards

Jonathan Hanton

There are a couple of small ‘kinks’ in the response, which will be cleared up today.

MTF.

[Kharon]

And so it begins.

December 13, 2016.
Jonathan Hanton.
Industry Complaints Commissioner.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Aviation House | 16 Furzer Street | Phillip | ACT 2606.
T   +61 2 6217 1249| E jonathan.hanton@casa.gov.au

By E-Mail.

Dear Mr. Hanton.

Thank you for a prompt response. Please note:-
a) There may a very short delay in authorisations being returned, due to work obligations; but they will arrive in due course.

b) I am not, nor will be ‘representing’ the other members of the group. It was decided for convenience, to provide a ‘single point of contact’; as I am geographically central. The group will individually represent themselves in, what is hoped to be in keeping with the proposed, non adversarial meeting, this to allow the Board to decide whether or not there are legitimate grounds for complaint.

C) At present time there is no expectation of ‘representation’ or counsel being present. N.B. Specific grounds for complaint have, previously been submitted and to the best of the group knowledge the CASA is very well aware of the nature of the complaints. However, should the Board agree to review the individual cases, then a brief outline of the complaints will be provided.  We believe it is simply a waste of time, resources and energy to, once again, provide salient detail, evidence and support documentation, should the Board not be prepared to ‘discuss’, on an informal basis, if there is indeed, any case for CASA officers to answer.

d) Should this become a ‘procedural’ issue; or requirement, blocking progress, then we will provide, in short a synopsis of each case, briefly outlining the nature of complaint, to enable this process to move forward.

I hope the technical and procedural matters you mention do not cause an unnecessary delay and we can move forward in the spirit and intent of reform, to a point where the CASA Board may make a considered judgement.

Yours sincerely.

MTF -

[Kharon]

A small, clear bell.

Once again, the ICC (Hanton) bell rings true. Spot on; there are indeed constraints, rules and procedures which must be followed. So:- As there are names, dates, times and places involved, to save the blushes, I can now switch to narrative mode.  Don’t forget, the Guinea Pigs three (GP3) are presenting their grievances to the ICC in the hope that the Board will review same and provide a ‘fair’ hearing, ruling on the complaint being justified and act; or, dismiss the complaint. The GP 3 will then be obliged abide by the ‘umpires’ decision. That said, we can crack on.

The ICC has, as mentioned, pointed out constraints on his ability to act. The ToR which bind the ICC are worth some consideration by anyone wishing to use the ‘new’ system. On present indications the ICC plays ‘strictly’ to the rules, which is both a fair and equitable way to conduct business. We will shortly examine those rules and see if they are as fair and equitable as they could be. It will take some research to find parallels and opinion, but invaluable to anyone who wishes to make a complaint in the future. That analysis will be available later rather than sooner. I digress.

The GP3 are putting individual grievances to words, in a short format to oblige and assist the ICC. Those summaries will be forwarded within the next day.  It worth noting that PAIN research indicates that collectively, the GP3 grievances typify almost every nuance of why the CASA is distrusted; the information considered essential to meaningful ‘reformation’ the regulator.

This is pretty dry stuff; but essential, if the GP3 are to pass by the ‘gate keeper’.  One of the interesting observations noted is it seems that the ICC is not guaranteed a ‘time’ allocation with the Board. Should the Board be ‘busy’ with other matters, then the ICC can be put at the back of the queue or dismissed. This system may very well suit the ‘Board’ but is not so good for any poor mutt stuck in the limbo of ‘complaint land’.  Here again, patience is required while we attempt to sort out just ‘how’ this new complaints system works. You can see the potential for time passing; as we understand it, there is no requirement for the Board to ‘hear’ the ICC at every meeting. Those meeting are not that frequent and the potential for a half year to slip by, without a complaint even being mentioned is there. Too early to make a call on this point of interest; but in time, we will examine this part of the complaints machinery.    

That’s it; to date.  MTF as it happens.

Toot toot.

[Kharon]

Friday again. Close to Christmas.

The GP3 have, as far as I am aware, individually provided a summary of their grievances.  There is a little uncertainty as the ICC email address seems to be hors de combat. But, no matter, PAIN has copies of all now and, although they are, of necessity ‘confidential’ it is possible to provide summary detail. I will do this when I am certain that the ICC has actually received all the documents. Thus far, the work ethic of the ICC and his office seems to be very good and technical ‘glitches’ happen, so a short hiatus is understandable.

The documents received make for ‘interesting’ reading. Regulars will know that I have faithfully kept the ‘Bankstown Chronicles’ up to date; recording the pug marks left behind by the ‘authority’ in its endless quest for ‘black-letter’ compliance and the methods used to ensure this. Even so; I am slightly taken aback by the detailed, specifics of these individual cases; the breath taking audacity and manipulation is difficult to believe on first encounter. The supporting documentation; of which there is lots, makes for interesting, terrifying reading.  Patience, while I get my head around it all; then we shall explore the boundaries and unravel this tangled skein of woe, deeply hidden in the dark dells of Sleepy Hollow.

"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."

Toot RIII toot

[Peetwo]

Passing strange coincidences on drones -

On the 15 December the time expired for making submissions to the Senate RRAT Committee inquiry into :- Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems.                      

Submissions

1 Mr Don Raffaele (PDF 35 KB) 

2 Mr Ian Fraser (PDF 70 KB) 

3 Nitestar Security Group (PDF 83 KB) 

4 Mr John Cook (PDF 35 KB) 

5 Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (PDF 2095 KB) 

6 Mr Michael Fawcett (PDF 102 KB) 

7 Mr Vince Sofia (PDF 51 KB) 

8 Elevo Pty Ltd (PDF 371 KB) 

9 Mr Egon Kuster (PDF 84 KB) 

10 Mr Edward Browning (PDF 53 KB) 

11 Virgin Independent Pilots Association (PDF 251 KB) 

12 Australian Airports Association (PDF 265 KB) 

Now it could be there are still more to be put up on the webpage but the response so far is certainly underwhelming...  
IMO the only submission of real merit that tackles the significant safety issues and shortcomings of the recently amended CASR Part 101 is the VIPA submission:

9.0 REGULATION

VIPA is opposed to deregulation or non-regulation of light-weight RPAS devices. The role of CASA is to ensure safe skies. We believe the abrogation of that responsibility is unacceptable especially given the rigour that CASA applies to regulatory enforcement in other sectors of the aviation industry.

It is acknowledged that enforcement poses an enormous burden on CASA requiring considerable resources.

VIPA acknowledges that licensed operators have invested considerable funds to establish compliance and equip their operations. They therefore have a vested interest in protecting that investment and their business.

Virgin Australia, like other airlines, focuses considerable resources and places enormous emphasis on safety. Failure to create and enforce legislation and regulation that compliments that commitment is therefore counter-productive and not in the public interest.

Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

VIPA therefore makes the following recommendations:

1. All RPAS owners be required to register their drones

2. All RPAS operators be required to complete a basic air law examination

3. Licensed RPAS operators be delegated by CASA as compliance Inspectors with the power to impose statutory on the spot penalties for breaches.

4. An exclusion zone of 10 kms be established around all controlled airports with the requirement to obtain clearance from ATC or the aerodrome controlling authority to operate within that exclusion zone.

5. All RPAS operators be required to obtain public liability insurance.

6. Penalties equivalent to those imposed for endangering an aircraft be legislated for breaches of regulations by unlicensed UAV owners.

7. CASA increase its resources to protect licensed RPAS operators.

8. CASA, Air Services Australia, the RPAS representative associations, the airlines, airport operators and the pilot unions and other relevant bodies work collaboratively to address the issues raised in this submission.

VIPA in recommendation 8 mentions a number of Alphabet groups but beside the AAA there appears to be no other submissions from these stakeholders...

I find this quite surprising especially given that the AFAP (the Feds) were very proactive in lobbying Nick Xenophon and the Senate committee to have an inquiry and/or put forward a disallowance motion, both of which happened. Apparently NX has withdrawn his disallowance motion but the miniscule has tasked CASA with a review and the inquiry is still very much live.

Which brings me to Joseph Wheeler, a man who happens to be the legal counsel for the AFAP & ACUO and who was one of the main proponents for disallowing the Part 101 legislative instrument - see HERE & HERE. In in his end of year wrap on aviation safety legal issues for 2016 in the Oz, JW would seem to indicate that amongst other relevant issues that a deal has been made in regards to regulating drones (check the part in bold):

Year of safety list changes, mental health issues and rise of drones

Joseph Wheeler
The Australian
12:00AM December 16, 2016

December marks the start of the silly season for many but for those who hold aviation dear it’s also the month of ICAO’s International Civil Aviation Day, which fell on December 7.

As part of events this year, ICAO reminded us to “not leave any country behind”.

So, in celebration of our industry’s special day, let us spend a moment pondering some of the many achievements sky-faring nations have made in 2016 in the never-ending race for the fare-paying passenger’s dollar.

The European Union’s air safety list names those airlines banned from European skies on the basis of a failure to meet international standards.

Removal from that list marks a significant step forward in recognition of improved safety standards by developing nations.

This year all airlines certified in Zambia were cleared from the list, along with Air Madagascar and three airlines from Indonesia (Citilink, Lion Air and Batik Air).

Further to that, most aircraft of Iran Air are now allowed to fly to the EU, and all Kazakh airlines were taken off the list.

Indonesia also fared well in terms of an upgrade under the US International Safety Assessment (IASA) rating system.

It now sits at Category 1, reflecting compliance with ICAO standards.

This was also a year in which moves to more stringent rules for European carriers in respect of pilot mental health was advanced.

The knee-jerk “two in the cockpit rule” was relaxed somewhat in July, permitting carriers to assess the risk of leaving one crew member alone on the flight deck.

Carriers have been slow to let down their guard in the absence of finalised EASA rules to fix those shortcomings that allowed the tragic Germanwings flight 9525 deaths to occur.

In perhaps less well-known but truly retrograde fashion, India published a law this month permitting airline doctors to verify whether “sick” pilots off work are really sick (and putting in jeopardy their licences should they be found bunking off).

On this side of the globe, Australia delayed implementation of new and science-based pilot ­fatigue prevention regulations, instead deciding to review the matter in light of contrary opinions on the utility of the regime by air carriers, largely on economic grounds.

ICAO has all this time been working on making the skies even freer and open to airlines through its Air Transport Regulation Panel, which is mooting the mother-of-all multilateral air services agreements to free airline market access globally. Its work is expected to conclude next year. ­

Finally, the world continues to wrestle with drones. The US began its new rules in August, with ambitions of keeping separation between airliners and enthusiasts at the controls of small but powerful aerial vehicles.

Notwithstanding that development, the skies became much more open for similar drone ­enthusiasts in Australia in September.

Qantas, meanwhile, took a minor step backwards in its business goals with the US Department of Transport denying its proposed alliance expansion with American Airlines, but then leapt forward with its latest announcement of non-stop Dreamliner flights from Perth to London, come 2018.

In a year which was punctuated by some tragic and unforgettable air disasters, let’s hope 2016 will be remembered most for the crowning successes of aviation.

This year pilots joined air traffic controllers and other professional associations against the Australian legislative imprimatur that a minority of lawless drone pilots can now hide behind.

And the Australian government released a plan for the development of Sydney’s long-awaited second airport. It will be needed now that we have a fresh Open Skies agreement with our biggest trading partner, China.

Nhoxin shijie (hello new world) and have a safe and happy holiday season, wherever you may be flying.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of IALPG, national head of aviation law at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, and aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots

Remembering that the AFAP is in itself somewhat compromised by the fact that a large % of their membership reside within the walls of Fort Fumble. So have the Feds struck a compromise deal with the government or is there some other factor at play here?- just saying...


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

The other Aunty asks questions of the MacBank Sydney airports deal -

 Via the abc online:

Badgerys Creek Airport: Questions raised about Sydney Airport Group
By Danuta Kozaki
Updated about 2 hours agoTue 20 Dec 2016, 4:00pm


Photo: The Sydney Airport Group is accused of making high profits but not investing enough into the airport. (AAP: Dean Lewins)

The Sydney Airport Group, which currently owns Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport, is now looking at whether to exercise its option to develop and operate the new Badgerys Creek Airport.

Some questions are being raised by business, community and regulatory groups about the organisation's current practices and how they could affect future users if it does become the new operator.

No limit to what they can charge: ACCC Chairman

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims said Sydney Airport was sold in 2002 without any restrictions on what it could charge users of the airport.

The Howard government received $5.6 billion for that sale.

Mr Sims said the conditions of sale back then had amounted to carte blanche for the company over what it charges users.

"Sydney Airport has turned out to be a bumper investment.

"It has the highest profit margins on aeronautical services, very high profit margins on car parking.

"But on the other hand it has not invested as much as other airports, and it has consistently had the lowest ratings on the quality of service." Mr Sims said.

"I think the taking off of any regulation on the airport charges was an attempt by the then government to maximise the proceeds from sale, with I think insufficient regard to what the company buying the airport would then do."

Macquarie Bank is now the majority owner of Sydney Airport Group and its former Macquarie Bank CEO, Allan Moss, said at the time he believed it was a good purchase.

Congestion and inflated carpark fees major concerns

The consumer public transport group, Action for Public Transport said it is worried about what it calls Sydney Airport's high charging culture, particularly affecting car parking, taxis and public transport options at Sydney's existing airport.



Photo: Consumers could be slugged with higher transport fees at the new airport. (AAP: Dean Lewins)

Spokesman Jim Donovan said the company has made it hard for travellers on all levels.
"They make a massive amount of money out of the Kingsford Smith carpark.

"I understand it has the right to ask the RMS (Road Maritime Services) to widen the airport to get even more cars in there."

Sydney Airport has also had issues in the past with its taxi ranks and problems with heavy traffic in the area.

The New South Wales Taxi Council said it has a good relationship with Sydney Airport with the $4 plus access fee for taxis being passed onto passengers for curb side management.

Mr Donovan said it looks like the new Western Sydney Airport will be relying on the road network, including carparks.

"You need a rail link at Badgerys Creek that will also service surrounding suburbs, otherwise there will be a major impact on roads out there."

Last week, the Federal Government said rail options were still being considered and it was working with the New South Wales Government to map out road and rail linkages to the site, with no concrete plan for a direct rail link.

Transport for NSW said a final report on the rail needs for the whole of western Sydney is due next year.

Aircraft noise likely to remain an issue with residents

Aircraft noise has been a major electoral issue for successive governments with aircraft movements from Sydney's Kingsford Smith.


Photo: There are calls for the Federal Government to impose more regulations around airport noise. ( (Newtown Graffiti - Flickr))

The Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF) was established in July 1996 to address the noise impacts from Sydney Airport in consultation with affected residents.

The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils president Stephen Bali said the same or similar issues exist for Badgerys Creek.

"In the end, as Badgerys Creek is slated to be a 24/7 airport, we are relying on a corporation to take in the needs of local residents in western Sydney, particularly regarding noise and so forth.

We need the Federal Government to impose regulations to safeguard the community."

When you realise how dodgy the original Sydney airport truly was with a substantial and quick financial gain for the Federal government that did not fully regard the long term implications of creating a virtual monopoly in the greater Sydney basin.

Also when you consider who it was that negotiated and signed off on our behalf that original deal and the virtual negative income the government extracts from the SAG, you begin to see why it is that the business and stakeholder groups are cautious about the SAG holding the monopoly on both Sydney airports.  

 Perhaps Minister Fletcher should also be fully cognisant of the evidence given by Mr Allan Kessing, when considering the future implications of having MacBank control both primary airports in the Sydney basin: 

21 Mr Allan Kessing (PDF 102 KB)

    
Then yesterday Binger, in the Oz, wrote a late article summarising the Allan Kessing submission and evidence given in the inquiry:

Airport screening a ‘facade’
1:56pmMitchell Bingemann

Whistleblower Allan Kessing says passenger screening is a “useless facade”, and intelligence gathering needs resources.

Video two probably should have the heading 'money talks' when (about 02:30) AK reveals that the reason his 2nd report was also rejected, by the customs airport manager at Sydney airport...

"..We were told, quite simply, that the commercial costs involved in complying with the Customs Act would be onerous..(sic), too onerous for the now privatised airport corporation (i.e. SAC)..."  

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Passing strange coincidences on drones - Part II 

On the 15 December the time expired for making submissions to the Senate RRAT Committee inquiry into :- Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems.                      

Submissions

1 Mr Don Raffaele (PDF 35 KB) 

2 Mr Ian Fraser (PDF 70 KB) 

3 Nitestar Security Group (PDF 83 KB) 

4 Mr John Cook (PDF 35 KB) 

5 Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (PDF 2095 KB) 

6 Mr Michael Fawcett (PDF 102 KB) 

7 Mr Vince Sofia (PDF 51 KB) 

8 Elevo Pty Ltd (PDF 371 KB) 

9 Mr Egon Kuster (PDF 84 KB) 

10 Mr Edward Browning (PDF 53 KB) 

11 Virgin Independent Pilots Association (PDF 251 KB) 

12 Australian Airports Association (PDF 265 KB) 

Now it could be there are still more to be put up on the webpage but the response so far is certainly underwhelming...  

VIPA in recommendation 8 mentions a number of Alphabet groups but beside the AAA there appears to be no other submissions from these stakeholders...

I find this quite surprising especially given that the AFAP (the Feds) were very proactive in lobbying Nick Xenophon and the Senate committee to have an inquiry and/or put forward a disallowance motion, both of which happened. Apparently NX has withdrawn his disallowance motion but the miniscule has tasked CASA with a review and the inquiry is still very much live.

Which brings me to Joseph Wheeler, a man who happens to be the legal counsel for the AFAP & ACUO and who was one of the main proponents for disallowing the Part 101 legislative instrument - see HERE & HERE. In in his end of year wrap on aviation safety legal issues for 2016 in the Oz, JW would seem to indicate that amongst other relevant issues that a deal has been made in regards to regulating drones (check the part in bold):

Year of safety list changes, mental health issues and rise of drones

Joseph Wheeler
The Australian
12:00AM December 16, 2016

This year pilots joined air traffic controllers and other professional associations against the Australian legislative imprimatur that a minority of lawless drone pilots can now hide behind.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of IALPG, national head of aviation law at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, and aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots

Remembering that the AFAP is in itself somewhat compromised by the fact that a large % of their membership reside within the walls of Fort Fumble. So have the Feds struck a compromise deal with the government or is there some other factor at play here?- just saying...

Jumped the gun...

Two days ago the Parliamentary webmaster informed me: 9 new submissions have been added. 

13 Austec Aerial Solutions (PDF 223 KB) 

14 Aeromodellers NSW (PDF 178 KB) 

15 Global Drone Solutions (PDF 74 KB) 

16 Little Ripper Lifesaver Pty Ltd (PDF 145 KB) 

17 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (PDF 2774 KB) 

18 Prof Des Butler (PDF 415 KB) 

19 International Aerospace Law & Policy Group (PDF 664 KB) 

20 ProUAV Australia (PDF 134 KB) 

So obviously the hard working Senate RRAT committee Secretariat have not knocked off yet and are still processing submissions...

Duh..I suppose I should have thought about there being no CASA submission...  After all the inquiry is largely about reviewing the effectiveness of CASR Part 101 to cover the gambit of public and air safety risk mitigation posed by the fast developing and growing UAV/RPA industry...

Because I think it is a real window into the soul of how the current regime (some would say clusterduck) at Fort Fumble is currently reacting to critical air safety issues, there will be more on the CASA submission in due course. 

IMO what is more of interest for now is the submission from Joseph Wheeler as the Principal of the IALPG and the main legal protagonist representing those 'other' pilot unions:

Who are IALPG?

International Aerospace Law & Policy Group (IALPG) is a specialist aviation legal practice based in Queensland, comprising Australian Founding Principal Joseph Wheeler, 3 foreign aviation legal experts who consult to the practice, including one local aviation safety and technical consultant who is both a qualified solicitor and full time international airline pilot.

Joseph Wheeler is one of the few post graduate alumni of the McGill University Institute of Air and Space Law in Montreal, Canada, who practices in the field of law predominantly for pilots and passengers. He is an elected Member of the Royal Aeronautical Society, and:

• Aviation Legal Counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots providing individual, association and government affairs advice (AFAP is Australia’s largest pilot professional association by member numbers);
  
• National Head of Aviation Law at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, providing advice and representation on air disaster and injury cases to Australian and overseas clients; Aviation Spokesperson of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the leading social justice legal professional association in Australia;
  
• a member of the Legal Committee of the International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) in Montreal, representing AusALPA (Australia’s member association to IFALPA, which is made up of AFAP and the Australian and International Pilots Association, AIPA). IFALPA represents over 100,000 pilots and flight engineers worldwide and has observer status at ICAO; a member of the Professional & Government Affairs Committee of IFALPA;
  
• appointed to the Management Committees of organisations which advocate for aviation safety through specialist technical, professional, or pilot health and wellbeing programs through member representation and other initiatives, including Australian Certified UAV Operators Inc (ACUO) and HIMS Australia Advisory Group Inc;
  
• and a regular commentator on aero legal and aero political affairs for The Australian.
  

Joseph has worked as a regulator for the Australian Government and was responsible for airport economic regulation policy oversight, and planning and development, as an Assistant Director in the Airports Branch, Canberra, from 2011 – 2013. He has published more than 100 articles in total in peer reviewed journals, newspapers, magazines, legal websites, and on topics as broad as air safety policy, international law, aviation conventions, RPAS regulation, and topical policy development in Australia and at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

He also speaks regularly at international conferences on aviation legal and policy topics, most recently on the most notable air crash disasters this decade (MH17 and MH370), RPAS regulation and policy, and the legal approach in Australia to pilot fatigue risk management regulation.

This submission follows the Terms of Reference (TOR) in the order they have been
presented.

"..This Senate Committee has an opportunity to lead a positive and long-lasting change in such regulation. The Recommendations set out below are respectfully submitted as suggested key lines of policy thought to guide such a change and the writer would be pleased to attend with the Committee as a witness to further discuss them..."


MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

CASA UAV submission.

Just for P2:-

61. One of the important ways in which CASA is empowered to conduct the safety regulation of Australian civil air operations is by ‘developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards’61.

62. CASA’s approach to enforcement is set out in its Enforcement Manual, which has been amended to better reflect the principles of CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy.62 In exercising its enforcement powers, the Enforcement Manual provides:

The rest is pretty much bog standard. What the CASA submission does do (IMO) is highlight the ‘constraints’ and the narrow purview that marks the ‘approach’ to legislation. The plodding, pedantic, prescriptive methodology which attempts to cover the minutiae in detail and neglects the ‘core’ issue. This is noticeable in every regulation along with the continual need to cross reference and read other manuals. It is a cluttered, messy system, which leaves the ‘seeker’ of finite answer without a clear cut pathway to compliance. To me removing this clutter should be the focus of regulatory reform; take part 61 as a prime  example. I digress.

One could be forgiven for feeling a little sympathy for the regulator in the matter of UAV control. It’s a witches cauldron of toil and trouble:-

64. When CASA is able to identify the RPA operator, CASA will take further appropriate steps
(such as a warning letter or initiating a formal investigation) where:
(a) the conduct involved an unacceptable risk to safety; and/or
(b) an apparent contravention of the applicable civil aviation legislation.

65. It is important to recognise, however, that in the vast majority of cases reported to CASA, it
is often extremely difficult to identify who was responsible for the alleged conduct, and
challenging to obtain sufficient evidence to support any enforcement action.

Spot on; you can see why ‘control’ is almost an impossibility. The registered operators are not a problem, serious hobbyists and sensible recreational users will take the rules seriously and act sensibly. As I’ve mentioned before, the model aircraft associations are first class and will ensure that ‘the rules’ are followed. All well and good; but is it a CASA task – outside of ‘air safety’ to control and manage the rest. If so, then how? I reckon its akin to trying to control what folk do with computers; just about everyone has at least one. I wonder how many ‘drones’ have been sold in the recent months leading up to Christmas. How, in the name of sanity, is CASA expected to contain and control the skies between now and Easter, when, hopefully, 70% of the new toys are wrecked or discarded? Not a job I’d want.

You could and perhaps should, actually treat the whole situation as one of ‘public safety’, rather than purely a matter of ‘air safety’. IMO that is where the real risk lays; nearly had my head taken off just a couple of days ago, walking between the car and home. The ‘ villain’ was a young chap, no more than seven with his gang two (2 and 4 y.o) and an I-pad. I watched for while. Clearly this gang of ‘hooligans’ was no direct threat to ‘air safety’ and the Morton Bay fig tree under attack could clearly hold it’s own; but accidents do happen, eyes get put out, windows get broken, cars take evasive action etc. However, this is not my main concern; the ‘kid’ spent 99% of his time looking at the I-pad, not the drone toy. Anyway, I ambled off when the tree delivered a mighty blow, reducing the four engine juggernaut to a three engine non event.




I wonder if a short, kindly meant ‘safety’ message, delivered on the morning TV shows would not go a long way toward ensuring not only compliance with such laws as govern UAV operations, but the tenets of common sense.




Sponsored by the preservation of fig tree society.

Toot toot

[Peetwo]

 Xmas Entertainment: The Comardy hour followed by charades -   

To follow on from the P9 -  - sympathies for CASA on UAV/RPAs, perhaps the following Oz article highlights how we have only just breeched the tip of the iceberg when it come to drones:

Online shoppers need drones: Domino's boss

• Petrina Berry
  
• Australian Associated Press
  
• 10:02PM December 22, 2016
  

Domino's Pizza boss Don Meij says an impending surge in online shopping means Australia soon won't have enough delivery drivers to keep up with demand and drones - just like the ones his own company is trialling - are the inevitable answer.

Mr Meij, who runs one of the country's busiest and most tech-savvy delivery services, says the need for drone deliveries will only increase when online retail giant Amazon arrives in Australia next year.

Amazon is widely expected to launch its general merchandise and fresh food e-commerce business, starting with Melbourne, in September next year.

Mr Meij says Amazon's arrival will drive even greater uptake of online shopping in Australia, fuelling the need for autonomous drone deliveries - a service being trialled by big players such as Amazon, Google and Australia Post as well as Domino's.
"(Amazon) will be very good for Australia," Mr Meij told AAP.

"It will lift the profile of online shopping: more and more consumers will want to buy online and have it delivered to their home or office.

"It would absolutely drive demand for drones. There won't be enough humans to deliver items that people want to buy on the net."

Mr Meij said Domino's could face a shortage of delivery drivers within two years in Australia and New Zealand as more customers order via mobile app or website.

That change is part of the motivation for the company's trial of deliveries in New Zealand with drone maker Flirtey.

The service uses autonomous drones loaded with destination coordinates - as opposed to remote-controlled units - to fly pizzas from store to customer.

When it reaches the destination, the pizza box is lowered by cable while hovering 30 metres above ground - in line with Australian regulations that prohibit drones from coming within 30 metres of a person.

The drone is monitored remotely by a person and Domino's plans to eventually have one person overseeing a small number of drones.

The trial is ongoing and Mr Meij said he hopes to have a number of Domino's NZ stores making daily drone deliveries by the end of 2017.

He said safety, privacy and job loss fears around the commercialisation of drones were unwarranted.

"The safest place on the planet is between 150 feet and 400 feet above the ground - above 400 feet you've got helicopters and planes and on the ground you have all sorts of obstacles: people, cars and dogs," he said.

"We are not proposing to have drones near an airport or high rises."

Mr Meij also said cameras fitted to drones act like security cameras in stores and would not invade people's privacy.

"The content would only be looked at if there were any safety concerns and it's all coded and secure, like any data collected," he said.

"And if these drones ever fail they have parachutes onboard so they float to the ground."

He said drones would move jobs upstream, creating a need for people to build, repair, monitor and manage drones.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) spokesman Peter Gibson said drones were some time away from being able to safely deliver parcels in bustling cities.

"No one has a drone today that is reliable enough and clever enough, to fly autonomously from any shop, through city streets and to a home to drop a parcel off," he said.

"There's lot of technology challenges to be addressed but I'm not suggesting they won't be solved.

"There are plenty of companies doing trials and the regulations will have to keep up with the technology breakthroughs as they happen."

A Senate inquiry into remotely piloted aircraft systems is currently looking at retailers' use of drones and Domino's is among the organisations to have made a submission.

 
"K" said: You could and perhaps should, actually treat the whole situation as one of ‘public safety’, rather than purely a matter of ‘air safety’.

Personally I agree there has to be a delineation between 'air' & 'public' safety, which means drawing a line in the sky on where the Feds give way to State and local laws. Perhaps these issues will be examined in the course of the Senate inquiry...

Moving on and back to this intriguing "K" catch: 

61. One of the important ways in which CASA is empowered to conduct the safety regulation of Australian civil air operations is by ‘developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards’61.

62. CASA’s approach to enforcement is set out in its Enforcement Manual, which has been amended to better reflect the principles of CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy.62 In exercising its enforcement powers, the Enforcement Manual provides:

Okay just a quick check back to the latest version of the CASA EM - see HERE - still lists version 4.4 from January 2016 as the current amendment.

Now although that version did incorporate the supposedly newly adopted CASA Regulatory Philosophy...

2.4 CASA’s Enforcement Policy – High-Level Principles
 
In his Statement of Expectations for the CASA Board for the period 16 April 2015 to 30 June 2017, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development re-emphasised the Government’s continuing focus on aviation safety as the highest priority, subject to a range of corollary considerations.

Further to the Minister’s Statement, in September 2015 CASA published its Regulatory Philosophy to guide and direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and the exercise of its regulatory powers. The ten principles that comprise CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy are set out below...

...The policy set out in this Manual describes the way CASA uses its enforcement-related powers to regulate in a manner consistent with CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy, the Minister’s expectations and broader Government policy. While all of the principles of the Regulatory Philosophy are applicable to CASA’s actions, those set out below are highlighted in the specific context of this Manual.

    
...as was highlighted in the AP embuggerance thread - Attempted embuggerance & a Leopard's spots - & Ah yes; I remember it well....

..Until such time as all references to E&CC, plus the McCormick black-letter rule of embuggerance are erased from all CASA records, including the Director's preface of the Enforcement (embuggerance) manual the disbanding of the E&CC is merely an empty token gesture designed to once again temporarily placate an aggrieved industry..

..the above quoted section of the CASA submission (61 & 62), is really just a smoke'n'mirrors charade covering up the fact that CASA has had, under Skidmore and now Comardy, absolutely no intention of reforming itself or restoring trust (as per the Forsyth review)...

To put that into context with CASA UAV/RPA enforcement, this leaves the door open for black letter law embuggerance by any less than honest, sociopathic CASA Officer (FOI/AWI/Investigator). An unscrupulous individual that may just have a discriminatory dislike for a UAV operator, who has possibly contravened some overly prescriptive and impossible to define regulation (for example read: Bellamy and  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  [2016] AATA 956 29 November 2016).

Meanwhile the true cowboys of the industry, on becoming aware of this double-standard, will go underground and proceed to covertly operate illegally and with little chance of being busted by a completely disengaged, law unto themselves big "R" regulator -


MTF...P2