[Peetwo]

From ATSB – the final report Air ASIA X incident in March 2015 at Sydney – HERE.

No comment required, but I seem to recall an Estimates session which was relevant.

Do you mean this session "K"...

Holy hell ! – Yes Senator, indeed.

One of the more intriguing documents read lately is this one – HERE – from Skidmore to the Estimates committee.  It throws a shroud over some fairly nifty sleight of hand.  The letter, of it's self, is self explanatory.   To an inquiring mind, the rest of the 'bumf' is 'background noise' until you realise, as Skidmore must have done by now; it don't answer the question; not fully.

When you read Hansard the intent and the purpose of the question was – how come operators which are blacklisted in Europe can operate into Australia?.  What was needed, by way of answer was an explanation of the differences between Australia and Europe: given that ICAO compliance in the real world is the norm, rather than the 1600 odd differences package which keeps Australia off the real compliance radar, using stealth and technical lip service.

I wonder how long ICAO will sit still, when the world is blatantly taking the Mickey out of Annexe 13.  Perhaps they will start to hunt down a fat, juicy high roller for to make an example of?

Well, poor old Skidmore was lured into a velvet lined trap, foiled by smoke, dazzled by mirrors and succumbing to the oldest trap in the world – the whispered "trust me".

You know the old gag – "I'll only pop it in a little way, if you don't like it, I'll take it out; trust me"..... ......

Tower Chair are we clear to backtrack?

Although personally I was much more interested in other passages of play at the time, I did find that Air Asia ......? (fill out on the dotted line.. ) & EU blacklist thing intriguing and now with Skates 1st Estimates retraction, even more so???

Anyway for those interested here is the "exchange" in pictures - fascinating how Hoodoo Voodoo seems to know in almost intimate detail the previous (prior to December 2014) EU blacklist??

Another point of interest in this whole "exchange" and "retraction" was the Murky Mandarin's constant interference into the fray...

1st example:

Senator STERLE: Why don't we just talk about all AirAsia that fly out of any port in Australia to overseas? Does that make it easier?


Mr Skidmore : To a certain degree it does.

Senator STERLE: It might be your first one, but you learnt pretty quickly.
 
Mr Mrdak : It is an important distinction, because we have AirAsia, which has a significantly longer operational history than the company that was involved in the accident, as opposed to AirAsia Indonesia.

Senator STERLE: Sure. Yes.

Mr Mrdak : The company has various stages of maturity and operations, so it is hard for us to give you a generic answer on AirAsia because there are multiple operators. AirAsia is a Malaysian company. There are various subsidiaries which are—

Senator STERLE: I am aware. The Philippines and Indonesia—

Mr Mrdak : at different stages of operation and have different business patterns to AirAsia's. That is why I cannot give you a—

Senator STERLE: Mr Mrdak, in all fairness to AirAsia, I asked the question and we should answer the whole lot. Mr Skidmore should tell us what CASA are thinking. Because out there in travel land people see AirAsia and go 'ooh'—let me tell you. Ask my mate here. In Perth there was a lot of conversation around that time. A lot of people use AirAsia out of Perth, as I said, to Bali. So you can put our minds at rest without starting an absolute fear campaign.

Mr Mrdak : Perhaps if we start with the business entity which is seeking regulatory approval to commence operations.

Senator STERLE: Spot on. Mr Mrdak, I am sorry to interrupt—while I am being nice and on my best behaviour—but as Senator Back did just say to me, that particular plane had been in service between Perth and Bali. So I think it is a fair question for us to put on the table. Let us have a go.

Mr Mrdak : All I was trying to do was assist you by saying that perhaps if Mr Skidmore starts with the progress on the application for new operations, which are AirAsia Indonesia, we can then talk from there about broader surveillance. But perhaps we could start from where the media focus has been, which is new start-up carriers. Does that assist, Mark?

Mr Skidmore : That will help, thank you. Indonesia AirAsia Extra is the operator who was asking for a Foreign Aircraft Air Operator's Certificate to operate from Melbourne to Denpasar.

Senator STERLE: Oh, have they?...

2nd example:

CHAIR: How did we allow them? Did they apply, or we have not bothered to inspect? How come they are banned in flying in Europe, but we say, 'She'll be right here'?


Mr Mrdak : Can I just jump in. I think we should clarify. Firstly, Garuda does operate to Europe and operates to here. Australia does look at issues like the European black list, but the European black list is not a black list as you might imagine. As Dr Aleck has indicated, the European authorities take certain presumptions in relation to carriers from certain states—

Senator STERLE: Ban the whole lot.

Mr Mrdak : and carriers then can apply to operate. With Garuda international there were some issues a few years ago. They have been satisfied. They are now regarded as a—

Mr Skidmore : Very safe.

Mr Mrdak : very safe and very credible airline. I would not want to leave the committee with the impression, on the evidence that has been given today, that there are any suggestions around Garuda Indonesia. In relation to those matters, we do look at issuing international airline licences and foreign AOCs. As to the status of those carriers on the European listing, they are taken into account. Australia does—and I am sure CASA will outline it for you—its own checks in relation to foreign AOCs and also undertakes its own ramp assessments and—

CHAIR: But there are still two airlines flying into Australia, as I understand it, that do not have the rights to fly into Europe?

Mr Mrdak : Before we are definitive, let me go and check that and give you an accurate piece of information on that evidence so far. Let us take that on notice and come back to you.

& at the end...

Mr Mrdak : I think probably the best way is if we—


Senator STERLE: What are you laughing at, Mr Farquharson? Did I tickle your sense of humour? Are you picking on my mate Mr Quinlivan?

Mr Farquharson : I used to be the regional manager in Perth and I know Mr Quinlivan quite well.

Senator STERLE: Don't worry; I know he knows you. Anyway keep going. You look a bit like him from here.

Mr Mrdak : Perhaps if we come back to the committee with some advice in relation to, firstly, foreign air operators certificate requirements and then our safety surveillance program in relation to foreign carriers. If necessary, we can happily provide a briefing to the committee on those matters.

CHAIR: I was just going to suggest that it may be appropriate to prepare a set of documents to brief this committee.

Mr Mrdak : I think that would be the best way forward, so we do not mislead the committee or the general community about the status of airlines or the way in which this safety surveillance takes place. It is probably better if we do it that way.

Senator STERLE: I agree.

Dr Aleck : Can I just add quickly that, in 2009, we amended our legislation specifically to enable us to look at these issues more closely. We exercised those powers in connection with any operator who draws our attention to their activities, and an accident would be a flag.

CHAIR: It is a long time since I learned to fly. You may be captured by an area that has been black listed, but generally what goes wrong when an airline gets black listed in Europe?

Mr Mrdak : Generally, it starts with a concern about the safety regulator in that country in which the airline is based.

CHAIR: The skill of the pilot, the servicing of the plane?

Mr Mrdak : Generally, it starts with concerns about the quality of the safety assurance process in the country in which the airline is based, and the safety regulatory record of the jurisdiction before it gets to the individual aircraft operator. It is much more complex than simply the operator itself.

CHAIR: Anyhow, you will organise a briefing?

Mr Mrdak : I think that is the best way to handle it.

CHAIR: I agree.

Senator STERLE: In that case, I am finished.

CHAIR: I am pleased they asked the question. Senator Xenophon?

How very strange for M&M in Estimates no less?? M&M is not known for offering up so many words on a subject that should be totally within the remit of CASA. Further to this - strange display of disharmony between the Department and agency - is the fact that M&M then goes onto table the same EU Airline blacklist that CASA does within the Skidmore retraction correspondence, minus the EU legislation:

 3.) Document outlining a list of air carriers of which all operations are subject to a ban within the EU. Tabled by Mr Mike Mrdak, Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

(PDF 2204KB)

How very bizarre??

Oh & for the record here is the indexed QON on this matter.. :

171
086
CASA
HEFFERNAN
European blacklist of Airlines

CHAIR: Could you table to this committee the documents that backed up the black listing of those places that fly into Australia that are black listed in Europe?

…
CHAIR: But there are still two airlines flying into Australia, as I understand it, that do not have the rights to fly into Europe?

Mr Mrdak: Before we are definitive, let me go and check that and give you an accurate piece of information on that evidence so far. Let us take that on notice and come back to you.

Mr Skidmore: We can take it on notice and confirm to you exactly the numbers there, but Australia still conducts its own assessment in regards to the application put forward to it.
…
Mr Mrdak: Perhaps if we come back to the committee with some advice in relation to, firstly, foreign air operators certificate requirements and then our safety surveillance program in relation to foreign carriers. If necessary, we can happily provide a briefing to the committee on those matters.

CHAIR: I was just going to suggest that it may be appropriate to prepare a set of documents to brief this committee.

 
Hmm...kind of interesting timing of that hearing when you consider this post off the Mount NCN thread... Uh'mm -I’ll have two bob’s worth. Part II - The reply

In particular:

P2 - To confirm to myself that Senator Fawcett on a mission to 'lance the boil', I decided to review the SCOT reports after the 139 report (i.e. the Serbia & Vanuatu air services agreement).

I discovered that there was indeed one more air services agreement that
the Joint treaties committee reviewed in the 44th Parliament: Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic Relating to Air Services .

The following was from the recorded Hansard from the brief public hearing:

ACTING CHAIR: During the inquiry into air services agreements between Australia and Serbia and Vanuatu last year, the committee was told that, as well as having an agreement in place, foreign airlines need to satisfy safety standards as assessed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA. This includes considering how their practices differ from International Civil Aviation Organization standards. In our report, the committee suggested that the DFAT negotiators should consult with CASA as to whether potential agreement parties are meeting the International Civil Aviation Organization standards or whether there are safety concerns. So the question is: did the department consult with CASA about Laos's performance against the International Civil Aviation Organization standards during the negotiations for this agreement?

Mr Smith : There was consultation with CASA for the negotiation of this agreement. Just looking at the time frame of the two agreements that you referred to that were before the committee last time, there was not that specific additional level of consultation that was mentioned with Serbia and Vanuatu. Discussions have taken place with CASA about expanding the level of consultations prior to future negotiations.

Senator FAWCETT: Clearly before you came to this committee you had the previous reports. I accept the fact that this was negotiated a year ago, but you have had the report since then. Have you gone back to CASA to ask them, for example, what the latest IATA, ICAO or FAA audits were on Laos?

Mr Smith : In September 2015, ICAO published its report on the most recent audit evaluation, undertaken in April 2015, of the Lao PDR. The audit was a targeted review of the 224 unsatisfactory findings made by ICAO during an earlier full audit undertaken in 2010 and it intended to find an update of the assessed safety oversight of the status of Laos. No significant safety concerns were identified during the audit. ICAO uses the 'effective implementation' terminology as a measure of a state's safety oversight capability, and a higher 'effective implementation' indicates that a state's safety oversight system has a greater degree of compliance with ICAO provisions. In 2010, Lao PDR was assessed as having an EI of 65.31 per cent and, following the April 2015 audit, the Lao PDR has improved its score to 73.03.

Senator FAWCETT: I hear that, and that has been in the media recently. Laos are very proud of that—and so they should be—but you did not answer my question. Having had that gap between the issue of our last report and this appearance, have you gone back to CASA to ask them for their opinion? For example, Laos is not registered with IATA. They do not have the IOSA audit, which is kind of the benchmark for international airlines. Generally speaking, the perception is that if you have not had an IOSA audit then perhaps you do not think you are ready for it. It is kind of the gold standard for international airlines. The majority of airlines are; Laos is not. Have you gone back and asked CASA their opinion on what may be lacking that has caused Laos to not actually pursue the IATA accreditation?

Mr Smith : CASA were consulted on the text before it was finalised, but we did not specifically ask the sorts of questions that you have outlined. Part of the rationale surrounds the likelihood of Lao Airlines serving the Australian market with their own aircraft. The agreement was settled to provide both for own-operated services and, primarily, for code-share services. In the event that the operation into Australia of Lao carriers with Lao-registered aircraft becomes more likely, I think that issue would become more topical and would certainly interest and exercise CASA's attention. Certainly, the air services agreement we are discussing today includes the standard safety clause that is included in our air services agreements, which provides CASA with the scope and ability to enforce the minimum ICAO standards, as well as applying the domestic standards that they would apply before issuing FAAOCs and the like.

Senator FAWCETT: I still just make the note that, having issued a report recommending a particular course of action, I am a little disappointed that that has not been followed through prior to this hearing so that we have an assurance. Taking on board what you are saying—that, at this stage, you do not anticipate a Lao-registered aircraft to operate here—and noting also the recent ICAO evaluation, I still think that is a loop that should be closed before the committee actually considers the report.

Hmm...them ICAO breadcrumbs are lining up me thinks...
MTF...P2