[Peetwo]

DPM McDo'Naught: A muppet for all seasons?


Ref:

---

Nationals rebels put the boot into their leader as party feels regional backlash

Many MPs are exasperated with Michael McCormack and despairing about where they have washed up post-Barnaby Joyce


Some Nationals are frustrated that Michael McCormack won’t stand up to the Liberals. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

In practical terms it’s a strange thing to demand: calling on the leadership to pass a package that has no obvious prospect of passing the parliament without amendment in the time left available.

But six Queensland Nationals have elected to put the boot into their leader, Michael McCormack, for failing on two fronts: failing to pressure the Liberals to pass the so-called “big stick” package, which they believe will lower power prices, and failing to sign up to new taxpayer-backed investments in power generation. For most Nationals north of the New South Wales border, that means new coal generation.

The foray is about a substantive issue. The Nationals have been focused on energy throughout the government’s tortuous, sometimes incoherent, backwards and forwards movements in this policy space over the current term in government.

It’s not a cause of convenience.

But with this sortie, the rebels are hanging a lantern over a problem their leader can’t really solve, and he can’t solve it, predominantly, because the government has comprehensively botched things up.

A brief history might be useful. The then Turnbull government weighed in to power prices and grid reliability a couple of years ago (remembering those are normally state issues) in order to indulge what people imagined would be a quick and dirty partisan fight – only to find themselves mired in an actual policy problem of some complexity, which they’d made themselves responsible for politically.

As a consequence of this basic political miscalculation, the government has been trying to defuse their own cunning plan for most of the current term, without much success.

Added to that longer term problem is a more recent point of friction within the governing coalition, and this is an important driver in the new insurgency.

The coal-friendly quarters of the National party (read the central Queensland crew) are now deeply concerned that the Liberals are going to stiff them on new taxpayer-backed coal-fired power plants in order to hold progressive centre-right voters in the southern states.


Scott Morrison with Michael McCormack (left) and Barnaby Joyce. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

With polling showing voters deeply concerned about climate change, and with the Liberals facing insurgencies in their own heartland, Scott Morrison is now treading more carefully on coal to try to stem a protest vote that looms as a material threat to his government’s re-election chances in May.

The Nationals’ concerns, as well as the rolling energy policy frustrations, has prompted the six MPs to lob their small grenade.

The gesture tells you everything you need to know about the mulish mood inside the National party.

Many MPs are exasperated with McCormack’s performance on a range of fronts, and despairing (I don’t use the word lightly) about where they have washed up collectively in the post-Barnaby period.

There is frustration that McCormack won’t stand up to the Liberals, a passivity that has allowed the Liberals to mission creep into areas like drought and disaster relief, which should be core business for the junior coalition partner.

Nationals are feeling a growing backlash from their constituents, which has been gathering pace in regional areas, giving rise to more coordinated activity by local independents – but they remain divided about what, if anything, can be done about their current predicament.

And the sad part is, to a substantial degree, they only have themselves to blame.

The Nationals have spent years coasting on the personal brand of a populist leader to differentiate themselves from the Liberals, and to send a message to the bush that they are fighting the good fight in Canberra. But they failed to plan for what might happen when that cycle turned from boom to bust.

The Nationals now face an election season with an underwhelming frontman, who just this week struggled to articulate a single instance where the Nationals had sided with the interests of farmers over the interests of miners when they come into conflict.

The Project

@theprojecttv

Waleed: “Could you name a single, big policy area where the Nats have sided with the interests of farmers over the interest of miners when they come into conflict?”

Nationals leader Michael McCormack responds. #auspol #TheProjectTV

7:55 PM - Mar 6, 2019

https://10daily.com.au/shows/theproject/...s-20190306

Given the Nationals have been fretting among themselves for months, but apparently unable to agree on what to do to turn around their collective fortunes, the antidote now appears to be a version of every man and woman for themselves.

As one of the signatories to the letter, Keith Pitt, put it on Thursday when asked to explain his intervention: “The federal election is coming up and I want to be able to look every one of our constituents in the eye and say I have done everything I possibly can.”

The translation for that is simple: if the leader can’t carry the water for the Nationals, as leaders are supposed to do, then we have to start, at the local level, getting out and carrying our own

---

&..from the AAP, via Nine News : https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/08/05/3...quit-paper

---

Nationals leader McCormack under pressure

By AAP
8:11am Mar 8, 2019

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack is under fresh pressure from Nationals colleagues unhappy with his "lacklustre" leadership and fundraising efforts.

There are renewed rumblings Mr McCormack will face a leadership challenge from the man he replaced, Barnaby Joyce, either before the election or very soon afterwards.

His approach to the government's "big stick" energy bill, which the Nationals are demanding be put to a vote during budget week, is considered the next big test of his leadership.

A group of Queensland Nationals also want the government to underwrite a new regional power generation project before the election.

"I am working hard every day to deliver for regional Australians and I will continue to focus on the issues that are important to their way of life, like lowering power prices," Mr McCormack told the Courier-Mail on Friday.

"Yes, I support coal-fired energy generation. It still provides the majority of Australia's energy needs, especially baseload power.

"The Liberal and Nationals government has introduced legislation to force power prices down and we will continue to work with the parliament to see that legislation through."

Even still, some Queensland MPs are nervous the party will lose heavily at the election and are agitating for Mr McCormack to step aside or be sacked.

Mr Joyce has consistently argued he is not pushing for the leadership spill but will step up if he is asked.

Senior Liberal minister Christopher Pyne tried to dampen suggestions Mr McCormack had lost the confidence of his party and could face a coup.

"I very much doubt it," he told the Nine Network.

"I think the bottom line is what the public want is a government that moves forward with stability."

Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese laughed off the latest Nationals leadership chatter.

"The idea that Barnaby Joyce could come back as the deputy prime minister, quite frankly, is farcical."

---

The questions are, who is he? - &; who is he not captured by?

LeadSled ...Lead Balloon,

I can assure you, Dick has not fallen for it, he is absolutely ropeable ----- because NOTHING has effectively changed.

As for any "consultation" ---- this in no way even goes close to what was agreed by Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese, with Dick's help.

In my opinion, McCormack has been as thoroughly captured by the "Department" and CASA as any Minister ever has.

This is the "reform" you have when you are not having reform...

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10397119

Hmm...TICK TOCK DPM McDo'Naught - errr maybe??

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

DPM McDo'Naught: A muppet for all seasons?


Ref:

---

Nationals rebels put the boot into their leader as party feels regional backlash

Many MPs are exasperated with Michael McCormack and despairing about where they have washed up post-Barnaby Joyce


Some Nationals are frustrated that Michael McCormack won’t stand up to the Liberals. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

In practical terms it’s a strange thing to demand: calling on the leadership to pass a package that has no obvious prospect of passing the parliament without amendment in the time left available.

But six Queensland Nationals have elected to put the boot into their leader, Michael McCormack, for failing on two fronts: failing to pressure the Liberals to pass the so-called “big stick” package, which they believe will lower power prices, and failing to sign up to new taxpayer-backed investments in power generation. For most Nationals north of the New South Wales border, that means new coal generation.

The foray is about a substantive issue. The Nationals have been focused on energy throughout the government’s tortuous, sometimes incoherent, backwards and forwards movements in this policy space over the current term in government.

It’s not a cause of convenience.

But with this sortie, the rebels are hanging a lantern over a problem their leader can’t really solve, and he can’t solve it, predominantly, because the government has comprehensively botched things up.

A brief history might be useful. The then Turnbull government weighed in to power prices and grid reliability a couple of years ago (remembering those are normally state issues) in order to indulge what people imagined would be a quick and dirty partisan fight – only to find themselves mired in an actual policy problem of some complexity, which they’d made themselves responsible for politically.

As a consequence of this basic political miscalculation, the government has been trying to defuse their own cunning plan for most of the current term, without much success.

Added to that longer term problem is a more recent point of friction within the governing coalition, and this is an important driver in the new insurgency.

The coal-friendly quarters of the National party (read the central Queensland crew) are now deeply concerned that the Liberals are going to stiff them on new taxpayer-backed coal-fired power plants in order to hold progressive centre-right voters in the southern states.


Scott Morrison with Michael McCormack (left) and Barnaby Joyce. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

With polling showing voters deeply concerned about climate change, and with the Liberals facing insurgencies in their own heartland, Scott Morrison is now treading more carefully on coal to try to stem a protest vote that looms as a material threat to his government’s re-election chances in May.

The Nationals’ concerns, as well as the rolling energy policy frustrations, has prompted the six MPs to lob their small grenade.

The gesture tells you everything you need to know about the mulish mood inside the National party.

Many MPs are exasperated with McCormack’s performance on a range of fronts, and despairing (I don’t use the word lightly) about where they have washed up collectively in the post-Barnaby period.

There is frustration that McCormack won’t stand up to the Liberals, a passivity that has allowed the Liberals to mission creep into areas like drought and disaster relief, which should be core business for the junior coalition partner.

Nationals are feeling a growing backlash from their constituents, which has been gathering pace in regional areas, giving rise to more coordinated activity by local independents – but they remain divided about what, if anything, can be done about their current predicament.

And the sad part is, to a substantial degree, they only have themselves to blame.

The Nationals have spent years coasting on the personal brand of a populist leader to differentiate themselves from the Liberals, and to send a message to the bush that they are fighting the good fight in Canberra. But they failed to plan for what might happen when that cycle turned from boom to bust.

The Nationals now face an election season with an underwhelming frontman, who just this week struggled to articulate a single instance where the Nationals had sided with the interests of farmers over the interests of miners when they come into conflict.

The Project

@theprojecttv

Waleed: “Could you name a single, big policy area where the Nats have sided with the interests of farmers over the interest of miners when they come into conflict?”

Nationals leader Michael McCormack responds. #auspol #TheProjectTV

7:55 PM - Mar 6, 2019

https://10daily.com.au/shows/theproject/...s-20190306

Given the Nationals have been fretting among themselves for months, but apparently unable to agree on what to do to turn around their collective fortunes, the antidote now appears to be a version of every man and woman for themselves.

As one of the signatories to the letter, Keith Pitt, put it on Thursday when asked to explain his intervention: “The federal election is coming up and I want to be able to look every one of our constituents in the eye and say I have done everything I possibly can.”

The translation for that is simple: if the leader can’t carry the water for the Nationals, as leaders are supposed to do, then we have to start, at the local level, getting out and carrying our own

---

&..from the AAP, via Nine News : https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/08/05/3...quit-paper

---

Nationals leader McCormack under pressure

By AAP
8:11am Mar 8, 2019

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack is under fresh pressure from Nationals colleagues unhappy with his "lacklustre" leadership and fundraising efforts.

There are renewed rumblings Mr McCormack will face a leadership challenge from the man he replaced, Barnaby Joyce, either before the election or very soon afterwards.

His approach to the government's "big stick" energy bill, which the Nationals are demanding be put to a vote during budget week, is considered the next big test of his leadership.

A group of Queensland Nationals also want the government to underwrite a new regional power generation project before the election.

"I am working hard every day to deliver for regional Australians and I will continue to focus on the issues that are important to their way of life, like lowering power prices," Mr McCormack told the Courier-Mail on Friday.

"Yes, I support coal-fired energy generation. It still provides the majority of Australia's energy needs, especially baseload power.

"The Liberal and Nationals government has introduced legislation to force power prices down and we will continue to work with the parliament to see that legislation through."

Even still, some Queensland MPs are nervous the party will lose heavily at the election and are agitating for Mr McCormack to step aside or be sacked.

Mr Joyce has consistently argued he is not pushing for the leadership spill but will step up if he is asked.

Senior Liberal minister Christopher Pyne tried to dampen suggestions Mr McCormack had lost the confidence of his party and could face a coup.

"I very much doubt it," he told the Nine Network.

"I think the bottom line is what the public want is a government that moves forward with stability."

Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese laughed off the latest Nationals leadership chatter.

"The idea that Barnaby Joyce could come back as the deputy prime minister, quite frankly, is farcical."

---

The questions are, who is he? - &; who is he not captured by?

LeadSled ...Lead Balloon,

I can assure you, Dick has not fallen for it, he is absolutely ropeable ----- because NOTHING has effectively changed.

As for any "consultation" ---- this in no way even goes close to what was agreed by Barnaby Joyce and Anthony Albanese, with Dick's help.

In my opinion, McCormack has been as thoroughly captured by the "Department" and CASA as any Minister ever has.

This is the "reform" you have when you are not having reform...

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10397119

Update: Via the Courier Mail etc. https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee...5770743424

[b]


Joyce poised to reclaim Nats leadership from lacklustre McCormack[/b]

DEPUTY Prime Minister Michael McCormack has lost the confidence of the majority of Nationals, who are asking the embattled leader to resign or face a spill on the eve of the election.

Red-hot frustration is now building into a “political Sophie’s Choice” for Nationals, who fear moving on Mr McCormack after the election will be too late, especially for Queensland MPs.

A number of MPs and senators who voted for Mr McCormack last year have now abandoned him for his predecessor Barnaby Joyce.

Some believe they cannot wait to roll Mr McCormack after the next election because too many seats are at risk or could be lost. Capricornia, Flynn and Dawson are all marginal.

The lacklustre performance of Mr McCormack and his inability to raise funds comes as the junior Coalition partner is preparing to lose party status in the Senate for the first time since Federation. Losing party status equates to a pay cut for some.

With NSW senator John Williams retiring at the May election, Nationals are not expecting to win the third spot on the ticket.

Senior figures are being leant on to encourage Mr McCormack to step aside for the good of the party.

It is understood Mr Joyce is not agitating and will not call a spill, however he will run against Mr McCormack if one is brought on.

Many in the party believe Mr Joyce as leader would help Nationals hold their seats.

Calls were being made last night to tally rusted-on numbers for Mr Joyce as a growing number of colleagues privately bemoun Mr McCormack’s performance, his “non-existent profile” and the way he is being “walked-all over” by Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

Serious and meaningful conversations, driven by NSW and Queensland MPs, are being held about how the process would work so close to the Budget and the poll, and what it would mean for the Coalition Agreement.

Those advocating for change have been asked to map out on the timing of the coup and then an election-fight back strategy.

One highly-placed source revealed that rolling Mr McCormack would be a plan to help Nationals keep their seats, not a plan to win Government. It is a concession that the relationship between the Coalition partners is in tatters and government could be lost.

Those close to the issue concede the timing of changing leaders was bad but the Nationals needed a fighting chance to hold seats, especially in Queensland.

Last night several sources said a spill could not be ruled out or guaranteed, but believed momentum was building for change.

Mr McCormack would face a challenge by the end of May regardless, they said.

Mr McCormack started losing authority within his party room last year, with Queenslanders Senator Barry O’Sullivan and Member for Wide Bay Llew O’Brien refusing to turn up to party room meetings in Canberra.

The Courier-Mail revealed yesterday six Queensland Nationals broke ranks and wrote to Mr McCormack and Energy Minister Angus Taylor to demand the Government underwrite a coal-fired power station.

Last night MPs were citing Sportsbet odds, showing Nationals MPs were behind in Capricornia, Flynn and Dawson.

Some Nationals, like Victorian Andrew Broad, who was engulfed in the Sugar Babe scandal, are understood to feel as though they have been “thrown under the bus” by Mr McCormack.

And outgoing Senator O’Sullivan is believed to in part blame Mr McCormack for failing to help him at his preselection. Both supported Mr McCormack’s leadership bid last year.

It comes as Nationals last night spoke of another potential indiscretion of an MP which could embarrass the party.

It did not relate to Mr Joyce, who stepped down in February after allegations by West Australian business woman Catherine Marriott that she was sexually harassed by Mr Joyce.

Mr Joyce’s resignation was after of weeks of pressure when news broke of a pregnancy with his former staff member Vikki Campion. Ms Marriott’s allegations have never been substantiated.

The Courier-Mail asked Mr McCormack’s office last night if the Deputy Prime Minister was aware that he had lost the support of his party room and were talks about removing him, and if he supported a new coal-fired power station in Queensland or NSW?

In a statement, Mr McCormack said: “I am working hard every day to deliver for regional Australians and I will continue to focus on the issues that are important to their way of life, like lowering power prices.

“Yes I support coal-fired energy generation. It still provides the majority of Australia’s energy needs, especially baseload power.

“The Liberal and Nationals’ Government has introduced legislation to force power prices down and we will continue to work with the parliament to see that legislation through.

“My colleagues in The Nationals are keen to see that outcome as well and that’s what we are all focused on.

“Labor are backing higher prices by not supporting this legislation; they don’t care if prices increase.

“They have no practical way of bringing down prices and maintaining a reliable energy supply for all Australians.

“This legislation is a test for Bill Shorten: Does he back lower power prices or not?”

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight update: Marjorie Pagani takes St Carmody to the Federal Court - GAME ON?? 

If not; why not?

I have just sat through, paying attention, to the CASA Friday special video in the Senate. I have – so help me. I even watched and listened carefully to St. Carmody; by Gad he’s good.  

Mark you, when the minister is carefully managed, spoon fed and watered by St. Carmody’s very own personal aviation specialist, on loan to whichever pathetic specimen of human kind wears the Emperor’s new clothes; an overwhelming sense of confidence must be expected. Hell, with that sort of entrée and backing; you could sell the hanger cat to the public as the next ducking Messiah. So long as the minister is ‘in the loop’ and as dumb as a hammer – you are on a winner. Why would St. Carmody (the self righteous) even break wind, let alone tremble when a couple of stray Senators start asking easy, uniformed questions?

One of the more alarming elements of the whole thing is that St Carmody (ordained preventer of accidents) has either a very slick understanding of ‘statistics’ or has someone on tap who can not only make statistics jump through hoops; but is capable of making those hoops. Remarkable results – to order.  For instance hours:-

Let us examine this ‘safety’ myth that total hours can, in any practical way, relate to the safety of not only CSF operations, but ‘private’ operations in general. I have a good mate who has many thousands of hours in command of a fairly hefty jet transport – which routinely does long haul international flights; top of his game, all flight checks passed and he is bloody good at commanding the aircraft. Would I trust him to fly my family in a single piston engine, propeller driven aircraft, at night to a strange port? No I bloody well would not. Why? Well, he ain’t current for a start and not in the groove for seconds, nor does he have the toys, horsepower and systems support he has learned to rely on in his normal daily work. There is however a young lady of my acquaintance who does very little else except nurse an aging single engine aircraft about the country side, often after sunset, with very limited basic equipment and very few options in so far as power, redundancy or systems backup; yet I would, without a second thought allow my nearest and dearest to travel with her. Why?

One pilot is in current practice with the operational environment the other is not. The young lass could, perhaps get the jet started but that would be the end of it – my mate could probably get the aging beast started; and, relying solely on past experience even manage to fly a circuit or two. But, in an equal race – neither could do the others job. They are simply worlds apart. My mate has not been near an aging single engine aircraft for 30 years; our young lady has never flown a heavy transport. QED?

Yes, an extreme case study – but since when did ‘hours’ signify safety? Angel Flight could (IMO) resolve this silliness quite easily. A pilot data base which would qualify or disqualify a NVFR/IFR or VFR operation on the basis of current in-practice minimums, in compliance with the Regs. A training course which certified that AF pilots have undertaken a course entailing ‘CFIT’/ Weather avoidance analysis, flight planning, fuel management and ‘risk mitigation’ etc. Even had a ride along with a qualified person to ensure that ‘standards’ were met across the operational board. Simple enough to arrange and do. This would provide ‘evidence’ of competency, recent experience and disqualify those who were not ‘currently qualified’ from conducting AF operations until they were. Small expense incurred – occasionally – to provide a venue; lots of experienced folk willing to assist – on a voluntary basis.

No wonder Sen. Patrick say’s “I can’t quite see it” when referring to this cockeyed CASA notion of how ‘safety and statistics’ support their claim that the ‘Little Wings’ version is OK and AF is a setting up an increased level of danger to those who travel. Bollocks.

Even more remote from reality is the CASA take on ‘engine hours’ and aircraft maintenance. Ask any commercial pilot about ‘fit’ aircraft. When do most ‘mechanical’ problems appear – after maintenance. Which aircraft operate and fly the best? Those which ‘fly’ often is the answer. Which is the mechanically and systems malfunction worst aircraft they ever flew – the one which has been in the shed for a twelve month is the answer.

CASA and in particular St. Carmody continue to display their complete disassociation from the realties of working aircraft, pilot fitness for the scheduled operation and sound operational practices.

St. Carmody and his acolytes may be familiar with ‘theory’ but the view from the Ivory tower is limited; the answers are down in the grass roots and basic tenets; not in some academically dreamed up notion of a legally arguable ‘safety’ case. Practical reality; not a sound legal defence against litigation. But Hells Bells, they can’t even get the legal/medico stuff right – as the USA attorney’s are about to point out. The Mt Hotham incident should be the can opener; the Essendon DFO the worms inside that can. Will CASA get a spanking for operational ineptitude? I hope so; for it is well deserved and long overdue. It I were ‘the minister’ I’d be worried more about that and the fall out afterwards than supporting some half arsed waffle stating that sick folk getting a ride to treatment are at more risk than the same folk going shopping – in the DFO – having been given a cost shared ride into town. Pure, unadulterated, political arse covering BOLLOCKS.

Will anything ever change? Yes is the resounding answer – the revised Act, as presented, has, in legal terms imposed a more onerous, retrogressive set of requirements than the one to be replaced. Don’t believe me though – just read it, very carefully – then watch Hansard video 1 and see the smug, satisfied smirk on the wizened face of Jonathon (where’s my marbles) Aleck when it is mentioned. But please, do read the amendment to the Act – ask a legal friend to explain it – and pray to your gods of choice that amendment gets thrown out, into the garbage, where it belongs. A bonus would be the scrawny arse of Aleck following it.

But enough – I’ve only just seen the ‘vision splendid’ once; however, I can assure you, I will watch it all again  MTF? Damn straight there is……..

Toot- Toot.

The Dictatorial, deluded world of Carmody Capers - 
Still waiting on the Hansard but after a technical glitch (now rectified by the good crew at ParlAV -   ) I have now completed the Fort Fumble Estimates video segments in five parts.

My first takeaway from watching the recordings is that the total and utter rubbish emanating from both Carmody Capers and Dr Hoodoo Voodoo Aleck is so full of weasel word rhetoric and disconnected, illogical spin'n'bollocks as to be a perfect script for a comeback series of 'Yes Minister' -  

Update - Hansard: 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Mr Carmody : That's fine. I understand everything you've said. I would make the point, however, that as a director of aviation safety my responsibility is to keep Australians safe. They're the decisions I make, which the government has empowered me to do and wants me to do, based on the evidence that I have. I've made those decisions and it's up to the parliament. If the parliament wishes to disallow, I understand that process completely.

Senator PATRICK: And I'm a senator who wants to make sure that people who rely on these flights to get medical treatment also do so safely, but there's always a balance to be had here and I'm just not sure it's right.

Mr Carmody : There is certainly a balance, and this is—

Senator PATRICK: We can make it completely safe by banning everyone from flying, and there will be no accidents.

Mr Carmody : That's certainly not our intent. That is why, as you know, I listened to what was said with rotary-wing and said it was not my intention to limit the field; my intention was to make sure these activities occur. But we are in the precautionary space. I cannot prevent two accidents that occurred—I cannot do that. What I can do is raise standards to prevent the next accidents occurring. I can't do any more with organisations like Angel Flight than encourage them to raise their standards. I cannot get them to do anything else, because they are not subject to my regulatory oversight. I can only encourage them to raise their standards. I've done that.

Senator PATRICK: You gave every one of their pilots a licence.

Mr Carmody : With respect, they would say they are not their pilots.

Senator PATRICK: Okay. Sure. I'm done, Chair. Thank you very much for your time, Mr Carmody.

Mr Carmody : My pleasure.

ACTING CHAIR: Just to follow up what Senator Patrick said: I think the reason we are both concerned about these regulations is that we've heard from the general aviation sector over a long period that they feel they are being squeezed out of existence by the level of regulation they face. As Senator Patrick said, we could make things a lot safer if everybody stopped flying, but I don't think that's where any of us want to be...

Via AOPA Oz:

ANGEL FLIGHT SEEKS FEDERAL COURT APPLICATION FOR STAY AGAINST CASA 09/19 CSF LEGISLATION
March 13, 2019 By Kreisha Ballantyne

ANGEL FLIGHT CEO MAJORIE PAGANI MOVES TO PROTECT GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY RIGHTS


[img=705x0]https://aopa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/AngelFlightCEO.jpg[/img]
Angel Flight has hit back this week at CASA, lodging an application to the Federal Court in Victoria seeking a stay of CASA’s 09/19 Community Service Flights legislation, which many in the aviation industry regard as inappropriate and unnecessary.

CASA claim to have underpinned their 09/19 legislative changes on a statistical review of CSF incidents and accidents, asserting that CSF participants are four (4) times more likely to be injured when compared to the mean general aviation average.

Both Angel Flight and AOPA Australia have refuted CASA’s claim and have called on the regulator to publish their CSF statistical study and safety-case, however, to date nothing has been published.

In response, Angel Flight has engaged the services of a highly credentialed Australain statistician to review CASA’s claimed rates of incidents and accidents for general aviation and more specifically CSF operations.  Preliminary analysis indicates that there is no difference between GA and CSF flights.

The matter is expected to come before the court Friday 15th March 2019.

---

EXCERPT FROM THE FEDERAL COURT APPLICATION
Details of claim
The Applicant is aggrieved by the decision for the reasons set out in the affidavit of Marjorie Elizabeth Pagani, sworn on 12 March 2019.
Grounds of application

1. The Instrument was not authorised by regulation 11.068 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth) (the CASR) because the “class of authorisation” specified in the instrument is not a “class of civil aviation authorisation” prescribed by the CASR (s 5(1)(d) of the ADJR Act).
   
2. Further or in the alternative to ground 1, the Instrument was not authorised by regulation 11.068 of the CASR because:
   
   1. it is expressed to apply in relation to a type or kind of aviation operation (“community service flights”) and not a class of persons, aircraft or aeronautical product as required by s 98(5AA) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) (the CA Act)
      
   2. pursuant to s 98(5AA) of the CA Act the Instrument is not a “legislative instrument”; and
      
   3. regulation 11.068 of the CASR only empowers the Respondent to make legislative instruments
      

(s 5(1)(d) of the ADJR Act).

1. Further or in the alternative, the Instrument creates a new class of operation, namely, “community service flight”, the creation of which is not authorised by regulation 11.068 of the CASR.
   
2. The Respondent breached the rules of natural justice by failing to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard in relation to:
   
   1. the restriction in relation to passengers imposed by clause 7(1)© of the Instrument as made, which did not appear in the draft instrument published for the purposes of consultation in December 2018; and
      
   2. the changes to “Aeroplane maintenance requirements” from those contained in the draft instrument published for the purposes of consultation in December 2018 to those contained in the Instrument as made
      

(s 5(1)(a) of the ADJR Act).
Orders sought
Interlocutory relief

1. An order that the entry into force of the Instrument be stayed pending further order of the court.
   

Final relief

1. An order quashing the Instrument.
   
2. A declaration that the making of the Instrument was not authorised by regulation 11.068 of the CASR.
   
3. A declaration that the Respondent denied the Applicant natural justice by failing to provide an opportunity to be heard in relation to:
   
   1. the restriction in relation to passengers imposed by clause 7(1)© of the Instrument as made, which did not appear in the draft instrument published for the purposes of consultation in December 2018; and
      
   2. the changes to “Aeroplane maintenance requirements” from those contained in the draft instrument published for the purposes of consultation in December 2018 to those contained in the Instrument as made.
      

Hmm...what a lovely howdy doo for the useless NFI miniscule to take through to the election - err NOT! 

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

MCCORMACK ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE HISTORY PAGES

Interesting election results in NSW. Hello Mr McCormack, wakey wakey, anybody home?? The NSW election result shows regional seats should not be ignored, Barnaby Joyce warns;

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-2...n/10933586

The Nats copped a caning. No surprise really, as under the so-called leadership of the cardboard cutout Miniscule Mc’Do’nothing, who is also the Minister for Infrastructure (incl aviation), regional areas are being destroyed. The Bush is being neglected and the polls are reflecting the anger of those who live away from the cities. Crap services, utilities, roads and schools. Angel Flight being gutted, high airfares, drought, the pollution and destruction of the Murray, farmer suicide, banks acting like the Mafia, no water and no food for cattle, and a burgeoning amount of laws and regulations as the icing on top of the stale cake!

Yes dear National Party and your bland lifeless corpse of a Leader Mc’Do’nothing, the voters have found your ineptitude and deficiency no longer palatable and NSW has delivered the warning shot across the bow. One Nation and Mark Latham are on the move. Scary in some ways, but a reflection of the fact that the people have had enough!

Roll on Federal election in which at least McCormack will be dispatched back to his home town and back to writing pony Pooh articles for his pissy little paper.

TICK and oh so much TOCK

[Peetwo]

THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO!

ARFFS Inquiry - Update: UFUA gets busy & West Torrens opening statement. 

The RRAT Secretariat are on the ball -   

Via the APH website:

17 United Firefighters Union of Australia – Aviation Branch (PDF 7548 KB) 

18 United Firefighters Union of Australia – Aviation Branch – Remote stations  (PDF 577 KB) 

19 United Firefighters Union of Australia Aviation Branch – Brisbane ARFFS safety review  (PDF 1050 KB) 

 
And from Add docs:

1  Opening statement of the City of West Torrens, tabled at a public hearing in Adelaide, South Australia on 20 March 2019.

Dear Senator Sterle {Chair) and Senators;

Thank you for providing the opportunity for the City of West Torrens to appear before this
Senate Public Hearing to express our concerns about the possible reduction in Aviation
Rescue and Firefighting staffing numbers at Adelaide Airport by Airservices Australia during
the curfew period.

Adelaide Airport is the principal airport of Adelaide, South Australia, servicing just over 8.4
million passengers per year . It is located fully within the City of West Torrens and adjacent
to the suburbs of West Beach, Lockleys, Brooklyn Park, West Richmond, Netley, North
Plympton, and Novar Gardens. West Torrens is home to around 60,000 residents and with
Adelaide Airport being only 6 km from the Adelaide CBD, many thousands of airline
commuters pass through our City on a daily basis to gain access to and egress from Adelaide
Airport.

Adelaide Airport is also the largest single site employment precinct in the State with over
8,700 people working at the airport. Development on the airport site is constantly occurring
both airside and non-airside; this hotel we meet in today was opened last September, the
airport terminal itself is undergoing a major expansion and the Airport Business District is
attracting new businesses like OZ Minerals, Kennards and Australian Clinical Laboratories.
All of this points to increased activity on the site and although there may be an aircraft
curfew period in place for Adelaide Airport, it is a 24/7 operation with people on site both
day and night.

While my Council supports the operation of the Adelaide Airport Curfew, it also recognises
the fact that there are a number of permitted aircraft movements every night and early
morning during the curfew period. These movements include several categories being Low
Noise Heavy Freight movements; Permitted Jet Movements; Diversions; Emergency, Search
and Rescue Movements; and approved Curfew Dispensations.

While most of us present here today understand that the curfew at Adelaide airport only
prevents large passenger aircraft from landing and taking off, with some exceptions,
freighters, medical air transport and other category aircraft still use the airport during the
curfew period, with all 18 aerobridges generally occupied at night with passenger aircraft
preparing to depart once the curfew period ends.

In addition, there are airport staff and employees of a number of businesses that continue
to operate overnight and a steady flow of early morning passengers which adds to the
constant supply of people at the airport during the curfew period.

On average over the past 3 years the number of permitted aircraft movements during the
Adelaide Airport Curfew has been 4,160 movements annually equating to 11.4 aircraft
movements per curfew period.

This is not an insignificant number of aircraft movements considering the curfew that exists
and this coupled with the 24/7 operational nature of the airport site itself, indicates that
while there may be lax periods of activity within any 24 hour operating period of the airport,
there is always something happening with people, travellers, employees, visitors always
present at the airport and critically so during the curfew period.

My Council first became aware of the proposal by Airservices Australia to reduce aviation
rescue and firefighting staffing numbers at Adelaide Airport in January this year. At its
meeting on 15 January 2019 Council resolved that the CEO write to the Hon Michael
McCormack MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and
Regional Development expressing Council's concern about Airservices' proposed changes to
staffing numbers at Adelaide Airport.

Council's main concern was that any reduction in personnel hours to downgrade the
emergency response cover could jeopardise the ability of rescue and firefighting personnel
to deal with emergencies and security threats at Adelaide Airport. This in turn not only has
potential to present a risk to those present and in attendance at the airport itself, it also has
potential to present a risk to those members of our community that reside in proximity to
the airport.

It is Council's understanding that currently, during the overnight Curfew period (between
11pm and 6am); Adelaide Airport has an Aviation Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) crew
operating 24-7 in accordance with CASA regulations. The airport is safeguarded by a
dedicated crew of 5 staff able to deploy one aviation emergency response vehicle within 3
minutes to any point on the airport .

It is also Council's understanding that Airservices is fully funded to continue to maintain
existing staffing levels of its ARFF crew but is considering changes all in the name of saving
money . Being prudent with public funds is in all our interests however, that endeavor
should not take precedent over public safety.



In his response to Council, Minister McCormack stated that: 

"I assure you that safety remains the primary focus of Airservices' considerations. "

Council on behalf of its community and those persons present at the airport site during the
curfew period value this comment from the Minister and trust that Airservices Australia
place this primary focus of "safety" front of mind as they review their ARFF staffing profile at
Adelaide Airport, well above any cost saving measures.

I personally am not across all the implications of such a cut in ARFF staffing numbers at
Adelaide Airport but it is not hard to realise that cuts of the magnitude proposed, around
40%, will not have implications for responses to aircraft incidents on the runways or
taxiways, rescue and retrieval efforts during incidents, protection of critical airport
infrastructure during an incident, and responses to any high-level security incident on the
airport.

Minister McCormack in his response to Council also stated:

"Under Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, there is no requirement to provide any ARFFS
coverage outside of the operating hours of passenger aircraft at Adelaide. However,
reflecting its commitment to aviation safety, Airservices has elected to provide a Category 5
level of service for many years and current staffing levels are above the minimum required
for a Category 5 service." 

Once again, and being respectful of the Minister's comments, ARFF staffing levels at
Adelaide Airport have been in place for some time so it would appear illogical for Airservices
to reduce the current staffing levels as a cost saving measure when at the same time
Adelaide Airport is continuing to grow at an exceptional rate in terms of a number of
measures including aircraft movements, passenger numbers, freight payloads, and nonairside
business development.

To the contrary, and with all the growth occurring at Adelaide Airport, it would appear quite
logical to argue for an increase in staffing levels to a higher Category of service, rather than
have Airservices reduce staffing levels.

Council is aware that those professional personnel that provide and support the delivery of
ARFF services at Adelaide Airport share similar concerns to Council about the proposed
reduction in ARFF staffing numbers.

I therefore request that this Senate Hearing take on board the concerns expressed today
and form the view that any reduction in ARFF staffing numbers at Adelaide Airport is not
warranted or justified and that this Senate Reference Committee send a clear message to
Airservices Australia and Minister McCormack that it opposes any such reduction.

2  Correspondence between the City of West Torrens and the Hon Michael McCormack MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, regarding firefighting personnel at Adelaide Airport. Tabled at a public hearing in Adelaide, South Australia on 20 March 2019.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Chinese takeover of Australian aviation - 

Via 2GB:

---

‘It’s happening everywhere’: China buying Australian flying schools

8 HOURS AGO
ALAN JONES
 

China is buying up Australian pilot training schools.

Virgin Australia is currently in talks with a Chinese conglomerate to open a flight school in Tamworth for both Chinese and Australian pilots.

Businessman and aviation expert, Dick Smith tells Alan Jones he’s seeing continued Chinese ownership across the entire Australian aviation industry.

Mr Smith claims “it’s happening everywhere” with a Bankstown flying school the latest to be snapped up by a Chinese company.

The entrepreneur says there is already a shortage of airline pilots across Australia because “our training industry is nearly completely destroyed” and fears Australian pilots will be shut out of foreign-owned flight schools.

Mr Smith says many of these Chinese owned flying schools are failing to train Australian pilots, claiming “they’ll say an Australian pilot can comply but if you look it’s just about all Chinese pilots.”

Click PLAY below to listen to the full interview

https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-bre...tyle=cover

CEO of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Ben Morgan tells Ben Fordham local businesses simply can’t compete with Chinese overinvestment.


“Australian aviation has now become uneconomic and the future for flight training in this country is one that will be controlled by Chinese national businesses.



“Australia is for sale. Throw the ‘For Sale’ sign up and invite your Chinese interested parties.”


Click PLAY below to hear the full interview

https://omny.fm/shows/ben-fordham-full-s...tyle=cover

Politics & Aviation: Dick to take on the DPM DUMMY - 


Via AOPA Oz: https://aopa.com.au/dick-smith-targets-d...-_Wjfsmdio

DICK SMITH TARGETS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER’S RIVERINA SEAT

March 25, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan



The Australian: Joe Kelly, Political Reporter – Tuesday 26th March 2019

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack will be forced to fight to retain his seat at the upcoming May election as businessmen Dick Smith vows to bankroll an independent challenger and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party confirms a plan to dislodge the Nationals leader from his NSW electorate of Riverina.


As the Nationals reel from the loss of the NSW seats of Barwon and Murray to the Shooters at the weekend’s state election, the party was also facing defeat by Labor in the seat of Lismore, intensifying concerns that Mr McCormack will face an uphill battle to defend the party’s 16 lower house seats at the federal election in May.

The plight of the minor Coalition partner in NSW is set to worsen at a federal level with Nationals sources confirming the party will not run a separate Senate ticket from the Liberals at the May election.

NSW Nationals Senate candidate Perin Davey will run third on a joint ticket, with a deal expected to be signed off within a fortnight.

Mr Smith, a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, told The Australian yesterday that Mr McCormack — the Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Minister — had failed to take steps to prevent growing Chinese control over Australian aviation schools.

“I was contacted by some grassroots country people from his seat because they agree that he’s probably the worst National Party leader they’ve ever had,” Mr Smith told The Australian.

“What we are looking at is seeing if we can get an establishment farming family in the electorate to nominate one of their family members to stand. I would certainly help this person … And I would think there’s a fair chance they would get in.”

Mr Smith is spending $12,000 a month on billboards in Mr McCormack’s electorate as part of a push to overhaul the Civil Aviation Act to ensure the maintenance of “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

Mr McCormack told The Australian that working for his constituents was a “great privilege”, saying he had delivered a rural medical school, funding for local roads, tax cuts for small businesses and almost $7 billion in support for local farming families.

“I am pleased to have worked with the general aviation sector — including through a forum at Wagga Wagga — to introduce a bill … to amend the Civil Aviation Act to take cost into account while prioritising safety for the travelling public,” he said. “I am also pleased this bill has bipartisan support and is before the parliament.”

Mr Smith has previously accused Mr McCormack of killing off a plan to rewrite laws to require CASA to balance the “highest level of safety in air navigation” with the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

The Australian has also confirmed the SFF state executive is meeting today and will discuss preliminary plans to run candidates in the seat of Calare — held by Nationals MP Andrew Gee — as well as Mr McCormack’s electorate, with expectations that other candidates will run in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania.

Plus: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/p...=3&theater 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia

AOPA AUSTRALIA’S BENJAMIN MORGAN LIVE WITH PETA CREDLIN, SKY NEWS TONIGHT 6PM

AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan will take part in a live television interview with political commentator Peta Credlin on Sky News, this evening at 6pm, to discuss the decline of Australia’s aviation industry and inaction by the Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack MP.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Chinese takeover of Australian aviation - 

Via 2GB:

---

‘It’s happening everywhere’: China buying Australian flying schools

8 HOURS AGO
ALAN JONES
 

China is buying up Australian pilot training schools.

Virgin Australia is currently in talks with a Chinese conglomerate to open a flight school in Tamworth for both Chinese and Australian pilots.

Businessman and aviation expert, Dick Smith tells Alan Jones he’s seeing continued Chinese ownership across the entire Australian aviation industry.

Mr Smith claims “it’s happening everywhere” with a Bankstown flying school the latest to be snapped up by a Chinese company.

The entrepreneur says there is already a shortage of airline pilots across Australia because “our training industry is nearly completely destroyed” and fears Australian pilots will be shut out of foreign-owned flight schools.

Mr Smith says many of these Chinese owned flying schools are failing to train Australian pilots, claiming “they’ll say an Australian pilot can comply but if you look it’s just about all Chinese pilots.”

Click PLAY below to listen to the full interview

https://omny.fm/shows/the-alan-jones-bre...tyle=cover

CEO of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Ben Morgan tells Ben Fordham local businesses simply can’t compete with Chinese overinvestment.


“Australian aviation has now become uneconomic and the future for flight training in this country is one that will be controlled by Chinese national businesses.



“Australia is for sale. Throw the ‘For Sale’ sign up and invite your Chinese interested parties.”


Click PLAY below to hear the full interview

https://omny.fm/shows/ben-fordham-full-s...tyle=cover

Politics & Aviation: Dick to take on the DPM DUMMY - 


Via AOPA Oz: https://aopa.com.au/dick-smith-targets-d...-_Wjfsmdio

DICK SMITH TARGETS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER’S RIVERINA SEAT

March 25, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan



The Australian: Joe Kelly, Political Reporter – Tuesday 26th March 2019

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack will be forced to fight to retain his seat at the upcoming May election as businessmen Dick Smith vows to bankroll an independent challenger and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party confirms a plan to dislodge the Nationals leader from his NSW electorate of Riverina.


As the Nationals reel from the loss of the NSW seats of Barwon and Murray to the Shooters at the weekend’s state election, the party was also facing defeat by Labor in the seat of Lismore, intensifying concerns that Mr McCormack will face an uphill battle to defend the party’s 16 lower house seats at the federal election in May.

The plight of the minor Coalition partner in NSW is set to worsen at a federal level with Nationals sources confirming the party will not run a separate Senate ticket from the Liberals at the May election.

NSW Nationals Senate candidate Perin Davey will run third on a joint ticket, with a deal expected to be signed off within a fortnight.

Mr Smith, a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, told The Australian yesterday that Mr McCormack — the Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Minister — had failed to take steps to prevent growing Chinese control over Australian aviation schools.

“I was contacted by some grassroots country people from his seat because they agree that he’s probably the worst National Party leader they’ve ever had,” Mr Smith told The Australian.

“What we are looking at is seeing if we can get an establishment farming family in the electorate to nominate one of their family members to stand. I would certainly help this person … And I would think there’s a fair chance they would get in.”

Mr Smith is spending $12,000 a month on billboards in Mr McCormack’s electorate as part of a push to overhaul the Civil Aviation Act to ensure the maintenance of “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

Mr McCormack told The Australian that working for his constituents was a “great privilege”, saying he had delivered a rural medical school, funding for local roads, tax cuts for small businesses and almost $7 billion in support for local farming families.

“I am pleased to have worked with the general aviation sector — including through a forum at Wagga Wagga — to introduce a bill … to amend the Civil Aviation Act to take cost into account while prioritising safety for the travelling public,” he said. “I am also pleased this bill has bipartisan support and is before the parliament.”

Mr Smith has previously accused Mr McCormack of killing off a plan to rewrite laws to require CASA to balance the “highest level of safety in air navigation” with the need for “an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry”.

The Australian has also confirmed the SFF state executive is meeting today and will discuss preliminary plans to run candidates in the seat of Calare — held by Nationals MP Andrew Gee — as well as Mr McCormack’s electorate, with expectations that other candidates will run in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania.

Plus: https://www.facebook.com/AOPAaustralia/p...=3&theater 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Australia

AOPA AUSTRALIA’S BENJAMIN MORGAN LIVE WITH PETA CREDLIN, SKY NEWS TONIGHT 6PM

AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan will take part in a live television interview with political commentator Peta Credlin on Sky News, this evening at 6pm, to discuss the decline of Australia’s aviation industry and inaction by the Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack MP.

BRAVO BEN MORGAN - BRAVO INDEED! 

Collapse of Australia’s general aviation industry on shoulders of Michael McCormack
26/03/2019|8min

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6018021218001

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia’s Ben Morgan says there’s a ‘troubling trend’ of Australia’s aviation infrastructure being sold off to Chinese companies.

Mr Morgan says the collapse and failure of the general aviation industry is on the shoulders of Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, who has been ‘captured by the bureaucracy’ and is a ‘champion for red tape’.

Mr Morgan says the industry is also experiencing the long-term impacts of airport privatisation, with access charges increasing to as much as 4000 per cent in the past 20 years.

[Peetwo]

Too little, too late: DPM McDo'Naught mentions the A-word - 

Via Oz Aviation:

AVIATION STUDENTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO LARGER VET LOAN LIMIT FROM 2020

written by Australianaviation.Com.Au April 1, 2019



The federal government plans to increase the amount those studying aviation can borrow under the vocational education and training (VET) student loans scheme.

From January 2020, the lifetime loan limit is being increased from $104,440 to $150,000, the government announced on Monday.
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Michael McCormack said the increased limit would help students complete the multiple aviation courses required to gain their commercial pilot’s licence and help “meet the aviation needs of tomorrow”.

“We need more people in aviation, particularly women, and are investing to help attract the skills we need for the future,” McCormack said in a statement.

“We’ve listened to the concerns from industry that the current combined lifetime loan limit of $104,440 doesn’t adequately cover the cost of training for the licences and ratings issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

“That’s why the cap will be lifted to the same level as courses for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science.”

The VET student loans scheme can be used by those studying aviation courses at an approved provider, McCormack and Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education Senator Michaelia Cash said in a joint statement.

Further, statement noted the increased limit was one of the recommendations from a skills study conducted by an expert industry panel in 2018.

“The higher limit benefits tertiary students who will undertake or are currently undertaking an aviation course at diploma or advanced diploma level, and deferring their tuition fees through VSL,” the statement said.

“This will apply for training that leads to outcomes such as acquiring a CASA commercial pilot licence, instrument and multi-engine ratings.

An aviation skills and training report written by a panel of experts chaired by The Australian Aviation Associations Forum and published in July 2018 found Australia was experiencing a severe shortage of aviation personnel and urgent action was needed if the country was to avoid major disruptions.

The report said Australia did not have an aviation training system capable of meeting the requirements of the industry now, or in the years ahead.

It also noted the VET HELP loan limit – as it was then known – was not sufficient to provide student pilots with all of the licences and ratings required.

“It is recommended that increasing the FEE HELP Loan limit for aviation to $150,000 would permit more students to be able to complete the Flight Instructor Rating as well as either the agriculture rating for students wanting to stay in General Aviation or the Multi Crew Cooperation course for those wanting to continue to the airlines,” the report said.

The panel of experts comprised representatives from Aircraft Structural Contractors, Aviation Australia, Basair Aviation College, QantasLink, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, the Regional Express Flight Training Academy and Virgin Australia.

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) chairman Jeff Boyd welcomed the increase in lifetime loan limit.

“This increase will now ensure that pilots will be able to complete their training with not only bare minimum qualifications, but relevant and employable qualifications thereby helping to ease Australia’s pilot shortage,” Boyd said in the ministers’ statement.

MARCH 30, 2019
POLITICS

Airports set to land $100m



By GREG BROWN
    
A $100 million cash injection for regional airports will be included in Tuesday’s budget, aimed at
upgrading runways and attracting commercial flights into country areas.

For the life of me I cant see how upgrading runways will attract commercial flights to regional
Airports.  People can barely afford the airfares that have to be charged to those regional airports
lucky enough to have an air service now.  

Would it not be simpler and a lot cheaper to reform aviation governance by adopting US
regulations as New Zealand did. That would massively reduce overheads and encourage
investment.  By growing the industry the airports might just get utilized as they were before
over regulation strangled the industry, drowning it in red tape.

In a pitch to rural voters, the funding will allow regional airport operators to apply for grants to
improve runways, taxiways and provide better fencing.

The infrastructure upgrades would make it safer for big passenger planes to land on runways in
cities such as Cairns, Newcastle, Launceston, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour and Mildura.

Strange? The above airports mostly privately owned monopolies, many making very healthy
profits gouging their customers.

Why would the guv’mint be giving handouts to essentially, development sharks whose focus is
more on the value of the airport land for commercial development rather than as a public utility.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said the infrastructure upgrades, to be provided
over four years, would allow more flights in and out of rural cities. “We want more people,
especially families and small businesses, moving to and staying in the regions, and better
connectivity through airports is a vital part of that plan,” Mr McCormack said.

Deputy Do’Nutting could pave the runways with gold but doesn’t seem to grasp, that no matter
how much money he throws at airports, there needs to be aircraft to land at them and
customers to use those aircraft.  The current regulatory regime imposes unsustainable costs on
aircraft operators, which lead to unaffordable fares. Chicken and the egg?

“The Liberals and Nationals understand communities rely on safe and efficient air services for
emergency and other essential service flights. This will help ensure regional airports meet the
needs of communities and local industry now and into the future.

“We will work with regional communities to determine what airport works will provide most
benefit.”

“safe and efficient air services for emergency and other essential service flights.”

How safe is safe? Efficient they can never be without effective affordable regulation.
Emergency and essential service flights are already heavily subsidized by government  

The funding builds on a $50m security upgrade to airports announced in last year’s budget.

Australian so called security is just a feel good rort that adds another layer of cost on the ticket
price.

Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said many regional airports
operated at a loss, leaving owners unable to spend money on infrastructure upgrades.

“This funding will start to address this funding shortfall and assist this essential infrastructure to
continue servicing communities into the future,” she said.

Where does it say in any legislation or council bylaws that essential public infrastructure must
run at a profit? What next, parking meters at boat ramps? toll booths leading into towns?
Privatizing National Parks? Some councils spend more money on overseas jaunts than they do
on their airports.

The announcement comes as Scott Morrison has moved to placate disgruntled Nationals MPs by
vowing to assess supporting a new coal-fired power station in central Queensland.
The budget will include more than $2 billion for improving the nation’s roads.

Hmm..can't half tell an election is about to be announced - FDS!   



MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Hansard of failed oversight by DPM McDo'Naught -  

Although not 'Aviation' related, the following Hansard link - see HERE - from yesterday's RRAT AMSA Senate Inquiry, IMO says o'so'much about our absoultely hopeless, NFI miniscule's total lack of oversight of the transport safety entities/agencies that fall within his remit - FDS!   

Relevant reference:   

The failed experiment of the GBE? 

(Def: GBE - Government Business Enterprise)

This week courtesy of the Conversation, via the Mandarin...

Vital Signs: when watchdogs become pets – or the problem of ‘regulatory capture’

By Richard Holden • 15/02/2019


[img=750x0]https://www.themandarin.com.au/content/uploads/2016/11/what-could-go-wrong.jpg[/img]
Markets require regulators. As Adam Smith, the champion of the invisible hand, notes in The Wealth of Nations, when individual interests are left unregulated they work to turn competitive markets into monopolies.

But what happens when regulators meant to check individual interests fail to promote the public interest?

Consider Australia’s banking sector. The banking royal commission has found plenty of fault in the ways the corporate and prudential regulatory agencies performed their vital roles – due not to lack of power but an unwillingness to use that power.
University of Chicago economist and 1982 Nobel laureate George Stigler was the first to outline how regulators can become “captured” by the very firms and industries they are meant to be regulating, beginning with an article in 1971.

Stigler’s idea has come to be known as “regulatory capture theory”, and it causes us to confront the uncomfortable question of how to ensure regulators act in the public interest, not in the interest of the firms they regulate.

Supply and demand

Stigler thought about regulation through the lens of supply and demand. Self-interested politicians supply regulation. Firms demand it – usually because they want a competitor regulated.

His classic example concerned regulations on the weight of trucks that could travel on state roads in the United States in the 1930s. He found empirical evidence that where trucks were more of a threat to traditional train transport (like on short-haul routes where railroads were less competitive) more stringent weight limits were enacted.

Rather than the regulator being a beneficent protector of the general public interest, it had become a self-interested actor responding to political pressure from the railroad owners.

This may strike you as rather cynical, but there is a swathe of evidence that across industries and time, regulators often act more in the interests of industries than the public.

These regulations usually have a plausible rationale behind them. Consider licensing of doctors. Nobody wants a poorly trained doctor let loose on them, so some form of certification makes sense. But does the medical profession limit the number of doctors and exclude foreign-trained doctors to push up their incomes? You be the judge.

It’s easy to think of other examples: “tickets” in the construction industry, certification of train and truck drivers in mining, licensing of plumbers, and on and on.

There are lots of ways this can arise. Politicians often depend on support and campaign contributions. And there is all too often a revolving door between regulators and the regulated.

Financial regulators

This brings us to the regulation of Australia’s banks.

The corporate and prudential regulatory agencies may have been unwilling to use their power, but the the big four banks were not.

And the banks have plenty of power – financial and political. They are utterly vital to the operation of the entire economy. They are among the very largest companies in the country (so a lot of retirement savings are invested in them). And they employ a lot of people.

We should stop assuming the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australia Prudential Regulatory Authority, among others, are unquestionably acting in the public interest and start asking a bunch of questions.

What are the backgrounds of the people who head up these organisations and what perspective does that lead them to bring to the job? What jobs do they get after they leave the regulator, and how might that affect their motivations while acting as regulator? What would be the social sanction imposed on them if they decided to get really tough with financial industry players?

What about the politicians who make the laws in the first place? Are they really acting for all Australians with a thoughtful and balanced perspective? Or do they represent tribal interests?

Regulators typically aren’t bad people. But sometimes they have bad implicit incentives. And the laws they are tasked with enforcing often favour a particular group – quite frequently those being regulated.

We need to close revolving doors, provide more resources to regulators and scrutinise what they do much more. Let’s not be naive about regulation.

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW. This article was first published at The Conversation.

It could be effectively argued that the creation of independent Government statutory bodies (GBEs) has led to the bureaucratic phenomena of regulatory capture. To a degree that is fine and dandy for the big end of town major airlines and large MROs. However eventually even those high end businesses will also suffer through needless red tape suffocation of the middle to small aviation businesses by CASA. A healthy industry is dependent on the grassroots of the industry also being sustainable and flourishing. 

I could pick hundreds of references/quotes from the guru on the failed GBE model (i.e. Sandy Reith) but the following will suffice...  (ps click on the link to understand the context of this quote)      

Mr.Mrdak might have some credibility if he could show that he has ever taken any steps to reverse the fantastic waste and mismanagement in the Commonwealth's administration of aviation, and especially the General Aviation industry which is in disastrous bureaucratically caused decline.

Can'tberra is a black hole for the taxpayer's dollar and Mr. Mrdak's complaints smack of the arrogance and almighty smugness from what we used to think of as the public service.

If Mr.Mrdak would explain how he's tried to manage the handover of airports and maintain a semblance of responsibility and watchfulness towards the original intent to maintain the aviation priority then we might find some plausible cause for his extraordinary outburst.

We will hope that Parliament takes note that all the PR consultants fees wasted on coaching our senior public officials how to pull the wool over Senate committees is further proof that the bureaucracy needs to be firmly taken in hand.

Parliament might also come to realise that the unelected independent Commonwealth Corporate style of governance has failed, and that its not possible to relinquish responsibility away from the will of the people's representatives and maintain good governance or prudent use of taxpayer moneys.

This brings me to yet another example of the failed GBE model and it's got nothing to do with aviation.   

The following is the video footage off the Senate RRAT committee AMSA session yesterday...  

Now although this is clearly a bad look for the CEO of AMSA Mr Kinley, I would suggest that his biggest fault is simply ineptitude and a man that is quite obviously out of his depth (either that or the guy is suffering early stage dementia??). However it is also obvious that this senior bureaucrat seems to be totally unperturbed and disconnected from the concerns of the Senate RRAT Committee. And why would he be or should he be concerned, after all he is the CEO of, a supposedly independent, Government statutory autocracy - FFS!   

Now for Clinton McKenzie et.al v Sterlo et.al...  

ACTING CHAIR: No; it's words. It's all fancy words. We started this inquiry in December, and you sit here in April and say, 'Look, we want to make some changes.'

Senator PATRICK: This committee heard from CASA just recently on Angel Flight, where they've reacted very quickly—and, in my view, erroneously—and introduced a new regulation. So, in terms of time frames, it would seem that you can do things relatively quickly. Mick, in relation to that particular order and moving forward, what's the intention? Do you intend to have an account going on, an account going off and then something like knowing the number of passengers on the vessel at any time in between? Is that where you're headed?

Mr Kinley : That's the logical place for this to go. But as I've said, and as we've looked at in our submission, we know there is new technology coming along all the time with this. We know there are wristbands that can connect up to an app that will give you an automatic alarm, for example, if someone goes out of range. The headcount is part of it, yes, where that is appropriate for the nature of the operation. And, as I said, how we carve out the commuter ferries and that, without impeding their operations, will have to be examined.

Senator PATRICK: I would imagine that would be one leaving Fremantle, in this case, and one when you get off at Rottnest—the same for any particular journey, I would think, would be something that's sensible. The technology can be the way in which the requirement is addressed. You don't have to necessarily impose a particular technical solution or technology solution without—that shouldn't stop you from placing down what the requirement is.

Mr Kinley : Agreed. That is the intent, I guess, of Marine Order 504. The core of that is supposed to be around how the operators do their risk assessments and how they manage the risks of the operations on these vessels; that is, the risks to the passengers and crew.

Senator PATRICK: How long do you think it will take to get a new order tabled in the parliament? What's your time line?

Mr Kinley : We could do something, I think, within six months. But that's going to depend on if there are things that are going to—we have to do a cost recovery implementation statement and all those processes as well. Technically, I can sign a marine order tomorrow but it has to go through the process. We've got to go through the Office of Best Practice Regulation—and Mr Groves can help out here with the process—and then it's got to be tabled. It's a disallowable instrument. It's tabled in the Senate. It's got to go through those processes.

ACTING CHAIR: There isn't anyone who's going to believe that in the Senate; I can tell you that right now.
Mr McKenzie : I might add, Senator, the way in which CASA achieved the Angel Flight thing was to impose conditions on pilots' licences, not to make a new regulation.

Senator PATRICK: I might disagree with that. There were certainly imposed requirements, for example, that helicopters were not to do it. That's not a pilot restriction, I don't think.

Mr McKenzie : I'm a pilot. The instrument purports to be an imposition of conditions on the holders of all flight crew licences. If you're a flight crew licence holder, you're not allowed to conduct an Angel Flight unless these conditions are met.

Senator PATRICK: I don't want to burden the committee's time with this, but maybe you could set out on one page what it is that you have to do to get a marine order tabled in the Senate. That would be appreciated...

  
&..

ACTING CHAIR: Even though someone was missing?

Senator BROCKMAN: Even though someone was missing, there was no record of the count? There was clear evidence from a number of passengers that a count had not taken place—or had not taken place in a visible way, which the count on was—and a statement from the crew member on the boat that no headcount had taken place to his knowledge.

Senator PATRICK: Indeed, by your own submission, there were five people who recalled there not being a headcount upon departing the vessel at the end. Of the remainder, none said that there was; indeed, they simply said they couldn't recall. The crew member said it didn't take place. The only person saying that it did take place was the master. If you have five witnesses who are adamant that a headcount did not take place, surely that meets the burden of proof.

Mr McKenzie : Even if we assume that it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the master failed to conduct the headcount that he said he did, one fundamental element was missing from the offence provision that carried the two-year sentence - and that is that he admitted to do so with the intent of causing a risk of a passenger going overboard unnoticed at the time or at the completion of the voyage. I will repeat that: that he intended, by failing to conduct the headcount, to create the risk that a passenger would go overboard unnoticed at the time or at the completion of the voyage. There was no evidence to that standard, and that's why—

Senator PATRICK: Where's that standard laid out? That seems bizarre.

ACTING CHAIR: They were on another planet, I think. I'm going to wake up in a cold sweat.

Mr McKenzie : I'm merely reading the elements of the offence.

Senator PATRICK: Where's that laid out?

Mr McKenzie : That is section 18(1)©. That's the offence provision. The police alleged a bunch of safety management system breaches, some of which AMSA considered had occurred.

Senator PATRICK: Section 18(1)© of which—

Mr McKenzie : It is 18(1)© of the national law.

Senator PATRICK: The national law?

Mr McKenzie : That is the offence for failing to comply with the safety management system, which carries the two-year jail sentence.

Senator BROCKMAN: So there is no subprovision regarding negligence?

Mr McKenzie : Yes, there is.

Senator BROCKMAN: Or carelessness?

Mr McKenzie : Yes; and there's a strict liability offence there that was assessed by the compliance enforcement people—and Mr Marsh can talk about that later. So far as the one that carried the heaviest penalty, that's the one where we had to improve intent. That's the one where there is no limitation period. That's the one that people were focused on at the time. In the absence of intent, that's why the officers at the time moved on to other serious offences that were alleged.

Senator GALLACHER: Can we just get this on the record clearly? So you are saying that, unless the master doesn't do a headcount, because he wants someone to fall over, you can't prosecute?

Mr McKenzie : He intends to create the risk. You cannot prosecute—

Senator GALLACHER: So he actually needs to intend to have a risk of losing one of his passengers?
Mr McKenzie : He has to intend to create the risk of that happening?

Senator GALLACHER: That's absurd!

Mr Kinley : Sorry, Senator, but that is only—

Senator GALLACHER: Well, you wrote this stuff. That's absurd!

Mr Kinley : No; we didn't write the act. That is only for the most severe level of penalty, though—the two-year imprisonment. There are other levels of offence for recklessness and negligence and there is a strict liability offence.

---

Mr Kinley : Unless we can prove that intent, that it was intended to cause harm, then, yes, that's correct. Of course, there are other acts which would apply—for example, we don't see why the Western Australian work health and safety laws wouldn't apply. In fact, there is a code of practice under that act for charter vessels.

Senator BROCKMAN: How is it characterised? Reckless and—what's the characterisation?

Mr McKenzie : The precise order is: intent, reckless, negligent and, then, strict liability.

Senator PATRICK: I'm looking at the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act, from which you cited 18.1. Section 18 is to do with powers of magistrates.

Mr McKenzie : No, that's the local application provisions of the act. The national law is schedule 1, and section 18 of schedule 1 is the national law. It has to do with the way that it was implemented at the time.

Senator BROCKMAN: Explain to me when the reckless provisions would come into play. When could you have pursued a charge on the basis of recklessness?

Mr McKenzie : We'd have to have evidence to show that the master was reckless as to whether failing to do a headcount created a risk to a person on a domestic commercial vessel.

Senator BROCKMAN: But time frames. Why did you choose not to go down that path?

Mr McKenzie : Because the penalty for that meant that there was only one year within which to do—

Mr Kinley : Reckless is still a fine. The only offence that potentially carries a jail term is the offence for intending to cause harm.

Mr McKenzie : Although it's the same regime today, we don't have the same practical problems that we had back then. What was provided by the Western Australian officials were reports. They weren't briefs of evidence. The WA police report included inadmissible stuff about opinion and inferences and all this sort of stuff. What they were supposed to provide was evidence that could support a prosecution. In the absence of evidence, we cannot prosecute. Mr Marsh will continue to walk through the difficulty we had getting sufficient evidence to support the prosecutions that we were pursuing. I hopefully help the committee by pointing out that prosecution is a very useless safety tool. The safety tools that were used at the time resulted in the operator ceasing operations a week later. The national regulator delegate suspended the certificate of operation as a consequence of other concerns that were highlighted in the aftermath of the Mills tragedy. Those are the tools that deal with safety. Prosecuting someone two years later and putting them in jail doesn't deal with any safety risk.

Senator PATRICK: Mr McKenzie, I'm now reading that section of the act. I think you can actually read it in a couple of different ways. One of them is that the person intends—and then it goes on to say 'to commit the act' that concerns the safety of the vessels. Or you could then say he intends the act or omission to be a risk. It depends on how you read that. Did the DPP look at that?

Mr McKenzie : No, but we can ask the DPP that question, because there is no statute of limitation on this provision. I also note that it is open to the Western Australian authorities, through the Western Australian DPP, to pursue a prosecution under that provision if they think they have sufficient evidence to prove it.

Senator PATRICK: But you're saying the reason you didn't pursue this was that you couldn't get it to meet that burden. I'm saying you can read that in a way that I think any sensible parliamentarian would intend—the intent of the parliament. It would never be simply to say: well, they have to intend a risk. They're just saying the act was intentional, so the person intentionally failed to do the count.

Mr McKenzie : Senator, it's a basic precept of the criminal law that, if you're going to put someone in jail, they have a criminal intent. We can ask the DPP whether the DPP share your view, and if they do—

Senator PATRICK: It worries me that you haven't asked the DPP yourself. That's the point. There's an act there. Look, in terms of burdens, I understand mens rea in the context of manslaughter and so forth. This is someone failing to carry out what effectively becomes a statutory requirement, because the statute requires them to follow their own manual. Therefore, in my view, that absence of following the requirement is a breach of statute. I believe that could be read in that way, and I can't understand why you would not have sent that to the DPP for a lawyer to look at. Did you take advice on that?

Mr McKenzie : We will ask the DPP their view on that. I'll note that that's not the only reason we didn't pursue that particular line. It was because more serious offences were identified, and those were the ones that were pursued by the compliance and enforcement team. Mr Marsh will explain, if he gets the chance, where that got to.

ACTING CHAIR: I'm going to make it easier for you. I'm sick of listening to lawyer speak; I'm starting to lose my patience. Sorry, Senator Brockman, I don't want to cut you off but the general counsel here is skilled in just going on all day; they're paid by the hour to talk all day. That's finished. Did you want to continue, Senator Patrick? I'm very interested to hear where we're up to from Mr Marsh. We've already gotten to the stage where the general counsel has said that we can't do anything, and Mr Marsh has said he could have done something on another charge and hasn't. So I'd be very interested in that before I quote some correspondence from the Department of Transport to you as well. Keep going, Senator Brockman.

Senator PATRICK: Just help me out here. I'm just looking at section 307B of the Criminal Code, which relates to false and misleading information:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person gives information to another person, and

(b) the person does so knowing that the information:

   (i) is false or misleading, or

   (ii) omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading …

Mr McKenzie : Yes, that's correct. But you still have to prove knowledge. When someone passes a document—let's assume that it is patently, clearly false—you still have to prove that that person knew that it was a forgery.

Senator BROCKMAN: How are you ever going to prove that outside of a court of law? How are you ever going to prove that without taking it to prosecution?

Mr McKenzie : You have to get evidence first. This is what Mr Marsh is talking about. It is about trying to get evidence that the person who we are going to accuse of this crime knew that the documents were falsified when his version of events is that he didn't know who organised the certificates. That may or may not be true, but the way the rule of law works is that if you want to prove someone committed an offence that entails a 10-year jail sentence then you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that person knew that the documents were falsified. That's what we were trying to find; it was that evidence.

Senator PATRICK: So there is no obligation of due diligence, as long as there are two people—

Mr McKenzie : That's a different issue.

Senator PATRICK: I'm just trying to explore what you're saying. A person handing a false certificate to somebody is one arm of the offence. You say they need to know that it is false.

Mr McKenzie : That's what the law says.

Senator PATRICK: That just means that, at any point, as long as there are two people involved, that offence can never be invoked because you would never reach the burden of proof.

Mr McKenzie : You could go for a different offence.

Senator PATRICK: Part of the committee's role here is to look at legislation and to work out whether or not there are flaws in the legislation. That seems to be a burden that is insurmountable. In those circumstances one would expect, when faced with a situation like that, that someone might write to a minister or general counsel to see about changing the provisions of the act such that it's workable. Did any of that occur?

Mr McKenzie : No. The Criminal Code set out—

Mr Kinley : Senator, what I certainly learned out of this, especially going back over a lot of this information, is that if this happened today and we started looking at fraudulent offences I would be asking them to refer it to the AFP, who are the experts in this stuff. We'd gone outside the national law at that point. I understand the motivations and why we did that, but we are not experts in fraud offences.

ACTING CHAIR: It's a well-known fact—and you admit this—that the skipper himself falsified the logbooks. That's a well-known fact. There's no dispute there. This bloke went out and falsified how many people were on the boat. No, he falsified the records when the police contacted him the next day when they unfortunately found a body floating off Leighton Beach. So we know that his character is in question. The same skipper falsified documents relating to safety equipment, firefighting equipment and life rafts, and you're seriously telling me you couldn't even follow that rabbit down a hole. Is that what you're saying?

Mr McKenzie : Mr Marsh can continue his story as to where—

ACTING CHAIR: Yes, yes, okay. Before I go any further, just let me know: has anyone had any media training in the last few weeks on how to deal with senators? Has anyone had that at AMSA? No-one's had any training? Anyone?

Mr Kinley : Senator, we have. Not media training, but—

ACTING CHAIR: Just so I know, who's had the training? Mr Prosser, Ms East, Mr McKenzie, Mr Marsh, Mr Groves—anyone else? That's fine. I hope it was value for dollars. Keep going, Mr Marsh, because so far I'm not enlightened.

Mr Marsh : Senators, at this point—

ACTING CHAIR: Sorry, go back to why you didn't follow up the other charge. What was your thinking there?

Mr Marsh : The certificates of survey issue?

ACTING CHAIR: Whatever the other one was you said at the time. All I can see is a litany of incompetence in front of me. That's not directed at you, Mr Marsh; it's directed at the whole of AMSA. None of you should feel left out.

---

Senator BROCKMAN: You had multiple streams of evidence, it seems to me, that fraudulent conduct had taken place. You had an altered logbook. The company who supposedly provided the certificate said, 'It didn't come from us.' Keep talking through the chain of events. We want to get to the point of where you decided to say, 'There's nothing we can do here.'

Mr Marsh : Sure. At this point I request that the piece of evidence I'm about to give be heard in camera. The reason I ask that is I'll be referring—

ACTING CHAIR: Hang on, you're requesting to go in camera?

Mr Marsh : Yes.

ACTING CHAIR: We don't want to go in camera. Unless my colleagues challenge that—and I'll talk to my colleagues—we want everything on the public record.

Senator BROCKMAN: I would like the explanation of why, then we should probably have a chat about it.

Mr McKenzie : The reason we request this is that Mr Marsh is going to refer to a file note of a conversation with another government agency, in the course of which an inelegant metaphor is used that may be quite upsetting to people who are listening or might read the Hansard. Further, there is also a word used that is critical of another government agency, and we would prefer that the Senate hear that first before it's published.

Senator PATRICK: There's nothing to stop the committee hearing in camera then deciding not to publish it.

ACTING CHAIR: If you want to overrule me, that's fine. We'll do a count very quickly. I want everything on the record. We have deaths that have not been investigated by this mob, and all we've seen—you can smile as much as you like, Mr McKenzie, and whisper in your mate's ear or whatever you want to do. You people really are on the verge—I tell you: if I was the minister, none of you would even be sitting here unless you started owning up to whose incompetence led to this.

Mr McKenzie : We're not asking to go in camera to protect us—

ACTING CHAIR: Don't mention it then; just keep going through, and I'll talk to my colleagues—

Mr McKenzie : we're asking to go in camera to protect—

ACTING CHAIR: because we're going to be back here, guaranteed—safer bet than Winx. Colleagues, if you want to have a chat outside, we can suspend for a minute and have a chat.

Proceedings suspended from 10:17 to 10:20

ACTING CHAIR: Where we're at is that it is the wish of the committee—I'll come through you, Mr Kinley—that you can provide whatever that information is to the committee in confidence, but we're not going in camera. So you can give it to the secretariat and we'll continue on our line of investigation. Okay? Thank you. So, Mr Marsh, what you were going to do you can provide not in camera here but in confidence...

---

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Kinley, I'll talk to you, as the CEO, about what we have learnt recently in your term as the CEO, taking over under the national law. What brought this to our attention was the very unfortunate death of Mr Mills. As I said earlier, we're not going to stop here, because we know there have been so many more. For the families out there I'm going to mention Glen Wilson; Ryan Donohue; Ian Thompson; Paul McVeigh; Leila Trott; Murray Turner; Mason Carter; Chad Fairley; Andrew Kelly; Allan Russell; John Rodgers; Matthew Roberts; David Chivers; Martin Cunningham; one person on the Seabring; three people on a night raid, Luke Murray, Daniel Bradshaw and Tim Macpherson; Ben Leahy; Adam Bidner; Adam Hoffman; Zach Feeney; Chris Sammut; Eli Tonks; Harry Evans; Shalina Abdul Hussien plus about twenty more people who I'm not able to name, because no-one seems to collect the information. All these people have been killed on Australian vessels since AMSA took responsibility for the national system in 2013.
After what we learnt about the death of Mr Mills, I have absolutely no confidence that AMSA has done everything that it could have done to secure safety. I've got no confidence about the safety of workers or members of the public on other vessels. You could say that you've inherited a system that is a basket case, poor safety culture—all of that. What I don't understand where the plan is to improve this situation is. Looking at these numbers, they have got to be about the same as, or worse than, other dangerous industries, and it has been a priority industry for focus and action for Safe Work Australia. They have industry plans; they have safety codes of practice. I ask: where is your action and focus? All I see is vessels cobbling together—in my own words—their own safety management systems. I believe a lot of rules are made up, and they put as many people as they like on a vessel. If they don't like the basic rules that are there, I'm told they can go and talk to their mates on the AMSA board and get an exemption. When they do get in trouble or someone is killed, in my view, AMSA looks the other way.

I looked at your annual report hoping to find something to indicate that you have a plan. I'll talk about the chairman's report. I see that you have a new computer system, that there are plans to maintain your workforce, to deal with oil spills, for ship-sourced garbage, for new navigation systems, and that there have been important meetings in London. There is nothing about fatalities until you get to page 54. On page 54 it tells me that there were nine fatalities just last year, and this is not a huge industry. This was in your KPIs, coded amber, which I saw on page 12 is classified by AMSA as a 'minor' issue. There's nothing in there about what you're going to do to fix it. On page 23 it says that operators will be encouraged to take responsibility for safety outcomes. I can tell you all that that's not a plan to save people; that's a plan for more deaths, like the unfortunate death of Mr Mills.

People are dying and it looks to me like no-one is held accountable and, worse, no-one thinks that it's a problem that should be fixed. I hope that you're not willing to look the other way. I believe the minister has been trying to look the other way—that's my view, not the committee's—but I'm not going to look the other way and I know that the committee won't either. Election or no election, as I said earlier, we will get to the bottom of this. We will be looking at your marine orders, your legislation and your operation—everything that you do or don't do—and we will fix this. I'll leave it at that.

That concludes today's hearing. With the approval of my colleagues, we've set 15 April for questions on notice. Thank you very much.

Also from the RRAT committee AMSA Inquiry webpages:

1 AMSA (PDF 839 KB) 

&..

1  Answers to written question on notice requested on 25 February 2019 and provided by Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions on 28 March 2019.
2  Answers to written questions on notice requested on 8 March and provided by AMSA on 20 March 2019.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

The carrot: &

Albo - "When it comes to issues of aviation, we have tried to ensure as much bipartisanship as possible," he said. "What that requires is a bit of compromise and perhaps not getting everything that you want–indeed, this legislation, the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019, doesn't go as far as Labor would go if we were the government. But it is an important step forward."

- The stick.

Albo - "We must recognise that regulators, as well as the minister, face intense pressures in bearing the responsibility for aviation safety, and I certainly felt it when I was the minister. I know from discussions with Minister McCormack that he had considered these matters very carefully before bringing forward this legislation."

BOLLOCKS.    

This Daisy chain of useless, spineless politicians who are held in thrall and hamstrung by the mystique of aviation safety, living in fear of ‘the blood will be on your hands’ need to be sat down and talked to; most severely. Tea and no biscuits.

Please take the time to watch the AMSA hearing –

-. Then consider the implication of the Maritime safety brief AMSA execute very well. It is an extensive, complex remit every bit as potentially dangerous as aviation. Yet there’s Glenn Sterle in furious pursuit of the agency, baying for their blood, or at least a head to take home. He is completely unafraid of tackling ‘safety’ at sea. Yet the moment ‘aviation’ is mentioned, out come the tin hats and the escape vehicles. Why? What is it about aviation that scares ‘em so?

Even more of a mystery is why they don’t get it. People get killed every day – the road toll is a horror story, fire claims it’s share, building sites etc, etc. The list is long and continuous. Sterle wants and will get the changes rung at AMSA; no fear of having his name associated with any changes made. But you don’t see or hear a committee of Senators howling at the CASA about the Essendon DFO killing – hell no. But Angel flight loose a couple of aircraft and the whole of parliament is nodding in acceptance of a new rule set – for safety’s sake? Bollocks.

FDS more like – Essendon draws total political silence, nary a peep of the outrage we see in Sterle v AMSA. Then, this same bunch will be feeling all chuffed because they allowed CASA to bring a new rule set which will not, in any tangible way improve ‘aviation safety’. It’s nuts.

The aviation industry spends so much time ‘ticking boxes’ to ensure compliance with the latest load of pony-pooh to stay legally safe, operational safety is suffering. The ‘habit’ or; if you want to get technical, the ever increasing normalized deviance of ‘Oh it’s just some CASA bullshit’ is undermining real, live operational safety issues. So used to ticking so many boxes that the purpose and intent of basic operational safety is lost in the blizzard of paper work. First world countries have acknowledged this – even the French. Time our Australian politicians got with the program and put a full stop on the Act and demanded first class, effective legislation. The rules, as they stand have a better chance of causing another accident than they do of preventing one. Why should the mystique of aviation safety be treated in a different fashion to any other endeavour which kills and maims? Why are our politicians so afraid of ‘aviation’ blood on their hands and not in least concerned about the carnage on our roads?

With respect, Mr Albanese the changes to the Act are about as much use as a politicians hand shake.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

"WAKE UP MINISTER - For GOD'S SAKE!"

Background reference from Senate Estimates thread and air orutes inquiry: Not our Indaba – however.

P2 Addendum: Sic'em Rex & Barry O'Bfuscation tag team undersecretary to Home Affairs:  https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Sic'em REX: ..As a South Australian senator, reading what Qantas has said—and they are going to provide the committee with more evidence—I will be in the next parliament and I will move a disallowance, in which case you're going to have to come up with the good reasons why you wish to do this. It appears to me that it hasn't been done yet. None of this has been done. I will be shouting from the inside of the chamber as loudly as I possibly can that this is going to affect regional communities and, on your own evidence, you haven't even considered those effects.   

Senate Estimates yesterday provides perhaps the perfect example of all that is wrong with the political and bureaucratic world of Can'tberra and it's Fat Cat Mandarins, Minions and the current crop of self-serving, disconnected with reality, pollywaffles...

Watch and observe...

Is it any wonder that Senator Sterle is more than a little exasperated and critical of our hapless, NFI miniscule - FDS!   

So Miniscule...




 - MTF..P2 

[Kharon]

Of Testiculating.

P2 - "Senate Estimates yesterday provides perhaps the perfect example of all that is wrong with the political and bureaucratic world of Can'tberra and it's Fat Cat Mandarins, Minions and the current crop of self-serving, disconnected with reality, pollywaffles..

Gee Whiz P2 – I thought there were a couple of points of real value in that session; and some classic examples of how to testiculate, a master class if you will. I can’t see the name of his board, but that fellah with the man-scaped face, jacket off, sleeves rolled up and (FCOL) a Pink candy stripe tie is really good at it, ain’t he though. The Candy stripe pink tie sort of spoils the desired effect of a honest, hardworking ‘crat, with sleeves rolled up, ready to do a honest days work. It would be hilarious, if it were not so serious. But, not too shabby on the circular, pointless argument, if you applaud such things. Ye gods, is this really the best Australia can provide?

That whole crew from Infrastructure need a rocket; it’s no wonder this country is slowly going to the dogs. But it is no use me banging on about this uninspiring session – but IMO it is high time the tax paying, voting Australian public watched this session; I reckon the average punter would have a blue fit seeing how their money and trust is being squandered by the clowns supposedly running the joint. Perhaps this handless bunch and the inutile minister could seek some expert advice from nations who actually value, encourage and promote the notion that business and people need to be able to travel; this requires reasonable costs, sensible infrastructure and access to the services: how else can the nation prosper?

Do we get value for the money spent on the care and feeding of this crew of testiculating professional pony-pooh peddling snake oil salesmen.- NO we bloody well do not. Disgraceful and an everlasting shame on the light minded politicians who not only listen to the rehearsed lines of twaddle, but are happy to be ‘advised’ by the same.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Of Testiculating.

P2 - "Senate Estimates yesterday provides perhaps the perfect example of all that is wrong with the political and bureaucratic world of Can'tberra and it's Fat Cat Mandarins, Minions and the current crop of self-serving, disconnected with reality, pollywaffles..

Gee Whiz P2 – I thought there were a couple of points of real value in that session; and some classic examples of how to testiculate, a master class if you will. I can’t see the name of his board, but that fellah with the man-scaped face, jacket off, sleeves rolled up and (FCOL) a Pink candy stripe tie is really good at it, ain’t he though. The Candy stripe pink tie sort of spoils the desired effect of a honest, hardworking ‘crat, with sleeves rolled up, ready to do a honest days work. It would be hilarious, if it were not so serious. But, not too shabby on the circular, pointless argument, if you applaud such things. Ye gods, is this really the best Australia can provide?

That whole crew from Infrastructure need a rocket; it’s no wonder this country is slowly going to the dogs. But it is no use me banging on about this uninspiring session – but IMO it is high time the tax paying, voting Australian public watched this session; I reckon the average punter would have a blue fit seeing how their money and trust is being squandered by the clowns supposedly running the joint. Perhaps this handless bunch and the inutile minister could seek some expert advice from nations who actually value, encourage and promote the notion that business and people need to be able to travel; this requires reasonable costs, sensible infrastructure and access to the services: how else can the nation prosper? 

Hansard is out and in case you didn't view the video footage, this is part of what "K" is banging on about...

Senator PATRICK: Okay; thank you. I'll move to a slightly different topic. This references committee has been examining the cost of rural airfares. As part of that examination, we've been looking at security costs. I know this is not your area, but I had a detailed conversation with Mr Pezzullo on Thursday last week where he said that a particular analysis has not been carried out. I'll just give you the background to that so you can tell me what you've done on your side.


Dr Kennedy : Okay.

Senator PATRICK: So $51 million has been allocated to a number of regional airports to upgrade their security equipment, their screening equipment, as a result of a security analysis that has been conducted by Home Affairs. In questioning last Monday, at one of the hearings, the department made it very clear that they had done no analysis on the effect that that decision would have on regional growth. For example, Qantas has given evidence publicly that if a security charge were imposed at Whyalla, Port Lincoln and Kangaroo Island that would potentially go to the tipping point and those services would no longer with viable. They indicated that that is a concern for them. There are a number of other airports around the country that probably fall within those categories but, in their public evidence to the committee, they named those three. It probably stemmed from a question from me, as a South Australian senator.

We've also heard evidence from Rex Airlines on the security charges, which are basically, by Home Affairs' submission, somewhere between $530,000 and $760,000 per annum. So, while the equipment comes along and there is a grant for that, this is for the operating costs, which of course are ongoing. Of course, for a small airport, you have to spread that across a small number of flights and it makes it unviable. Then the effect is that there'll be fewer flights, there might be fewer locums and there might be more difficulty getting to education services and medical services—and that has another effect on regional communities.

Pressed quite firmly by Senator O'Sullivan at the hearing last Monday, it was evident that the people who are doing the groundwork for Home Affairs had done no analysis as to the economic cost and the viability of certain routes in respect of that security charge. Mr Pezzullo confirmed to me and said it's not within his purview. He suggested that I come and talk to you guys. So has your department, has regional growth, looked at the effect of this security change—this proposed security change, it's not regulated yet.
They've managed to get the funds through the parliament but not the regulation that would permit the security requirement to come into play. Has your department been involved in any analysis as to the effect that that security change will have on (a) the viability after airlines flying to regional areas and (b) the economic activity within those regional areas?

Dr Kennedy : I'm going to get Ms Spence to answer. I'll note for the chair that these are actually issues—but we'll do it here—that're done under airports and aviation, that's where the regional airports programs are run, not in regional but in airports. But that's fine, we can do our best here now with the senator.

CHAIR: Don't punish us for our generosity in allowing officials to go home early!

Dr Kennedy : I'll ask Ms Spence to provide some background for you, Senator.

Ms Spence : We haven't done any economic analysis of the impact of those security charges, but we are working very closely with both the airports and the airlines to see how the new cost will actually be implemented. We're conscious of the fact there is the $51 million program to subsidise the actual capital equipment. At this stage, while we're hearing airlines talk about what the implications might be, what we haven't got is any practical evidence of what they're suggesting might play out. I guess what I'm saying is that we're watching it very closely. We clearly see the importance of regional aviation in terms of the way in which regional communities can engage and connect with the rest of Australia, but at this stage we don't have any reason to intervene. But we are watching it very closely.

Senator PATRICK: I don't understand how we get to a point where we've made a decision to spend this $51 million and there's been no analysis as to its effect?

Ms Spence : I think the step towards it was the security analysis, which is you don't—at the end of the day security decisions are taken because of the impact, making sure that our airports are safe. There is an awareness of what the capital costs will be to install the new arrangements, but you—

CHAIR: Well, not all of them.

Ms Spence : No, that's true. I understand—

CHAIR: You need to recognise not all of them.

Ms Spence : But the operating costs are still being worked through and there is a tried formula that has worked to date in terms of how operating costs are recovered. I recognise it's different when it gets to regional aviation. But at the end of the day security decisions are taken to protect people in regional Australia who are getting on planes as well, and we're just making sure—

Senator PATRICK: The ultimate security option here is to have no flights. Then there'll be no security problems.

Ms Spence : I'm explaining how we've got to the situation we have where a decision was taken on the basis of a security analysis. We're now working through to make sure that we maintain those services—

Senator PATRICK: Let me try and summarise—

CHAIR: Just before we leave that point, do you think that the three policemen at Yaraka make a profit in law enforcement or do you think it might cost the state, in that case, a lot of money to put them there to provide a service to secure them? We have situations here where you have one flight a day into some of these small communities and you're going to have seven or eight personnel there for an hour and a quarter. Unless you're going retrain our mate off the ride-on mower down the main street or the bloke who does the rubbish dump—'Come in early and have a tub up and put on a uniform to double duty as a security officer,' then these will leave massive imposts on our small communities out there—

Ms Spence : Yes—

CHAIR: No. Let me finish, Ms Spence, because it is one of my bloody—what's that horse you ride?

Senator PATRICK: Hobby horses.

CHAIR: hobby horses. They're going to have to recover off the travelling public, because we know how the cost recovery occurs. It will lead to an absolutely inevitable outcome, as Senator Patrick has indicated and the airlines have indicated, which is that some services will just stop. These are not luxuries for our people out there. It's not as if they can go and get on a bus, because there ain't no bus. It's not as if they can get on the train, because there ain't no train. It has really got me riled up about the fact that our government is going out and understanding about the security and all the stuff that goes with it but we have not paid attention to the knock-on effect, which is measurable. You don't have to wait to see what it is; you can go and measure it now. There are ways it can be measured. All of us in this committee are interested as to why there hasn't been a serious—there's been a lot of effort put into the other part of it except this part.

Ms Spence : I can't say more than that we are watching it very closely.

CHAIR: But what does that mean, Ms Spence?

Ms Spence : It means we're working closely through the Airports Association. We talk regularly with the airlines. We deal closely with Home Affairs.

CHAIR: Home Affairs aren't doing anything. I promise you, they were laid bare at a hearing about it. They're not doing anything, so it's no good that you're monitoring with them. They're asleep at the wheel when it comes to this particular issue. I don't know what resources the Airports Association would have to do this. This is a very serious matter. We've got airports—one of them in Senator Patrick's state—that say they're going to be out of pocket by $1.2 million or something with the operating costs, which they've got to try and amortise over one flight a day over a 12-month period. Do the math. When a government goes about to make decisions that affect the people, their communities and their economies, we have a responsibility to understand, first of all, what the unusual impacts are going to be—this doesn't happen at the bigger airports, because they've got a lot of travelling public to amortise this over—and, in the event that the impacts are unfair, to socialise the resolution of them, like we do with policemen, school teachers and doctors who go to those communities. Someone has to have a look-see. If not you, just bat it away now—get the bat close to your pads—and tell us which agency or department should be the ones who ask and then answer the question in some detail about the economic and social impacts.

Do we get value for the money spent on the care and feeding of this crew of testiculating professional pony-pooh peddling snake oil salesmen.- NO we bloody well do not. Disgraceful and an everlasting shame on the light minded politicians who not only listen to the rehearsed lines of twaddle, but are happy to be ‘advised’ by the same.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Angel Flight Embuggerance Update - 12/04/19.

Reference:

Senator PATRICK: Just so everyone is aware of what I've tabled, it's the Angel Flight
flight request documentation.

ACTING CHAIR: We're happy to table that.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. It has a fact sheet, instructions, guidelines for referrals,
medical clearances, passenger guidelines, waivers and a release of liability. I'm
informed-and I have no reason to doubt this-that, before you can jump on one of these
flights as a person seeking to fly to Adelaide to have chemo, you also have to have
watched a video that takes you through the process and talks you through the risks of
what it is you're getting into. The duty of care thing is, in some sense, negated by the
fact that you have someone who has had to sign up to a waiver, read through the fact
sheet and watch a video. They're going in with eyes open.

Mr Carmody: What the document doesn't say is that, in Angel Flight's case, for example, according to our
statistics, there's a significantly higher risk of accident or incident flying with Angel Flight then flying privately.

Senator PATRICK: I'm going to ask you to table evidence that grounds that statement.

Mr Carmody: We have done our calculations, which have led us to our conclusion. I'm not sure that, even though we've done our
work, everyone will agree with it. I'm quite happy to table it or quite happy to do it on notice.

Senator PATRICK: That's fine.

Finally the AQON for Q127 addressed to CASA at the Additional Estimates has been tabled: 

Download question with answer 
Answer Attachment 

• QoN127 Attachment.pdf
  

Answered Date 
10/04/2019

---

Still pinching myself that St Carmody & Co. are honestly trying to pass that load bollocks up as justification for the attempted embuggerance of Angel Flight - UDB!  

Here is the Oz Flying summary on that insult to intelligence...  

 

Community Service Accidents: the CASA Data
11 April 2019
Comments 1 Comment
    
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) last week presented data to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) that it says supports its claim that community services flights are a greater risk than regular private flights.

According to the data tabled, for the period 2008-2017 there were four community service flights (CSF) that resulted in accidents from a total of 17,750 flight hours, resulting in an accident rate per 10,000 hours of 2.25.

The figures for private, business and sport aviation across the same period show 537 accidents in 3.5 million hours, a rate of 1.53 per 10,000 hours.
"[CASA] has compared Community Service Flight (CSF) data with that for the private and business flying sector using material from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)," CASA said in its reponse to a question from the Centre Alliance's Senator Rex Patrick.

"CASA has undertaken this analysis separate to the ATSB investigation process. The data and analysis is not derived from the ATSB investigation [ATSB investigation AO-2017-069], which is still in draft. The greater accident rate of CSF raises the issue of managing the safe operation of these flights that may carry passengers unaware of the apparent elevated risk.

"Assessment of the accident and incident rates for CSF and private/business/sports (excluding gliding) over the past 10 years (2008 to 2017) indicates:

• the CSF accident rate is 1.5 times higher than that for private/business/sports
  
• the CSF fatal accident rate is 5.4 times that for private/business/sports."
  

Angel Flight CEO Marjorie Pagani has disputed CASA's statistical analysis.

"CASA has relied on BITRE data," Pagani told Australian Flying. "They didn’t start collecting CSF data until 2014, with no definition as to what that meant. CASA defined that term only this year.

"In the three years they rely upon (2015-17) there were only an average of 46 respondents to the [BITRE] survey. In those years alone we averaged 273 aircraft being active for us. We have given all our flight numbers to CASA and updated them several times.

"We have also sworn to them in our affidavit in court."

Angel Flight is disputing the veracity of the CASA analysis on several grounds, one of which is the total number of flying hours used to arrived at the risk rate.

"They [CASA] know we have done 46,000 flights," Pagani said. "To attribute to us 17,500 hours over nine years is laughable ... clearly done to fudge the figures."

Angel Flight's statistical analysis found that there is no significant difference statistically between fatal accidents in CSFs and regular private flights. However, it does concede that there is a significant variation in all accidents, but cautions against interpreting the data as meaning that Angel Flight is more unsafe because it doesn't take into account the context.

The statisticians that compiled the analysis also found that the CASA data includes a mis-match in time period between the CSF and the regular private flight figures, which may potentially put the conclusions in error.

Angel Flight has indicated that they will progress legal action to have CASA's new CSF regulations struck out, and the new rules are still subject to disallowance motions in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. However, these motions will have to be resubmitted in the new parliament.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Me0MpKo.99

MTF...P2 

Ps 2 x AQON where the subject matter was the AF embuggerance: 

QON 126 Download question

QON 128 Download question

[Kharon]

Only one line worthy of note in the CASA fudge feast;-


* Major provider only. Second provider has had has nil accidents.

Interesting little side bar ain’t it  - and peculiar use of the English language.

[Peetwo]

Additional AQON:

Q/126 from QLD Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker:

Question on notice no. 126
Portfolio question number: 126
2018-19 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Amanda Stoker: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 18 February
2019—

1. How does CASA respond to Angel Flight's claim that CASA has not consulted on
the new requirements for community service flights (CSFs) with them? What
response did CASA get from Angel Flight during its consultation process in January?
How does CASA see that the new conditions it has introduced will affect Angel
Flight operations and the thousands of rural and regional patients who rely on Angel
Flight services every year? How does CASA respond to Angel Flight's claim that the
new requirements will force up to 80% of its pilots to withdraw from volunteering for
them and affect their viability? How do you respond to claims the new requirements
are devoid of a safety case and devoid of a risk assessment to justify them? How will
the new requirements reduce the risk of fatal accidents for CSFs in future? What
changes has the US regulator, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) ,
introduced in response to similar issues the US has had with CSF safety? How has
Angel Flight responded to the FAA's changes, if any? What is the reasoning behind
CASA's decision to ban helicopters from flying for Angel Flight (despite there being
no prior accidents involving helicopters) ? How will this affect people in flooded rural
communities who may need help getting out to medical appointments when airfields
are flooded? When making regulatory changes, does CASA have regard to the impact
of those changes upon the willingness and availability of individuals to provide
volunteer flight services to isolated rural and regional Australians, and the
consequences for their access to health care? If the answer to question 10 is no, why
not?

Answer —
1. Angel Flight was alerted to the general content of proposed minimum safety
standards for community service flights on 28 November 2018, prior to the proposed
standards being released for public consultation. The consultation process was
conducted over six weeks, from 18 December 2018 to 31 January 2019. #1 Over 220
responses were received, including 115 from people who said they were pilots who
had flown community service flights. Both community service flights (CSFs)
providers made submissions as part of this process.
#1 So they gave a AF a heads up and then decided to run the consultation period over the Xmas/New Year holidays 4 days before they were shut for business for 2 weeks? - Fair and reasonable consultation my ASS...
2. At a meeting between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Angel
Flight on 18 January 2019, Angel Flight verbally indicated that they opposed all of
the proposed minimum safety standards. At the meeting CASA requested that Angel
Flight formally respond to the consultation process indicating whether any of the
proposed changes would be acceptable in part or in full. A formal response to the
consultation was received from Angel Flight on 24 January 2019, which included
permission for CASA to publish the response. The response is available at
www.consultation.casa.gov.au.

3&4 CASA considers that the new minimum standards will improve the safety of
community service flights #2 without having an adverse impact on the majority of the
flights organised by Angel Flight. Information provided by Angel Flight about the
demographics of the volunteer pilots who conduct flights they organise to the
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in 2013 indicated that most would
significantly exceed the new minimum experience requirements:

• average Pilot-in-Command hours were about 2400 – the new minimum standard is
250
• 64 per cent of pilots held an instrument rating – now required for flights at night
• 39 per cent held a commercial pilot licence or higher – exempt from the total hour
requirement.The maintenance requirement may require the operator of an aircraft
maintained in the private category to conduct an additional periodic inspection
slightly earlier than normally required for private category aircraft if they fly more
100 hours before 12 months has elapsed since the last inspection. The 100 hours is
double the private aircraft annual average utilisation of 50 hours per year and is only
exceeded by a relatively small proportion of the aircraft fleet that is only used for
private purposes.
#2 Note the complete dodge of the intent of the QON? 

5. CASA statistical analysis and rationale for the key provisions of the instrument are
included in responses to Committee Question Numbers 127 and 128.

6. The new minimum safety standards are intended to reduce the likelihood of further
fatal accidents involving community service flights. CASA reviews the findings of
investigations conducted by the ATSB and also considers what pro-active steps can
be taken based on available information and consistent with a responsible application
of the precautionary principle. ps apparently only when it suits them - see HERE.

Most community service flights are conducted by a single pilot in a small aircraft,
flying long distances from regional and remote towns to the cities, carrying people
with serious medical conditions. This places significant responsibility and sometimes
considerable pressure on the pilot.

The new standards require minimum experience levels for pilots and a requirement to
have recently flown an aircraft of a similar type. Aircraft that fly more than double the
average hours of a private aircraft in a year are required to have a maintenance
inspection.

Under the new standards, community service flights can no longer be conducted
under the night visual flight rules. Night flights must be conducted under the
instrument flight rules. The fatal accident in Victoria involving a flight organised by
Angel Flight occurred after sunset, within a few minutes of last light and in poor
weather. #3  

7. In 2007 and 2008 the USA had 4 fatal charitable medical flight fatal accidents. In
2010, after investigation of these fatal accidents the National Transportation Safety
Board released a number of safety recommendations. In 2013 the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) introduced a Policy Clarification on Charitable Medical Flights
in 2013. Around this time the charitable medical flight organisations also established
additional minimum requirements.

The FAA Notice of Policy specifies the kinds of conditions that can and will be
imposed in any given case on the exemptions under which charitable medical flights
are conducted, and the exemptions themselves specify the particular conditions
applying in each instance.

The exemptions given by the FAA allow private pilots conducting charitable medical
flights to be reimbursed for their fuel and related costs without turning their activities
into a commercial operation (an operation for hire and reward). Australian private
pilots conducting community service flights are similarly treated.#4

8. Most organisations providing community service flights in the USA have
voluntarily imposed minimum safety standards. A review of US Angel Flight
organisations indicates that six out of seven organisations have minimum
requirements that meet or exceed the new standard introduced by CASA.

9. Based on the information available to CASA, helicopters have rarely been used for
CSFs in Australia. During public consultation of the proposed standards, only one
respondent indicated that they had used a helicopter for a community service flight
and that respondent also owned and used an aeroplane. Due to very limited use, they
were not provided for in the instrument rather than intentionally being banned.
However, after further consideration, an amendment is being prepared that would
allow the use of helicopters.

10. CASA takes such matters into account as part of its public consultation processes,
including that conducted for CSF. Feedback was received during consultation from
115 people who said they were a pilot who had flown a community service flight. A
number of changes were made to the original proposal based on feedback received.
CASA has also developed a concise fact sheet for pilots considering volunteering
aimed at making it easier to understand the new requirements and encourage
participation of pilots.

11. N/A

#3 & #4 Again the real White Elephant in the room makes an appearance i.e 24+ year NVFR identified safety issue - see HERE . It is interesting to note the USA/NTSB references would appear to have been plucked directly from the 2011 ATSB report

Hmm...wonder why, the patron Saint of Oz Aviation Safety, St Carmody and his Iron Ring cadre completely missed referencing this part of that ATSB report - 

United States occurrences

Safety Alert In March 2013 the United States (US) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued Safety Alert SA-020 Reduced Visual References Require Vigilance. This alert highlighted that about two thirds of US general aviation accidents in reduced visibility weather conditions are fatal, and typically involve pilot disorientation or controlled flight into terrain. The NTSB observed that even in visual conditions, the combination of flight at night with limited ground lighting and therefore ground references could be problematic. A number of common accident scenarios in conditions with limited ground reference were provided in the alert and strategies for pilots to manage that risk were suggested. Of note in the context of the accident near Horsham on 15 August 2011, the NTSB highlighted that: Remote areas with limited ground lighting provide limited visual references [sic] cues for pilots, which can be disorienting… and that pilots should: Consider following instrument procedures if you are rated or avoiding areas with limited ground lighting (such as remote or mountainous areas) if you are not...

  
Gotta wonder why CASA are suddenly having an epiphany on certain selective ATSB reports six years after the report was made public and 9 years after the NTSB safety recommendations were available to be dessiminated by the rest of the world?? 

Q/128 from Sic'em Rex:

Question on notice no. 128

Portfolio question number: 128
2018-19 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 22 February 2019
—
Senator PATRICK: You're going to table some statistics so that they can be reviewed
by people-I'm sure Angel Flight will have their interest in it, we'll have our interest in
it and so forth-that grounds your claim here in this committee that they are less safe. I
would like, as you're doing that, where there is some problem that has occurred in
your analysis, if you would perhaps annotate next to it and say, 'Our new regulation
would have prevented that from occurring.' Mr Carmody: As I've said, in the broadand
I understand that what you've requested- Senator PATRICK: So you're happy to
do that? Mr Carmody: this is about raising the threshold. I would prefer to ensure that
the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's accident investigation report, which would
be much more thorough than the work we do in this space, is out at the same time.
Senator PATRICK: But you've said you have done statistics. Mr Carmody: We've
done our statistics, but the issue of maintenance is less of a statistical issue, if I may.
Private aircraft fly approximately 50 hours a year-that's all. So there is a threshold that
says every 12 months you'll have your aircraft- Senator PATRICK: Hang on, that
average includes those like me, who don't fly very often, and those who are quite
experienced. Mr Carmody: Quite, but the BITRE standard says that private aircraft fly
an average of 50 hours a year. It's 50, isn't it? Mr Monahan: Yes. Mr Carmody: When
we consider these community service flight activities, we categorise them as private
activities, but they're on the cusp of commercial activities in the sense that the reality
is that people are receiving funding payment for them. So, in a technical sense, they're
on the cusp. We put them in the private category because we know that, and we also
know that the aircraft aren't operated that much. When you start to move into layers
above these private activities, there is more complexity and there are more
requirements. There is more maintenance and more training as you move up from the
private to the commercial, all the way up to regular public transport; we add more and
more layers. With the case of something like the 100-hour maintenance issue, we did
propose a much more stringent maintenance regime. We listened to what was said in
the feedback and we reduced that maintenance regime significantly in the final
instrument. Senator PATRICK: That's the equivalent of saying, 'We could have been
even worse, but we're not.' Mr Carmody: I suppose what I'm saying- Senator
PATRICK: I want to know: how does it make it safer? Mr Carmody: What I'm saying
is we consulted and we listened to people who said those maintenance requirements
would be too onerous. It makes it safer because it catches the out-riders. The people
who are caught above 100 hours are the ones I want to catch. The people who are
flying their aircraft for 300 hours are the ones I want to catch because they're using
their aircraft a lot more than the average. They are the ones-and there won't be very
many of them- Senator PATRICK: But they're going to be more experienced. Mr
Carmody: This is not about experience; your question is about maintenance. It's how
often the aircraft is used. So the 100 hours and the 12 months is pretty much standard.
Senator PATRICK: It's the same pilot, the same aircraft- ACTING CHAIR: I'm not
sure how the aircraft becomes less safe if I jump in as a community service passenger
versus someone who has just met Senator Patrick. Mr Carmody: What I'm saying is
it's statistically less safe because there are more accidents and incidents in that sector
brokered by people than there are in private flying. Senator PATRICK: You have to
ground that properly with evidence. Mr Carmody: Certainly. Senator PATRICK: Can
I just tell you the strategy that my party has done in terms of lodging a disallowance.
We have lodged a disallowance in the House. It's really just to send a signal so that
people can be prepared and present their case. I will do the same in the Senate when it
returns on 2 April. I don't want to disallow something, but you've got to make your
case. You are the safety authority. You are introducing a regulation that you say is
centred on safety. I can't quite see it as it stands. You have now basically said it comes
down to the statistics. You are concerned that Angel Flight have more incidents than
private pilots. Mr Carmody: Than private flying. Senator PATRICK: I want to see
those statistics and see how these regulations would have altered those statistics to get
them back to the place we are with normal pilots' licences. ... Senator PATRICK: let's
look at this again in six weeks time with your evidence on the table and with the
evidence of anyone else who wants to make a contribution. Mr Carmody: That's fine.
I understand everything you've said...

Answer —
The statistical basis underpinning the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA)
decision is included in the response to Committee Question Number 127. The
intention of the instrument placing conditions on the licences of pilots undertaking
Community Service Flights (CSF) that the new minimum standards will improve the
safety of those flights without having an adverse impact on the majority of their
operations. It does this by including certain measures which are known to improve
safety outcomes. These include:

Aeronautical and recency experience requirements
• A number of provisions specify minimum experience including at least:

o 400 hours of flight time
o 250 hours as Pilot-in-Command
o 10 hours of flight under Visual Flight Rules
o 20 hours of flight under Instrument Flight Rules
o 25 hours as Pilot-in-Command of a multi-engine aeroplane

These measures are in keeping with international best practice and supported by
information used by similar national aviation authorities. From 400 hours total time,
the mishap rates for private pilots begin a steady decrease to the lowest rate at
approximately 2000 hours of total time. Recency and experience combined provide a
layered defence to enable pilots to manage more complex situations. The
requirements ensure that that no pilot conducts a CSF flight without a minimum of
experience in that type of aircraft or under those conditions.
• The provision for conducting a landing within 30 days on type reflects the fact that
landing related mishaps are the second largest category of mishaps globally. This
provision ensures that a pilot has recency in this critical phase of flight prior to
engaging in what CASA considers to be more demanding and complex CSF
operations.

Operational requirements
• Night visual flight rules (NVFR) were a factor in the first fatal accident involving an
Angel Flight pilot. The ban on NVFRs reflects the risks involved in this activity. Such
flights must occur under instrument flight rules.

Notification requirements
• At present, CSF are indistinguishable from private flights. The notification
requirements will provide important data to allow CASA to conduct data-driven
evaluations and decision making. It will also assist pilots in making accurate reporting
of their flight activity.

Maintenance
• These provision for maintenance at 100 hours or 12 months is an internationally
recognised preventative measure against the few aircraft that may fly well past 100
hours in 12 months. These maintenance requirements may require the operator of an
aircraft maintained in the private category to conduct an additional periodic inspection
slightly earlier than normally required for private category aircraft if they fly more
100 hours before 12 months has elapsed since the last inspection. The 100 hour figure
is double the annual average utilisation of 50 hours per year for private aircraft and is
only required by a relatively small proportion of the private fleet.

Hmmm....much, much MTF me thinks??...P2 

[Peetwo]

Only one line worthy of note in the CASA fudge feast;-


* Major provider only. Second provider has had has nil accidents.

Interesting little side bar ain’t it  - and peculiar use of the English language.\

P2 OBS: Interesting point you make "K" when you consider a couple of bibs and bobs from the history of the attempted embuggerance of Angel Flight by Fort Fumble...

Ref: DP 1317 OS https://www.casa.gov.au/file/144061/down...n=VPWEGeMX

2.1 Preliminary consultation

On 25 August 2008, CASA met with representatives of Angel Flight Australia, a charity that coordinates non-emergency flights to assist rural Australians access city medical services. CASA briefed Angel Flight representatives about the proposed CASR operational regulations suite and sought their input. Future impact upon Angel Flight's established practice was discussed, as was CASA’s intent to consult publicly on how such flights might be regulated in future.

On 11 January 2014, CASA met with representatives of the Little Wings group, a charity that provides non-emergency air travel support for children with cancer, and their families. The representatives outlined their organisation's structure, procedures and plans. CASA outlined the consultation process and discussed in general terms, options that may be included in any consultation process.

Now let's FFWD to page 15...  

For this reason, CASA considers that a full AOC option is not required. Equally, CASA does not regard a continuation of the status quo (i.e. use of any aircraft, any pilot licence etc.) to be sound safety regulation.

Option 5—establishment of an ASAAO—is CASA's preferred method of meeting safety management goals within reasonable regulatory constraints. This option would allow the industry sector (community service flights) to address safety appropriately, once a self-administering organisation receives CASA approval.

 
And this is the response from Little Wings to the 18 December 2018 consultation paper - via HOLT:

Little Wings is supportive of any increase in the safety of flight operations in the community services flights area. We are also very aware and concerned about placing an additional financial burden on both volunteer flight crew and volunteer organisations assisting with the coordination of these flights. To this effect we note the following response to CASA’s recommendations: Medical Requirements Little Wings supports a minimum of a Class 2 medical certificate: Little Wings currently requires a Class 1 for all volunteer pilots. Aeronautical experience. One landing in 30 days: –. We currently operate to 90 days as required by current legislation. Little Wings understands the premise of this requirement but even though we feel that this could potentially impact our operations, we would be more supportive of a minimum of 60 days for one landing. Time on type: Little Wings is supportive of the time on type requirement. Our current requirements are minimum of 10 hours on type but on average most flight crew will fly 20 – 25 hours under supervision. Each CSF to be recorded in pilots logbook: Currently Little Wings records all flight and duty details for each pilots CSF flights. In regard to PPL pilots: Little Wings only uses CPL pilots so will not be affected by this section. Aircraft Operational Limitations. Little Wings supports all details outlined by CASA for Aircraft operational limitations. Aircraft certification and maintenance requirements. Little Wings supports the concept of increasing aircraft maintenance standards for CFS operations. Little Wings supports the aircraft being maintained under an approved system of maintenance or CASA schedule 5 with 100 hour or 12 monthly inspections whichever occurs first. Little Wings does not support the requirement for the engines to be required to be maintained to AD/ENG/4,AD/ENG/5. Little Wings believes this would create a significant financial burden with little to no safety increase, resulting in less opportunity to conduct flights.

 
Hmm...a bit smelly me thinks - 

Additional AQON:

Q/126 from QLD Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker:

Question on notice no. 126
Portfolio question number: 126
2018-19 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Amanda Stoker: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 18 February
2019—

1. How does CASA respond to Angel Flight's claim that CASA has not consulted on
the new requirements for community service flights (CSFs) with them? What
response did CASA get from Angel Flight during its consultation process in January?
How does CASA see that the new conditions it has introduced will affect Angel
Flight operations and the thousands of rural and regional patients who rely on Angel
Flight services every year? How does CASA respond to Angel Flight's claim that the
new requirements will force up to 80% of its pilots to withdraw from volunteering for
them and affect their viability? How do you respond to claims the new requirements
are devoid of a safety case and devoid of a risk assessment to justify them? How will
the new requirements reduce the risk of fatal accidents for CSFs in future? What
changes has the US regulator, the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) ,
introduced in response to similar issues the US has had with CSF safety? How has
Angel Flight responded to the FAA's changes, if any? What is the reasoning behind
CASA's decision to ban helicopters from flying for Angel Flight (despite there being
no prior accidents involving helicopters) ? How will this affect people in flooded rural
communities who may need help getting out to medical appointments when airfields
are flooded? When making regulatory changes, does CASA have regard to the impact
of those changes upon the willingness and availability of individuals to provide
volunteer flight services to isolated rural and regional Australians, and the
consequences for their access to health care? If the answer to question 10 is no, why
not?

Answer —
1. Angel Flight was alerted to the general content of proposed minimum safety
standards for community service flights on 28 November 2018, prior to the proposed
standards being released for public consultation. The consultation process was
conducted over six weeks, from 18 December 2018 to 31 January 2019. #1 Over 220
responses were received, including 115 from people who said they were pilots who
had flown community service flights. Both community service flights (CSFs)
providers made submissions as part of this process.
#1 So they gave a AF a heads up and then decided to run the consultation period over the Xmas/New Year holidays 4 days before they were shut for business for 2 weeks? - Fair and reasonable consultation my ASS...
2. At a meeting between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Angel
Flight on 18 January 2019, Angel Flight verbally indicated that they opposed all of
the proposed minimum safety standards. At the meeting CASA requested that Angel
Flight formally respond to the consultation process indicating whether any of the
proposed changes would be acceptable in part or in full. A formal response to the
consultation was received from Angel Flight on 24 January 2019, which included
permission for CASA to publish the response. The response is available at
www.consultation.casa.gov.au.

3&4 CASA considers that the new minimum standards will improve the safety of
community service flights #2 without having an adverse impact on the majority of the
flights organised by Angel Flight. Information provided by Angel Flight about the
demographics of the volunteer pilots who conduct flights they organise to the
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in 2013 indicated that most would
significantly exceed the new minimum experience requirements:

• average Pilot-in-Command hours were about 2400 – the new minimum standard is
250
• 64 per cent of pilots held an instrument rating – now required for flights at night
• 39 per cent held a commercial pilot licence or higher – exempt from the total hour
requirement.The maintenance requirement may require the operator of an aircraft
maintained in the private category to conduct an additional periodic inspection
slightly earlier than normally required for private category aircraft if they fly more
100 hours before 12 months has elapsed since the last inspection. The 100 hours is
double the private aircraft annual average utilisation of 50 hours per year and is only
exceeded by a relatively small proportion of the aircraft fleet that is only used for
private purposes.
#2 Note the complete dodge of the intent of the QON? 

5. CASA statistical analysis and rationale for the key provisions of the instrument are
included in responses to Committee Question Numbers 127 and 128.

6. The new minimum safety standards are intended to reduce the likelihood of further
fatal accidents involving community service flights. CASA reviews the findings of
investigations conducted by the ATSB and also considers what pro-active steps can
be taken based on available information and consistent with a responsible application
of the precautionary principle. ps apparently only when it suits them - see HERE.

Most community service flights are conducted by a single pilot in a small aircraft,
flying long distances from regional and remote towns to the cities, carrying people
with serious medical conditions. This places significant responsibility and sometimes
considerable pressure on the pilot.

The new standards require minimum experience levels for pilots and a requirement to
have recently flown an aircraft of a similar type. Aircraft that fly more than double the
average hours of a private aircraft in a year are required to have a maintenance
inspection.

Under the new standards, community service flights can no longer be conducted
under the night visual flight rules. Night flights must be conducted under the
instrument flight rules. The fatal accident in Victoria involving a flight organised by
Angel Flight occurred after sunset, within a few minutes of last light and in poor
weather. #3  

7. In 2007 and 2008 the USA had 4 fatal charitable medical flight fatal accidents. In
2010, after investigation of these fatal accidents the National Transportation Safety
Board released a number of safety recommendations. In 2013 the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) introduced a Policy Clarification on Charitable Medical Flights
in 2013. Around this time the charitable medical flight organisations also established
additional minimum requirements.

The FAA Notice of Policy specifies the kinds of conditions that can and will be
imposed in any given case on the exemptions under which charitable medical flights
are conducted, and the exemptions themselves specify the particular conditions
applying in each instance.

The exemptions given by the FAA allow private pilots conducting charitable medical
flights to be reimbursed for their fuel and related costs without turning their activities
into a commercial operation (an operation for hire and reward). Australian private
pilots conducting community service flights are similarly treated.#4

8. Most organisations providing community service flights in the USA have
voluntarily imposed minimum safety standards. A review of US Angel Flight
organisations indicates that six out of seven organisations have minimum
requirements that meet or exceed the new standard introduced by CASA.

9. Based on the information available to CASA, helicopters have rarely been used for
CSFs in Australia. During public consultation of the proposed standards, only one
respondent indicated that they had used a helicopter for a community service flight
and that respondent also owned and used an aeroplane. Due to very limited use, they
were not provided for in the instrument rather than intentionally being banned.
However, after further consideration, an amendment is being prepared that would
allow the use of helicopters.

10. CASA takes such matters into account as part of its public consultation processes,
including that conducted for CSF. Feedback was received during consultation from
115 people who said they were a pilot who had flown a community service flight. A
number of changes were made to the original proposal based on feedback received.
CASA has also developed a concise fact sheet for pilots considering volunteering
aimed at making it easier to understand the new requirements and encourage
participation of pilots.

11. N/A

#3 & #4 Again the real White Elephant in the room makes an appearance i.e 24+ year NVFR identified safety issue - see HERE . It is interesting to note the USA/NTSB references would appear to have been plucked directly from the 2011 ATSB report

Hmm...wonder why, the patron Saint of Oz Aviation Safety, St Carmody and his Iron Ring cadre completely missed referencing this part of that ATSB report - 

United States occurrences

Safety Alert In March 2013 the United States (US) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued Safety Alert SA-020 Reduced Visual References Require Vigilance. This alert highlighted that about two thirds of US general aviation accidents in reduced visibility weather conditions are fatal, and typically involve pilot disorientation or controlled flight into terrain. The NTSB observed that even in visual conditions, the combination of flight at night with limited ground lighting and therefore ground references could be problematic. A number of common accident scenarios in conditions with limited ground reference were provided in the alert and strategies for pilots to manage that risk were suggested. Of note in the context of the accident near Horsham on 15 August 2011, the NTSB highlighted that: Remote areas with limited ground lighting provide limited visual references [sic] cues for pilots, which can be disorienting… and that pilots should: Consider following instrument procedures if you are rated or avoiding areas with limited ground lighting (such as remote or mountainous areas) if you are not...

  
Gotta wonder why CASA are suddenly having an epiphany on certain selective ATSB reports six years after the report was made public and 9 years after the NTSB safety recommendations were available to be disseminated by the rest of the world?? 

Q/128 from Sic'em Rex:

Question on notice no. 128

Portfolio question number: 128
2018-19 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 22 February 2019
—
Senator PATRICK: You're going to table some statistics so that they can be reviewed
by people-I'm sure Angel Flight will have their interest in it, we'll have our interest in
it and so forth-that grounds your claim here in this committee that they are less safe. I
would like, as you're doing that, where there is some problem that has occurred in
your analysis, if you would perhaps annotate next to it and say, 'Our new regulation
would have prevented that from occurring.' Mr Carmody: As I've said, in the broadand
I understand that what you've requested- Senator PATRICK: So you're happy to
do that? Mr Carmody: this is about raising the threshold. I would prefer to ensure that
the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's accident investigation report, which would
be much more thorough than the work we do in this space, is out at the same time.
Senator PATRICK: But you've said you have done statistics. Mr Carmody: We've
done our statistics, but the issue of maintenance is less of a statistical issue, if I may.
Private aircraft fly approximately 50 hours a year-that's all. So there is a threshold that
says every 12 months you'll have your aircraft- Senator PATRICK: Hang on, that
average includes those like me, who don't fly very often, and those who are quite
experienced. Mr Carmody: Quite, but the BITRE standard says that private aircraft fly
an average of 50 hours a year. It's 50, isn't it? Mr Monahan: Yes. Mr Carmody: When
we consider these community service flight activities, we categorise them as private
activities, but they're on the cusp of commercial activities in the sense that the reality
is that people are receiving funding payment for them. So, in a technical sense, they're
on the cusp. We put them in the private category because we know that, and we also
know that the aircraft aren't operated that much. When you start to move into layers
above these private activities, there is more complexity and there are more
requirements. There is more maintenance and more training as you move up from the
private to the commercial, all the way up to regular public transport; we add more and
more layers. With the case of something like the 100-hour maintenance issue, we did
propose a much more stringent maintenance regime. We listened to what was said in
the feedback and we reduced that maintenance regime significantly in the final
instrument. Senator PATRICK: That's the equivalent of saying, 'We could have been
even worse, but we're not.' Mr Carmody: I suppose what I'm saying- Senator
PATRICK: I want to know: how does it make it safer? Mr Carmody: What I'm saying
is we consulted and we listened to people who said those maintenance requirements
would be too onerous. It makes it safer because it catches the out-riders. The people
who are caught above 100 hours are the ones I want to catch. The people who are
flying their aircraft for 300 hours are the ones I want to catch because they're using
their aircraft a lot more than the average. They are the ones-and there won't be very
many of them- Senator PATRICK: But they're going to be more experienced. Mr
Carmody: This is not about experience; your question is about maintenance. It's how
often the aircraft is used. So the 100 hours and the 12 months is pretty much standard.
Senator PATRICK: It's the same pilot, the same aircraft- ACTING CHAIR: I'm not
sure how the aircraft becomes less safe if I jump in as a community service passenger
versus someone who has just met Senator Patrick. Mr Carmody: What I'm saying is
it's statistically less safe because there are more accidents and incidents in that sector
brokered by people than there are in private flying. Senator PATRICK: You have to
ground that properly with evidence. Mr Carmody: Certainly. Senator PATRICK: Can
I just tell you the strategy that my party has done in terms of lodging a disallowance.
We have lodged a disallowance in the House. It's really just to send a signal so that
people can be prepared and present their case. I will do the same in the Senate when it
returns on 2 April. I don't want to disallow something, but you've got to make your
case. You are the safety authority. You are introducing a regulation that you say is
centred on safety. I can't quite see it as it stands. You have now basically said it comes
down to the statistics. You are concerned that Angel Flight have more incidents than
private pilots. Mr Carmody: Than private flying. Senator PATRICK: I want to see
those statistics and see how these regulations would have altered those statistics to get
them back to the place we are with normal pilots' licences. ... Senator PATRICK: let's
look at this again in six weeks time with your evidence on the table and with the
evidence of anyone else who wants to make a contribution. Mr Carmody: That's fine.
I understand everything you've said...

Answer —
The statistical basis underpinning the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA)
decision is included in the response to Committee Question Number 127. The
intention of the instrument placing conditions on the licences of pilots undertaking
Community Service Flights (CSF) that the new minimum standards will improve the
safety of those flights without having an adverse impact on the majority of their
operations. It does this by including certain measures which are known to improve
safety outcomes. These include:

Aeronautical and recency experience requirements
• A number of provisions specify minimum experience including at least:

o 400 hours of flight time
o 250 hours as Pilot-in-Command
o 10 hours of flight under Visual Flight Rules
o 20 hours of flight under Instrument Flight Rules
o 25 hours as Pilot-in-Command of a multi-engine aeroplane

These measures are in keeping with international best practice and supported by
information used by similar national aviation authorities. From 400 hours total time,
the mishap rates for private pilots begin a steady decrease to the lowest rate at
approximately 2000 hours of total time. Recency and experience combined provide a
layered defence to enable pilots to manage more complex situations. The
requirements ensure that that no pilot conducts a CSF flight without a minimum of
experience in that type of aircraft or under those conditions.
• The provision for conducting a landing within 30 days on type reflects the fact that
landing related mishaps are the second largest category of mishaps globally. This
provision ensures that a pilot has recency in this critical phase of flight prior to
engaging in what CASA considers to be more demanding and complex CSF
operations.

Operational requirements
• Night visual flight rules (NVFR) were a factor in the first fatal accident involving an
Angel Flight pilot. The ban on NVFRs reflects the risks involved in this activity. Such
flights must occur under instrument flight rules.

Notification requirements
• At present, CSF are indistinguishable from private flights. The notification
requirements will provide important data to allow CASA to conduct data-driven
evaluations and decision making. It will also assist pilots in making accurate reporting
of their flight activity.

Maintenance
• These provision for maintenance at 100 hours or 12 months is an internationally
recognised preventative measure against the few aircraft that may fly well past 100
hours in 12 months. These maintenance requirements may require the operator of an
aircraft maintained in the private category to conduct an additional periodic inspection
slightly earlier than normally required for private category aircraft if they fly more
100 hours before 12 months has elapsed since the last inspection. The 100 hour figure
is double the annual average utilisation of 50 hours per year for private aircraft and is
only required by a relatively small proportion of the private fleet.

Hmmm....much, much MTF me thinks??...P2 

[Kharon]

Aviation – and the poison chalice?

Seems it is  - to almost every politician and journalist in this land. Bumped into Marg Pagani – from Angel Flight the other day; we both had time for a catch up and a chat – of course the battle for AF survival got a fair bit of time; (just a bit). I think the basics of this horror story are well enough known – although mostly side lined in the dull, but continuous white noise of this damned election. Won’t reiterate the broad details; but, some of the subtext to the AF saga troubled me. Only my take on the ‘situation’ so you can stop reading now if the abstract troubles you, but for the not so brain washed or those who don’t hide under the bed when things go bump in the night:-

One item Marg mentioned was a mail out to every politician in the country – all of ‘em. Apart from a handful; all, without fail responded in a similar vein. CASA knows best etc. Why, despite glaring evidence to the contrary do the people responsible for running this country believe that? How hard can it be to see beyond the smoke and mirrors? The answer is that it ain’t; the fear of repercussion is. The moment a politician engages brain and initiates any form of change to the Act or demands regulatory reform – the fear of CASA claiming that the ‘change’ brought about an accident because of their loss of power – “the blood will be on your hands” scares the beejasuss out of those without a functioning brain – like that McDoNothing fool in Wagga. Total abject subservience through ignorance – not quite what Australia needs in a deputy prime minister, is it? But there he stands on the hustings – irrelevant, useless and easily controlled. How can anyone so easily manipulated and gutless hope to run this land when he can’t even stand up to one of the biggest teams of snake oil salesmen ever put together? That is the worry, if the CASA crew can twist him into a pretzel what the hell are the real international heavies going to do with this Muppet?

It would not be so terrible if we had a ‘first-class’ team running CASA; no one would worry. If the ‘Bored’ had real folk who knew their onions to control the top layer of the CASA confection, all would be well. We could even live with just a director who actually took ownership of the job. We have none of that – absolutely nothing, zero, zip, Nada. Any impartial analysis of who is running aviation should scare the politicians and journalist into immediate action.

I wonder how St. Commode’s top team respond when he actually deigns to make an appearance; I also wonder how they have managed to fool him into relying on them – I do. Take a look at the St. Commode top line up – and despair. J (where’s my marbles) Aleck who is well known to industry and needs no introduction.– Crawford a workshop refugee who, happily, has nothing to do with maintenance, managing ‘aviation’ – although on what grounds he is qualified to do that defies logic and this Monahan – ex military high roller, who suddenly switches to ‘civil’. Aye, it’s a grand team – small wonder the politicians and journalists steer clear of interfering when matters aeronautical and public safety is such capable hands.

But, not to worry – we have the TAAAF to defend us- look at their stellar accomplishments over the last three years; read their vision of the future in the huge changes they intend to ring in – after the election – when they know who to talk to. There now, you see – I was worried about nothing – we are all in such capable, qualified hands; with McDonaught at the helm. Aye-

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here.

Toot - True dat – toot.

[Kharon]

"All you have to do is Nod."

Been a while since I watched this movie – quietly pondering in my own whimsical way how best to get a message through to the ‘powers that be’ how best to salvage an industry which is not only in diabolical straits; bleeding talent, loosing business opportunity and generally going down the plug hole; but enslaved to a ridiculous power base. It was the notion that all the minister has to do is listen and nod. Allow the reforms and watch an industry shake itself out of the doldrums.

Anyway – FWIW -

[Peetwo]

DPM Mc'Donut exposes ignorance on matters aeronautical - UDB! 

Yesterday our useless, NFI, WOFTAM of a miniscule tweeted this load of bollocks in response to the UBER announcement of a flying taxi trial in Melbourne next year:

Michael McCormack

@M_McCormackMP

Not too long ago, the idea of flying cars was the stuff of science fiction.

But the future is here!

It’s exciting that trials of @Uber Air will begin in Melbourne next year.

Looking forward to working with innovators to deliver the transport of the future.

Naturally this has attracted the ire of a number of tweepers including some aviation industry stakeholders.

The following tweet chain from Ben Wyndham IMO totally captures the duplicity and hypocrisy of the miniscule's ignorant tweet...

Dear Minister @M_McCormackMP

You do realise, dont you, that while you fall over yourself to move barriers for foreign corporates with untested tech you RAISE them for Australian family owned small aviation biz with proven, mature equipment and systems?

Come March 2021 your new Part 135 regulations will eliminate over 500 small Charter operators, with fewer than 20 operators remaining nation wide.

The result will be widespread unemployment of pilots and aircraft engineers as family-owned General Aviation businesses fail, leaving maintenance companies and fuel companies stranded.

The irony is that the Uber technology you are marketing on every available social media platform will not deliver for regional Australia, only for urban areas. You were elected to represent the bush, not facilitate electric helicopters for the city.

Regional Australia continues to suffer as your government's policies, apathy and inactions cripple operators, burden us with administration, discourage Aviation careers and traineeships, and stifles development and growth of viable Rural air services.

We have a vision of what we could be if CASA could work with us productively. The General Aviation community will continue to work with @aopa_australia and @RAAA_tweet in what we view as a fight for our very survival.

Ref: https://twitter.com/ben_wyndham/status/1138957984409612288

Hmm...no comment required me thinks -  

Also somewhat related a comment/response from Sandy to this Peter Van Onselen Oz article:  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquire...8d1a6b3d41

Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison: Few jobs, poor growth, no surplus

[size=undefined]PETER VAN ONSELEN



Remember the federal Coalition’s tedious campaign slogan back in 2016? Jobs and growth. It was funny at the time because Malcolm Turnbull, the prime minister, had previously attacked Tony Abbott for dumbing down politics by using “three-word slogans”.

[/size]
Fast forward to today and the Coalition’s 2016 election mantra — which delivered it only one less seat than Scott Morrison secured at this year’s election — sounds even more hollow than it was at the time.


Unemployment rose during the recent election campaign and underemployment is a serious drag on the economy, which is expected to get worse. This week’s gross domestic product numbers revealed anaemic growth, coming off the back of a recent zero-inflation quarter.



Throw in the cut to interest rates on Tuesday, with signals that further rate cuts are likely, and let’s ask ourselves how the twice re-elected Coalition government has done since its “jobs and growth” pitch.


Poorly is the only appropriate answer. Yet few if any inside the government will worry if the focus stays on the economy and economic management in particular. That’s because the Coalition wins the politics when it does.


The head of the Reserve Bank is calling for the government to do more to help stimulate the economy — to support jobs and to boost growth, to put it another way. There are various ways to do this, but rather than embrace any of them this government essentially has sat on its hands for three years, focusing solely on the task of returning the budget to surplus.


But that endeavour, at least in part, runs contrary to the task of supporting jobs and boosting growth. Certainly if fiscal stimulus is needed. Reforms to boost growth often have a short-term budgetary impact for long-term structural benefit.


Incidentally, while Morrison now crows about something he hasn’t yet achieved — bringing the budget back to surplus next year — his government is starting to look more like Malcolm Fraser’s than that of Bob Hawke or John Howard.


Let’s not forget, national debt has doubled on this government’s watch anyway. So even according to its own yardstick for economic success — which misunderstands what determines economic success in any meaningful way — the Coalition has failed. Debt has doubled, the budget still isn’t in surplus despite the promises, and almost every underlying economic indicator points towards a recession or at least a slowdown.


When Fraser left government, he had achieved what is a traditional maxim for conservative governments: keep Labor away from the Treasury benches for three full electoral cycles. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments now have done the same, courtesy of winning the election last month.


Abbott achieved the task of winning back government from opposition. Turnbull snatched victory from the jaws of the defeat Abbott was cascading towards in 2016 by wresting the prime ministership from the hands of the accident-prone Abbott and his dysfunctional office. Morrison has crowned these twin political successes with his unlikely (and unexpected) victory on May 18. But without serious economic reforms to follow, the best that can be said about this government is that it has taken a trio of prime ministers to match what was a woeful track record for one former Liberal prime minister in Fraser.


At the end of the Fraser years Liberals wondered what had been the point of seven years in power across three terms of government. Subsequently it took Hawke and his treasurer, Paul Keating, to introduce micro-economic reforms. It then took Howard to liberalise the workplace via industrial relations reforms, as well as improve the tax system with the introduction of the GST.


Both of those governments did most of their heavy lifting early on, using the later part of their stints in power to lock in the outcomes politically. This government hasn’t even achieved the low bar its rhetoric aimed at: paying down debt and boosting jobs and growth.


Where is the industrial relations reform agenda? Or serious tax reform? Or indeed a well-targeted infrastructure agenda that uses growth-related key performance indicators as its guiding principle, rather than pork barrelling?

Turnbull junked the federation and tax white paper processes Abbott had called for. It was a double failure. Abbott left them in the too-hard basket as he got on with the important work of knighting an ageing prince, while Turnbull ran out of time before the 2016 election and didn’t have the authority after the narrow win to do much of anything at all.


Morrison is a marketing man, and has never been much of an economic liberal. He consistently has argued in cabinet for state subsidies for industries and is more concerned that his advocacy was leaked than what such a philosophical stance says about him as a Liberal.


Speaking of leaks, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Australian Federal Police raids on the home of one of my News Corp Australia colleagues and the Sydney offices of the ABC. Whether you think the laws need amending, or the raids were or weren’t justified, perhaps the most lowbrow response was the one we initially got from Morrison when he said he had no problem with police enforcing the law, yet also wanted to wipe his hands of responsibility for the raids by arguing that government had nothing to do with it.


Governments, via the parliaments they operate in, write the laws. Governments therefore are entirely responsible for the laws that get enforced. To suggest the matter is “operational” and not something a prime minister should concern himself with should be troubling to us all.


But there is much more to it than that. Attempts to intimidate journalists, media organisations and whistleblowers are bad enough, but it’s off the scales when our political leaders tacitly endorse this with an inconsistent yardstick. If our Prime Minister is so convinced that laws need to be enforced by the police, why is he not calling for greater enforcement of laws that prevent government leaks, from within his own cabinet for example? Or out of parliamentary committee processes? Or directly out of the offices of ministers or, indeed, the Prime Minister’s own office? Why not make a stand to come down hard on such breaches? On whistleblowers who are also his colleagues? Especially given that such leaks are much less virtuous than those that prompted this week’s police raids.


The answer is because there would barely be a cabinet minister who would not be found to have violated some secrecy provision capable of being prosecuted under the law. How the police choose to enforce the law is every bit as important as how laws are crafted. When the police use laws in a way that goes against the spirit of what they were intended for, it’s incumbent on our political leaders to speak out — then change those laws if necessary.

[size=undefined]Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.[/size]

Via Sandy :

..Woe betide us with the alternative Labor making worse, but Peter has a point. Nowhere more exemplifies the problems of free enterprise getting on with legitimate business, creating jobs and much needed services than in Australia’s General Aviation sector. An example of a huge bureaucracy, at huge taxpayer cost, which has so mismanaged the GA industry that thousands of businesses, jobs and services have been smashed with over regulation and whinging costs and fees paid to the regulator CASA. I’m told several other industries suffer the same to various degrees.

I’m sure many would agree that the Can’tberra bureaucrats are way beyond a rational level of restraint, or indeed as in the case of CASA, way past their competencies. Here we have great opportunities for a government to release the stranglehold and create thousands of jobs, but it seems that a string of National Party Ministers are thoroughly snowed by these powerful Commonwealth corporate bodies (not Departments any more) and are too afraid to direct anything.

We had hoped Barnaby Joyce would force some change, alas that hope faded and a permanent Winter has set in, and perhaps worse, as the latest tranche of impossible aviation operating rules are forced onto a diminishing GA industry. In spite of our poor exchange rate, some are even heading to the States for flying training and jobs. We now have to import airline pilots too. There’s plenty of scope for job creation but it needs Ministers willing to make changes.

MTF...P2