[Peetwo]

Additional Estimates - QON index etc. released.

Yesterday via the Senate RRAT committee Estimates webpage the QON index was released and an Additional Estimates 'spillover' hearing agenda was published... :

Additional Estimates 2016-2017

View Report - (uploaded when available)

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio program: 27 February 2017: (PDF 48KB)

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio - spillover hearing program: 20 April 2017: (PDF 37KB)

Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio program: 28 February 2017: (PDF 52KB)

Hansard Transcripts

27 February 2017
Infrastructure and Regional Development
(HTML & PDF)

28 February 2017
Agriculture and Water Resources
(HTML & PDF)

Index and Answers to Questions on Notice (uploaded when available)

• Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio
  
• Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio
  

Still going but some of the QON of interest were... :

 
ATSB - XENOPHON - PEL-AIR REPORT
1. How long has the investigation into Pel-Air’s 2009 aircraft ditching near Norfolk Island been re-opened?
2. What is the delay in the finalisation of this report?

WRITTEN
14/03/2017

---

120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

In regards to Bankstown Airport

a) The Bankstown Airport was leased by the Commonwealth to Bankstown Airport Limited in 1998. The lease agreement contains the following provision:

"Clause 9.1

Subject to clause 9.2 the Lessee must keep and maintain the Airport Site including the Structures in good and substantial repair at all times during the Term (fair wear and tear excepted) and at the expiration or earlier determination of the term, vacate and yield up the Airport Site and the Structures in that state of repair and condition and in accordance with the Lessee's Covenants. The Lessee accepts the full and sole responsibility for the condition, operation, repair, replacement, maintenance and management of the Airport Site including the Structures during the Term."

Despite the clarity and unambiguity of this clause, the following breaches have been allowed to occur;
i. The original 1942 "Heritage" listed building located on Airport Avenue has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. This was the USAF/RAAF Headquarters building in WW2 and after the war it became Headquarters of the RAAF National Service.
ii. The original Male and Female toilet block are in a state of disrepair and have inoperative toilets and can only be described as disgusting. These are the Public Toilets for the major Secondary Airport in New South Wales and as such are a poor advertisement.

What action does the Department plan to take in relation to this clear breach of the lease agreement that the Commonwealth is a signatory to?

b) I now draw your attention to Clause 9.2 of the lease agreement.

"9.2 Maintenance of runways and pavements

The Lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for the safe access by air transport to a standard at the commencement of the Lease."

This condition has clearly been violated with the use of runway 18/36 being discontinued and asbestos-contaminated landfill placed over it.

What authorisation, if any, was given for this condition of the lease to be so clearly disregarded? Please provide documentation.

c) Are you aware that leases to aviation tenants are only being offered on a three year lease basis, containing a relocation clause?

d) Do you accept that this denies a business security of tenure, and prevents them from being able to invest and carry on their business properly?

e) Are you aware that Bankstown Airport Limited has been purchased by First State Superannuation?

f) Are you aware that First State Superannuation has appointed Altis Property Partners to manage Bankstown Airport Limited?

WRITTEN
28/02/2017

---

113 - CASA - XENOPHON - ESSENDON DFO APPROVAL

Senator XENOPHON: Do you know when the building next to Essendon airport that was involved in the tragedy was approved ?

Mr Carmody: DFO was approved in 2004.

Senator XENOPHON: What role did CASA have in respect of that approval? Did you have any input into that?

Mr Carmody: I think our advice was sought, and it would normally be sought on these sorts or things?

Senator XENOPHON: What was your advice?

Mr Carmody: I am not sure. Can we take it on notice?

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Tiede, do you remember what your advice was?

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either. But I make the point Mr Tiede made before: the DFO, in terms of that runway, would be outside of the obstacle limitation surface parameter. If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine.

Senator XENOPHON: But the obstacle limitation constraints are quite different from the matters raised in numerous academic papers around the world, who say that there ought to be a public safety zones policy in respect of where you locate buildings
in the event that there is an engine failure. In fact, no less than Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, did raise these issues of the ATSB back in the May 2012 estimates in respect of power loss or complete engine failure, so it is not as though this is something that has not been raised in the context of this process by no less than Senator Fawcett almost five years ago.

Mr Carmody: I can provide a response to that on notice and provide as much detail as I can.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what information CASA was provided with and what role did it have in respect of the development of Essendon Airport a number of years ago, and also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here. Is that your understanding?

Mr Carmody: I think Mr Tiede outlined that before—the only legislation is in Queensland. But I would want to check that. I would be happy to respond to that on notice.

115
27/02/2017

---

114 - CASA - O’SULLIVAN(CHAIR) - SAFETY ADVICE

CHAIR: Do you think they might labour under the honest but mistaken belief that from time to time you might create advice and give it to the government of the day and indicate that perhaps they should look seriously at measures that might enhance air safety?

Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator.

CHAIR: All right. In the history of CASA, are you able to tell us whether ever this question has been visited upon and advice been developed and given to any government at any time?

Mr Carmody: I would have to take it on notice. All I can say is that we provide advice on safety all of the time, but public safety zones at the ends of runways, I am just not certain about. I know that we provide comment on airport master development plans and all of the changes to the federally-leased airports on a regular basis, so we are in that space; that is what we do. But I am just trying to work out how far this public safety zone requirement would extend.

116
27/02/2017

---

116 - CASA - XENOPHON - CAO 48.1 REVIEW

It is understood that CAO 48.1 (fatigue management) is under review.

1. Why is the review taking place (e.g. self-initiated, in response to feedback on industry, etc.)
Representation has been made to me that this should not be a one size fits all regulation – that airlines that fly on a regular schedule with a roster of pilots are in a different class of pilots to those who might fly in the bush governed by e.g. Agricultural seasons, stop-start work, weather, etc.

2. Is a one size fits all approach being adopted, or perhaps something more flexible, depending on the type of flying conducted, as I understand they do in the US and NZ?

 
"..If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine..."  - Comardy.

Following recent AP thread posts - HERE & HERE - I will be intrigued to read the AQON to see if the CASA advice included a clause added, to the Comardy vague statement above, along the lines of...

 
"...have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine as long as the operational length of RW17 was reduced by at least xxx metres (calculated figure)..."


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Careful CAsA, you may start to grow a long nose

CAsA are caught between a rock and a hard place on the DFO issue. If they say 'it has nothing to do with us' then it only proves they have not done their job. The DFO location is not safe. Of course if CAsA say 'yes yes Mr Senator, we did do a risk analysis', then again they haven't done their job because 5 people are dead. Now they won't pick a lesser of two evils here, they will go all out balls to the walls to make sure that the DFO does not become a contributing factor in the 5 deaths. Although the reality is that had there been a good old fashioned paddock rather than a giant pre-fab shopping centre concrete wall the outcome may have been different.

And did Wingnut just do a hoodoo voodoo;

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either.

Of course he wasn't, perhaps he was in Montreal? Oh well, in compliance with government legislation to retain records, I am sure that a forensic search of TRIM should find records of any DFO/Essendon Airport /OLS safety and risk assessment documents, OLS calculations, it would have been done and there will be documents. What's that noise did you say? The sound of a midnight shredder working its arse off? Could very well be...

Tick Tock

[Peetwo]

Airports & aviation security report (finally) tabled -

After 848 days and on behalf of Senate RRAT Reference committee Chair Senator Sterle the committee report from the Airports & aviation security inquiry was finally tabled... :

Report

Airport and aviation security

30 March 2017
© Commonwealth of Australia 2017
ISBN 978-1-76010-540-2

View the report as a single document - (PDF 661KB)

List of recommendations

Recommendation 1

2.62 The committee recommends that any future reviews of and amendments to

aviation security regulation be risk-based and fit for purpose, with consideration

given to the unique challenges faced by regional and rural airports and the

overall diversity of Australian airports.

Recommendation 2

3.74 The committee recommends that the Inspector of Transport Security

complete and publish its review into aviation security training and education as

soon as practicable.

Recommendation 3

3.75 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development develop a framework to ensure that subcontracted

screening bodies have appropriate employment standards and provide security

training and services consistent with those provided by screening authorities

under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005. The framework should

take into account any inconsistencies in the training and education as identified

by the Inspector of Transport Security.

Recommendation 4

4.53 The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the

Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to make it compulsory for aviation industry

participants to report information currently captured under the voluntary

reporting scheme.

Recommendation 5

5.80 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the

feasibility of establishing a centralised issuing authority for Aviation Security

Identification Cards.

Recommendation 6

5.83 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the

development of a national automatic notification system for aviation-securityrelevant

offence convictions of Aviation Security Identification Cards holders.

Recommendation 7

5.88 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development update the committee early in 2018, on progress and

outcomes, following implementation of Stage Two of the Visitor Identification

Card enhancements.

Recommendation 8

5.89 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider

mechanisms, including legislative amendment, to strengthen the Visitor

Identification Card process, incorporating appropriate background checking

where appropriate.

Recommendation 9

6.19 The committee recommends that the Australian Government implement

the regional aviation security awareness training package, in accordance with its

2015 commitment.

Summary of report: Via Oz Flying...

Australian Security Identification Card. (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development)

Aviation Security Report fails to support Forsyth Recommendation
30 March 2017
 
A senate inquiry report into airport and aviation security has not supported the findings of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review in relation to Aviation Security Identification Cards (ASIC).

The ASRR (Forsyth Report) recommended that ASICs should be needed only for security restricted areas, not for general airside access, which is the current requirement at any airport that has regular public transport.

Although the report from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (RRAT), tabled in the senate yesterday almost two years after its was first due, acknowledges the findings of the Forsyth Report and submissions made to it, the RRAT makes no recommendations to address the issue.

"The committee notes that the ASIC scheme has undergone constant review and alteration," the report states, "particular in recent years and within the heightened security environment. While the committee is supportive of strong and effective security screening and processes, it acknowledges concerns regarding the impact of constant review and change to the ASIC regime.

"Ongoing change makes it difficult for regulators, issuers, card holders and airports to understand and apply the most current version of the regulations and the most stringent security parameters.

"Constant change also leads to confusion and therefore increases the scope for people to circumnavigate the ever-changing rules."

The RRAT report does recommend the government assess the need to establish a central issuing agency for ASICs.

Among other recommendations the report makes are:

• Future aviation security reviews should be risk-based
  
• Visitor Identification Card (VIC) processing be strengthened
  
• The government implement the regional security awareness package
  

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...VUuDSG0.99

Q/ How come there is not even a whimper on this from the Alphabets...


MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

The “S” word.

Security – big business, huge.

Scare factor – Politicians begin bed-wetting and cold sweats at the thought that ‘blood’ may be on their hands.

Sanity – Joe Blow pulls into to Gold Coast; wants a park, a pee, a coffee and a rapid exit.

Suspicion – Goons, gumint and show pony’s want to make something out of nothing – Joe has left his ‘ASIC’ in the aircraft.

So what – security distracted, radios chirping, managers summoned.

The way to spot the ‘abnormal’ is to watch for it. Two or three goons harassing old Joe is distracting. While the cats away the mice will play.

Anywhere off an airport, the ASIC is not considered even as part of the points score to open a dodgy bank account. Our ‘non-airline’ pilots could make a great fifth column, utilised properly; instead they are treated as potential ‘violators’ of air side security. Risible? No, it’s a bloody ridiculous, pointless placebo. A soubriquet to reassure the public who have no idea how many miles of fence you need to patrol at an average aerodrome; how many gates there are to watch and just how easy it is to ‘penetrate’ an airfields security ring. The ‘Terrs’ know this, I reckon they must sit back and laugh at the paranoia panic they have induced – oh, and enjoy counting the money their security companies make. Security? my left boot it is. Pantomime; at great cost is a close assessment. When a person can be beaten to death, within the confines of an airport you have to ask the question; did that ladies bra really have traces of ‘gunpowder’, treason and plot?

I know, a bad influence on a young mind.

[Peetwo]

Update: Senate RRAT Estimates & Inquiry news -

In an Additional Estimates update, it would seem that the 'spillover' hearing has been cancelled:

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio - spillover hearing program: 20 April 2017: (PDF 37KB) - Cancelled

I guess that means Hoody gets a short reprieve until the main Budget (2017-18) Estimates in May -

Still waiting for the AQON but in the meantime there was a clarification letter from Comardy that was somewhat interesting, more for the ease of weasel worded bureaucratese used to abrogate CASA's responsibility in regards to aircraft noise - all according to the CASA interpretation of the Act of course...

Dear Senator O'Sullivan

Clarification of Statement made at Estimates Hearing on 27 February 2017

I write to clarify a statement I made in response to a question from Senator Rice, which was raised in the course of an exchange involving Senator Rice, Mr Mrdak and me, the pertinent portion of which appears on page 122 of the proof Hansard and is reproduced below.

Senator Rice: I want to move on to airport noise and CASA's role in protecting community amenity and the natural and human environment from the deleterious effect of airport noise.

Mr Mrdak: It is probably an issue managed by Airservices.
Mr Carmody: That would be an Airservices matter.
Senator Rice: CASA do not have a role at all?
Mr Carmody: We do not.

The functions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as set out in section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), do not include either a specific environmental function related to the management or control of the effects of 'airport noise' or a more general environmental function related to 'protecting . ,. the natural and human environment from the deleterious effect of airport noise'. On this basis, it is quite correct to say that CASA has no environmental functions' (or corresponding 'powers') of any kind under the Act, and that was certainly the import of my response to Senator Rice's question.

That said, subsection 9A(2) of the Act provides that 'CASA must exercise its powers and
perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from (a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and (b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft' (emphasis provided). This provision, however, is expressly subject to CASA's obligation to 'regard safety as the most important consideration'

The Airspace Act 2007 similarly provides that the object of that Act is 'to ensure that
Australian-administered airspace is administered and used safely' and specifies a range of
considerations that are expected to be taken into account in the process. These include the efficient use of airspace, equitable access to airspace and national security, as well as
protection of the environment. Significantly, CASA has no specific or explicit functions or
powers in respect of those considerations, and there is no explicit reference in section 12 of the Airspace Act to fostering environmental protection.

Having regard to the affirmative roles the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development and Airservices play in connection with environmental issues related to aircraft noise, I trust this explanation clarifies my statement about the very limited role CASA might play in that context.

I apologise for any confusion or misunderstanding my response to Senator Rice's question
may have caused.

Yours sincerely

Shane Carmody
A/g Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety

Next somewhat related to the Senate Drone inquiry, I note the following article courtesy the Canberra Times, that should give the committee more food for thought:

April 8 2017


'It has the potential to get worse': Mid-air incidents involving drones increases.



Andrew Brown

According to Mark Will, there's only one guarantee when it comes to flying drones: at some point, they're going to be crashed.

Having flown drones for almost two years, he also runs a "drone boot camp", which teaches new users how to safely fly the aircraft.
  
Mark Will said more information should be provided to drone users in order to prevent crashes or near misses with aircraft. Photo: Rohan Thomson  

However, as the technology becomes more accessible, Mr Will said he was worried there would be an increasing number of incidents such as drones coming into close contact with planes or flying into restricted airspace.

"My concern is that there's inexperienced hobbyists flying with no regulations," he said.
 
Mark Will runs courses on drone flying and safety.  Photo: Rohan Thomson  

"It has the potential to get worse the more they become normal in the market."

Mr Will's comments follow a recent report released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau of mid-air incidents involving drones.

Between 2012 and 2016, more than half of all drone incidents involved near misses with aircraft and more than 60 per cent of those happened in 2016.

It's predicted there will be a 75 per cent increase in the number of drones being involved in near misses with aircrafts in 2017, with the report finding the number of incidents involving drones "increasing exponentially".

Most of the incidents happened in capital cities, with Sydney accounting for 37 per cent of all near misses between drones and aircraft.

The rest of the incidents involved the drones crashing into the ground, either from a loss of control, bird strikes or engine failures.

The report did not specify how many incidents happened in Canberra, however, data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority found two had occurred in the capital during the last year.

One involved a complaint after a drone was seen flying over a Canberra house, while another drone user was fined $900 for crashing his drone at the Australian War Memorial.

Drone users are not allowed to fly within 5.5 kilometres of an airport, and cannot be flown higher than 120 metres or within 30 metres of a building.

Restrictions also apply to flying drones over crowds of people.

Other restricted airspaces in Canberra also include the Majura Army Range as well as the Mills Cross Radio Telescope.

Mr Will said more information should be provided to drone users in order to prevent crashes or near misses with aircraft.

"We should consider drone ownership like dog ownership or a car licence. You as the user have to equip yourself with the knowledge and information," he said.

"An airport is defined as an area with aircraft taking off and landing, so in theory you can't fly within 5.5 kilometres of the South Care base in Hume or Canberra Hospital."

While no aircraft have been hit by a drone in Australia, Mr Will said the outcome could be disastrous if a plane was struck.

   
 However far more concerning for the Senators should be this dramatic headline, story and in particular photo by expert (cough - ) aviation commentator GT:

Drone Targets Singapore Airlines A350



Geoffrey Thomas - Editor-in-Chief

06 Apr 2017
A drone has flown close to an A350 performing an flyby in Perth, Australia
>

>
Singapore Airlines A350 flies past a drone. Credit Daniel Kitlar of DK and CK Photos

The future of low level plane fly-pasts in Australia is in jeopardy after a drone came within an alleged 300ft of a Singapore Airlines A350 on Wednesday afternoon in Perth. 

Singapore Airlines, celebrating its 50th year of operating to Perth launched an online photographic competition of its new A350 and had publicized the air route and altitude of the fly-past.

The dramatic picture taken by Daniel Kitlar of DK and CK Photos was shot from the Mend Street jetty in South Perth and captures the drone approaching the A350 as it flew over Heirisson Island.

Mr Kitlar, an experienced drone operator, said he was stunned when he reviewed his photos later to see the drone.

“In my experience, that drone would have to been at 1200ft and the A350 was flying at 1500ft," said Mr Kitlar.

And the angle that the photo was taken related to the flightpath confirms that height assessment. 

Drone enthusiasts reported that two people were illegally operating a DJI Phantom 4 drone with a camera attached from Langley Park adjacent to the flightpath of the A350.
When challenged that they were operating outside regulations for height they hurled abuse.

Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said that the perpetrators could face a fine of AUD$9000 for operating the drone above 400ft in controlled airspace.

“There are clear safety rules covering the operation of drones and stiff penalties for breaking these rules.”

“Drones must never be flown in a way that causes a hazard to an aircraft and must not be flown over populous areas in a way that could pose a risk to people and property,” Mr Gibson said.

The reckless incident is expected to curtail or even end fly pasts by commercial and even military aircraft officials within CASA and the Australian crash investigator say.

In fact, air traffic control congestion limited what the pilots could do and the planned fly-past of Langley Park, Elizabeth Quay and over Kings Park was curtailed.

Instead, the A350 flew down the Swan River over Maylands, Heirisson Island and South Perth. 

Last month the Australian Transport Safety Bureau warned that the number of close encounters between drones and planes is forecast to jump by 75 per cent this year.
 
A report by the ATSB on the safety of drones found there had been 180 safety incidents involving drones between 2012 and 2016, including crashes. 

High capacity air transport accounted for 45 per cent of the reports.

Source : http://www.airlineratings.com/news.php?id=1151

 
Hmm...TICK..TICK..TICK..TICK...

Of course according to the Act, when a collision inevitably happens CASA won't be responsible...

 
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

DAS or DASaster?

If ever you wanted to ‘examine’ why the selection of the right mind set for the DASaster job is so vital to industry, read Shane Carmody’s letter to ‘clarify’ matters to O’Sullivan; but from an ‘operational’ viewpoint.

The letter itself is a classic bureaucrats response; not that the silly questions Rice asks taking valuable time to get to the point of indifference don’t merit such an answer. But, for an ‘industry’ desperate to have the bureaucratic shackles struck off, the letter  is non sequitur.
 
Carmody may well be a prince among top flight mandarins; but he is a dyed in the wool ‘crat. The notion of ‘reform’ on an industrial scale is alien; the idea of actually leading the way to severely rocking the ‘CASA’ boat the stuff of nightmare to him. But that is what’s needed; it is actually demanded by industry and; in a polite way, being pushed to the sticking point by the Estimates committee.

'The letter' – demonstrates the consummate skill Carmody has as a bureaucrat; it very politely, but in no uncertain terms, tells Rice to go boil her head – rightly so. But it ain’t the words of a 'reform' DAS; looking to ‘sort out’ some of the tangles and logjams industry must, at great expense, deal with.

I don’t mind Carmody – as a bloke and if all was well in Sleepy Hollow and the DASaster job was not so critical to the well being of an industry; I’d say furry muff; let him run the ship. Probably do a good job - but thing’s in the garden ain’t rosy. There flower beds are overrun by Bindi and choke weed, the vegetable patch is lousy with slugs and snails, the orchard a sea of flying fox and possum pooh. This is no time to settle back in a padded deckchair; there’s dirty, difficult work to be done. Time to put on the heavy gloves, don the wellington boots and get stuck in; while we still at least have the ground to work with.

P2 – “Still waiting for the AQON but in the meantime there was a clarification letter from Comardy that was somewhat interesting, more for the ease of weasel worded bureaucratese used to abrogate CASA's responsibility in regards to aircraft noise - all according to the CASA interpretation of the Act of course...”

There; in a nutshell, the CASA approach to all questions. Not good enough, not good enough at all; nowhere near it. Four days remain until the next crucial step is taken in a selection process which will decide in who’s hands the industry’s fate lays. After the last two truly dreadful incumbents, let’s all hope (even offer prayers and libations to pagan gods) that those making the selection, this time, 'choose wisely'...

“Let me choose.”
 
“Thank you Doctor.”
 
“He chose poorly.”

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Barry O continues pressure on drones -

Via North QLD register:

Animal activist drone use exposed in Senate inquiry

Colin Bettles @ColinJBettles

19 Apr 2017, 6 a.m.



Queensland Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan.

CONCERNS have been raised about unregulated access to drones that can carry high powered surveillance equipment and be used by animal rights activists.

CONCERNS have been raised about unregulated access to drones that can carry high powered surveillance equipment and be used by animal rights activists to expose loopholes in farmers’ private property rights.

Several farm-based submissions to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s inquiry into regulatory requirements underpinning drones - or remotely piloted or unmanned aircraft systems - have called for more support to protect farmers including from extreme political attacks, by animal liberationists.

Committee Deputy Chair and Queensland Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan has also called on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to immediately enforce training and licensing requirements for all recreational and small commercial drone operators while the ongoing Senate inquiry completes its list of recommendations.

Senator O’Sullivan said if CASA failed to act on introducing training and licensing requirements it may be necessary to temporarily remove all recreational drones from sale across Australian retail outlets.

He said he was concerned that animal rights extremists could exploit loopholes in the current drone use regulatory regime, pointing out the potential dangers to livestock farmers in politically-motivated attacks.

“We know that animal activist groups are able to purchase a recreational drone off the shelf at an electronics shop and put it into the air to hover around a farmer’s property to spy on any landholder,” he said.

“Not only is this a blatant invasion of the privacy of landholders across the nation, but it is also a form of vigilantism that should not be tolerated in a civil society.

“This basically treats landholders as criminals who cannot be trusted to run their operations in an ethical manner.”

Senator O’Sullivan said he was uncomfortable with the idea of thousands of so-called recreational drones flying around the nation’s airspace without appropriate training, licensing and registration with CASA, “especially when we know some of these drones are being used to harass farmers and push an extreme political agenda”.

Senator O’Sullivan said drones had the potential to be a serious “game changer” in rural industries - but the right balance needed to the sought.

“One of my primary reasons for establishing this inquiry was to allow us to conduct a serious examination that strikes the right balance between ensuring people with questionable motivations for operating these drones are made aware of their responsibilities and are appropriately registered with CASA while also ensuring this technology continues to assist our rural industry,” he said.

The Senate inquiry is due to report in December 2017 and its terms of reference include examining state and local government regulations and the overseas experience of drone use.

It’s also looking at issues with public safety and privacy and the potential recreational and commercial uses of drones, including in agriculture with submissions raising issues around the technology’s potential use in farm chemical applications.

Senator O’Sullivan said while the Senate inquiry continued, all recreational and small commercial operators employing drones under 2 kilograms should be immediately required to complete the same training and licensing arrangements as bigger commercial operators or those over 2kgs.

He said there was a strong need for all regulations and requirements placed on recreational and small commercial drone operators to be given careful consideration.

“I must stress this is a personal view and I do not want to anticipate the final recommendations of the senate inquiry,” he said.

“However, you can currently purchase these machines in an electronics shop for a few hundred dollars and we have a regulatory environment in place where drone operators who claim to be using these machines for recreational purposes are not regulated by CASA.

“I have serious concerns about the impacts to public safety from having potentially thousands of unregulated and unlicensed drone operators in our air space.

“While it is correct that there are specific rules that prevent these drone operators from flying at night or flying any higher than 120 metres in the air in built up areas, there is currently no requirement placed on these smaller operators to become schooled in the relevant rules.

“Each of these drones are generally equipped with video cameras and some are capable of carrying payloads of equipment through the skies, yet we don’t know how many are in our skies or who is operating them.

“They threaten secure airspace, public safety and privacy - that should be a concern for every Australian.”

The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) and other groups like Australian Pork Limited (APL) have also made inquiry submissions calling for regulatory action regarding drone use over farms; including by animal rights activists.

APL Policy General Manager Deb Kerr said Australia’s $2.8 billion pork industry had about 1500 producers producing around five million pigs for slaughter annually and needed protection from “perverse privacy invasion” by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

Ms Kerr said UAVs were becoming increasingly applied to agricultural operations - but there was an interest and increasing use of the technology by animal activists for surveillance of animal agriculture.

She said the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs 2014 report, “Eyes in the Sky”, identified a number of gaps in current surveillance laws and made recommendations to modernise and harmonise this legislation in Australia.
But unfortunately, many of these recommendations are yet to be actioned and this posed a great risk to Australian animal agriculture industries, she said.

APL suggested CASA work with the Australian Privacy Commissioner to review current legislation to ensure there was adequate protection against emerging technologies, such as UAVs, which could be used for perverse privacy invasion.

“Additionally, APL would suggest surveillance laws contain technology neutral definitions given the range of surveillance devices and emergence of new devices, such as UAVs fitted with listening devices or advanced optical surveillance devices and may not be covered in current definitions for surveillance devices,” Ms Kerr said.

In his group’s submission to the Senate inquiry, NFF Rural Affairs Manager Mark Harvey-Sutton said a system for drone use that allowed farmers to increase productivity on farm while maximising safety was strongly supported.

He said transformative technologies like drones had the capacity to change the way food and fibre was produced and can provide farmers with valuable data to better monitor conditions on farm.

“These sophisticated tools will enable farmers to manage ever larger areas of land and assist them with decision-making,” he said.

“It is to be expected that digital technologies can improve risk management approaches on farm, predicting weather and yields with greater accuracy.

“Drones could, potentially, be used to assist farmers in monitoring fencing or to spray plants. In turn, farmers will spend less time driving through paddocks as they will be able to manage larger areas of land by analysing data.”

But Mr Harvey-Sutton said the NFF was concerned about the use of drones by trespassers, flying over rural properties without the permission of farmers.

“The NFF suggests to design a safe and efficient system to monitor drone movements and to ensure the privacy and safety of rural landholders,” he said.

“It is vital that drones are appropriately controlled and that farmers do not need to fear the entry of unwanted drones on their property.

“Technological solutions such as geo-fencing could prevent trespassing on farm, protecting people, stock and wildlife on properties.

“The NFF recommends that a communication campaign be developed to inform the agricultural sector of safety considerations, public liability concerns and insurance requirements relating to drone use for primary production activities.”

The Victorian Farmers Federation’s inquiry submission said further consideration should be given to the regulatory mechanisms necessary for ensuring the establishment of regulatory controls around drone use, to maintain farm security, protect privacy and prevent unauthorised surveillance, within an agricultural context.

VFF said the Victorian Surveillance Devices Act failed to adequately protect agricultural business from unauthorised surveillance as regulatory stipulations only prohibits the use of drones and associated systems in recording private conversations or activities within the confines of a private residence.

However, taking video footage, without recording audio, within an open space on private property, such as a backyard or farm property, does not contravene the Act, the submission said.

“The lack of clear regulatory guidelines is a significant risk to agricultural businesses, specifically leaving small agricultural businesses open to unauthorised surveillance without the support of regulatory mechanisms,” it said.

NSWFarmers said farm innovation aside, the question its members constantly raised about the use of drones was that of privacy and security as they can be used for criminal activity and surveillance.

“Our members are constantly asking us what they can do when an unwanted (drone) enters their property or attempts to surveil their business,” the submission said.

“Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to police such activity.

“If this Senate inquiry achieves anything, it should address the difficulty of regulating such ‘disruptive’ technology to protect the public in their homes and on their farms.”

Senator O’Sullivan said the Senate Committee had heard from witnesses ranging from universities to pizza delivery companies and all had strong views that the nation’s skies will one day look like a scene from “The Jetsons” cartoon.

“It’s important we build a regulatory environment that acknowledges the serious technological changes taking place and the likely congestion, and potential public safety hazard, it is going to cause in the air space above us,” he said.

The story Animal activist drone use exposed in Senate inquiry first appeared on Farm Online.

 
Meanwhile in the virtual world of miniscule_NFI_6D... :

The 2 'box sets' which made this morning's #roadtrip possible @rharris334 @lyndalcurtis @ColinJBettles @davidlipson

The minister is obviously stuck in an 80's time warp - "Nothing to see here move along..." FDS!

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Drones spying on FNQ farms. Could be some risky footage in that - Backpackers rooting in the lagoon in broad daylight, Kuranda folk smoking weed and not showering for a month, Farmers taking advantage of potty calves and knotholes in fences! Are they sure they want drones viewing that??

Safety first

[Peetwo]

Additional Estimates - CASA missing AQON? -

Relevant reference:

The semantics of aircraft in the lounge room.

It depends which team you support how you regard last nights Estimates session with CASA. When we have the Hansard and video it will be a lot easier to pick out the bones, but one major topic for the BRB will be the way in which ‘responsibility’ for the dreadful safety state of our airports has been passed about like a parcel.  Old ‘Shifty’ Tique & Co. played a merry tune to go with the parcel passing.  Carmody was so quick to unload it he almost shoved Halfwit under the Senate bus (MTF).

For the lay person, the easiest thing to understand will be ‘buffer zones’ and the lack thereof. Essentially ‘tis but a ‘fenced off’ no building area, either side of the runway, precisely designed to prevent exactly the kind of accident we witnessed last week in Melbourne. The UK, USA and most ‘grown up’ aviation nations have these areas; for what must now be, to all, blindingly obvious reasons – Australia does not.

Where CASA took their lame defence was to what are known as Pans-Ops (PO). ICAO produce these and Australia does comply. What PO provide is an obstacle free area from the runway end out to a specified distance. The area is known as ‘the splay’. The splay widens progressively at a predetermined angle to that distance; like a fan if you will, laid out on the ground. There are maximum heights for man made structures within the fan, so to maintain a minimum clearance in the vertical (obstacle clear gradient).  Simply put, you may place a two story building at mile from the end of the runway, or; a ten story building at five miles within the ‘splay’ area. So ‘obstacle clear’ flight paths and buildings may coexist; and, provided the aircraft can maintain the gradient prescribed, in theory, all is well. This is where CASA deem their ‘safety’ responsibility to end.

Consider the Melbourne crash; the aircraft’s problems did not manifest within the ‘splay’ but within the aerodrome confines, without the protection of a ‘buffer’ zone, inevitably the aircraft crashed into whatever was ahead of it. Be it the DFO, the Freeway or a residential area, there is no protection afforded for either aircraft or the public from behind or outside of the minimum prescribed splay area; starting at the runway end.

The runway used by the crash aircraft is some 1500 meters long; the aircraft would be safely airborne and accelerating toward the splay within 1000 to 1100 meters, normally the remaining runway distance is travelled in a matter of seconds and the aircraft enters the ‘safe’ obstacle clear splay; even with an inoperative engine, given clear space the aircraft should obtain a safe height using the obstacle clear distances within that area (pilot responsibility). But the crashed aircraft did not enter the ‘splay’; whatever went wrong happened behind the ‘splay’ and the flight path was, quite legally, obstructed. Whether or not 500 meters of obstacle clear (buffer) area, to the side of the runway would have produced and different result is, as yet, hard to determine; but, given that time and distance the aircraft may well have accelerated to a speed which allowed a climb. This is why ‘buffer’ zones are mandated in other countries. If you are keen, take a look at the aerial view of Archerfield, then imagine you are in a single engine aircraft. Normally, the aircraft is airborne and climbing away within about 60% of the available runway; then engine failure. The right procedure is to land ‘straight ahead’ or as close as possible to straight.  Measure off two thirds of any Archerfield runway, then work out (roughly) the glide distance needed to land ahead, from about 60 feet and see where you finish up – mostly in Mrs. Smith’s front parlour; that’s where. Just in time for tea.

That is as close to describing the ‘problem’ for non aviation folk as I can get; and I’ve probably offended the ‘purists’, using a thumb nail dipped in tar to outline the situation, but that’s Ok. When Hansard do their thing we will take a closer look at just who is responsible for what; but CASA have made it clear they are, so far as they are concerned – off the hook.

Toot – MTF – toot.

I note that on the 26 April the Additional Estimates AQON fell due. As is apparently now normal SOP for the Murky Mandarin & his minions, all the AQON were handed in on mass on the due date...

Then I guess some poor bugger from the Senate RRAT committee Secretariat is tasked to collate, then PDF & finally link to the relevant RRAT Estimates webpage. Fortunately the Secretariat minions are an efficient lot and managed to do all the AQON admin by 0830 am yesterday  - see HERE

Unfortunately in the process the PDF links are broken and when you click on them a '404 Page not found' message comes up...

Oh well I guess the links will be fixed in due course..

However in the meantime I noticed a point of interest with the listed CASA AQON link. Note the message in brackets: 

113-119 Civil Aviation Safety Authority PDF 43KB 26/04/2017 (excludes questions: 113 & 114)

When you refer to the QON index both QON 113 & 114 are in reference to the tragic Essendon B200 crash:

Senator XENOPHON: Do you know when the building next to Essendon airport that was involved in the tragedy was approved ?

Mr Carmody: DFO was approved in 2004.

Senator XENOPHON: What role did CASA have in respect of that approval? Did you have any input into that?

Mr Carmody: I think our advice was sought, and it would normally be sought on these sorts or things?

Senator XENOPHON: What was your advice?

Mr Carmody: I am not sure. Can we take it on notice?

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Tiede, do you remember what your advice was?

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either. But I make the point Mr Tiede made before: the DFO, in terms of that runway, would be outside of the obstacle limitation surface parameter. If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine.

Senator XENOPHON: But the obstacle limitation constraints are quite different from the matters raised in numerous academic papers around the world, who say that there ought to be a public safety zones policy in respect of where you locate buildings in the event that there is an engine failure. In fact, no less than Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, did raise these issues of the ATSB back in the May 2012 estimates in respect of power loss or complete engine failure, so it is not as though this is something that has not been raised in the context of this process by no less than Senator Fawcett almost five years ago.

Mr Carmody: I can provide a response to that on notice and provide as much detail as I can.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what information CASA was provided with and what role did it have in respect of the development of Essendon Airport a number of years ago, and also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here. Is that your understanding?

Mr Carmody: I think Mr Tiede outlined that before—the only legislation is in Queensland. But I would want to check that. I would be happy to respond to that on notice.

---

CHAIR: Do you think they might labour under the honest but mistaken belief that from time to time you might create advice and give it to the government of the day and indicate that perhaps they should look seriously at measures that might enhance air safety?

Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator.

CHAIR: All right. In the history of CASA, are you able to tell us whether ever this question has been visited upon and advice been developed and given to any government at any time?

Mr Carmody: I would have to take it on notice. All I can say is that we provide advice on safety all of the time, but public safety zones at the ends of runways, I am just not certain about. I know that we provide comment on airport master development plans and all of the changes to the federally-leased airports on a regular basis, so we are in that space; that is what we do. But I am just trying to work out how far this public safety zone requirement would extend.

Not sure what the problem is that would cause such a delay in answering those two QON but I am guessing the excuse will run along the lines of..



"CASA is not able to answer the questions at this point in time as those QON refer to matters that are currently part of an active parallel investigation by both the ATSB and CASA.."

Simply put (once again) "..up yours Senators L&Ks Shane"...   


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Final AQON list for Additional Estimates

Via Senate RRAT committee webpage...

Answers to Questions on Notice arising from 27 February 2017 hearing:

National Transport Commission
PDF 99KB
 26/04/2017

---

2-10
Infrastructure Australia
PDF 47KB
26/04/2017

---

11-14
Australian Rail Track Corporation
PDF 29KB
26/04/2017

---

15-76
Infrastructure Investment Division
PDF 339KB
26/04/2017
(excludes questions: 24, 25, 38, 50, 58, 61 & 65)

---

77-103
Corporate Services
PDF 220KB
26/04/2017

---

104-112
Surface Transport Policy
PDF 58KB
26/04/2017

---

113-119
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
PDF 43KB
26/04/2017
(excludes questions: 113 & 114)

---

120-132
Aviation and Airports Division
PDF 111KB
26/04/2017

---

133-141
Airservices Australia
PDF 188KB
26/04/2017

---

142-145
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
PDF 33KB
26/04/2017

---

146-149
Policy and Research Division
PDF 40KB
26/04/2017

---

150
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
PDF 125KB
26/04/2017

---

151-165
Western Sydney Unit
PDF 22KB
26/04/2017
(excludes questions: 153-165)

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Additional Estimates 2016-17 - Wrap up...  

Final AQON list for Additional Estimates

Via Senate RRAT committee webpage...

Answers to Questions on Notice arising from 27 February 2017 hearing:

National Transport Commission
PDF 99KB
 26/04/2017

---

2-10
Infrastructure Australia
PDF 47KB
26/04/2017

---

11-14
Australian Rail Track Corporation
PDF 29KB
26/04/2017

---

15-76
Infrastructure Investment Division
PDF 339KB
26/04/2017
(excludes questions: 24, 25, 38, 50, 58, 61 & 65)

---

77-103
Corporate Services
PDF 220KB
26/04/2017

---

104-112
Surface Transport Policy
PDF 58KB
26/04/2017

---

113-119
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
PDF 43KB
26/04/2017
(excludes questions: 113 & 114)

---

120-132
Aviation and Airports Division
PDF 111KB
26/04/2017

---

133-141
Airservices Australia
PDF 188KB
26/04/2017

---

142-145
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
PDF 33KB
26/04/2017

---

146-149
Policy and Research Division
PDF 40KB
26/04/2017

---

150
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
PDF 125KB
26/04/2017

---

151-165
Western Sydney Unit
PDF 22KB
26/04/2017
(excludes questions: 153-165)

Additional Estimates - Committee report:

Additional estimates 2016–17

4 May 2017
© Commonwealth of Australia 2017
ISBN 978-1-76010-554-9
View the report as a single document - (PDF 175KB)

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)


2.14      The committee traversed a number of topics during this session, inquiring into the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) role in establishing airport public safety zones and the criteria for limiting development around airport runways. This topic was examined in light of the recent Essendon Airport tragedy.[28]

2.15      Senators also raised concerns about job cuts affecting public safety following leaked emails from an Airservices Australia employee. The committee sought CASA's response to these concerns and questioned whether CASA had any intention to review the impact of the Accelerate Program on air traffic control.[29]

Aviation and Airports Division

2.16      The committee was informed that following the tragedy at Essendon Airport, officials of the division along with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) provided advice to the minister on the details of the accident investigation process and the development approval process for buildings located at the site.

2.17      The committee queried the division about the ways in which community safety was taken into account when airport land use was assessed and approved under the planning approval process.[30]

2.18      Officials also undertook to provide the committee with a briefing on the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) process and on airport noise indices.[31] The committee was subsequently provided with a briefing by departmental officials on 26 March 2017.

Airservices Australia (Airservices)

2.19      The committee engaged in a detailed examination of the implementation of Airservices Australia's Accelerate program. Senators inquired into whether there was a sufficient number of air traffic control and firefighting staff and if aviation safety might be compromised as a result of the Accelerate program.[32] The committee expects to continue to focus its attentions on Airservices and the Accelerate program in accordance with its oversight function under Standing Order 25(2)(a).

2.20      In additional, the topic of excessive noise was canvassed. Officials explained the roles of Airservices, CASA, and the department in regard to the management, monitoring, and enforcement of excessive noise levels.[33]

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

The time has come, the Walrus said..

There are 50 documents contained within the FOI bundle returned to DJ which provide overwhelming evidence supporting the need for a judicial inquiry into the actions of CASA officers; and not only in relation to the Norfolk ditching. IMO the entire Sydney regional office should be openly investigated, without fear of favour allowing court standard evidence to decide whether or not criminal charges should be brought against several officers and those who directed those officers, sanctioned their actions and assisted in confounding a Senate committee during an inquiry.

Until the aberrations of Pel-Air, Airtex and Sky Master have been holistically examined and reparation for the untold damage done by the Sydney office is made, there can be no hope of forward progress for the GA sector. Everyone, from the tea lady to the top dogs “Know”, categorically, exactly, what occurred, who did what, to whom and why. Those same folk have been obliged to kow-tow to the requirements of the small group who, quite literally, hold the power of the life or death over their business. This ethos spreads downward from the top layers a CASA management, fully supported by a regulatory system which CASA have refused, for more than three decades to ‘reform’ in any meaningful way, there is no need to question why. This rule set, in the hands of people like McCormick, Aleck, Hood, Campbell and Chambers is a licence to do anything that pleases and manipulate any situation into one of their choosing – the Norfolk Island ditching event being a small, but classic, example of total power being totally, wilfully abused.

The Senate committee inquiring into that particular event must have realised this; as did the Senate committee which inquired into the Lockhart River event. The difference being that with Lockhart, the committee may have suspected the corruption of the ATSB, the Norfolk committee witnessed and proved that corruption – and were powerless to do anything about it. Aleck could have saved a lot of time and money by simply writing one of his famous letters stating “Yeah- and your Mother too Senator Fawcett”.

A Judicial inquiry allowing individual cases to be examined would not have to extend very far past perhaps five cases. In fact, looking at the PAIN archives, only three would suffice and, based on past experience, I’d say the total time required would amount to 10 working days. It would be reasonable to expect the results to trigger a real reform of the CASA, based on the rule of law, rather than individual preference, policy and manipulation of the same; always within the rules – as writ – by CASA.

Until the disgusting insidious elements who dare, with impunity to interfere with due process, manipulate the extremes of law and use ‘system’ to obtain predetermined outcome, there can be little hope of CASA being an asset to the aviation industry, who pay dearly for this robust 'servicing'.

The heartbreak is there for all to see; as is the anathema, the waste and the corruption; but, I say these are as nothing compared to the real shame; government power usurped, undermined and disregarded by a department charged with the safety of ‘aviation’. I don’t know how many more ministers, politicians and government inquiries it will take to prove Einstein’s theory on insanity totally correct.  

A gauntlet, thrown down in challenge. Let the current Senate committee (RRAT) select a panel of four; allocate two full working days and offer to accept and hear ‘in camera’ sworn statements relating to CASA officers. If that panel can walk away from that hearing and not move heaven and earth to ensure such aberrations never, ever occur again; then we are all doomed.

Your time and attention is demanded gentlemen, in the interests of the Australian tax paying public who fund not only your good selves but this corrupt edifice purporting to be the ‘watchdog’ of aviation safety. It is time this cancer was lanced.

Selah

[P1_aka_P1]

“K”. The difference being that with Lockhart, the committee may have suspected the corruption of the ATSB, the Norfolk committee witnessed and proved that corruption – and were powerless to do anything about it.

As much as I dislike correcting my learned colleague, the sentence should read -  “And failed, despite the evidence before them to do anything, whatsover about ‘it’"– to be concise. The impetus from Pel-Air was lost, frittered away. All far too busy to understand what had been done to them. There is only one consistent factor, only one thread binding the weave. Millions wasted getting ‘near’ the destination, but for some strange reason, there is no gas in the tank to travel the last miles and actually arrive at the inescapable conclusion.

Political considerations aside – any blood spilled from now on, must be on the Senators hands. The same hands that were washed after they allowed, with their full knowledge, the travesty of not only Pel-Air, but of other, serious anomalies brought to 'their' collective attention; those which have been not only allowed to persist, but be encouraged by the complete lack of 'finalisation' action. Not a matter of conscience then, but one of self interest, satisfaction and self preservation. No? Well, it certainly looks that way - from the back of the room.

The evidence is (and remains) overwhelming; the case against proven – beyond any reasonable doubt. There is a complete lack of industry confidence in CASA and the ATSB. Must we now have the same lack of confidence in the Senate committee?

I ask this as a serious question; very serious indeed.

[Peetwo]

The Iron Ring strikes back -

Via PelAir MKII thread:

ATCB & FASA beyond redemption on Pelair cover-up

At Hoody's 1st official appearance at Estimates (22/11/16) he declared the potential for a 'perceived' conflict of interest in regards to the PelAir cover-up reinvestigation: Hood tabled opening remarks -  (PDF 2.27MB)

Mr Hood: The accident occurred when I was involved in regulatory oversight with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Prior to my appointment as the chief commissioner of the ATSB, I declared to the minister and to the ATSB commission a potential or perceived conflict of interest in relation to my involvement and approval in that report. With that in mind, the proposal I put forward to the minister and to the commission is that Captain Chris Manning would be the commissioner who would be responsible for the ongoing approval of and release of that report. As a result of this committee and the ASRR, the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which recommended the appointment of an aviation commissioner, Captain Manning is the first aviation commissioner of the ATSB. He is a former chief pilot at Qantas and the former president of the Australian and International Pilots Association. So he is very well-qualified in this area. With respect to my conflict of interest—or perceived or potential—Captain Chris Manning and the other aspect are being cared for by Pat Hornby, who is the manager of our legal services, so for any questions I will defer to those two...

Given the bizarre, micro-managing, high viz performance since that time, I now firmly believe that Hood was hired as Murky's 'Mandarin pick' as the perfect foil and Beaker replacement, for the continuing PelAir cover-up reinvestigation and indeed the MH370 SIO search cock-up and/or cover-up.

Like Beaker was most definitely the patsy to the Lord Sith of the Iron Ring, so to is there much evidence that Hoody is re-incarnated as the next voodoo Muppet to Dr A...

E.g. historical reference via FOI.. : 

---

Also of interest in that DJ embuggerance email chain:

This is an interesting reference when you put it up against the nasty Dr A reply to the Finance Dept in regards to the DJ 'Act of Grace' application: FOI 16-51 Document 33

Personally I don't think there is any 'perceived' COI about it - it is a huge COI and seriously calls into the true motives for hiring one Greg Hood for a position that he is seriously under qualified for...  

Standing by for incoming on the above...

MTF? Most definitely...P2

[Peetwo]

Senate Estimates: Daily program & ANAO into M&M's stable -



Here is the link for next week's RRAT Committee Budget Estimates.. :

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (PDF 136KB)          
Infrastructure and Regional Development: Monday, 22 May and Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Agriculture and Water Resources: Wednesday, 24 May and Thursday, 25 May 2017
Cross-portfolio Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters: Friday, 26 May 2017        

miniscule 6D Chester's aviation portfolio agencies are appearing on Tuesday, starting straight up with Murky's Aviation & Airport minions at 9am and finishing with Hoody and his ATCB from 4:30 pm till the dinner break at 6pm:

     
Hmm...ANAO at 11:15 am ? OMG!   - Murky has added the ANAO to his department?? - We're all doomed...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

A little piece of historical fluff.

Senate debates
Thursday, 14 November 2013
Adjournment – Aviation

6:52 pm

  
I come to the Senate following a career largely in the military and aviation over a number of hears. Having flown aircraft ranging from the venerable DC3 or C47 Dakota through to the most modern military helicopters and GA aircraft and flown all around this country, I am aware of the importance of aviation to Australia and to Australia’s community.

In South Australia alone there are some 400 regional airports and airstrips enabling passenger transport, freight and important services such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service to communities. Mount Gambier in South Australia, for example, is one of our busiest regional airports. It directly affects the employment of over 230 people and contributes some $29.7 million to the gross state product. Adelaide Airport employs over 16,500 people and adds $1.6 billion to the GSP. Nationally, the impact is even greater: some $13.5 billion directly to the economy, some 149,000 jobs, a further $11 billion into the economy because of the supply chain and another 97,000 jobs through that. So it is a significant contributor to our economy and to the way our society runs.

But it is a sector that is under some stress at a range of levels. Certainly for the larger operators—the high-capacity regular public transport operators—the global factors are having a huge impact. We have seen just this week, in fact, Qantas making decisions about maintenance that have affected many people here in Australia and also affect our sovereign capability to retain an engineering capability in country. Domestically we also see pressures—and not only upon the GA sector. You need to realise that aviation is a broad scope of people from your ag operators who spray crops to your aerial firefighters; your rescue services and air ambulance operators; the people who do the coast watch operations, the mail runs, the bank runs—there are a whole range of people who contribute to our society through aviation.

Many of them are under significant pressure, whether that be through excessive regulation or through the application of regulation that makes life difficult for them. Significantly, we saw that earlier this year with the release of the report into the Pel-Air accident at Norfolk Island, where we saw a number of issues with the regulator and ATSB that need to be addressed.

So it is a vital part of our economy, and I am pleased to say that the coalition has been listening to industry both prior to and post the election. We have had a number of meetings with industry, ranging from the one-man workshops through to larger engineering firms, smaller flying operations and large corporate organisations, to understand the pressures on them and how we as a government can try to take some of those pressures off. In the aviation policy put forward by the coalition there are a number of points that go to this. Certainly the topic of this week has been a lot about the abolition of the carbon tax and its impact on aviation fuels and businesses—and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars of impact on the aviation sector here in Australia—but some of the other key points in the policy include looking at establishing a high-level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia which closely maps one of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report. There is support for regional aviation, including new and better targeted en-route rebates. There is also an increased focus on recognising the importance of airports in Australia. Not only do we have to focus on things like Sydney’s second airport; but the government is also very aware of the fact that the airport infrastructure we have has its primary use as an airport. Whilst the commercialisation and leasing of some of the secondary airports has meant that there are non-commercial activities there, the key focus must remain on the aviation capability that that represents and the potential for that to grow to meet future demand in coming years. The government also has a priority on revitalising the general aviation sector through an action agenda and making sure that things like security measures, which can be an onerous imposition on airlines and airport operators, are in fact risk based and only to the extent necessary.

There are other aspects to the policy, but one of the key ones has been the review of regulation. I am pleased to report to the Senate that today the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Warren Truss MP, who has responsibility for aviation, announced the independent review of aviation. He announced the terms of reference and the expected outcomes as well as the panel.

I want to pick a few of the outcomes that this review seeks to achieve and to deliver to the sector. The review will examine and make recommendations as required on the aviation safety roles of CASA, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other agencies. It will examine and make recommendations on the appointments process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and ATSB, again stemming back from some of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report about making sure we have the right people with the right competence. That is task-specific competence. People may be very good and very competent, but for a particular task they need both qualifications and experience in that task to do the role.

It is also looking to review the implementation of the current aviation regulatory reform program, which has been going on an awful long time and has been creating much uncertainty in the sector. In South Australia, for example, as operators for the state government’s emergency medical service contract look to bid for that new tender, they are uncertain which rules they need to bid for. If the state government is not going to allow for regulatory change as part of the contract, it makes it very difficult for a company to bid—not knowing the standards to which they have to provide aircraft, numbers of aircrew, rosters et cetera.

The review will also look at the cost impacts on industry. That is one of the most important points. The government is looking to make sure that the aviation industry is not just safe but sustainable—that it is a viable industry sector for the future of Australia. Importantly, the review will also provide options to government for improving the oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including the rights of review, because we do see cases—some running right now—where companies have been shut down and, months after that, are yet to have their opportunity in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to put their case as to why they believe that decision was unfair. So there is a requirement to make the application of regulation appropriate.

The government’s whole focus on deregulation means that we have the regulation we need to be safe but that we make sure that it is quality, that it is informed by people who understand the industry so that it is best practice and, importantly, that its application not only maintains safety but also makes sure that, where there is an equal safety case but one has a more commercially viable application, that is the one that the regulator should be looking to implement so that the industry is sustainable.

I am pleased that Mr David Forsyth AM is going to be chairing the review panel. He is well-known in the aviation industry in Australia as the chair of Safeskies and the former chair of Airservices Australia and has some 30 years experience in safety management. He will be joined by Mr Don Spruston, a former Director-General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada and Director-General of the International Business Aviation Council and Mr Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, adviser to Qantas and former UK Civil Aviation Authority board member.

One of the important things that we are aware of is that aviation is not just the large airlines and the high-capacity operators. It also includes, as I said before, people right through the gamut of aviation. So I am very pleased to see that Mr Phillip Reiss, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, will be involved in the review to make sure that the views of the general aviation sector are going to be taken into account.

The panel will be providing its report to the minister in May 2014, and there are opportunities for the industry at all levels to make submissions. I am pleased to see that the minister’s release talks about the fact that, while the review will seek the views of the CASA board and senior management staff, they will consult closely with industry. I encourage anyone involved in the aviation industry to take this opportunity to have their say to shape the future for a viable and safe aviation industry for Australia.

Check the date, then ask yourself the question:

WHAT'S HAPPENED?? Anything? Anything at all? Even a hint of anything?

[Peetwo]

Senate Estimates: Daily program & ANAO into M&M's stable -



Here is the link for next week's RRAT Committee Budget Estimates.. :

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (PDF 136KB)          
Infrastructure and Regional Development: Monday, 22 May and Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Agriculture and Water Resources: Wednesday, 24 May and Thursday, 25 May 2017
Cross-portfolio Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters: Friday, 26 May 2017        

miniscule 6D Chester's aviation portfolio agencies are appearing on Tuesday, starting straight up with Murky's Aviation & Airport minions at 9am and finishing with Hoody and his ATCB from 4:30 pm till the dinner break at 6pm:

     
Hmm...ANAO at 11:15 am ? OMG!   - Murky has added the ANAO to his department?? - We're all doomed...

MTF...P2

Update: 23/05/17

Slight change in today's proceedings with AMSA appearing first before Murky's Aviation & Airports division - PDF 57KB .

Also  Barry O'Braces will be back in the Chair today after being absent in the abbreviated (adjourned by 2045) departmental session yesterday. So other than the AMSA change it is all systems go by 0945 this AM...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Off track PNR - OTS at Estimates 23/05/17. -

Remember this? Senate Inquiry: Airport & Aviation Security MKII
 

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...

[b]"..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)..."[/b]  

"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.."  

Okay now reflect on the following video segments from the OTS evening appearance at Estimates on 23/05/17:

&..

To make matters even worse this, hole in the mouldy security Swiss cheese, was reported on in the Oz today:

Manchester attack: security flaw ‘risks new jet tragedy’

Debris from crashed Russian Metrojet in the Sinai in October 2015.

The Australian

12:00AM May 25, 2017

JOE KELLY

Political reporter
Canberra
@joekellyoz
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/c1e593b57554afc1c3bc4d1f516c297b/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Coalition senators have sounded the alarm on a security flaw that could expose passengers to a ­repeat of the incident that downed a Russian Metrojet flight over Egypt in 2015 killing 224 people.

The vulnerability in Australia’s border security regime was exposed by the Office of Transport Security that confirmed there was nothing to stop people with drug or organised crime convictions from working at airports or ports.
“At this stage our legislation precludes us from taking into ­account those issues,” OTS ­executive director Sachi Wimmer told a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday night.

Ms Wimmer confirmed that only some criminal convictions would prevent individuals from being granted an aviation or maritime security identity card. The card allows unescorted access to sensitive areas of transport hubs.

Some of the adverse offences include murder, kidnap, hostage taking, aggravated assault, treason, terrorism, espionage as well as hijacking and destruction of an aircraft. But Ms Wimmer confirmed there was no legislative barrier to stop security cards from being granted to those with drug or organised crime convictions.

“The eligibility criteria around criminality is limited and so it very much depends on the offence,” she said. “If we had an offence that had been through a court and there was a conviction and it included organised involvement in some kind of criminal activity we think that would be a sensible thing to capture.”

About 30 holders of the ID cards would no longer be eligible to work in sensitive areas if the Senate passed amendments to close the loophole.
Ms Wimmer said a decision to cancel the card of a convicted drug smuggler had been overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 2014. “The criminal history included convictions with significant terms of imprisonment for offences involving ... the production, possession and supply of a narcotic substance and also related to the importation of a significant quantity of cocaine using airfreight,” she said.

Liberal senator David Fawcett told The Australian the evidence highlighted a vulnerability in Australia’s national security framework. He said the “strong assumption” behind the Metrojet disaster was someone with privileged access at Sharm el-Sheikh airport had “bypassed the security and put a device on the plane”. “Clearly that is a risk,” he said.

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee chairman Barry O’Sullivan said it was harder to get work at a day care centre than as a baggage handler at one of the nation’s key airports. “The standards there are 10 times higher than for an individual who wants to wander into the most secure areas of our airports and ports generally,” the Queensland Nationals senator told The Australian. “The risk is superhigh. This parliament needs to step up and for once do what is as bloody plain as the nose on our face and belt this out of the park.”

The government’s legislation to close the security loophole is yet to pass the Senate but it has struggled to reach agreement with Labor on the wording of its amendments to reduce criminal influence at the borders.


The OTS told Senate estimates that, if the government’s tougher rules were adopted, there would be greater scrutiny of applicants.

Oh no miniscule 6D_NFI_Chester, yet another potentially embarrassing clusterduck which falls within your area of remit ...    

TICK TOCK miniscule!


MTF...P2
 

[Gobbledock]

Let me explain the security farce if I may

A Gobbledocks lament;
The security discussion in the Senate, and elsewhere, is a waste of time and breath. Everyone knows that the OTS do their little annual audits of airlines and airports and look at bullshit such as 'incorrectly coloured maps', spelling mistakes and incorrect page numbers in an Operators TSP, check whether the retarded hamburger flipper in the airport taxi rank Macca's has received 'security training' and can answer the question; what does the acronym 'ASIC' stand for. Then they, the OTS, sneak steak knives, buttplugs and other assorted 'trickery' into carry-on baggage and attempt to fool the security screeners in a never ending game of cat and mouse. But wait there is more - they, the OTS, hide their ASIC in their top pocket and wander around airside hoping they won't be 'challenged' by the myriads of busy baggage handlers, pilots, engineers and refuellers busting their asses to get the plane out on time due to the immense operational pressure that greedy aviation bonus hungry CEO's who couldn't give a flying fuck about aviation security and safety put on their people!! At last they, the OTS,  can finally issue a NCN to the poor Caterer up to his elbows in salad rolls and past use-by-date orange juice who is walking up the aircraft stairs and whom didn't question Inspector Plod about his 'ASIC that was not visible'. As if there isn't enough bullshit that we have to endure just to pay the mortgage and remain employed in a once grand but now rooted industry! With the never ending and constantly growing long list of mind numbing, irrelevant,  taxpayer wasting complete and utter bullshit security regulations it's no wonder everyone is pissed off. Especially when all of our major airports sit on the coastline and any half baked semi connected criminal could sit in a Tinnie out on the bay with one of the thousands of 'hot' RPG or SAM's that can be purchased. Hell, you could sit in the same Tinnie in Botany Bay with a frickin slingshot and hit some of those aircraft as the barrel over your head at 50 ft AGL.

Security? Security my hairy ass. It too is a complete joke. Hundreds of millions of dollars spent each year to keep the dopey Stockholm syndrome public feeling safe and comfortable. Hell I'm sure even 6D - the perfectly manscaped king of dopiness, is even fooled by this 'comfort blanket' crap called aviation security.

Tick 'security checks' Tock

[Kharon]

Worthwhile or Inutile – can’t decide.

My tote board has Carmody at odds on to inherit the Dorian Gray portrait; he seems to want it, although only he and the gods know why. A fully fledged bureaucrat; from boot straps to bow tie at least will not need a crash course on ‘system’ or status quo and have to become a part of the ‘establishment’; he has the ‘T’ shirt, cap and complementary coffee mug. There is a strange wait and see expectation over this man’s tenure and there are some ‘better’ indications of intent than one could expect, but then after that Flash-git (whatshisnanme) almost anything would be an improvement.   

Carmody does well at Estimates; the exchange on the drones topic being a good example. He most certainly stood rock solid on the classic CASA approach to all things – more regulation and prosecution, determinedly refusing any general responsibility while building a wall of steel around any possible come back on CASA from the operations they manage. O’Sullivan and Sterle both arced up, I just wonder though, was that sheer frustration at the standard CASA stone wall tactics rather than 100% anger caused by the drone situation. Carmody was, to me at least, making a good case for the below 2Kg being a public safety and security case, rather than purely a CASA responsibility. It was a good point, well made and intelligently argued. He may well have scored better, rather than infuriating the Senators had he left the grey ghost in the box. A classic error made by every DAS in living history – believing that they actually need Aleck. Carmody could do himself, industry and the RRAT a great favour by simply firing this man. Carmody ain’t dopey, but letting Aleck get a toe into the waters of his administration would be an error – fair warning, say no more about it.

P2_edit: Some words & pictures which IMO more than adequately highlight why Carmody should note the "K" fair warning above: (Ref: CASA Hansard see HERE.)

P2 comment: The manic Dr A said: "...The need to act in a precautionary manner, as Senator O'Sullivan will know because we have dealt with this in other contexts, is very important..."  - The part in bold is (I believe) a direct reference to the CASA (Dr A) attempted embuggerance of Jabiru  - when Sen O'Sullivan  stepped into advocate on behalf of Jabiru (see HERE).  Like his continued influence with the DJ embuggerance - HERE - this again highlights how nasty & vindictive this Iron Ring parasite truly is...

Because of the exchange above, Carmody saw the need to step in and try to put out the spot fire being fanned merely by the presence of Dr (Evil) A. However as you will see there was no placating the good Senator Sterle... :

P2 comment - Bring in the DAMP Man: Is it just me or does Dr A look like he just snorted the world's biggest line of coke? Perhaps Sen. Lambie's call for pollywaffle drug tests should be extended to shiny bum bureaucrats -    

There are two very big ticks and one small one on the Carmody score sheet; the first being his approach to cabin staff reduction. Industry has been trying for – what twenty years – to adopt international standard numbers. Carmody gave it the nod; good stuff. The second is the ASRR has finally been acknowledged as being just a bit more than ‘an opinion’. I’d bet good ale that the good Rev. Forsyth and Carmody do not see eye to eye on every point; that is to be expected; but and hallelujah the ASRR is ‘live’ and there are discussions. If these two sane, experienced men can find a way to make the recommendations happen then Carmody will have done well for industry, his department and minister. The small tick is the CVD discussion with Fawcett. Carmody lost that round, Fawcett on points, by a long chalk. That said, you do get a glimmer of hope for the CVD troops. Lets hope common sense and solid evidence prevail – it should – but this is still the CASA we have all come to know so well.

There are whispers and indications that some of the dead wood is being slowly cleared away, the board seem to have paled into insignificance and to all intent and purpose Carmody seems to have the job by the throat. Well, if we are to be stuck with him at least we have an idea of pedigree and character. Pure, unadulterated ministry man, top flight bureaucrat  without a drop of aviation blood. Aye well, better the devil you know.

BRB 87% in favour of a watching brief and a little latitude without Aleck. 38% in favour of ‘watch only’, zero latitude with Aleck; 62% simply want an industry oriented reform DAS.

There are some interesting passages of play which I intend to study; the O’Sullivan/Sterle “no faith” being of great interest. Not certain if that was pure frustration with ‘CASA’ the outfit or Carmody as CEO. I’ll get to it when Hansard is published – words and music so to speak. Life would be so much simpler if the board had settled on Mike Smith – we could all just put our feet up and watch real reform take place; not the Rev. v the Establishment round 16.

Aye well; there it all stands, unresolved, irresolute and trapped within a device of it’s own making with the Pel-Air scandal looming ever closer and the shredders needing overhaul. Shane Carmody may well be the new public face of Dorian Gray – but the painting remains. A new DAS does not mean a new CASA and Carmody has already established a track record for ignoring history and refusing to correct the wrongs which still rankle and fester. A shining knight perhaps; but his horse is knackered.

Toot - toot.

P2 comment: Taking in all of the above, it is interesting to note the following exchange between the Chair and the ANAO's Ms Mellor...

(Ref: ANAO 2nd segment Hansard)

CHAIR: Our committee, without going into detail, is contemplating reaching out to the ANAO to look at something else—a matter completely unrelated to Airservices. I just want to try to establish the parameters of what you do, particularly in light of some of the evidence today. If we have an agency or a government department about which we think there is a body of evidence that suggests they have failed in their primary function: that is, that all the glasses of water are full by eight o'clock in the morning—I do not mean glasses of water, but I think you know what I mean—is it within your power to examine that on our behalf? Would you accept such a request?