[Peetwo]

Harmonisation & PBR everywhere but here? -   

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times - Part II

Speaking of weasel words, I wonder if anyone has taken the time to read the latest edition of Murky Mandarin's bollocks SSP (see HERE)? You know the one that was released with little to no fanfare on the day of the Tamworth rally and three days before Malcolm called the  ridiculous two month election campaign.

Contradiction examples from the SSP.

Eg.1 This is Murky's policy statement which supposedly, among other things, is meant to address government aviation policy:

Australia's State Safety Policy Statement

Australia's aviation safety system plays a vital role in ensuring that Australia has a safe, efficient and competitive aviation industry. Australia will continue to seek closer alignment with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices and adopt international best practices in its aviation safety system.

The Australian Government has endorsed the following safety principles that underpin the future aviation safety system:

1. Safety is the primary consideration of Australia's aviation agencies and industry in the performance of their functions;
   
2. The highest safety priority should be afforded to passenger transport operations;
   
3. Australia's regulatory approach and responses are based on a sound assessment of the level of risk associated with particular aviation operations;
   
4. Aviation agencies and industry work closely together to identify aviation safety risks and ensure that the most appropriate methods, practices and technologies are adopted to address and reduce these risks;
   
5. A strong 'just culture' approach underpins information sharing between industry and safety agencies as information sharing assists in preventing future safety events and reflects international best practice;
   
6. Recognition that Australia's safety regulatory system plays an important role in ensuring that Australia has a safe, efficient and competitive aviation industry;
   
7. Australia's aviation regulatory procedures, processes and approach to regulation is fair, transparent and promotes nationally consistent operations;
   
8. Active and ongoing engagement by industry and safety agencies will help inform future regulatory priorities and the development of simpler regulations, standards and orders;
   
9. The safety performance of our aviation safety system will be continuously monitored and measured through the Stat's aggregate safety performance indicators as well as service provider's safety performance indicators; and
   
10. Sufficient financial and human resources for safety management and oversight will be allocated; and staff will be equipped with the proper skills and expertise to discharge their safety oversight and management responsibilities competently.
    

Mike Mrdak
Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
6 May 2016

 
In light of the Mildura Fog duck-up; the ongoing investigation of the broken tail VARA ATR (3 years and counting); and the recent release (after 3 years) of a shambolic investigation into a pushback accident between two RPT jets; I would suggest that the Department and it's responsible agencies are already in direct contravention of No.2 :

"...The highest safety priority should be afforded to passenger transport operations..."    

Eg.2

Quote from SSP Introduction:

The SSP is a key means of demonstrating how each ICAO Contracting State intends to achieve an acceptable level of safety performance in civil aviation in its own State.
The SSP is in essence the safety management system (SMS) for the State.

The detailed requirements for SSPs are set out in Annex 19 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Australia's SSP sets out the specific safety activities which we will continue to perform to meet the ICAO State responsibilities concerning the safe and efficient performance of aviation activities in Australia. 

Those paragraphs highlight our obligations as a signatory to ICAO, as outlined under Annex 19, under a State run SMS (SSP). Yet if you refer to my post - The 'despicable' Dazzling Dazza - you can truly get a sense of how much Murky's new SSP is pure unadulterated weasel words and a complete and utter load of bollocks :

Cynically I also wonder if the quiet no frills release of Murky's SSP, has something to do with the fact that M&M does not want to draw attention and be questioned on the 3000+ notified differences & some of my further observations mentioned here:

Of the ICAO SARPs Annex 13 & 19 are integral to the proper implementation and effective administration of a State SSP. However as a further indicator that the Australian aviation safety bureaucracy is merely paying lip-service to the spirit & intent of ICAO, one only needs to review the 'notified differences' for A13 - http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/generatedsupplements/Annex_13.pdf -

; & A19 - http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/generatedsupplements/Annex_19.pdf .

There is a combined 12 pages and total of 55 NDs for the two Annexes.

However the real cynicism and affront to industry is within the detail. Let me explain, quote from department SSP DRAFT request for industry comment:

On 4 December 2015, the Department released an updated draft SSP for aviation industry and public comments. The comment period has now closed.

 
Note the date. Now refer to AIP SUP H104/15 [url=https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h104.pdf]  The SUP was issued on the 10 Dec 2015 and notified additional differences to at least 2 of the Annexes instrumental to the administration of a State SSP. So are the relevant notified differences, in particular with Annex 19, preempting the DRAFT SSP being implemented without amendment? How can that be possible when industry stakeholders were yet to comment?

The other option is that the NDs for Annex 19 are based on the current and original SSP.

However the current SSP was published in April 2012, how is it then possible to have additional NDs for a supposedly ICAO compliant document that has been in place for more than 4 years? 

Here is hoping that Murky's mob will eventually publish all industry comments on the 4 Dec 2015 DRAFT SSP..

The other thing that may have prompted M&M to discretely release the SSP two days before the caretaker government period, is that the SSP was referenced in the released TAAAF Policy. 

4. State Safety Program

The State Safety Program (SSP) for aviation is the primary structure for the Government to deliver its obligations under international aviation conventions.

The current approach of Government excludes industry from ongoing involvement in the SSP, other than through very broad consultation or through various piecemeal consultative mechanisms, often through different agencies.

There is a critical need to establish a stronger government-industry partnership through a fresh approach that recognises the role of industry in supporting and informing Government aviation policy. 

The Forum believes that Government should review the structures involved in the State Safety Program and provide mechanisms for improved high-level consultation with industry, including industry representative membership of the key committees.

The Forum is deeply concerned with the ongoing practice of Australia lodging differences to ICAO standards without consultation with industry. This practice must be stopped and a new system of industry consultation implemented through the SSP to ensure any difference lodged has the support of industry and is aligned with Government objectives for the efficient functioning of the Australian aviation regulatory system and international harmonisation.

If this policy (or a version of it) was adopted by the Coalition and they get back into government, it is far easier to say the SSP is done & dusted till next time (3yrs), therefore not requiring adherence to government policy...

Going along the theme of the above quoted post, KC in the latest AMROBA newsletter clearly defines why international regulatory harmonisation is so important for the long term growth and prosperity of the Australian aviation industry... :

3. Harmonised Australasian Aviation Requirements.

If politicians looked at the Pacific Region and ask why Australian aviation businesses do not have more involvement, they would quickly find out that the Pacific Region is harmonised with the NZ aviation requirements. Instead of looking at Europe, North America, government should be concentrating on Pacific Region harmonised aviation regulatory requirements. This is not only cost-effective for government but would provide a broader aviation market to participate in.

Aviation is a global industry and the days of unique requirements are over. The ICAO standards for the non-airline sectors have less red tape than what is applied in Australia. New Zealand has had its focus on the international market in the Pacific region for years and have assisted most Pacific countries to adopt the NZ aviation regulations with minimal changes. These countries copied the NZ requirements – something Australia should be doing ASAP. Basically the Pacific Islands have adopted the Kiwi system.

The Pacific Aviation Safety Office (PASO) is a regional international organisation overseeing aviation safety and security oversight in the Pacific Islands using guidelines provided by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). PASO was created on 11 June 2005, as a result of the Pacific Islands Civil Aviation Safety and Security Treaty (PICASST) and is managed by a permanent staff based in Port Vila, Vanuatu.

States which are currently Parties to the PICASST are: Cook Islands, Kiribati, Niue, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Countries which are also members of PASO, but not Parties to the PICASST are: Australia, New Zealand and Fiji.

PASO exists to:

 to meet the requirements of the member states in the provision of aviation safety and security regulatory oversight services, in accordance with PICASST

 to undertake the purpose of the organisation in a manner which is cost effective and sustainable in the long term; to utilise coordinated and collaborative business and inspection methods to minimise the costs of safety and security oversight to participating states and the aviation industry

 to support the aviation industry in participating states by the provision of timely advice and guidance in matters of aviation safety and security; and

 to promote an internationally recognised standard of aviation safety and security excellence, based on ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS), within the Pacific Islands region.

Australia is part of this region and should be focussed on staying harmonised with NZ so that the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA) could be properly recognised in aviation.

Under the TTMRA, with a few exceptions:

a person registered to practise an occupation in Australia is entitled to practise an equivalent occupation in New Zealand, and vice versa, without the need for further testing or examination.

Pilots, LAMEs, AMEs, etc. should have no restriction working in either country.

This was the aim of government back in 1996, why has CASA been allowed to ignore it?
The government has the ultimate responsibility, has it not?

The ultimate aim of the treaty (Chicago Convention) that Australia signed was to adopt as closely as practical the international standards and recommended practices as it was recognised in 1944 that aviation is a global industry.

The attitude of filing differences with ICAO only highlights to other NAAs the inability of government to meet its obligations under this treaty. We need an Act that commits government and CASA to implement global standards into the aviation system. Most ICAO standards can be written as a PBR. - Absolutely spot on KC.. However the trouble is no-one, including ICAO & several successive Australian governments, seems to give a fig...  

MTF...P2