Shame or fame for Chester?
Bug 

“CASA will soon release a discussion paper for public comment on the range of safety issues to be examined during the review.”

[Image: design.jpg]
Reply

[Image: 300?cb=20131130142326]

Fame at last -

First prize in our Muppets and Puppets photogenic competition goes to P2 for his intriguing “Master and Mate” study; hair by the Air Head Consortium; nails by Scratch-me-back, clothes stolen borrowed from St Vinnies. The microphone surgical implant by Dr Voodoo’s Misfits Chop Shop.
 
Sponsored by the BRB chapter for the preservation of Forensically Remastered Amateurish Unmitigated Duck-pooh (FRAUD).      





Big Grin
Reply

The cut & paste minion and 6D_NFI_SOEs - Dodgy

A quick Google search for the latest version of miniscule 6D's 'Statement of Expectations' for the three (aviation safety) stooges finds the following: 
.pdf F2017L00288.pdf Size: 585.29 KB  Downloads: 2
.pdf F2017L00526.pdf Size: 554.45 KB  Downloads: 1
.pdf F2017N00037.pdf Size: 488.83 KB  Downloads: 2


We are now all fully aware of the latest Ministerial SOE weasel words for CC & his CASA minions... Rolleyes

CC even reminded us at Budget Estimates of his obligation as Ag (now real) DAS to adhere to the latest 6D SOE weasel words Sad

Quote:CHAIR: What harm is there in us going steady, with respect to the proliferation, before you finish your important work, Mr Carmody? No, look, that is a valid question. Do you take into account the retail sector as you make decisions about whether we should leave these things out of the air for the moment until your work is done?

Mr Carmody : No, I do not take into account the retail sector, but the statement of expectations from my minister is very clear:

… focus on aviation safety as the highest priority …
…   …   …
… consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new—

regulations and regulatory changes.

CHAIR: Yes.

Mr Carmody : And take 'a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies' to different industry sectors. I am fulfilling that mandate.

CHAIR: All right.


Or from approximately 08:00 minutes here:


Apparently last week in parliament the Airservices Australia SOE was officially tabled as parliamentary instrument and the next time parliament sits the Hoody (ATSB) 6D SOE will also be officially tabled and recognised as coming into effect on the 1st July 2017.

This therefore gives us the perfect opportunity to review all three (IMO) WOFTAM Ministerial backside covering SOEs as a collective... Huh

The first to be released was the CASA SOE, so here it is in full... Dodgy

Quote:[Image: CASA-1.jpg]
[Image: CASA-2.jpg]
[Image: CASA-3.jpg]

   Now compare some of the subtitle headings to the yet to be officially released 6D ATSB SOE weasel words:

Quote:[Image: ATSB-1.jpg]
[Image: ATSB-2.jpg]
 
Now compare the CASA & ATSB (above) 'Stakeholder engagement' statements to the ASA offering:
Quote:[Image: ASA-1.jpg]
You begin to get the impression that the M&M 'cut & paste' minion has been hard at work ensuring the 3 aviation safety stooges are all on the same page in their primary objective of protecting the coiffured and waxed ministerial ass posterior... Big Grin   

MTF...P2 Cool


Ps Interesting timeline when you consider the 'properties' (right click) section of each individual SOE PDF... Huh

[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]
Reply

6D obfuscates PelAir cost QON... Dodgy


References courtesy the PelAir MK II thread:
Quote:D-D-D-D-D-Darren?? - Your shout mate!

Quote: Wrote:[Image: 96c237e3a4545d3c35d0c37b06f5de0a.jpg]

Reference: The raiders of the shrinking ATP trough.. [Image: dodgy.gif]

Perhaps this should really be a task for the Senate Estimates crew but at post #50 from the Comardy HR thread "K" asks some very interesting QON of 6D and the government that begins with trying to calculate the total cost to ATPs of the PelAir cover-up saga...


...PelAir re-re update - [Image: rolleyes.gif]

Would of missed this if I hadn't of been looking... [Image: confused.gif]

Via the PelAir re-re-investigation webpage:
Quote: Wrote:Updated: 26 June 2017
The ATSB has released its confidential draft investigation report (AO-2009-072) into the reopened investigation of the 2009 ditching of a Westwind 1124A near Norfolk Island to Directly Involved Parties on Friday 23 June 2017. Directly Involved Parties (DIPs) are those individuals or organisations that were directly involved in the accident or who may have influenced the circumstances that led to the accident and/or whose reputations are likely to be affected following the release of the final investigation report.

The DIP procedure is an important process, consistent with International Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommended practices, which provides an opportunity for natural justice for DIPs, and also serves to ensure factual accuracy of the report. The draft report has been released under s26 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, which includes significant protections to ensure confidentiality. Under Section 26, the report may only be copied and disclosed prior to its public release for the purpose of taking safety action or providing comment to the ATSB.  Disclosure of this report in any other circumstance prior to its public release date may constitute a criminal offence.

DIPs have been given until 31 July 2017 to provide the ATSB with any comments on the draft report, including factual information in support of any changes that may be sought.

Given the complexity and size of the draft report, which is over 500 pages long, - [Image: blush.gif] UDB! - it is possible that DIPs may seek an extension beyond that period. Once the DIP period has closed and the extent of comments and the likely time needed to give them appropriate consideration is known, the ATSB will be better placed to advise a likely release date for the final report.

&..

Quote:P2: PS. Shirley, there must be some 'in the know' bean counter out there that could give us a rough Estimate on the total cost to date of the Pel-Air re-re-duck-up - anyone?

Bloody good question.

I don’t know what ‘we’ pay a Senator or, if there is an additional cost to the public purse for having them ‘sit’ on committee. The same can be said for the secretariat, the ATSB and CASA officials – witnesses are voluntary. The cost of Mrdak – per hour – or per diem; if you like and the ‘other troops, hanging about away from work to attend a ‘hearing’ is not too hard a number to get close to – man hours – by hourly rate will get you close. That children is just to manage a rough guess at the cost of the Senate Inquiry; stand alone alone.  

When you start breaking it down into component parts – it becomes a really big number; before the cost of ministerial hours, the Forsyth panel, the TSBC peer review and the ‘other’ elements are included. This before the cost of the re-re – rewrite and ‘re-view’.

FWIW; the BRB are running a competition to see who can justify the number they entered onto the beer mat estimates, made at the last indaba. I have to say the spreadsheet software has been running hot for a while now. The final ‘cost’ per page of this 500 page redraft is starting to look like a big number. I’ll keep you posted as things progress; but, on present indications, considering the state of the economy – lets say that on a cost per page basis; no one at CASA or ATSB who was involved should be paid for about two years.

PAIN associates competing need to have their final ‘estimates’ in before Manning let’s this thing go public – we have a final estimate for the final report which will not quantify any work done on ‘demanded’ changes to the draft. Why? Well that ain’t going to happen. The Terms of Reference for the competition can be found in the AP (PAIN) library. Closest wins the Tim Tam.

Toot – that’s all – toot.

Well apparently Kaz Casey has not given up on trying to extract the answer to her original QON but is still coming up against a miniscule (plus M&M's department) hell bent on covering his (& M&M's) backside(s) and shirking the issue till the next election at least... Dodgy

Email chain reference:
Quote:Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017 5:10 PM
To: minister.chester@infrastructure.gov.au
Subject: Pel Air 2009 Cost

 
Minister Chester,

I recently submitted an FOI regarding the total cost of the Pel-Air ditching from 2009 to the current date addressed to the department of infrastructure.

The response is attached.

A response which raises many questions regarding the transparency of money (tax payers) spent over the duration of this investigation.

A copy of the FOI will be sent to the Australian Information Commission for further investigation.
 
Extracting honest information over the past seven years from the agencies has been met with a stonewall.

It is abundantly clear that the Pel-Air ditching was a consequence of complete incompetence on many levels.
 
I am confident in saying that the government, the department of infrastructure, failed to protect my safety whilst working as a flight nurse. No regulatory underpinning for flying adhoc missions at the time of the ditching. My life was in the same category as agricultural spraying. How insulting and disappointing. Unsafe is an understatement. If I knew this, I would not have flown. I trusted the authorities to maintain safe, robust regulations for international air ambulance flights. A very noble profession which I worked extremely hard for as it was my passion was taken in a split second. A preventable accident.
 
I understand that extraordinary efforts were taken to avoid acknowledgement of the systemic failures of not only the operator, but the agencies involved pre and post ditch . Ignoring the ASRR recommendations, Senate recommendations, commissioned reports and the unexplainable length of time. The aberration of a report into Australia's first international aviation accident.
 
Transparency for the cost of this unfortunate accident seems a reasonable request. Assessment of the cost in comparison to the lessons of safety issues that have been actioned.


Kind Regards,

Karen Casey



...I spoke to Ministers office on Monday. Also spoke with AIC & Att General office. The Ministers office called back concerned about me contacting the AIC & said they spoke with DC, he said to give the FOI info directly to him to check if he could find that information. I said he should already know that, it's his budget! Secondly, I do not trust that this will be done with integrity, history proves, therefore the Aust Info Commish will be receiving the FOI complaint regardless....
 
Go you good thing... Wink

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

6D & CC's aviation isolationism policy - [Image: dodgy.gif]

[Image: Comardy-Capers.jpg]

In the course of doing research into the background/history of PASO (refer PelAir thread post: PASO, dots, dashes & an unfortunate ditching - Part II) and the international aviation safety politics of the Asia Pacific (i.e. CAANZ vs CASA, the PASO Bledisloe Cup; I came across some interesting references that highlight how out of touch with reality our government and aviation safety bureaucracy is with the rest of the world... [Image: blush.gif]

From December 2010 Asian Development Bank publication (Note how many times harmonisation is mentioned): https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/...eg-tar.pdf

Quote: Wrote:2. All developing member countries of PASO have acceded to the Pacific Islands Aviation Safety and Security Treaty, which requires regulatory harmonization. To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of PASO operations and create a least-cost operating environment for airlines, the legislation and regulations of member countries must be harmonized to create a common inspection regime and common compliance protocols. The technical assistance (TA) will assist developing member countries of PASO to update and harmonize their legislation and regulations. The TA will also examine the financial performance and revenue model of PASO with respect to both its fee structure and member countries’ aviation revenue base, and assist PASO to refine its management systems to ensure sustainability. The design and monitoring
framework is in Appendix 1.

II. ISSUES

4. The developing member countries of PASO are signatories to international and regional treaties that commit them to meeting aviation security and safety standards through the uniform application of ICAO standards. In recent years, these standards have been greatly expanded, particularly those related to security. However, most PASO members are unable to fully meet all of their oversight obligations. As a result, many Pacific island countries have received less than satisfactory results from the ICAO-mandated Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program and Universal Security Oversight Audit Program.

5. Audits and inspections must be undertaken in accordance with the legal environment of the state of operation, based on national regulations and the standards and recommended practices (SARPs) of ICAO. While improved compliance with these obligations is essential, aviation safety and security regulatory frameworks across the region are inconsistent. Variations in the rules cause increased compliance costs for airlines, and make efficient implementation of the PASO work plan more challenging. A harmonized operating environment will produce benefits to airlines, national civil aviation administrations, and travelers.

11. The outcome is expected to be revision and harmonization of national aviation legislation and regulations. Indicators will be final legal documentation that is consistent with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (NZCARs) to provide a uniform set of standards and recommended practices and inclusion of authority to raise aviation oversight revenues in national laws, expected by the end of 2012. A third outcome indicator is legislative adoption of the revised legislation and regulations, which may take a further year for all countries to achieve.

12. The direct beneficiaries of the project include the governments of PASO member
countries that will be able to rationalize their civil aviation administrations and lower public sector costs, regional air transport operators that will experience lower regulatory compliance costs and more responsive services, and users of air transport that will benefit from higher security and safety standards.

B. Methodology and Key Activities

13. The outputs of the project will achieve regional harmonization of aviation legal frameworks and financial sustainability of PASO...


14. Assisting with revisions to national aviation legislation and regulations will continue from the base established by the review of national legislation and regulations (para. 7). The TA will reconfirm the detailed aspects required for revision through preparation of new or amended legislative acts and rules. Two particular concerns are that national laws should provide for adequate delegation of authority and enforcement by civil aviation authorities (CAAs), and should be consistent with international law instruments which may require ratification or accession to ensure they are given effect in national laws. Since six of the 11 participating countries have primary legislation modeled on NZCARs and will require minor updates, whereas the other five will require more comprehensive legal drafting, standardizing the New Zealand rules provides the most efficient and effective path to harmonization. With respect to regulations, most states can expect to adopt the NZCARs by reference. The TA will then prepare detailed drafts of revised legal instruments based on standardized models with necessary adaptation to national circumstances. National legal advisers will provide extended assistance for the adoption and adaptation of the system of aviation regulations and technical guidance material.

Fortunately for PASO & the Pacific Island nations the Kiwis again win the Bledisloe Cup... [Image: wink.gif]

Reference (2014) - TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
PACIFIC AVIATION SAFETY OFFICE REFORM PROJECT
STRENGTHENING PASO GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT (P-A01):

Quote: Wrote:1.6 The Strategic Goals of PASO are to:
1. Develop regional capacity and provide for a long-term improvement in the quality of aviation safety and security oversight services.
2. Ensure that the Pacific aviation sector complies with international requirements established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for safety and security regulation and oversight.
3. Reduce service fee and operator compliance costs through economies of scale, achieved by sharing resources through a single regional organization.
4. Harmonise safety standards and security provision across the Pacific region, building on the adoption of New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules.
5. Promote an efficient oversight capability in member States.
6. Encourage member State participation in RSOO activities with the objective of assisting other States in the certification or approval of organisations in aviation activities.
7. Establish regional training programs for member State’s technical personnel
8. Develop an information and reporting system, which facilitates access to safety-related and safety critical information in the region.

 And from the MOC (Memorandum of Cooperation) between PASO & the CAANZ, it would appear that despite Australia being one of two nations to fully implement ICAO Annex 19 (SSP), PASO would prefer to be guided by the Kiwis in implementing a State Safety Program... [Image: rolleyes.gif] :
Quote: Wrote:[Image: MOC-1.jpg][Image: MOC-2.jpg][Image: MOC-3.jpg]
  
Good to see the miniscule Chester (Government), M&M and Comardy Caper endorsed aviation policy is reaching its penultimate goal of totally isolating our aviation industry from the rest of the world - UDB! [Image: dodgy.gif]


  
MTF...P2 [Image: cool.gif]

[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]
Reply

Half a billion and counting – WHY?

11. The outcome is expected to be revision and harmonization of national aviation legislation and regulations. Indicators will be final legal documentation that is consistent with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (NZCARs) to provide a uniform set of standards and recommended practices and inclusion of authority to raise aviation oversight revenues in national laws, expected by the end of 2012. A third outcome indicator is legislative adoption of the revised legislation and regulations, which may take a further year for all countries to achieve.

14. Assisting with revisions to national aviation legislation and regulations will continue from the base established by the review of national legislation and regulations (para. 7). The TA will reconfirm the detailed aspects required for revision through preparation of new or amended legislative acts and rules. Two particular concerns are that national laws should provide for adequate delegation of authority and enforcement by civil aviation authorities (CAAs), and should be consistent with international law instruments which may require ratification or accession to ensure they are given effect in national laws.

4. Harmonise safety standards and security provision across the Pacific region, building on the adoption of New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules.

Australia must be the only Pacific Island nation not on the Kiwi system. Can someone tell me why we keep throwing millions on the bonfire of regulatory reform. Have you noticed how the same egocentric personalities keep popping up at the power and money troughs; don’t seem to matter which one, they always seem to have their greedy snouts buried there.

It is time this complete waste of money stopped; there is a perfectly serviceable, ICAO compliant, practical rule set in operation. The Kiwi’s have won the match, someone should tell the Canberra mutts the whistle has blown and they got beaten hollow, by a much better team.

Toot, toot bloody toot.
Reply

(07-04-2017, 08:50 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  6D & CC's aviation isolationism policy - [Image: dodgy.gif]

[Image: Comardy-Capers.jpg]

In the course of doing research into the background/history of PASO (refer PelAir thread post: PASO, dots, dashes & an unfortunate ditching - Part II) and the international aviation safety politics of the Asia Pacific (i.e. CAANZ vs CASA, the PASO Bledisloe Cup; I came across some interesting references that highlight how out of touch with reality our government and aviation safety bureaucracy is with the rest of the world... [Image: blush.gif]

From December 2010 Asian Development Bank publication (Note how many times harmonisation is mentioned): https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/...eg-tar.pdf

Quote: Wrote:2. All developing member countries of PASO have acceded to the Pacific Islands Aviation Safety and Security Treaty, which requires regulatory harmonization. To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of PASO operations and create a least-cost operating environment for airlines, the legislation and regulations of member countries must be harmonized to create a common inspection regime and common compliance protocols. The technical assistance (TA) will assist developing member countries of PASO to update and harmonize their legislation and regulations. The TA will also examine the financial performance and revenue model of PASO with respect to both its fee structure and member countries’ aviation revenue base, and assist PASO to refine its management systems to ensure sustainability. The design and monitoring
framework is in Appendix 1.

II. ISSUES

4. The developing member countries of PASO are signatories to international and regional treaties that commit them to meeting aviation security and safety standards through the uniform application of ICAO standards. In recent years, these standards have been greatly expanded, particularly those related to security. However, most PASO members are unable to fully meet all of their oversight obligations. As a result, many Pacific island countries have received less than satisfactory results from the ICAO-mandated Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program and Universal Security Oversight Audit Program.

5. Audits and inspections must be undertaken in accordance with the legal environment of the state of operation, based on national regulations and the standards and recommended practices (SARPs) of ICAO. While improved compliance with these obligations is essential, aviation safety and security regulatory frameworks across the region are inconsistent. Variations in the rules cause increased compliance costs for airlines, and make efficient implementation of the PASO work plan more challenging. A harmonized operating environment will produce benefits to airlines, national civil aviation administrations, and travelers.

11. The outcome is expected to be revision and harmonization of national aviation legislation and regulations. Indicators will be final legal documentation that is consistent with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (NZCARs) to provide a uniform set of standards and recommended practices and inclusion of authority to raise aviation oversight revenues in national laws, expected by the end of 2012. A third outcome indicator is legislative adoption of the revised legislation and regulations, which may take a further year for all countries to achieve.

12. The direct beneficiaries of the project include the governments of PASO member
countries that will be able to rationalize their civil aviation administrations and lower public sector costs, regional air transport operators that will experience lower regulatory compliance costs and more responsive services, and users of air transport that will benefit from higher security and safety standards.

B. Methodology and Key Activities

13. The outputs of the project will achieve regional harmonization of aviation legal frameworks and financial sustainability of PASO...


14. Assisting with revisions to national aviation legislation and regulations will continue from the base established by the review of national legislation and regulations (para. 7). The TA will reconfirm the detailed aspects required for revision through preparation of new or amended legislative acts and rules. Two particular concerns are that national laws should provide for adequate delegation of authority and enforcement by civil aviation authorities (CAAs), and should be consistent with international law instruments which may require ratification or accession to ensure they are given effect in national laws. Since six of the 11 participating countries have primary legislation modeled on NZCARs and will require minor updates, whereas the other five will require more comprehensive legal drafting, standardizing the New Zealand rules provides the most efficient and effective path to harmonization. With respect to regulations, most states can expect to adopt the NZCARs by reference. The TA will then prepare detailed drafts of revised legal instruments based on standardized models with necessary adaptation to national circumstances. National legal advisers will provide extended assistance for the adoption and adaptation of the system of aviation regulations and technical guidance material.

Fortunately for PASO & the Pacific Island nations the Kiwis again win the Bledisloe Cup... [Image: wink.gif]

Reference (2014) - TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
PACIFIC AVIATION SAFETY OFFICE REFORM PROJECT
STRENGTHENING PASO GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT (P-A01):

Quote: Wrote:1.6 The Strategic Goals of PASO are to:
1. Develop regional capacity and provide for a long-term improvement in the quality of aviation safety and security oversight services.
2. Ensure that the Pacific aviation sector complies with international requirements established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for safety and security regulation and oversight.
3. Reduce service fee and operator compliance costs through economies of scale, achieved by sharing resources through a single regional organization.
4. Harmonise safety standards and security provision across the Pacific region, building on the adoption of New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules.
5. Promote an efficient oversight capability in member States.
6. Encourage member State participation in RSOO activities with the objective of assisting other States in the certification or approval of organisations in aviation activities.
7. Establish regional training programs for member State’s technical personnel
8. Develop an information and reporting system, which facilitates access to safety-related and safety critical information in the region.

 And from the MOC (Memorandum of Cooperation) between PASO & the CAANZ, it would appear that despite Australia being one of two nations to fully implement ICAO Annex 19 (SSP), PASO would prefer to be guided by the Kiwis in implementing a State Safety Program... [Image: rolleyes.gif] :
Quote: Wrote:[Image: MOC-1.jpg][Image: MOC-2.jpg][Image: MOC-3.jpg]
  
Good to see the miniscule Chester (Government), M&M and Comardy Caper endorsed aviation policy is reaching its penultimate goal of totally isolating our aviation industry from the rest of the world - UDB! [Image: dodgy.gif]


  
MTF...P2 [Image: cool.gif]

[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]

Half a billion and counting – WHY?

11. The outcome is expected to be revision and harmonization of national aviation legislation and regulations. Indicators will be final legal documentation that is consistent with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (NZCARs) to provide a uniform set of standards and recommended practices and inclusion of authority to raise aviation oversight revenues in national laws, expected by the end of 2012. A third outcome indicator is legislative adoption of the revised legislation and regulations, which may take a further year for all countries to achieve.

14. Assisting with revisions to national aviation legislation and regulations will continue from the base established by the review of national legislation and regulations (para. 7). The TA will reconfirm the detailed aspects required for revision through preparation of new or amended legislative acts and rules. Two particular concerns are that national laws should provide for adequate delegation of authority and enforcement by civil aviation authorities (CAAs), and should be consistent with international law instruments which may require ratification or accession to ensure they are given effect in national laws.

4. Harmonise safety standards and security provision across the Pacific region, building on the adoption of New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules.

Australia must be the only Pacific Island nation not on the Kiwi system. Can someone tell me why we keep throwing millions on the bonfire of regulatory reform. Have you noticed how the same egocentric personalities keep popping up at the power and money troughs; don’t seem to matter which one, they always seem to have their greedy snouts buried there.

It is time this complete waste of money stopped; there is a perfectly serviceable, ICAO compliant, practical rule set in operation. The Kiwi’s have won the match, someone should tell the Canberra mutts the whistle has blown and they got beaten hollow, by a much better team.

Toot, toot bloody toot.
Reply

A Wednesday twiddle;

At its peak, the MH 370 tragedy generated an enormous amount interest; comments,  theories, discussion etc. There is scarcely a mention of it all now; time has eroded the interest, life goes on and the small disaster is consigned to history. Such is the way of the world we live in; millions of dollars and countless man hours gone and almost forgotten; that’s how it is; that’s what we accommodate in our minds, learn to live with while we refocus on putting bread and hopefully butter on the table.

History shows how very true this is; look back at the wars, the holocausts, the blood baths, pogroms and genocides; all horrendous, all but forgotten. Time strikes again – allow enough time to slip by and all is mostly forgotten, if not always forgiven.

What has this to do with Australian aviation? This ramble is provoked by time being cynically and deliberately used to ensure that the desperately needed, industry demanded ‘reform’ of both regulator and regulations is kept in a holding pattern. The minister and his minions have resurrected the ‘gab-fest’ – consultation with – selected parties. This scam has been repeated throughout the last three decades; same pattern, almost the same script and actors on stage. Roles in plays - such as Hamlet – have been played by many different faces; but the character does not change. Hamlet is still Hamlet, whether played by Olivier or the town drunk. The essential nature of the play does not; nay, cannot change, no matter how ‘new’ or ‘avante garde’ the production or venue. It is still the same old story.

“Why, here in Denmark: I have been sexton here, man
and boy, thirty years.”

This ASAP charade Darren 6D is fostering and promoting is simply a repeat of the old story, with a new cast. It will soak up time, money, anger and effort – again; the result the same as every other production mounted.

The thing that I struggle with is the industry will toddle along, pay their ticket, watch, listen and applaud at the right places, have drinks at intermission, stay until the end, then leave and go home no better off, materially, than when they arrived at the theatre. Time will pass by and memory will do it’s thing: all forgotten save for the vague memory of a night out. Unless that was the night their house was burgled; that they will remember.

Aye, ‘tis a second coffee twiddle sure enough; but, I say – if the Senate RRAT committee and David Fawcett simply sit in their corporate box, high above the crowd in the stalls and watch this production, then there is little hope of real change. Time and the minister will do their work and in two or three years, no one will remember the price paid for simply being in the audience, applauding the performance.

That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once:
how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were
Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! It
might be the pate of a politician, which this ass
now o'er-reaches; one that would circumvent God,
might it not?

Toot - I know, I know – back to my knitting, right; -toot.
Reply

6D's GA review delayed - Dodgy  

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: GA_Moorabbin.jpg]The state of general aviation has been a contentious point between the industry and government for some years. (Steve Hitchen)

GA Study delayed to Late August
6 July 2017

The Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) study into general aviation has been delayed until 31 August.

BITRE was initially scheduled to complete the report by 30 June.

According to a spokesperson from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, the final report has been delayed to "ensure that BITRE receives input from a few remaining key stakeholders and to incorporate the upcoming finalisation and release of general aviation statistical information."

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, announced the GA study in October last year, saying, "I am keen to remove barriers to growth in this vital part of the aviation industry including reducing costs and regulatory burden. General aviation has a rich history in Australia and I'm confident it can have a prosperous future.

"This study will help get the public policy right to support growth in the sector."

The BITRE report, when presented, is expected to cover a range of issues including influences on GA, trends, economic, demographic and regulatory factors behind the trends, as well as outlining the key challenges facing the industry.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...374iVlp.99
Also I note that our NFI miniscule has recently been applying his Muppet moniker to a couple of international air services agreements... Rolleyes
Quote:New air services arrangements established with Italy, Greece and Cyprus

The Australian Government has settled new air services arrangements with Cyprus, Italy and Greece, providing exciting opportunities for strengthening Australia’s trade and tourism ties with Europe.

04 July


Australia—Kiribati relationship flies high with new agreement

The Australian Government has settled inaugural air services arrangements with Kiribati, opening up opportunities for airlines to establish a commercial presence in the Australia—Kiribati market for the first time.

29 June
 
In reference to the Kiribati agreement and my latest post on the Mount Non-compliance thread: Blueprint for RRP harmonisation - i.e. Adopting NZed rule set. 

Quote:P2 comment - IMO this comprehensive ADB report provides a perfect blueprint to design a regulatory framework that would fully support transitioning to and regionally harmonising with the NZ system of civil aviation safety administration and laws. The economic mutual benefits in trade and tourism alone, I believe would far outweigh the nearly half a billion dollars the Australian government has invested so far on the 30+ year RRP. Which is still years from completion and has largely created an unusable, unreadable, outdated, cumbersome set of regulations that no-one else in the world is interested in adopting... Blush

"..Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said air services arrangements with Kiribati were the 13th set of arrangements Australia had in place with Pacific island countries and territories..."

Q/ I wonder how much mutually more streamlined, economic benefits/relationships could have been established with those PASO island nations and Australia if we were operating on a harmonised ICAO compliant rule set and system of aviation safety administration? - Just saying... Rolleyes

Had to laugh at these 6D weasel words...

“It’s great to see this arrangement finalised as part of delivering on the Government’s aviation priorities.”

What aviation priorities? - How to decimate the GA industry perhaps.. Huh


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Please explain.

Hitch - TAAAF is supposed to be a united voice, so by AOPA, AMROBA and AAAA wanting separate representation, are they telling us that TAAAF is not as united as they are supposed to be? What other conclusion are we supposed to draw?

Morgan – “ASAP is made up of only six members:
• Qantas
• Virgin Australia
• Airports Association of Australia
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia
• The Australian Aviation Associations Forum
• Recreational Aviation Australia.

As AAOPA matures and settles the need for real, independent representation for the increasing membership becomes apparent. They are constitutionally allowed a voice and democratically within their rights to be heard. AAAA and AMROBA, as legitimate organisations also have a voice. It is of no value to Australia, aviation or the government to deny them an input to the problems the industry faces on a daily basis; those which directly affect their membership.

Denying the opportunity is (IMO) detrimental to government credibility – and purported democratic values. The act of refusing to hear the concerns of legally constituted associations also casts a shadow over any concord reached; not to mention suspicion and further cause for discontent, leading to further reduction of investment and productivity.

That aside; there would need to be a very good explanation offered as to why a ‘consultative’ forum would reject the sane, experienced, intelligent counsel of three of Australia’s best industry representatives:-

AOPA – representative Mike Smith. The man who should be the CEO of CASA.

AAAA – representative Phil Hurst. Top class manager and advocate for his membership.

AMROBA – representative Ken Cannane. Vastly knowledgeable, experienced and capable.

All articulate, sanguine, consummate professionals representing the light to medium weight part of an ailing industry. This is not some rag-tag bunch of noisy irritants trying to spoil the ministerial day, the three men probably have more idea of how to affect a cure for general industry than 80% of the invited, who will be allowed to voice an opinion and negotiate on behalf of their members.

Three extra seats at the table is not too big an ask. So, could the minister please explain why his ASAP is determined to exclude these valuable voices from his choir?

I could provide half a dozen reasons why – but let’s hear the ministers response, before we tell you exactly why. Toot toot.

[Image: 300?cb=20131130142326]
Reply

Ah K, "Why Oh why did the little dog smile"?

Why all those years ago, and massive amounts of our money squandered since, did a cabal of mandarins subvert an agreed reform agenda, mandated by the minister of the day, to align Australia with the most successful and safest aviation regulations on the planet?

Now lets see? dumb?....Na! stupid?...Na! incompetent?....Na! nobody could be that incompetent, but I have to admit they try very hard. So Why?

SELF INTEREST sort of sticks out.

Why? all those years ago did a Cabal of mandarins convince a minister, that because of Australia's unique legal system, Aviation Law must be included in the Criminal Code like other third world countries.

Hmm??...where's the logic in writing vast volumes of regulation that produce very little in the way of their intended purpose of promoting safety?
Thousands of Laws that require a degree in "Legalise speak" to even attempt to interpret them and generate such angst among those that must endeavour to comply with them. Where common sense falls victim to the fear of a career ending criminal record, or worse, making muddle headed decisions that end up killing you, or following dubious direction from incompetent clowns for fear of prosecution or withdrawal of cooperation that end up sending you broke at best or killing you at worst.

Of course there is no logic at all in Australia's regulations, they are produced only for SELF INTEREST, they are most certainly not "Fit for service" for the industry who pay for them.

Why? did a Cabal of Mandarins convince the government to Pseudo privatise aviation oversight into  dummy corporations with a profit directive, then creating artificial debt by gifting airports to big banks and development sharks. The only benefit to the taxpayer and the country as a whole, has been ever increasing costs and aviation infrastructure degenerating to third world standards.
The end result effectively created a back door tax on aviation that has made Australia one of the most expensive countries in the world to fly in.
The result of this policy has seen the ruin of the general aviation industry, and a trickle down negative effect on commerce and tourism that ultimately the long suffering taxpayer will pay for, some of them with their lives.

Why?.. SELF INTEREST.
Reply

Whispers on the wind.

“That this Convention of the LNP calls upon the Federal Coalition to review recent air crash incidents, particularly in rural areas, with a view to developing and implementing changes to the Civil Aviation Act”. etc.

“2. Implement a judicial inquiry to investigate existing problems of the Regulator.”

This is not our story, the credit goes to one man who has been a tireless advocate for not only GA, but for the rights of those who work in the industry. Nothing fancy in the way of ‘rights’ mind you; just the same rights as any other person accused of wrong-doing. Whichever way you care to look at it, this has been a great effort. Bravo that man, bravo.

We hear, from ‘wise owls’ and ‘legal eagles’ that mounting a Judicial inquiry is a tough call, difficult mechanics and engineering involved. There will be massive opposition, particularly from those who have a vested interest in never having to justify their actions. It is also highly likely that there will be political objections and opposition; party and rice bowl protection essential, not to mention re-election and ministerial rear ends.

There is a solution for the government which will avoid the public disgrace, should the mass of evidence ever be presented. It is probably the best, least expensive, least embarrassing, most effective, proactive, positive step they could take. The answer to a pagans prayer comes in two parts – like Araldite; properly mixed they work just fine.

1) Immediately appoint David Fawcett junior minister for aviation.

2) Move Carmody to Mrdak’s position and employ a real CEO of CASA.
2a) Nice to have but not essential; shake up the CASA board and bring in some talent.

Then, there would be no need of an expensive, embarrassing, washing of some filthy linen in the public purview. Two simple steps which would immediately restore the industry faith in government.

It pains me to offer the solution; for there is nothing I’d like to see better than the misfits, trolls, deviants and criminals tarred, feathered, tied to a rail and run out of town. However, with the best interest’s of industry at heart, I would forego that simple pleasure if the government would actually ‘govern’ and take on their constitutional responsibility to this nation; instead of pissing about playing at politics.

No matter; the cards have been dealt and lay upon the table; two choices, little option and a big pot to play for. Will the government hold ‘em or fold ‘em? Time will tell.

Toot – toot…..
Reply

Of smooth operators, snake oil salesmen and fired minions.

Even money – one fired ministerial advisor. And, a good riddance.

Seems Darren 6D has finally realised that his leadership and political aspirations have been forever dented by listening to smooth operators, snake oil vendors and the like. Now he seems to be relying on the weasel words of Carmody – a serious, professional bureaucrat, who will, to suit his purpose, burn a ministerial rump.

Carmody is trying to pour oil on the troubled waters; 6D has NFI and is grasping at straws – any straw will do. Some free advice, from PAIN is offered.

1) AOPA are a registered association with all the required trimmings – TAAF is not.

2) AOPA have only the best interests on their membership at heart, with an almost 70 year track record to support the argument; TAAAF do not.

3) Carmody claims that AOPA will be adequately represented by TAAAF and is peddling that soft soap to a very exposed, politically sensitive ministerial rear end.

4) 6D refuses to deal with AOPA on any level. Mistake, of the serious variety. AOPA can and is prepared to field a first class team; ready, willing; and, importantly, able to discuss matters aeronautical, in real terms.

It will suit the CASA agenda to have a choir which will sing from the official hymn sheet; all in tune and harmony. But it will not sort out the pressing matters which, as a minister of government, 6D is required, by constitution and law to deal with; honestly, fairly, impartially and democratically.

CASA and Carmody claim to be ‘absolutely delighted’ with the hand picked team for the ASAP gab fest – and that minister, should be enough of a warning clue for any man – any man with half a brain at least.

Aye well; if he was my minister I would counsel him differently – but he ain’t. So, I’ll just sit back and watch his political career in free fall as the mistakes mount up. That’s all there is in the way of free advice this night. Get a bloody grip Darren; or be left holding the stable door after the horses have bolted - they will – just as soon as you don’t close it and toddle off to bed, thinking the jobs done. "Nothing is done; 'till its done right".

Selah.

Best guitar riff - ever - bar none.

Reply

[Image: Pollies_TW_2016_CB82A5C0-1576-11E6-99C802D27ADCA5FF.jpg]

6D OS playing with Chinese train-sets - Big Grin

From post #389 of CASA meets the Press:

Quote:I wonder how Barry O will feel when he discovers that this same individual (i.e. GGG) is currently running Fort Fumble, while (rumour has it) CC is on hols and providing top-cover support as acting infrastructure puppet-master for Muppet 6D: (who is OS playing with Chinese train-sets... [Image: rolleyes.gif] - see HERE).
Well I wasn't really going to draw much attention to the fact that our immaculately groomed and M&M captured, NFI_ Muppet_6D was currently OS in China. However the linked to (above) presser is simply a golden opportunity to take the piss... Big Grin
Therefore in full (presumably) unedited glory here is the (M&M prepared) 6D Beijing presser:
 
Quote:Press Conference, Beijing, China
Interview
DCI064/2017
26 July 2017
Subjects: Australian and Chinese infrastructure investment.

Darren Chester: Well, it is great to be here. I have had only 48 hours in China so far, but it has been very informative for me personally but also an opportunity to meet with some of the Australian businesses who have big investment plans for the future, already investing heavily in our relationship with China, but looking for further opportunities going forward. Obviously, in last Federal Budget the Commonwealth announced a $75 billion infrastructure investment program over ten years, with a particular focus on rail. The National Rail Program of $10 billion, plus the Inland Rail Project of $8.4 billion equity investment to ARTC. That is going to focus the Federal Government's investment in transport infrastructure in Australia, and we have got to learn from the China experience.
Part of the reason for the visit was to experience high-speed rail for the first time firsthand. Being able to transfer a lot of people very quickly from major centres on a network, which is now the best in the world is something that Australia, obviously, is envious of, and we want to see further investment in rail in our communities. We see a real opportunity for decentralisation in Australia, and part of the answer to the decentralisation question is how we use rail to drive further growth and opportunities in our regional communities, so it is about learning a bit from the Chinese experience; seeing what aspects of their knowledge are transferable to Australia. Obviously, the scale is not going to be the same, but the research and development that has gone in to the rail network here in China is something I think we can learn from.

Question: How much potential do you think there is, perhaps, to have Chinese investment in rail in Australia one day, perhaps a high-speed rail built by a Chinese company in Australia?

Darren Chester: Well, we have a $10 billion national rail program, which we announced in the Budget, that we are going to work with the state governments on their priorities, and we want to be engaging with them early in that process. We see real opportunities to use our rail network to pursue the decentralisation agenda of the Turnbull-Joyce Government. Now, whether that involves working directly with Chinese firms, or whether it is a research and technology-based liaison I am not sure; it is part of having these discussions during our next few days.

Question: In your discussions with Chinese counterparts, are you hearing any complaints at all about Australia not formally aligning with the One Belt, One Road infrastructure plan, and are you hearing any feedback that that may affect the potential for Chinese investment in, say, Australian rail?

Darren Chester: Well, I won't have my formal discussions with my Chinese counterpart until this afternoon, so no doubt there will be a range of things discussed during that meeting. I am looking forward to the discussion; we see real opportunities for Australia to be engaged at a commercial level, and with the One Belt, One Road policy we see opportunities going forward. We want to work with the major stakeholders to make sure that the benefits extend right throughout the Asian region, just as we are working in Australia on our own development plans to open up parts of Northern Australia, to open up regional Australia with the Inland Rail Project. We recognise the transformative nature of infrastructure investments. Good infrastructure can change people's lives; it can save people's lives. It'll change lives by reducing congestion, by improving productivity, by getting products to the market, and actually save lives by taking products off road and onto rail in many cases, which will improve road safety in places like Australia. So, we recognise the value of good infrastructure investments, just as the Chinese Government does.

Question: What about the other way round? You mentioned you'd talked to some Australian companies about investing here. Actually, that is something new to me. I have been back here almost two years, have seen almost no signs of Australian investment in China—so the Belt and Road program was hoped for that Australian companies and other companies in third countries could get involved in those consortia and work in other places in Asia and so on, you know, the WorleyParsons and so on, but we haven't seen any of this happening. Is that type of thing—are you lobbying on behalf of those sorts of companies? What's happening there?

Darren Chester: I expect that we will have a discussion over the next 24 to 48 hours on issues like that. I see opportunities for Australian expertise in the management and operation of open and transparent contracts for delivering major infrastructure projects. I think we have something to offer in that regard. We have good expertise to offer in that regard. So, that will be part of our discussions.

Question: And in terms of tendering for what you are talking about—the Australian rail projects and so on—you are going to be talking with Chinese companies that are—China Rail Construction, or companies like that, are you, about the tendering procedures and so on?

Darren Chester: Certainly, we will be working through the processes that we go through in Australia in terms of project selection, how we go about a tender process, the opportunities we see for private sector investment. I see, for example, in the visitor economy in Australia, real opportunities for further Chinese investment in the future. We have seen the air service agreement opened up to, I think, 134 flights, direct flights per week now into Australia; 1.2 million visitors to Australia last year from China. One of the opportunities, I think, is how we are going to invest in our regional product to get more of our Chinese visitors out enjoying other parts of Australia they perhaps hadn't thought of visiting in the past. So, I can see us working very closely with the Chinese business community, which has an interest and an understanding of what the Chinese visitor experience, what they are looking for. We offer great food and wine, a great natural experience. I think regional Australia needs to get ready for an influx of Chinese visitors, and they are perhaps not ready for it right now.

Question: Just a general question; you are saying that you are getting a first-hand experience of, say, Chinese high-speed rail. Just generally as a Minister, from your observations, are you impressed with what you see over here in terms of the infrastructure that China's been building? How do you, sort of, compare it to Australia's infrastructure?

Darren Chester: Well, you can read as much as you like about Chinese infrastructure investment; until you see it first-hand, you don't really appreciate the scale of it. It is quite staggering to see the service offering in terms of high-speed rail, to see the general infrastructure investment, which is occurring across the nation, is quite extraordinary to see. There is opportunities, I think, for Australia to be part of that success story for China and vice versa. I think we can work more close together in the future. We already have a great working relationship. I think that will deepen over time. The two-way trade now is in excess of $150 billion per year. I can only see that increase into the future as we get a better understanding of what the Chinese customer may want, what their expectations are when they come and visit Australia. In return, Australian producers in the agricultural sector are getting a much better understanding now of what Chinese families are looking for from those great products we produce in Australia. So, I can only see our relationship strengthening in the future.

Question: And what about the new infrastructure regime that your Government installed after the State Grid fiasco? You hit—obviously, the relevant Chinese departments have already been told about this by the Embassy as well, but are you going to say anything more about that? How do you think that that is working? It was designed to give more transparency to the situation, and you are going to, I think, supply a list of no-go projects and so on.

Darren Chester: Well, the Government has made it clear that we are very keen to secure foreign investment. It is good for our nation, it has always been part of the Australian story but obviously, we have got to make sure that that investment is in the national interest. The Treasurer, quite rightly, makes those decisions in conjunction with the Foreign Investment Review Board, and obviously, there is going to be expectations from the Australian community that we do act in the national interest at all times. We are keen to see investment in infrastructure in Australia, but there will be decisions made which reflect issues of national importance or national interest, whether it is around security or other issues.

[ENDS]
 
I have this vision of the questioner, probably some preordained department minion, sitting up in the front row of a totally empty hotel conference room while the freshly coiffured Muppet 6D swans into the room - just a vision... Blush   
[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]
Standing by for incoming... Rolleyes

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

[Image: r0_0_2071_1270_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg?w=640]

Chester leaving the A-word safety (& security) to the experts - Dodgy

In light of a foiled terrorist attack by the combined security forces of the newly minted Home Affairs department, our aviation disaster of a Minister came home from China with a wet sail and a rather confusing message on aviation matters of security..err safety...err security & safety -  Undecided

Yesterday's presser from the disaster for aviation minister NFI_Chester (note the number of times 'security', 'secure' gets mentioned): 
Quote:Additional Aviation Security Measures

Providing the Australian public with safe and secure air travel is an Australian Government priority.

E.g.
Quote:“The Government has a world class, comprehensive security system in place to keep travellers secure. As a matter of course, the Australian Government will continue to monitor security developments and adjust security settings as needed.”
   
Then today the miniscule seamlessly changes tack and starts spruiking the aviation safety mantra - Huh :

Quote:
Quote:Press Conference, Doorstop

Subjects: Additional airport safety requirements in all major airports around Australia.

Darren Chester: I want to thank the Australian airports for acting so swiftly to implement additional security arrangements in the wake of the counter-terrorism operation which occurred in Sydney over the weekend. I also want to thank the Australian travelling public for their patience at this difficult time. While we certainly apologise for any inconvenience in terms of delays, we make no apologies for the fact that we've made safety our number one priority and we've acted so swiftly to improve safety arrangements at our major airports around the nation. I'd just encourage people to be understanding and be tolerant of the additional requirements that we've put in place, and be respectful of the security operations which are ongoing, and make sure that when dealing with airport staff, give them due courtesy and respect that they're doing a difficult job in trying circumstances.

The travelling public needs to have confidence that we're doing everything we can to maintain safety throughout Australia. At the same time, they should recognise that they may need to allow more time themselves for their domestic flights and international flights. We're advising travellers to allow two hours for domestic flights and three hours for international flights to allow the upgraded security arrangements to be properly implemented. There will be some queuing, and we apologise for that, but again, we can make no apology for the fact that we've made safety our number one priority.

Question: I think you covered my first question there, but what are the state and federal governments doing together to work together through this?

Darren Chester: The safety of our airports is a primary consideration for the Federal Government. They are federally leased airports and we are working with the airport owners, with security agencies, with our counter-terrorism forces to make sure we're doing everything we can to maintain safety for the Australian travelling public. We work in partnership obviously with our State Government counterparts in relation to Victoria Police on any other operation which may be required into the future.

But people need to understand that the changes being made have been made in their interests. There will be some delays and it may be frustrating for them, but it's better to be safe in these difficult circumstances. And we need to work with our security personnel at the airports, with staff involved in checking bags, operating the x-ray machines, and just encourage people to allow a little bit more time for their travel.

Question: Thanks. Anything else you want to say about that one?

Darren Chester: People should go about their business travel and leisure travel just like they would any other day, but recognise they may have to get to the airport just a bit earlier. There is additional safety requirements in place because we're focusing on making sure that, as much as we possibly can, safety remains our number one priority - WTD... Undecided

Quote:Press Conference, Doorstop - Melbourne Airport

Subjects: Additional airport safety requirements at Melbourne Airport.

Darren Chester: Can I start by first of all thanking Melbourne Airport and the major airports around Australia for the swift way they've operated the upgraded security arrangements across our nation this morning. I also want to thank the Australian travelling public for their understanding at a difficult time. There is a very genuine threat to security which was revealed last week and has resulted in some upgraded security provisions here at Melbourne Airport and other airports throughout Australia. The Government's certainly sorry for the inconvenience it's caused to the travelling public, but we make no apology for making safety our absolute priority, our number one priority...

...Darren Chester: Well, it's not for me to second guess the experts in relation to the security upgrades. It's a question of constantly monitoring and evaluating our security settings, and making sure that the appropriate response is in place. So these new provisions will be in place for as long as the security agencies advise us that that's the most appropriate course of action. We won't be second guessing the experts; our number one priority remains keeping the safety of the Australian travelling public at the absolute forefront of our minds.

Call me a cynic but I find the big noting and posturing on this issue by Malcolm in the middle and our totally useless aviation disaster minister, absolutely despicable and merely a timely political diversionary tactic. In reality our security/intelligence agencies and the Home Affairs department are just doing what us taxpayer's are paying them a lot of money to do.

Meanwhile in the real world of aviation this political beat up could end up being yet another nail in the GA industry coffin... Sad

Cutting into a current industry stakeholder email chain discussion on the latest Aviation Security Identity Card impost to industry Wink :        

Quote:This is an open email.

Michele Heran 
Stakeholder Engagement Group 
GICR  CASA

Michele,

Thank you for the answer to my question about Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) numbers. 

From a stakeholder point of view it would be instructive to know how many ASICs were issued ten years ago compared with actual figures of the last twelve months. From personal knowledge, and indicated by your figures, it would seem that a substantial proportion of pilots have given up renewing their ASICs because the system is too expensive (c.$300?), onerous (having to present papers in person at each renewal), and the validity period of only two years is unreasonable. 

Do you know if the BITRE decline of General Aviation study looked at these figures?

In the broader perspective, and in light of the recent potential airliner terrorist attack, surely it would make sense to encourage pilots to be in the system?

The more security cleared pilots that are frequenting airports the more eyes there would be on the lookout for suspicious behaviours. 

There could be many formulas to cause a major uptake of the ASIC by pilots, one method would be to increase the validity period and thus reduce the cost. For example one year extra validity for each renewal and untie the condition of having to have a current medical (non medical current pilots often fly with friends). 

In addition it seems extreme that where CASA has a lot of personal history of pilots, and especially of commercial pilots, instructors and the like, that there's no relief from the biennial requirements and expense of the ASIC which is undoubtedly contributing to the decline of GA.

Regards,

Sandy 

The one country that got bombed The USA – not one airport requires security cards of any kind – all you require in the USA is that
·        You must carry your licence
·        You must carry your medical
 
The great Australian Bureaucracy strikes again.

Aminta
Aminta Hennessy OAM


While agreeing with the sentiments completely I believe that the organisation which should take the blame is the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

I don't think that we can blame CASA for this one.

Regards 

Tony

Aminta

All so true 

Public sentiment is against us after the weekend events unfortunately.

We should keep promoting harmonization with the US.

Particularly as they are the most homeland security conscience of all in the world . 
 
Marc De Stoop

Tony, Aminta, Marc,

Thank you for your thoughts.
Tony as you say the ultimate responsibility is with the Dept. of Infrastructure, in what used to be the Westminster system of Ministerial responsibility it should be the Minister. 

Minister Chester is supposed to be in charge of both areas, but we have yet to see one decision of his, not one iota of actual policy that might interfere with his self serving bureaucracy on it's pathway of GA destruction.

CASA should be at the forefront of influence to the Minister for common sense, workable and affordable security measures when it involves aviation and GA in particular. The AFP and state police cannot be everywhere so it makes perfect sense to look to private citizens, in this case the aviation community, to keep watch in the areas of airports.

It is obvious that nothing will arrest GA decline until the government becomes sufficiently embarrassed and aware. Ministerial reforms, as opposed to bureaucratic procrastination and make work time wasting, are the only hope. 

Speaking to Barnaby Joyce last month he volunteered the need for a Minister of Aviation (junior portfolio). I'm hoping AOPA is looking at that reform and keeping it firmly to the front with MPs.

Kind regards to all,

Sandy 

Thanks Sandy
An Aviation Minister is definitely AOPA and TAAAF policy.
More importantly is my personal preference to have CASA and ASA brought back into a  Dept of Aviation; like the FAA if you like. Stop the Minister hiding away from his or her responsibilities under the user pay, semi-autonomous, Govt Agency model. This has clearly failed the GA Industry in Australia. This model  is not replicated anywhere else in the world that I’m aware of.

[Image: Sandy-ASIC.jpg]

God love them has there ever been a letter from a bureaucracy that does not pass the buck?  To think the country keeps these people in the highest paid jobs in the world nearly.

Aminta

Meanwhile our walking, talking, aviation disaster buries his head in the sand...
Quote:[Image: head-buried-in-sand.jpg]

Carmody's look at that??

...and leaves it all to the experts - Dodgy  


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Chester under fire on airport safety..err security & safety -  Big Grin

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_122516_100738_AM.jpg]

BJ: "Oh Darren my photogenic filter, what have you done?"

(07-31-2017, 07:59 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: r0_0_2071_1270_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg?w=640]

Chester leaving the A-word safety (& security) to the experts - Dodgy

In light of a foiled terrorist attack by the combined security forces of the newly minted Home Affairs department, our aviation disaster of a Minister came home from China with a wet sail and a rather confusing message on aviation matters of security..err safety...err security & safety -  Undecided

Yesterday's presser from the disaster for aviation minister NFI_Chester (note the number of times 'security', 'secure' gets mentioned): (see above post)

...Meanwhile our walking, talking, aviation disaster buries his head in the sand...
Quote:[Image: head-buried-in-sand.jpg]

Carmody's look at that??

...and leaves it all to the experts - Dodgy 

But not these experts... Confused 

By 'that man', via the Oz:
Quote:Darren Chester dodges experts’ calls for action on airport security

[Image: a554f026f72f60b4cc33e791f6116cb6?width=650]Regional Express and QantasLink planes taxi at Wagga Wagga Airport in NSW Transport Minister Darren Chester has dodged calls from security experts, airline pilots and transport unions to tighten airport screening regulations, side-stepping warnings that incon­sistencies and deficiencies will be exploited by terrorists.

Applying further pressure on the government, federal police yesterday said they feared criminals were infiltrating Australia’s major airports and border protection agencies to wield influence over the screening of cargo and passengers.

AFP Assistant Commissioner Neil Gaughan told a parliamentary committee that organised crime figures were getting work at airports and ports and exploiting their security passes.

The AFP has identified drug importations facilitated by ­“trusted insiders” in aviation.

“Airport criminal infiltration may exploit vulnerabilities across a lengthy supply chain, from airport logistics and functions, air freight logistics, security, baggage handling and even air crew,” Mr Gaughan said.

More than 60 organisations and companies can issue aviation and maritime security identification cards, with the AFP warning that the more people who can issue them, the more vulnerable the system is.

The alleged Sydney-based ­Islamic terror plot against an air­liner has highlighted other anom­alies in airport security.

The Australian has established that passengers on regular ­commercial Qantas flights from the NSW regional city of Wagga Wagga to Sydney are ­required to go through full ­passenger and cabin baggage security screening, while those flying Regional ­Express on the same route can walk on to the aircraft with no sec­urity checks at all.

The discrepancy follows a regulation issued by the Office of Transport Security requiring passengers on airliners weighing more than 20 tonnes flying regular routes to have full security screening, but exempting those aircraft under 20 tonnes from those requirements.

QantasLink — which flies Q400 propeller-driven aircraft on the Wagga Wagga route that can carry up to 76 passengers and weigh more than 20 tonnes — is required to screen passengers and their carry-on luggage under the rules, but Regional Express, which flies Saab 340 propeller planes that can carry 34 passengers but weigh less than 20 tonnes, is exempt.

“These are examples of where there are inconsistencies in the system as they apply to aviation security in Australia,” the president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, David Booth, said.

Transport Workers Union nat­ional secretary Tony Sheldon noted a lack of security screening at some regional airports where QantasLink flies, including Armidale, Lord Howe Island and Moree in NSW, Port Lincoln and Whyalla in South Australia, and Charleville, Blackall, Miles and Longreach in Queensland.

Mr Chester would not say whether the government would tighten regional airport sec­urity, saying “the public should be confident in our existing airport ­security measures”.

& yesterday, via the ABC... Wink :

Quote:Airport security: Ground staff should have same screening process as air crew, pilots say

By Jennifer Huxley
Tue 1 Aug 2017, 6:28pm

[Image: 8761472-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo:
Travellers have been experiencing heightened security since the plot was uncovered. (ABC News: Ewan Gilbert)


The peak association representing air pilots has warned that some airport staff are gaining access to planes and equipment with minimal security screening.

Key points:
  • Treatment of ground staff like baggage handlers, caterers, contractors and engineers is too relaxed at some airports
  • There is widespread inconsistency in security measures across airports and terminals
  • There are calls for ground staff to undergo the same screening processes as passengers and flight crew
While passengers are being subjected to increased screening measures in the wake of the weekend's alleged bomb plot arrests, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) said treatment of ground staff like baggage handlers, caterers, contractors and engineers was too relaxed at some capital city airports.

This is unlike flight crew, who undergo the same screening processes as passengers.
AFAP safety and technical officer Marcus Diamond said air crew and ground crew should be treated in the same manner.

"We are calling for consistency in screening practices at main capital city airports around Australia for different types of staff," he said.

"At one airport you will have ground staff requiring a personal check of their aviation security card [ASIC card] and any bags they are taking airside, whereas at another one they only swipe two doors and they are in.

Quote:"Air crew are generally very well-known people, they have been in the system a long time, they have had multiple checks and security access and yet they often have less access to airside, to their own aircraft than the people who are putting the luggage on board."

Discrepancies across terminals

Mr Diamond said the discrepancies were not limited to occupations or cities, with some terminals at the same airport exercising less onerous security measures.

"Sydney probably sits in the middle but there will be specific areas like perhaps the cargo area will be more lax [sic] than say the international terminal but it is in the vicinity of the same terminal space," he said.

"Brisbane has much tighter security at the international airport than at the domestic airport.

Quote:"Consistency in access to airside definitely [is needed], if you think about it once you are airside and you are in a car you can drive around the perimeters of an airport and access all areas."

The Office of Transport Security has been contacted for comment.
Regional airports pose risk: union

The Transport Workers Union said airports in regional Australia also represent a major security risk.

Director of aviation Shane O'Brien said some country and rural airports do not have security screening, and could be an entry point for dangerous goods.

"Many regional airports do have screening in place, but many, many more do not," Mr O'Brien said.

"Once you either get onto the plane there, get into the system, or get your parcel of inappropriate goods into the system there we don't know where it will end up nor where it will do damage if that is the desire of the person that is doing it.

"Terrorists aren't renowned for taking easy options — there is usually meticulous planning — and we say that until you can make sure that the whole network of aviation services is properly screened then we will always have potential for problems in this country."

Mr O'Brien said the TWU was calling for a comprehensive review of security regulations in regional areas.

The call follows revelations from Queensland Police Commissioner Ian Stewart, who said the four men arrested in Sydney over an alleged plot to blow up a plane may have had other targets as well.

It is alleged the suspects planned to smuggle a bomb onto an aircraft, hidden in a kitchen meat grinder.

Mr Stewart said the alleged terrorism cell may have had a broader intent.

"I think that there will still need to be an investigative phase because while I believe that there were clearly intentions around aviation, it doesn't preclude that there may have been other targets as well. And that's what the investigation will be undertaking," he said.
Combine the above growing airport's debacle, with the Carmody/Mrdak 'look at that' on airport safety...


 ...and you begin to get the impression that Chester's so called experts have dropped the ball on airports - TICK TOCK miniscule... Dodgy


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Heh heh! Chuckle:- whimsy follows.

TV Weak gossip. A new game show arrives:

‘Dodging the bullets’ hosted by none other than our lunch time TV star Darren 6D. Manfully, our stalwart ‘star’ has accepted the fact that a morning ‘gig’ with a Sumrise style advertorial is not going to happen soon, seems that is an advertisers empire too far away – without some runs on the board. – And; his dedicated show featuring great hairdressing and dandruff control pilot failed to impress the sponsors; well, that’s the official version. Show biz gossip has it that taking pictures of men piddling and flashing their wedding tackle posted on Twitter has given our hero a slightly ‘off’ image with sponsors. Well, boys will be boys, but, the dollars rule.

The rumoured attempt on his winning a MKR series have proven false; sponsors again. The ‘borrowing’ of secret recipes from the local CWA stars is strictly prohibited and the failed attempts by the Frog judge to achieve any sort of fitness level, or Darren’s polish have spoiled his chances there. Which only left our Wannabe star with the dancing as an option; alas, you really need to be able to put your feet anywhere else, but in your mouth – if you want to win that one. So, the much dreamed of career as a talking head on daytime TV seemed to crumble. The offer from Playschool was a possibility, but too academically challenging.

No matter, his loyal advisors went to work on a plan. Why reinvent the wheel, they asked? He’s on the telly often enough and he’s always dodging silver bullets, so why not produce an in house version of a game show; why not? They asked in chorus.

Well the trailer is made, paid for out of lunch vouchers and small change lifted from the local pub tables; it’s up to the sponsors now to pick it up and run with it. Episode one is a real work of art. Featuring Darren (of course) as he nimbly sidesteps the airport security bullet, dances past the drone attack, skips past an ICAO audit thunderbolt and blithely ambles through an all out barrage from the Senators. Aviation regulation and reform easy beat, ATSB aberrations no worries, Air Services? Never even knew they were playing.

Aye; a new career for our dazzling, dancing, donuthin minister seems inevitable now; and, a week ot two in China is sure to have filled him with even more piss, wind and that ‘je ne se quoi’ these superstar bullet dodgers have. Long may the gravy train ride last.

FDS – please; anyone spare me from daytime game shows; hosted by Darren 6D, coyly flogging ‘product’ during the breaks. ARrrrrrrrrGGGGgggggHHHhhhhhh !

Toot – expletives deleted - toot.

PS WTD is GD?
Reply

Update to Chester 'leaving it to the experts' - Dodgy

Via Fran Kelly's RN Breakfast show this AM:

Quote:
Quote:[Image: 8769344-3x2-300x200.jpg]
Is there a gap in airport security? Australian Airline Pilots Association has pointed out that baggage handlers, cleaners and catering staff are not subjected to the same security screenings as passengers and airline crew.

Fran Kelly: The alleged terror plot to bring down a packed passenger jet has exposed what aviation experts are saying are big gaps in airport security right across the country. The latest concerns are being raised by the people ultimately responsible for our safety in the air—the pilots. The 5000-strong Australian Airline Pilots Association has pointed out that baggage handlers, cleaners and catering staff are not subjected to the same security screenings as passengers and airline crew.

The union president, Murray Butt, says the system is riddled with inconsistencies.
Quote:[Excerpt]
Murray Butt
That has been a gap in the aviation security system, that people that do have access to the aircraft should have the same level of screening as people that come through the terminal. Not everybody is screened. They don't do any explosives detection. Most people don't have to pass through an x-ray.
[End of excerpt]

Fran Kelly:
Captain Murray Butt from the pilots union speaking yesterday. Well Darren Chester is the Federal Minister for Transport and so responsible for security at our airports and beyond. I spoke with him earlier.

Darren Chester: Good morning Fran.

Fran Kelly: Minister, pilots and passengers have to go through metal detectors and undergo random explosive residue tests before they can get on a plane. Other ground staff who have access to the aircraft; cleaners, caterers, refuellers, the baggage handlers, they don't. Why such a glaring inconsistency?

Darren Chester: Well firstly Fran, let me reassure the Australian travelling public that we have robust security measures in place to prevent an attack against the aviation system; whether it be through a passenger or through a trusted insider as it's referred to in the security industry. And under Australian transport security regulations the workers with access to large passenger aircraft must hold an aviation security identity card which requires a thorough national security and criminal background check—and we've actually toughened up the regulations around those ASIC cards earlier this year. So we're working with our major airports to further strengthen security around the airport workers entering and within a secure air side environment. And from the pilots union perspective, if they have genuine concerns, I'm very happy to sit down and talk to them and work our way through any concerns they may have. But as you would expect I take my advice from experts in the field of security and they're advising us on our security settings constantly, monitoring, evaluating on a daily basis.

Fran Kelly: Okay, well clearly the pilots do have concerns, because they held a press conference yesterday. And it's all very well to say we have robust security measures in place, but are they not robust enough? I mean isn't that a gap I just pointed out there, that many of these staff, no matter if they've got police checks, don't have to go through the metal detectors or undergo random explosive residue tests. Why not?

Darren Chester: Well the point I was making Fran, is earlier this year new measures were introduced into the Parliament which will include screening of staff entering and within the secure areas, strengthen access controls and additional security awareness training. So as I've indicated we rely on the analysis of our intelligence experts, our counterterrorism people, aviation security experts who work in the airport environment on a daily basis. People understand these issues and are working with them. And I'm quite happy to sit down with the airport's union- sorry, with the pilots union, if that's their desire. If they've got a genuine concern the correct way to do it is to raise it with me or raise it with the experts in the field and it can be analysed and assessed for any risk. Now, it is a difficult and challenging operating environment at the moment. But I must say, the fact that we were able to thwart a genuine threat and the fact that we've been able to detect other incidents in the past—and more than a dozen incidents now—is a good indication that our security personnel, our intelligence people are working collectively well to keep Australians safe in what is a challenging environment.

Fran Kelly: Of course and obviously the intelligence agencies have done a great job. But, what if someone gets through—I don't want to be unnecessarily alarmist here—but aviation experts are saying that behind the scenes staff are the weak link in airport security. Now the pilots are expressing this concern and it's obvious to anybody that it would have been relatively easy for terrorists—let's call them that—with the aid of someone employed at Sydney Airport to smuggle an explosive device hidden in a meat grinder, for example, on board a departing flight. It would have been relatively easy wouldn't it if they're not checked?

Darren Chester: Well, the important point here is that there has not been a flaw or a failure of the security scanning equipment or the devices we have in place. We have …

Fran Kelly: [Interrupts] No, but these staff aren't scanned.

Darren Chester: I'm pointing out to you that people who are working have access to the aircraft—whether it's through catering or baggage or that type of work—actually have to have an ASIC card. This is the card I referred to, the aviation security identity check, and we've toughened up the regulations around that and we want Labor to support us in that regard. People are taking this issue as you'd expect very, very seriously in regard to safety as our number one priority. - FDS! - Give me strength Undecided  

Fran Kelly: [Talks over] Of course and I accept as you say it's not set and forget, and someone's pointed out that in terms of those cards, those ID cards you're talking about, more than 60 organisations and companies can issue those aviation identification cards. There is something like 250,000, a quarter of a million of these ID cards in circulation and can you tell us how many workers have stopped working at airports but failed to hand back the security cards. How many cards have we lost track of? Is this an issue?

Darren Chester: Well the point I was trying to make a little bit earlier, Fran, in relation to the ASIC card is we've endeavoured to toughen up regulations around getting access to those cards, and making sure that people who have access to the airport environment are trusted, and do have the capacity to go about their work, and can be screened at random in the future, in strengthening those access controls with additional security awareness training. So it's been recognised that there are issues around the world in relation to the threat provided by the so called trusted insider, and we need to take measures, and we are taking measures to keep the Australian traveling public safe....

Bucket please, someone...anyone?? Undecided

[Image: puke-Bucket.jpg]


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Chester might fold to other experts - Blush

Quote:[Image: Pollies_TW_2016_CB82A5C0-1576-11E6-99C802D27ADCA5FF.jpg]
Chester doing what he does best i.e. ignoring the 'other' experts

Quote from this week's SBG...  Rolleyes : Chester and Mickey Bliss.

Quote:[Image: DC-Reason-model.jpg]

'That man', via the Oz today... Wink

Quote:Security review ordered for regional airports
[Image: 0c7cb330b44b1bf41554b7842bb06fd7?width=650]
Transport Minister Darren Chester.
  • The Australian

  • 12:00AM August 4, 2017
  • [size=undefined]EAN HIGGINS
    [Image: ean_higgins.png]
    Reporter
    Sydney

    @EanHiggins
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
    [/size]

Transport Minister Darren Chester has ordered a review of security at regional airports, following warnings from terrorism experts, airline pilots and unions that they are the spots most vulnerable to jihadist attack.

The action follows reports in The Australian this week that quirks in federal regulations mean passengers flying on regular commercial services from the same regional city to Sydney have to be security screened if they fly Qantas, but not if they fly Regional Express.

The situation at Wagga airport in southern NSW means a would-be terrorist could choose to not fly QantasLink where any guns, knives, or bombs on his person or in his carry-on luggage would be found by security staff operating metal detectors and X-ray ­machines, and instead book a ticket on Rex, where he could walk on board unchallenged.

The Transport Workers Union this week said QantasLink passengers are not security screened at Armidale, Lord Howe Island and Moree in NSW, Port Lincoln and Whyalla in South Australia, and Charleville, Blackall, Miles and Longreach in Queensland.

The inconsistencies are a product of regulations issued by the Office of Transport Security requiring passengers on planes weighing more than 20 tonnes to have full security screening, but exempting those aircraft under 20 tonnes.

QantasLink, which flies Q400 propeller-driven aircraft on the Wagga route that can carry up to 76 passengers and weigh more than 20 tonnes, is required to screen passengers and their carry-on luggage under the rules.

But Rex, which flies Saab 340 propeller planes that can carry 34 passengers but weigh less than 20 tonnes, is exempt.

“These are examples of where there are inconsistencies in the system as they apply to aviation security in Australia,” Australian Federation of Air Pilots president David Booth said.

After earlier this week deflecting the calls for an upgrade of ­security at regional airports following the arrests of alleged ­Islamic terrorists in Sydney who, police claim, were planning to bring down a plane, Mr Chester has now decided to act.

Asked how he would deal with issues such as those at Wagga, Mr Chester told The Australian: “While the government constantly reviews aviation security measures, I have formally asked the secretary of my department to review the security settings at regional airports, as a precautionary measure.

“I will not second-guess our ­security experts and I will always listen to their advice.

“Should our security experts judge that further or different measures are required to enhance safety at regional airports, the government will take action.”

International terrorism and security expert Carl Ungerer told The Australian that as security at major airports is now well-established, “regional airports have ­always been a weak link.”

While the government focus has been to thwart attacks at big airports or on big aircraft, a Saab 340 with nearly 40 people on board could become a weapon of mass murder if blown up midair by an unscreened terrorist.

With a maximum 2.6 tonnes of highly flammable aviation fuel it could produce several times more destruction if hijacked and used in a 9/11-style attack to crash into a major sporting or entertainment venue or shopping centre in a major city, or a regional military barracks.

The regulations also produce disparities in competitiveness ­between airlines.

The cheapest flights between Wagga and Sydney this week ­according to Webjet were $222 on Qantas, which has to pay for ­security screening, and $153 on Rex, which does not.

A Qantas spokesman said: “Security charges, landing fees, fuel, manpower and other operating costs all form part of the fare. We believe the larger Q400 is the right aircraft for the Sydney to Wagga route and as a result, we need to screen passengers in line with OTS regulations.”

[Image: Johnny_and_sal.jpg]

“..While the government constantly reviews aviation security measures, I have formally asked the secretary of my department to review the security settings at regional airports, as a precautionary measure..."

While the Muppet 6D_NFI_Chester consults with his Muppet Master (M&M), maybe he could also find out how progress on M&M's department is coming along on proactively addressing other airport safety issues ...  Huh

Quote:Mr Carmody: I will certainly look at that.


[Image: head-buried-in-sand.jpg]
Carmody's look at that??

Somewhat gobsmacked I noted that Senator Fawcett's probing QON was answered today by CC... [Image: rolleyes.gif]

Quote: Wrote:QON 122 at 02:28 here:


   
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

REX & (I think) RAAA  comes out swinging on regional airport security - Confused  

What a can of worms the miniscule_6D_NFI_Chester now finds himself embroiled in on the subject of regional airport security... Rolleyes

Via the ABC online:
Quote:Terrorism 'hysteria' could lead to price hikes for regional airline passengers with extra security checks
ABC Rural
By Marty McCarthy

Updated yesterday at 4:58pmTue 8 Aug 2017, 4:58pm
[Image: 733362-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo:
Rex operates to 45 regional communities where airport security screening is not required (Supplied: Rex)


People travelling on regional airlines could face price hikes if bolstered security measures at regional airports are introduced to prevent future terror threats.

That is the view of airline Regional Express (Rex), which operates in 45 regional towns, but the Federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister, Darren Chester, said new security measures may be necessary to protect all Australians.

The Federal Government has ordered a review of security amid concern there is no mandatory screening of regional airport passengers on planes weighing less than 20 tonnes.

This means a person can currently travel from certain country airports to large domestic ones without having to going through security checks, such as scanners.

"The response to the terrorist threat last week in terms of this regional review is part of our normal course of business, as a precautionary measure to make sure our settings are appropriate," Mr Chester said.

Regional Express said it would comply with the review, but warned authorities against implementing "onerous" security measures because of the threat of terrorism.

"Screening of all such potential targets would be so prohibitively expensive and onerous that normal life would be shut down," the company said in a statement.
Quote:"Giving in to hysteria is precisely the outcome that the terrorists seek and this would allow them to succeed in their objective of severely disrupting daily life without needing to carry out a single attack.

"Australia and Australians know better than to fall for their trap."

The airline warned improved security measures at regional airports could push the price of regional flights up.

"The annual operating cost associated with the provision of screening is about $750,000 per annum at each location, which means that regional air travellers will have to absorb an additional $34 million per annum in costs," the company said.

Regional Express said because its operational profit was only $4 million "it would be easy to see what would happen if screening were made mandatory — most regional centres would be left without an air service."

Mr Chester conceded improved security measures could force up the price of a regional flight.

"Every step you take comes at a cost attached to it which is why you respond in an appropriate way, and calmly and coolly assess the situation," he said.

"We don't want to stifle growth in the aviation sector but at the same time safety is our number one priority, so it is a somewhat difficult equation to get right.

"Every service provided at an airport comes at a level of cost, there's a range of security measures in place on all passenger transport in Australia, like locked cockpit doors and pre-flight checks."

Stakeholders must comply with review

The industry's peak body, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, said it was important all stakeholders complied with the review.

"Regardless of the perceptions held about security and its implementation, it is essential we support the several specialised agencies in Australia that continually evaluate and assess factual risks and threats to our industry and our security infrastructure," the association said in a statement.

While not all regional airports use security measures such as scanners, Mr Chester said they all had at least some level of security, which was not always visible to the public.

There are 137 million passenger movements in Australia each year, and many of those are in regional Australia.

A total of 170 regional airports across Australia will be considered in the review, and Mr Chester urged all stakeholders, including the flying public, to assist in the process.

Quote:"You need to make sure we don't have regional aviation regulated to the point it becomes unviable," he said.

"We need to work with industry, local councils who are heavily involved in regional operations, and the flying public themselves on what is a reasonable price to be able to access the services."

However, Regional Express said some planes on regional routes carried fewer passengers than buses, and that remote airlines were not the only safety risk.

"Smaller regional aircraft carry fewer passengers than most buses, and it would be senseless to enforce screening on the former while leaving 'vulnerable' the tens of thousands of buses plying the streets each day," the company said.

"Terrorists will and do strike soft targets too as we have seen in the truck attacks in Nice and in London, and the attack on a Sydney cafe."

The airline also said regional communities may have reduced access to essential services, if expensive security measures were introduced.

"Those needing to travel for essential medical, education and business reasons would be forced to drive," the company said.
Credit where credit is due for Chester - Rolleyes

Maybe it is his journo background but I note that 6D (plus his dept & agencies) is very diligently replying to all written Estimates & parliamentary QON within the required deadlines... Wink 

Example yesterday in House Hansard QIW (questions in writing) - see HERE.
 
From my experience this a rarity for any minister Muppet to the M&M Muppetmaster... Big Grin

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)