Shame or Fame for McCormack.
#81

Bargaining chips.

That makes things ‘interesting’ GD. Fraser Anning’s vote may have just become even more important. Slo-Mo is trying to get some legislation through, I wonder what Anning’s vote will buy him?

Could we possibly see the miniscule ‘on-camera’ announcing real changes to the Navigation Act soon?  Anning is a sworn, dedicated friend of aviation, a man of his word who not only spoke at the Wagga gabfest; but stayed through the whole thing – impressive I thought.

Politics eh? – as old as prostitution, just not quite as honest.

Toot - toot & MTF.
Reply
#82

As the GA Fat Lady steps up to the microphone... Confused

Yet here is miniscule McDo'Naught flapping his gums and waving the safety stick around while hammering in the final nails to GA commerical operators - WTD?

From Ironsider, via the Oz:

Quote:Charter operators held to airline safety standards
[Image: 8505df634b22618d652be711eeea6198?width=650]Sharp Airlines owner and chief pilot Malcolm Sharp, at Essendon Airport yesterday, says the new move makes sense. Picture: Stuart McEvoy
  • EXCLUSIVE
    ROBYN IRONSIDE
    AVIATION WRITER
    @ironsider

  • 11:00PM DECEMBER 17, 2018

The most significant overhaul of civil aviation safety regulations in more than 20 years will ensure safety standards are the same for charter flight operators as they are for airlines.

Deputy Prime Minister Mich­ael McCormack said the new rules would take effect from March 2021, improving the clarity of aviation safety regulations.

“They’re going to remove the regulatory distinction between charter and regular public transport (RPT) operators,” Mr McCormack said.

“For 20 years we’ve been talking about it, we’ve been consulting about it and we’ve been negotiating, and the end is almost in sight.”


Civil Aviation Safety Author­ity chief executive Shane Carmod­y said the changes to regulation 135 were “core to everything” and had been the hardest to negotiate.

“It think it’s revolutionary,” Mr Carmody said.

“It’s not about reducing the standards of RPT down to the lower end of charter; it’s about finding a way to get standards up and ensuring aviation safety.”

He denied the regulations would place an unreasonable burde­n on small charter operators, with “scalability” an important feature of the new rules.

“The smaller you are, the less burden there is going to be, and that’s what the principle is,” said Mr Carmody.

“Does a small two-aeroplane operator need a safety management system in exactly the same way as Qantas does?” Mr Murray asked.

“It needs the same system but appropriately scaled to fit that operator’s needs.

‘‘What it does is it gets operators to look at their own areas of risk and put in systemic fixes.”

Mr McCormack said that, where appropriate, pilots, owners and operators would be able to make “appropriate decisions for their operations to achieve requir­ed safety outcomes”.

Mr Carmody said this was called “acceptable means of complianc­e”, which recognised there was more than one way to achieve a required standard.

“If you can create a safety case based on the type of operations you undertake in the locations that you undertake them, with the type of aircraft you want, you can put a case to us,” he said.

“If you can make the safety case it’s fine, and we’ve been doing that in other areas for some time.”

Airline operator Malcolm Sharp welcomed the move to close the gap between charter and RPT, saying it made a lot of sense.

But Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said the new rules appeared to overlook maintenance, which was “50 per cent of an aviation business”.

“They haven’t even begun to consult with industry in terms of maintenance,” Mr Higgins said. “It’s like they’ve got one foot on the boat, and one foot on the jetty.”

With the enforcement of regula­tions still two years away, he said there was still time to addres­s this shortcoming.

“We can negotiate further and make some further improvements, so we welcome that two-year implementation profile,” Mr Higgins said.

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#83

MINISTER JUMPS FOR JOY AT 20 YEAR JOKE!!!

What an embarrassment. So it’s taken 20 years to reach a so-called workable solution. This is what the cardboard cutout Mc’Do’nothing said;

“For 20 years we’ve been talking about it, we’ve been consulting about it and we’ve been negotiating, and the end is almost in sight.”

Pathetic fool. 20 years?? Imagine if your private business took 20 years to decide to put on Apprentice? Or 20 years to agree on a financial framework to run your business? Or 20 years to decide whether to buy the electric blue Harfwit suit or the beige Safari suit? Your kids would have been born, married and made you proud Grandparents, and still not finished the cycle!!!!

The comment is by an out-of-touch Can’tberra silo indoctrinated numpty who is living his life as part of The Truman Show. Both Mc’Do’nothing and Wingnut are both excited to the point that they are half erect, over a non completed 20 year task!!! Imagine when our $400m 30 year unfinished regulatory reform program is actually finished in another 20 years time? For the Pollywafflers and Bureaushat’s in Can’tberra they will be like ‘a yogurt truck hitting a tree’! Their excitement won’t be contained......Viva Le Yellow Vests.

‘LNP and CAsA - unsafe joke for all’
Reply
#84

Miniscule McDo'Naught on the record -  Rolleyes

Via the Nats:

Quote:[Image: DuqifdIUUAEc7AL.jpg]

MODERNISED RULES FOR CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY


The Australian Government has today announced new Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) which will streamline and modernise the rules which apply to all flight operations in Australia.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Michael McCormack said the rule changes will provide clarity to pilots and fight operators and are scalable to the complexity of aviation activity in Australia.

Mr McCormack said the six new regulations are collectively known as the Flight Operations Suite and represent a significant milestone in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) ongoing regulatory reform agenda.

He said the new rules also reflect the safety commitment shared between the Federal Liberal and Nationals’ Government and the many thousands of companies and individuals within the Australian aviation industry.

“These new rules have been developed in close consultation with our aviation industry, which is recognised as one of the safest in the world but we can always do better and we must,” Mr McCormack said.

“Where appropriate, the regulations are outcomes-based rather than prescriptive, allowing pilots, owners and operators to make appropriate decisions for their operations to achieve required safety outcomes.

“The rule changes will come into effect in March 2021; allowing time for the development of guidance material and manuals.

“I expect the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to continue collaborating with industry to ensure a smooth transition.”

Mr McCormack said the changes reflect the expectations held by successive Governments for cost impacts and proportionality to be a consideration in the administration of Australian safety regulation.

“While safety will always remain the primary consideration, a strong and sustainable industry naturally requires other factors to be considered,” he said.

“While these expectations from Government have always been clear, they have not featured in our primary legislation.

“The general aviation sector in particular has made it clear that these considerations are essential for them to prosper in an otherwise difficult business environment.

“I recognise there are other important elements to ensure our regulatory system remains both strong and appropriate, so at the earliest opportunity next year, and with bipartisan support, I will seek to make some small but significant amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

“I am pleased we can advise of changes and look forward to ongoing bipartisan support in this area.

“Together with the new rules, I am confident that these small changes will help Australia maintain its enviable safety record and a vibrant aviation industry which is particularly important to regional communities and economies.”


CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody said achieving the milestone was no small task and it required a lot of hard work and commitment from many people in CASA and the aviation community.

“I thank everyone who contributed to these rule sets. It is testament to our new consultative processes that we were able to ensure feedback from subject matter experts and people across aviation was received, carefully considered and incorporated as required in a timely and professional manner,” he said.

Aviation Safety Advisory Panel Chairperson Patrick Murray said CASA has listened to the aviation community’s views during development of the new regulations which helped generate better and more effective rules.

“I am pleased CASA is committed to continuing to work with the aviation community through a range of consultation mechanisms to complete the development of the rest of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations,” he said.



I also see that today disgraced former miniscule overseeing aviation Andrew Broad has gone a step further and announced he will not contest the next election. 


Nationals leader Michael McCormack sees no reason to resign after sugar babe saga[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v2/c8d8a0c40aea993469a860c03153ef26?t_product=video&t_template=../video/player[/img]

[Image: 1d2c88351856eebb84c72245f6211312?width=650]Andrew Broad with his wife Rachel and (inset) 'sugar babe' Amy.

  • RICHARD FERGUSON
    REPORTER
    @RichAFerguson
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/f6da65934b44fc4cc84644fa25814434/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/broadsheet/components/article-author/widget&td_bio=false&td_location=none[/img]ROSIE LEWIS
    REPORTER
    @rosieslewis
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/4a04a5d3a5dcec23c43a4c865bb50321/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/broadsheet/components/article-author/widget&td_bio=false&td_location=none[/img]

  • 1:28PM DECEMBER 18, 2018

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack says there was “no reason” for him to inform Scott Morrison about Andrew Broad’s sexual misconduct allegations because it was a “personal matter” as his leadership of the Nationals is questioned over the “sugar babe” saga.


“He reported the matter to the AFP and I felt, well, that’s a matter for the AFP,” Mr McCormack told reporters in NSW.


“If they find anything untoward — which obviously they haven’t — then that is entirely a matter for the AFP and if something comes of that, well, something comes of it. Otherwise I thought it was a matter for him and his family to sort out.


“I didn’t think it was a matter that I even knew about, let alone needed to take up with the Prime Minister.

“The fact is it was a personal trip. He made a very bad decision, but a very bad decision I wasn’t aware of all the facts of.”


Mr Broad faced a barrage of sexual misconduct allegations this morning with reports at least three other women have complained to the National Party about his behaviour.


The new claims come a day after a failed tryst with a Hong Kong “sugar babe” forced Mr Broad to resign as an assistant minister, and Mr McCormack has been under pressure to say when he knew of the allegations.


The Deputy Prime Minister also said he saw no reason to resign as his party descended into chaos over the revelations Mr Broad was using a sugar daddy website to meet younger women overseas.


“I don’t know anybody who thinks I should resign. I’ve made the right course of action. Indeed, Andrew Broad has taken the right course of action. I’m doing a very difficult job,” he said.


“These are not the sorts of things a leader wants to be focused on and wants to be facing down cameras talking about.’’


Shortly before The Australian exclusively revealed that Mr Broad will not contest the next election, Mr McCormack had said Mr Broad should “consider his future”.


“I think he needs to work out whether that (running again for parliament) is entirely his future,” the Deputy Prime Minister said. “I think he’s got more concerns at the moment sorting out his own personal issues. I would like to think that somebody who was going to represent the National Party is entirely focused on the people we serve.”


Sky News reports Nationals MPs were told not to discuss the allegations against Mr Broad on the messaging app WhatsApp yesterday.


“If anybody is asked about the personal details of one (of) our members can we ALL say no comment, today is about MYEFO and the leader will deal with this tomorrow,” Nationals whip Damian Drum texted.


Mr McCormack then sent out his public statement to his MPs and asked them to “refrain” from commenting.


“I have just sent you all a statement regarding Andrew Broad’s resignation,” he texted.


“I would ask that you refrain, where possible, from commentary concerning this matter but that your refer to this statement if pressed.”


More complaints about Nats MP


The Herald Sun reports today that three separate women have contacted National Party officials during the past 12 months about Mr Broad’s alleged inappropriate behaviour online and in hotels and bars.


Nationals officials reportedly said those women had threatened to expose him to the media and that they feared revelations he had gone on a “sugar babes” website was the “tip of the iceberg.”


Those officials also told The Herald Sun that multiple women over the past three years had contacted the Nationals claiming “dalliances” with Mr Broad.


“I have resigned. Please respect my family,” Mr Broad told The Herald Sun.


In a further twist to the damaging saga, the Australian Federal Police last night confirmed it received a referral from Mr Broad about the Hong Kong matter on November 8 — about a month before Mr McCormack said he was first told of the allegations — over claims the woman “may have engaged in criminal activity”.

[size=undefined]
[Image: fed6168dd3c267b88450b9dd3f41360d?width=650]
[/size]

Mr McCormack did not alert Scott Morrison, who found out about the allegations against Mr Broad yesterday morning and “acted immediately” to sack him from the ministry.

The disgraced MP, who is considered one of Mr McCormack’s key supporters, was forced to resign following the publication of allegations he met up with the younger woman in Hong Kong via a “sugar daddy” dating site.


Government sources said Mr Broad’s travel on September 2-7, reportedly for the Asia Fruit Logistica conference, was personal and not funded by taxpayers.


The Australian understands Mr Broad, aged 43 and married, conducted electorate-related business in Hong Kong and charged taxpayers for return flights between Mildura and Melbourne, before flying to Hong Kong and back at his own expense.


The Australian has confirmed Mr Broad, who was sworn in as assistant minister to the Deputy Prime Minister on August 28, will repay taxpayer money used to pay for the domestic flights between Mildura and Melbourne which connected him to Hong Kong.
According to a story published in New Idea magazine yesterday, “Amy” — who goes by the online alias “Sweet Sophia Rose” — ­allegedly met Mr Broad for dinner at the ritzy Hong Kong restaurant Aqua. The member for Mallee also allegedly sent a series of text mess­ages to her in the lead-up to the date, including: “I’m an Aussie lad, I know how to ride a horse, fly a plane and f..k my woman. My intentions are completely dishonourable.”


Another text message allegedly said: “I’ve booked a flashy room to seduce you back to.”


Amy alleged that during the dinner Mr Broad, who holds his Victorian seat on a safe margin of 19.8 per cent, was “so forward and cocky” and he allegedly kept “grabbing my hand and putting it on his leg, so I excused myself and went to the bathroom and when I came back I told him I was leaving”.

[size=undefined]
[Image: 83d9445c843c992695711de0ce61c1a6?width=650]Nationals MP Andrew Broad with his wife Rachel.[/size]


Mr McCormack and Victorian Nationals have stood by Mr Broad, who has been preselected to contest the next election and is said to be keen to remain in parliament.

Nationals sources have suggested Amy may have tried to bribe him but an AFP spokesman said no offences under Australian law had been identified.


Joyce reacts


Mr Broad was the first of his colleagues to call for former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce to quit over his affair with staffer and now-partner Vikki Campion back in February.


“Quote from the late Billy Graham “when wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost”... telling words for the Leadership of the National Party,” Mr Broad tweeted at the height of the Joyce scandal.


Mr Joyce said this morning he had “some disappointment” considering those past statements, but that he wished Mr Broad well in his future parliamentary career.


“There is some disappointment that I have in some of the statements that might have been made in the past,” he told the Seven Network. “I wish him all the very best.”


Labor senator Kristina Kene­ally questioned how it was possible no action was taken against Mr Broad until the allegations were made public — after Mr McCormack confirmed he knew about them for a couple of weeks.


“The standards Mr McCormack says he upholds and demands of his members of parliament don’t seem to have been lived up to by Mr Broad,” Senator Keneally said.


Nationals MPs would not comment publicly but urged Mr Broad to apologise to party members and his constituents.


As the scandal overshadowed the government’s mid-year budget update and announcement of an increased surplus in 2019-20, 


Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said this morning that Mr Morrison “acted straight away” once he heard about the allegations against Mr Broad, and that Mr McCormack was trying to “work through” the issue.

“The minute the Prime Minister heard, he acted straight away,” the Treasurer told the Nine Network. “Michael McCormack was trying to work through this issue, but what is very clear is that this conduct was unacceptable. “He (Mr Broad) has resigned. That was the right thing to do.”

[/url]
[Image: DupI-v3UwAAqPg7?format=jpg&name=small]

Quote:[Image: BZLk1Ygx_normal.jpg]
The Today Show

@TheTodayShow
“This conduct was unacceptable.” @JoshFrydenberg on the Andrew Broad - @broad4mallee - scandal. #9Today
[url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1074751711397302273]
6:42 AM - Dec 18, 2018

Mr McCormack yesterday acknowledged “this is an unnecessary distraction against the message we’re selling”.


“I have accepted his resignation; it was the right thing to do,” he said.


Mr McCormack refused to clarify when he first found out about the scandal but thought it was approximately two weeks ago. “At the time, Mr Broad advised me that he had contacted someone overseas for a date and went out to dinner with the individual,” he said. 


“He said nothing more than that had happened and that he was on a personal trip to Hong Kong. Further, he told me the person had then made contact with him again after the dinner in circumstances I felt he should refer to the AFP, if he had not already done so.”

A staffer of Nationals senator Barry O’Sullivan has also been stood aside after sending abusive texts to Sunday Telegraph political editor Annika Smethurst.


Mr Broad’s spokeswoman said he did not have any comment other than what was published in the New Idea article. The Nationals MP said: “I have been advised that the person making the alle­gation may have engaged in criminal activity. This matter has been reported to the Australian Federal Police and I will not be making any further comment.”


The Australian is not suggesting the allegations are true, only that they have been made.




Well here is a thought -  Rolleyes

Ref: https://auntypru.com/setting-the-odds-and-playing-em/



Quote:
Quote:
“..if you look at a safety system holistically—a bit like James Reason and his accident causation model—what we are finding is that each of those pieces of Swiss cheese has been thinned to the absolute minimum that is permissible by law, which maximises the chance of an accident by minimising the options for a pilot who has a malfunction in an aircraft. I guess the request here is that we sit back and look at this holistically, as opposed to saying, ‘Yes, they have met this requirement or that requirement,’ and look at the aggregation of the loss of margin and, therefore, options for an aircrew member who has an issue with an aircraft. Public safety zones are but one element of that whole system”
 ― Senator David Fawcett, 23 May 2017.

(ref: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow…fb/0000%22 )

In the interests of a united industry and the fact that there is apparently on the record bi-partisan support for changing the Act, perhaps now would be a good time to put in a pitch for one Senator David Fawcett to take up the cabinet role of overseeing aviation safety (for at least the next 5 months) while streamlining the legislative processes in changing the Act - just saying... Big Grin  
 

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#85

THE PUTIRDNESS OF THE LNP IS COVERED BY A BROAD BRUSH

The former newspaper reporter and achiever of SFA, Miniscule Mc’Do’nothing, weakly said;

“I don’t know anybody who thinks I should resign”.

Um, you’re wrong with that Sunshine. The majority of the Aviation industry would really love for you to just fuck off. Just try asking us. Idiot. You inept cardboard cutout. A pair of soiled underpants provide more value than you do.

Andrew Broadstroke;

“I’m an Aussie lad, I know how to ride a horse, fly a plane and f..k my woman. My intentions are completely dishonourable.”

What can one say. Another stellar example of a political grub. Dishonourable is a title that should prefix all Pollywafflers. What is it with these Nationals anyway? Years of growing up on farms and shagging bovines and knotholes in fences and then when they hit Can’tberra they are nailing every broad who has two legs and is gooey at the ‘Y’? Christ, fucking deknacker them when they enter politics, please!

Patrick ‘mates rates’ Murray;

Aviation Safety Advisory Panel Chairperson Patrick Murray said CASA has listened to the aviation community’s views during development of the new regulations which helped generate better and more effective rules.

“I am pleased CASA is committed to continuing to work with the aviation community through a range of consultation mechanisms to complete the development of the rest of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations,” he said.


It would seem that Wingnut is getting the band back together. The same Patrick Murray who was head of CAsA’s ATOG in Brisbane until around 2008 or thereabouts and worked with Wingnut back then, when Wingnut was second in command at CAsA? Fancy having Patrick provide ‘industry consultation’ that is all glowing in nature for CAsA. What a surprise!! Pat, time to head back to the Gold Coast University to teach fancy aviation vocabulary and the sort of Voodoo Aleck pony pooh that has no relevance in the real aviation world. There’s a good lad. And put an extra layer of sheen on that bald head of yours.

“More LNP/CAsA tomfoolery, piffle, folly and waffle for all”
Reply
#86

For and on behalf of P7 Ol'Tom; who is currently squawking 7600 -  Big Grin



[Image: P7-rant-1-680x1024.jpg]

[Image: P7-rant-2.jpg]


Reply
#87

ICAO flogs Australian oversight.

Severely, with a small, damp lettuce leaf. That’ll fix it all up, quick smart – right?

How about this for a thrashing:-

“Ensure that the State has a coordinated mechanism to ensure full and effective implementation of the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) at aerodromes, including arrangements to prohibit any building developments which could create an obstacle to aircraft operations.”

The following links will assist the casual reader in deciding if the punishment fits the crime.


But of course, no one bothers to read, let alone take our safety watchdogs to task; and so, the whole carefully worded confection will slowly find it’s way to the ‘shelf-ware’ section of the basement, to moulder away with all the other embarrassing documents. The time honoured system has never let the minister down. Softly, softly the damning paper work creeps away, while ICAO swans off to new engagements, trusting that the DoIT will make the suggested changes happen over the next decade or so; no rush….


You have to wonder why this innocuous, bland report has been kept out of the public purview, we did after all we paid for it. Then there is the question of the CAPs. But, for my money, the stellar performance of the Canberra back line takes the biscuit.

The who authorized the building ‘ball’ goes into the Senate scrum – the Canberra back line get it and the speed at which the ball (and the responsibility) is passed along is truly breathtaking. It seems that no one is 'Wholly’ responsible for parking a bloody great big building, full of ‘happy shoppers’ in harms way. The crowd watching begin the traditional chant “No, weren’t us”
 
BOLLOCKS; Mr Genuine Minister needs to pay close attention – the law suites are coming; soon as ATSB gets off it’s beam ends and actually does something that is not window dressing and prevarication. Murky knows who rewrote the ‘definitions’ and who flogged off the airports to developers; him and Beaker, up their eyebrows.

I hope the Yanks crucify ‘em – I’ll even help them. No matter, great audit, really helpful. iCAO ‘on –the-money’.

Toot – toot – one for luck – Toot.
Reply
#88

HAPPY NEW YEAR MINISCULE - L&KS Bruce RHOADES and the IOS... Rolleyes  

(12-14-2018, 05:49 PM)BRhoades Wrote:  [Image: bedd0ddbec1068790ab4ece108f2aa71.jpg]

Much to be ashamed of minister.

Of all its flaws - and there are many - the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s greatest problem may well lie within its very title.

It was once known as the Civil Aviation Authority but now this regulatory authority has been burdened with the oxymoron of “safety.”

Apart from the confusion it creates in the minds general community because of its branding collision with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau CASA’s title is, quite simply, an absurd contradiction in terms.

CASA’s self-appointed role as a Big R law enforcement agency ensures it actually works to undermine the aspiration of safer skies.

It is clearly a regulatory enforcement agency which has never embraced “safety” as its primary mandate.

I have extracted some excerpts from the Professional Aviation Investigation Network Report 3rd Aug 2017 that expose a hostile and adversarial relationship between the GA industry and the Regulator (CASA). 

[Image: 6334714-16x9-large-e1518307151504.jpg]

PAIN Report.

"In general, it must be stated that the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has an unique approach to ICAO compliance, with record number of ‘notified differences’. Many of the notifications may, at face value, seem insignificant."

It is our opinion that the noted differences are structured to support the complex, contradictory, flawed rule set in place.Reform of this rule set has been in train for thirty years, with successive government ministers and directors of civil aviation promising to complete the task ‘within the next three years’.
 

This is an important consideration as it reflects on the operational approach taken to both open reporting of ‘incident’ or event; and, the tangible fear of prosecution.

Australia’s Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) are founded on the ‘criminal code’ and ‘strict liability’; this, standing alone, provides a strong disincentive to openly reporting safety related matters. This attitude is reflected in the government safety bodies approach to ICAO compliance and reporting.

Reference: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ICAO_1.pdf

So it is hardly surprising to witness the industry’s adoption of a culture of “never Reporting incidents or accidents” when the obvious option for survival lies with concealment and in-house fixes.

It’s more disturbing than ironic to see CASA has developed a similar culture of not reporting all accidents to ICAO (as required by annexe 13) which might result in a downgrading of Australia’s overall safety approval by ICAO.

The Australian Government has in fact been lying by failing to submit reports to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, as required since 2009.

Over 30 years this has had a major negative impact on aviation safety in this country...



https://auntypru.com/and-thus-i-clothe-m...-villainy/ 

....Late start this morning – much to consider and read; mostly to do with Bruce Roades and his run in with at the CASA gristmill. The story begins with tragedy, a failed engine leading to an air accident, ending with a fatality. A raw day for all concerned; services swung into action and did their usual sterling work (thank you – once again); ATSB arrived ‘on-site’ and began the task of ‘investigation’. This is what we have become used to after an accident; the ATSB attempts to define what happened, why and place, when required, some form of advisory or recommendation designed to prevent a reoccurrence. The CASA often buy in, they are quite entitled to run an investigation; there are matters which they need to be across, matters of law and operational well being. So the scene is set...




 Oz aviation, safety compromised by political and bureaucratic subterfuge?

http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-167...ml#pid8362

Quote:From the Airports thread this AM: Magic; stuff that makes you go Uhmmm!
Quote: Wrote:K said: "..The duckling building was and remains a serious safety hazard; it is a significant part of the ‘investigation’ and it’s being located where it is remains a major part of the investigation into the Essendon accident. How can it possibly be ‘removed’ and treated as a ‘separate’ stand alone element, before the final report is released?

Post report – fair enough – let’s have a look at the  why and how’s this thing was allowed to park within the boundaries of an active runway and why the ‘documents’ failed to notify aircrew of the hazard or a reduced runway safety zone. The encroachment of buildings into operational airspace is a major concern and worthy of it’s own enquiry – but, the DFO at Essendon is part of the causal chain and it MUST be treated as such, not snapped off and put on the wait-a-bit shelf, marked ‘do later’..."

A possible explanation to this disturbing disconnection lies in the "K" statement that followed...

"..Hood working his own brand of magic – yet again; to delay, distract, defer and protect his masters by prostituting the once proud ATSB..."

But why would Hood so obviously compromise the independence and veracity of the ongoing investigation? Well perhaps because the BJ affair has created a perfect political and ministerial vacuum in which Hoody can weave his top-cover magic without being challenged or afforded any Government oversight from the distracted minister's office?

Remember that 6D Chester as the former miniscule for non-aviation managed to convince the Chair Barry O and the committee to defer their - Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions] - Inquiry till 19 March 2018 and the inquiry completion is now dependent on those findings:

Quote: Wrote:1.17 The committee recognizes that the findings and recommendations of the
investigations into this tragedy, and the work of NASAG, may have implications for
the bill. It takes the view that sufficient time should be provided to allow the
investigations to proceed and for the committee to then properly consider their
findings.

1.18 Therefore, the committee recommends that its inquiry on the bill be extended
to allow consideration of the investigations and any other relevant aviation regulation
developments.
 
Plus: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-30-...ml#pid9629

Update 01/01/19 : Bruce Roades' - FINAL BATTLE.



FEDERAL ICAC NOW! 

[Image: DvyPExpUYAE8fap.jpg]

TICK TOCK MINISCULE - Your days are numbered... Rolleyes
Reply
#89

2019 HAPPY NEW YEAR MINISTER!!!!!

Steam on, engage ICAC now!!!

Another superbly articulated piece of work from Bruce Rhoades. He is setting the bar for 2019 very high, and incredibly even though the date is 1/1/19 he has already taken the lead for the ‘IOS Of The Year Award 2019’.

How is the Miniscule anyway? Have a good break Michael? Fly to any nice family locations using the frequent flyer points earned and paid for by the taxpayer? Relax with the family in the Qantas chairman’s lounge, again a nice little corporate perk that all you Pollywafflers get given. Did you pay for your vehicles recreational use out of your own pocket mate?

To add to Bruces robust coverage of the ‘truth about Australian politics 2018’, and the endless sexual indiscretions and top level coverups he has mentioned, one could add the ongoing waste and misuse of taxpayer money, a dysfunctional government who cannot govern, bureaucratic silos that act with impunity and with no accountability, along with countless other political scandals, stupidity and malfeasance, 2018 was an embarrassment. Rodrigo Duterte would make a more respectable politician than the fools we have in the Australian Parlousment. They are a complete joke. And the real kicker is that these fools have the title of ‘Honourable’ put in front of their names. What a disgrace. They are nothing but pigs knee deep in shit oinking around for the next meal from the taxpayer trough.

As for CAsA’s very own Wingnut, he is just a bad tempered beady eyed shonk, a clown who has spent pretty much most of his life in Can’tberra working for Government, and he wouldn’t know shit from clay let alone anything about the real aviation world. He is just a little boy playing in a seriously big sandpit. The sooner all of these muppets retire and fuck off to live out their lives on their fat superannuation packages the better.

Don the yellow vests....’Safe Viva Le Revolution for all’.

2019 = year of the clock. TICK TOCK
Reply
#90

CSF's about to become political -  Rolleyes

Reference:

(12-21-2018, 11:52 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Not Happy Shane! -  Dodgy

From Ben Morgan, via AOPAA:


Quote:AOPA AUSTRALIA CALLS FOR CASA TO WITHDRAW CHANGES TO COMMUNITY SERVICE FLIGHTS MINIMUM STANDARDS
December 21, 2018 By Benjamin Morgan

[Image: angelflight2-1023x500.jpg]
Friday, 21st December 2018

Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia

Dr Jane Thompson
RRAT Committee Secretary
PO BOX 6100
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia.

Call to withdraw proposed changes to Community Service Flights CD 1814OS

Mr Carmody,

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia calls on CASA to immediately withdraw it’s proposed changes to Community Service Flights, as published in your discussion paper CD1814OS.  Should the changes proposed by CASA be implemented, they will entirely undermine the viability of Community Service Flights nationwide and will leave thousands of sick and disadvantaged Australians without essential transport for medical needs.  The proposed changes will preclude qualified pilots and aircraft owners by unnecessarily increasing the regulatory and cost burdens, further contributing to general aviation industry decline.

Throughout this past year, you have loudly espoused your commitment to a just-culture stating that CASA bases aviation safety outcomes on evidence-based risk assessment and takes a pragmatic and proportionate approach towards safety-outcomes.  In view of this, any proposed changes to Community Service Flights should be based on the assessment of direct evidence and risk, not the subjective speculation by the regulator towards a possible perceived risk.

Your discussion paper (CD1814OS) published on 18th December 2018, fails to provide any statistical or accident data to support CASA’s proposed changes.  AOPA Australia is only aware of two charity flight accidents spanning the past 16 years, of which we note the following important facts;

Accident 1:  Occurred in 2011, PPL holder, over 6,000 hours experience, flying Night VFR, had owned the accident aircraft for many years.  ATSB attributes the accident to a failure of the PIC to maintain lowest safe altitude of which the result was a CFIT event.

Accident 2:  Occurred in 2017, PPL holder, over 1,000 hours experience, flying VFR, had owned the aircraft for several years.  Whilst the final accident report has not yet been delivered, the preliminary report identifies that the pilot departed in inclement weather that precluded the ability to maintain VFR, resulting in inadvertent IFR and subsequent loss of control.

Whilst these two accidents were tragic, they did not reflect a failure of regulatory aviation safety standards, but rather were attributed to a failure in pilot decision making in the cockpit.  This highlights a need for better pilot education and support services, along with peer mentoring – not a need for greater regulation by CASA.

Based on the factual accident information;

  1. Both pilots (Accident 1 and 2) were experienced PPL holders with over 6,000 and 1,000 hours in command;
    1. Neither accident reflects a substandard approach to existing minimum experience requirements;
    2. CASA’s proposal to increase minimum experience requirements from 250 to 400 hours would not have prevented the two historical accidents from occurring.
  1. Both pilots were current in their respective aircraft and had conducted regular charity flights;
    1. Neither accident reflects a substandard approach to existing pilot currency requirements;
    2. CASA’s proposal to change pilot currency from 90 days to 30 days would not have prevented the two historical accidents from occurring.
  2. Neither aircraft suffered a partial or full engine failure, or any other aircraft maintenance related event;
    1. Neither accident reflects a substandard approach to existing aircraft maintenance requirements;
    2. CASA’s proposal to require AD/ENG/4 will preclude a significant number of private aircraft from participating in Community Service Flights, by requiring them to maintain aircraft engines to commercial charter industry standards. For example, the cost to overhaul a Beechcraft Bonanza A36 engine (IO-550) to comply with AD/ENG/4 can be as high as $85,000 AUD.

In all three points above, CASA’s proposed changes;

  1. Would not have stopped or prevented the two historical accidents from occurring;
  2. Do not address the relevant safety need, which is pilot support, education and awareness;
  3. Will result in increasing regulatory burden and costs to participating aircraft owners and pilots;
  4. Will result in reducing Community Service Flight capabilities nationwide;
  5. Will leave thousands of persons throughout regional Australia without essential transport;
  6. Will contribute to general aviation industry decline.

None of the changes proposed by CASA appear to be responsive to any relevant safety factors.  Rather, they present as a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived requirement for the regulator to be seen to be taking action.

Furthermore, AOPA Australia is deeply concerned that CASA have moved to introduce these unnecessary changes during a Christmas holiday break when few aircraft owners and pilots can respond and at a time when Parliament has risen and won’t return until February 2019.  It would appear that CASA has been very selective in its timing, seeking to avoid political interference and/or scrutiny, which is both inappropriate and unfortunate.

We also make clear that we do not believe that CASA has adequately consulted with the industry or the major charities regarding these unnecessary changes.  We call on CASA to immediately withdraw CD1814OS and ask that the regulator establish a working group with representatives of each of the charities affected along with a representative of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia.

In 2017 the AOPA Australia met with Rob Walker, Industry Stakeholder Manager for CASA and extended an offer to help develop and deliver appropriate pilot education and support services for those conducting Community Service Flights focused on decision making in the cockpit.  Whilst our offer was not taken up, we remain ready and willing to assist.

Thank you for your time and we would appreciate your direct response.

Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)
Hangar 600, Prentice Street, Bankstown Airport NSW 2200 Australia.
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.


TICK..TOCK miniscule McDo'Naught -  Confused : 

Quote:[Image: crisis.gif]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/midweek-on-the-ap-29-08-18/

[Image: 300?cb=20131129143959]
Baa, baa Wagga sheep, have you any brains-
Yes Sir, yes Sir, three thimbles full;
Two for re-election, half for my claims:
And a half one for aviation- a’goin down the drain.
[Image: f9db9348a5f01f335b05f80107ba1022-e1533084739642.jpg]
 Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Nationals, Michael McCormack.


While the miniscule continues to ignore all things aviation safety related it would appear the community service flight imbroglio, surrounding Fort Fumble's (CASA) decision to impose what most people in industry regard as unnecessary regulatory burdens to not for profit CSF organisations, is about to become political - Big Grin  

Marjorie Pagani & Leadsled, via the UP:


Quote:AngelFlightCEO

Introduction of proposed safety standard - community service flights



Below is a submission from one of our experienced RPT and private owner pilots: sums it up nicely.

Introduction of proposed safety standard - community service flights

The proposal introduces minimum CSF pilot experience, licensing and medical requirements, requirement of flights at night to be conducted using instrument procedures instead of visual procedures and requires slightly enhanced aircraft maintenance requirements, in line with other operations within Australia involving similar participants.

Please provide feedback below. You may enter as little or as much information as you wish.: Proposed safety standard - Community service flights (CD 1814OS)

The suggestion that CSF passengers are uninformed or even less informed than other private flight/ GA charter passengers is absurd. By the time CSF passengers board an aircraft they have been provided with written information and adequate time to make an informed decision on whether to travel by air or alternative means. This information is provided by the CSF provider & then verbally by the PIC. If a CSF passenger is still ‘uninformed’, it is by choice.

Proposed recency requirement- one landing in the type or class in the last 30 days. I only need 1 landing in the last 45 days to operate a widebody aircraft for an Australian HC AOC holder. The 10 widebody (type) landings I may have conducted in the last 30 days will apparently not count for recency for a CSF in my GA single engine aircraft.

The operational environment for a CSF pilot is benign in comparison to that of a working CPL holder. No employment threats, serviceable & familiar aircraft, the ability to cancel a flight without consequence, flights planned well in advance & no remote areas. To suggest that the experience requirements to operate a CSF flight should be higher than those required for a commercial operation is thus nonsensical.

The proposed requirement for piston engines to meet AD/Eng/4 requirement 2 (calendar life) defies logic. My piston engine is electronically data monitored, is checked & oil changed by a licensed engineer every 4 months, undergoes laboratory oil analysis 3 times/ year & is borescoped & compression checked every 12

months. To suggest that overhauling the engine simply to meet a calendar requirement defies logic. It merely puts the engine back into the high risk zone for catastrophic failure.

The CSF with which I am familiar has operated nearly 23,000 flights & suffered 2 accidents in 15 years. A sensible approach to improving safety would be to examine what the 22,998 flights have been doing successfully rather than impose a grab bag of untried limitations.

The proposed changes as documented conflict with the CASA fairness values. Decisions are to be risk based & evidence driven, both of which are absent from CD1814OS.

Marjorie Pagani
Chief Executive Officer
Angel Flight Australia




LeadSled - Marjorie,


Time for a major petition, with plenty of publicity, on something like Change.org.

AOPA should be able to arrange an email out to every Federal and State politician with multiple shots to every news outlet.


CASA do not like lots of very public attention.

Tootle pip!
 

MTF me'thinks...P2  Tongue
Reply
#91

(01-04-2019, 07:50 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  CSF's about to become political -  Rolleyes

Reference:

(12-21-2018, 11:52 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Not Happy Shane! -  Dodgy


TICK..TOCK miniscule McDo'Naught -  Confused : 

Quote:[Image: crisis.gif]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/midweek-on-the-ap-29-08-18/

[Image: 300?cb=20131129143959]
Baa, baa Wagga sheep, have you any brains-
Yes Sir, yes Sir, three thimbles full;
Two for re-election, half for my claims:
And a half one for aviation- a’goin down the drain.
[Image: f9db9348a5f01f335b05f80107ba1022-e1533084739642.jpg]
 Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Nationals, Michael McCormack.


While the miniscule continues to ignore all things aviation safety related it would appear the community service flight imbroglio, surrounding Fort Fumble's (CASA) decision to impose what most people in industry regard as unnecessary regulatory burdens to not for profit CSF organisations, is about to become political - Big Grin  

Marjorie Pagani & Leadsled, via the UP:


Quote:AngelFlightCEO

Introduction of proposed safety standard - community service flights



Below is a submission from one of our experienced RPT and private owner pilots: sums it up nicely.

Introduction of proposed safety standard - community service flights

The proposal introduces minimum CSF pilot experience, licensing and medical requirements, requirement of flights at night to be conducted using instrument procedures instead of visual procedures and requires slightly enhanced aircraft maintenance requirements, in line with other operations within Australia involving similar participants.

Please provide feedback below. You may enter as little or as much information as you wish.: Proposed safety standard - Community service flights (CD 1814OS)

The suggestion that CSF passengers are uninformed or even less informed than other private flight/ GA charter passengers is absurd. By the time CSF passengers board an aircraft they have been provided with written information and adequate time to make an informed decision on whether to travel by air or alternative means. This information is provided by the CSF provider & then verbally by the PIC. If a CSF passenger is still ‘uninformed’, it is by choice.

Proposed recency requirement- one landing in the type or class in the last 30 days. I only need 1 landing in the last 45 days to operate a widebody aircraft for an Australian HC AOC holder. The 10 widebody (type) landings I may have conducted in the last 30 days will apparently not count for recency for a CSF in my GA single engine aircraft.

The operational environment for a CSF pilot is benign in comparison to that of a working CPL holder. No employment threats, serviceable & familiar aircraft, the ability to cancel a flight without consequence, flights planned well in advance & no remote areas. To suggest that the experience requirements to operate a CSF flight should be higher than those required for a commercial operation is thus nonsensical.

The proposed requirement for piston engines to meet AD/Eng/4 requirement 2 (calendar life) defies logic. My piston engine is electronically data monitored, is checked & oil changed by a licensed engineer every 4 months, undergoes laboratory oil analysis 3 times/ year & is borescoped & compression checked every 12

months. To suggest that overhauling the engine simply to meet a calendar requirement defies logic. It merely puts the engine back into the high risk zone for catastrophic failure.

The CSF with which I am familiar has operated nearly 23,000 flights & suffered 2 accidents in 15 years. A sensible approach to improving safety would be to examine what the 22,998 flights have been doing successfully rather than impose a grab bag of untried limitations.

The proposed changes as documented conflict with the CASA fairness values. Decisions are to be risk based & evidence driven, both of which are absent from CD1814OS.

Marjorie Pagani
Chief Executive Officer
Angel Flight Australia




LeadSled - Marjorie,


Time for a major petition, with plenty of publicity, on something like Change.org.

AOPA should be able to arrange an email out to every Federal and State politician with multiple shots to every news outlet.


CASA do not like lots of very public attention.

Tootle pip!
 

&.. AngelFlightCEO reply to Leddie... Wink


Quote:Thanks Leddie. Ben at AOPA has been very helpful. But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.


Contacting State and Federal members to alert them to this proposed action would be helpful, particularly the attempt to block them from having a say in this process, which fundamentally alters the rights of licence holders and aircraft owners/operators.
Reply
#92

TICK TOCK goes the DFO disaster warning clock Confused  

(01-07-2019, 07:12 AM)Kharon Wrote:  There were ten in the bed –

P2 has provided a great deal of data relating not only to the proposed development of a new hospital at Tweed Heads, but to the general disregard for public safety in and around our aerodromes. This latest debacle has been caught in the slips – before ground is actually broken and the building ‘exists’. Unlike the DFO at Essendon which, like Topsy, grew and grew, without any adult supervision. Indeed, the responsibility ball was passed around so quickly that it is almost impossible to determine how the minister was prepared to sign the wretched approval and on who’s say so. Result five dead, a fire and the potential for carnage on a grand scale. I’ll say it again – ‘we’ were incredibly lucky that the Essendon crash of a five ton aircraft at better than 200 Kph, into a potentially busy shopping complex was NOT very nearly one of the worlds worst aviation disasters.

Doc. Gates is heavily involved in the proposed siting of a new hospital – P2 has provided the ‘words and music’ .– HERE.

One particular paragraph from Gates ../


"There are better solutions to the current problem such as a new location for the hospital.  Health claims it reviewed 30 potential sites for the hospital.  Surely one of these would be better than the current site? The State government needs to make the site evaluation process public so that we can see how the current site was chosen.  Public access to this process is critical to public confidence in our institutions and the political process for this controversial hospital site."  

/.. grabbed my attention. The sentence (my bolding) gets to the heart of the matter. I have asked a couple of folk, developer types I know, how the process really works. In short, it is not ‘corrupt’ in fact it is completely legal. It works like this: the sequence and timing of events is super critical, a bit like the three card trick, or; the shell game. Let’s say you own a parcel of land; then one day a Benz or Beemer pulls up at the farm gate and a fellah say’s “I’d like to buy that tract of land down there, by your Southern boundary”. You scratch your head for while, working out the value then add a healthy margin and state your price. “Deal” say’s the buyer and so it is done. Speculators DO NOT part with a bucket full of cash just because the view of the swamp appeals to their sense of nature and beauty. Now the local council (or whatever) announce there is to be a new hospital built on that land, the site has been deemed the ‘best’ spot for it. Cui bono?  

The only ‘problematic’ parts left are public protests and ‘safety’ concerns; but reports are written for those who pay for them, it is a wordsmiths business to shade and colour the reports, not actually ‘lying’ through their teeth, but eloquently shading the ‘awkward’ bits to seem ‘plausible’. Aye, tis a game worthy of Caligula; Machiavelli would have approved.

Before there is a major catastrophe (for the government) involving the deaths of the public or patients in a hospital; someone needs to get a rope on developments around airports. The British system, developed and researched by the USA into a scientific ‘formula’ for reducing and mitigating the risks of aircraft, the public and buildings colliding is freely available. Why can that code not be made into law? A honest man could sort it out – but where; in this godforsaken political environment do you find one that species?

Have been doing some digging of late and the more I dig the more disturbing the airport tale becomes. In order to simplify this unbelievable tale of corruption, where human greed simply overwhelms IMO the greater issue of mitigating the risk to public safety around airports, I propose to start from the present and working backwards on what I will dub the TOASI (timeline of airport safety ignorance).

One of the (potentially...err maybe?) good things that come out of Albo's GWEAP (Great White Elephant Aviation Paper) was the formation of the NASAG (National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group). This group of Federal/State/Local Govt bureaucrats was tasked by the Rudd Labor Govt to set in motion the setting up of guidelines under the banner of the NASF (The National Airports Safeguarding Framework):

Quote:The National Airports Safeguarding Framework is a national land use planning framework that aims to:

  • improve community amenity by minimising aircraft noise-sensitive developments near airports; and

  • improve safety outcomes by ensuring aviation safety requirements are recognised in land use planning decisions through guidelines being adopted by jurisdictions on various safety-related issues.
The National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG), comprising of Commonwealth, State and Territory Government planning and transport officials, the Australian Government Department of Defence, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), has developed the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (the Framework).

This process has taken nearly a decade to get close to some sort of consensus amongst the bureaucrats (Federal/State/Local)

This brings me to the present - 2 months ago our dopey NFI miniscule signed off on the NASF guideline on PSAs (Public Safety Areas) around airports: (ref here for links: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...lines.aspx )

Quote:The new National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guideline I on Public Safety Areas (PSAs) was agreed by Ministers at the Transport and Infrastructure Council on 9 November 2018.

PSAs are designated areas of land at the end of airport runways within which certain planning restrictions may apply. The new PSA Guideline was developed to mitigate the risk of on-ground fatalities from an aircraft incident, by informing a consistent approach to land use at the end of Australian airport runways.

In March 2018, the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the new NASF Guideline - Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways.

This public consultation process commenced on 11 May 2018 and closed on 12 July 2018.
Submissions were considered by NASAG and used to inform further drafting of the Guideline.
 
 
"..In March 2018, the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the new NASF Guideline - Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways....This public consultation process commenced on 11 May 2018 and closed on 12 July 2018...Submissions were considered by NASAG and used to inform further drafting of the Guideline..."    - Of interest here is that when you search the Dept website or Google any of the combinations around NASF consultation etc..etc you will not find any submissions from any relevant stakeholders. This would appear to indicate that although the Dept has said they have consulted there is NO public record of such consultation - WTF?  Dodgy

However I did stumble across one letter of correspondence from AusALPA to 'Dear (Old) Lachie ( Big Grin )' from the Dept which IMO absolutely nailed the significant and (disturbingly) still outstanding safety issues surrounding (inappropriately unsafe - ala YMEN DFO) urban development encroachment around airports... Dodgy  

Ref: https://www.aipa.org.au/media/1136/17-10...-zones.pdf

Quote:AUSALPA COMMENTS ON THE NATIONAL AIRPORTS
SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK DRAFT GUIDELINE - MANAGING
THE RISK IN PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES AT THE ENDS OF RUNWAYS


The Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA) represents more than 5,000
professional pilots within Australia on safety and technical matters and we welcome the
opportunity to contribute to improvements in aviation security in Australia.

AusALPA is the Member Association for Australia and a key member of the
International Federation of Airline Pilot Associations (IFALPA) which represents over
100,000 pilots in 100 countries. Our membership places a very strong expectation of
rational, risk and evidence-based safety behaviour on our government agencies and
processes. We regard our participation in the work of the Department of Infrastructure
and Regional Development (DIRD) as essential to ensuring that our aviation and
airports policy makers get the best operational safety and technical advice that is
completely independent of the vested commercial interests that currently dominate
Australia’s aviation regulation decision-making.

Our Commitment

More than any other stakeholders, our members sample the positives and negatives of
our approach to airport safeguarding every day. Consequently, AusALPA is committed
to the NASF and the Guidelines as well as the long-term strategy of a single broadbased
national approach to safeguarding aviation infrastructure at all levels of government across
Australia.

The Downside of Federalism

AusALPA is entirely sympathetic to the difficulties faced by DIRD in trying to influence
the States to adopt robust safeguarding measures for our aviation infrastructure. While
we understand that the States are wary of the economic consequences of various
safeguarding proposals, history already tells us that failure to act decisively and at the
first opportunity will not be forgiven in the aftermath of a major accident.

We were astounded to discover that the UK, following the recommendations of the
Committee on Safeguarding Policy (the Le Maitre Committee), has had Public Safety
Zones (PSZs) in place at major UK airports since 1958. The US has had the
equivalent prior to 1989 and the Netherlands reviewed their existing policy settings
following the 1992 El Al crash after take-off that killed 39 people on the ground.

While we note that DIRD has been trying to get agreement from the States on PSZs for
about a decade, AusALPA strongly suggests that the NASAG should closely ponder on
the irony that we in Australia will still not have national PSZ planning restrictions in
place some 60 years after the Le Maitre Committee in the UK provided all the
necessary public safety policy considerations. NASAG should take no comfort in
Australia’s good fortune in regard to major aviation accidents and certainly should not
continue to prevaricate in establishing a universally stringent set of safeguarding rules.

Our Major Concerns

Our major concerns in this particular safety/public risk debate are about the extent to
which both the economic consequences and the size of the affected population may be
understated in order to nudge the risk management aspects across the line.

Economic Consequences

The Covering Document states:

The introduction of a PSZ will not have any impact upon existing properties.
While it may be true that existing land use remains unaffected under this proposal, the
principled approach set out in the UK Department of Transport Circular 01/2010
Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones includes:

The basic policy objective governing the restriction on development near civil
airports is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working
or congregating in Public Safety Zones and that, over time, the number should be
reduced as circumstances allow.

The proposed Guideline appears to be ignoring this issue as well as the fact that any
future planning restrictions will have a material effect on property values, especially
where lucrative redevelopment options will now be prevented. AusALPA suggests that
these economic consequences, while regrettable, are nevertheless necessary for the
greater public good.

Spatial Considerations

AusALPA is particularly concerned about this quote from the Covering Document and
its apparent influence on the Draft Guideline:

Data collated by the International Civil Aviation Organization indicates that, while
statistically very low, accidents that occur during the take-off or landing phase are
most likely to occur within 1km before the runway on landing or within 500m
beyond the runway end on take-off.

We are concerned because the dataset and the basis for these conclusions are not
identified in the document and are not readily found in extensive internet searches. For
example, the only ICAO work cited in the early NLR studies (see NLR CR-2000-147)
was a 1980 document, since withdrawn.

Our own research into the accident location data suggests that the unsubstantiated
“most likely to occur” statement is statistically and evidentially problematic, particularly
in regard to take-off overshoot and landing undershoot accidents. We have attached
two pages extracted from NLR CR-2000-147 that amply demonstrate the inaccuracy of
this unsubstantiated and misleading assertion.

The documented outcomes of the UK and Netherlands approach suggest that the 1:105
public risk boundary often extends to around three or four times this distance at high
traffic runways. We have attached a clear and relevant figure from NLR TP-2013-550
that of itself clearly illustrates that using 1000m as a filter for development
consideration as stated in paragraphs 56-59 of the Draft Guideline is, while better than
nothing, is a most inappropriate distortion of the public risk.

Is NASAG Showing Leadership?


While we note the politics of Commonwealth/State cooperation attendant upon land
use issues and we recognise the difficulties in even getting this far, AusALPA is
strongly of the view that the NASAG needs to free itself of excessive dependence on
past decisions and to avoid the “two bob each way” approach taken in this draft:

The approach to PSZs in Australia, through the proposed new NASF Guideline,
provides flexibility for state/territory governments to be proactive and identify and
map PSZs at airports, or take a reactive approach and consider public safety risk
on a case-by-case basis in response to development proposals in close proximity
to airport runways.

There needs to be acceptance of the history of poor safeguarding decisions in the past.
However, we need to move forward by ensuring that we take positive steps to reduce
the readily foreseeable risks. The introduction of a single uniform approach to PSZs for
all significant airports is one such step.

Queensland’s PSZ Legacy

AusALPA applauds Queensland for their leadership in airport safeguarding. We have
no doubt that the Queensland public has been far better served in regard to public risk
management at their airports than can be said of any other Australian State.

Nonetheless, the current approach to PSZs in Queensland is deficient to the extent that
it is inconsistent in applying land use restrictions to areas of identical risk. While
AusALPA would dearly like to understand the rationale for truncating the PSZ at 1000m
along the centreline beyond the threshold, the reality is that the full extent of the risk
contours have been known for decades and inappropriate development at 1001m on
the centreline may well be at far greater risk than developments located closer than
1000m but further off the centreline.

AusALPA therefore questions whether offering the Queensland example as a future
option for other States is defensible, given that NASAG knows the model is deficient.

Western Sydney Airport

AusALPA is disappointed that the Western Sydney Unit and DIRD were unwilling or
unable to negotiate with NSW to implement a full set of untruncated PSZs at Western
Sydney Airport, despite it being a greenfields site with essentially no legacy land use
planning problems.

In effect, the Commonwealth has undermined any future agreement to fully risk-based
PSZs by opting for a truncated zone which ignores the real risk contours. Moreover,
that decision opens the door for incompatible land use options just beyond 1000m that
may also fail the societal risk tolerance that is otherwise avoided by population density
controls.

The statement at paragraph 8 on page 13 of the Draft Guideline is demonstrably
untrue: the so-called 1000m ‘clearance zone’ does not “cover the area of highest safety
risk”.

International Standards

The covering document states that: “There is no international standard promulgated by
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for PSZs.” However, while that
statement is accurate, it is not complete. ICAO does provide some guidance in
Chapter 5 Land Use Planning of Part 2 Land Use and Environmental Control of ICAO
Doc 9184 Airport Planning Manual (3rd edition). While that guidance in Doc 9184
basically describes only the Netherlands process, it also mentions other circumstances
where external risk assessment is required.

In any event, AusALPA views the ICAO approach as entirely supportive of the
production of appropriate risk contours, as distinct from “one size fits all” templates that
are of varying correlation with the real risk to the public.

US DoD Accident Potential Zones

While recognising the value of the Annex A to Attachment 3 to the Draft Guideline,
AusALPA does not believe that the illustrated public safety areas are appropriate for
the Australian NASF. The US classification of runways as the controlling variable is
naive and over simplistic – it is not consistent with Australian aviation infrastructure
usage or consequence modelling and the areas appear to significantly exceed that
required by the iso-risk contours.

World’s Best Practice


We recognise that there are a number of ways various jurisdictions approach PSZs.
Some approaches (US DoD, QLD) are clearly deficient while there remains some
debate about whether individual or societal risk assessments are preferable. However,
“world’s best practice” is most often a function of popularity rather than absolute quality
– NASAG should just choose a single approach to be uniformly applied across
Australia in the full knowledge that others will consider our choice to help elevate that
approach to “world’s best practice”.

Centralised Modelling of Risk Contours

AusALPA notes from the literature that NATS became the dominant provider of the risk
modelling and contour production for UK runways (and internationally on contract).
Competition and transparency issues aside, the immediate and obvious benefit in the
UK is that the outcomes were and are standardised. Similarly, we became aware that
from 2006 the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) “has been providing all planning
authorities in England, Scotland and Wales with on-line access to the (risk
assessment) software it has developed to generate its land use planning advice, known
as PADHI (Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations), so that
they can generate the health and safety advice more quickly and efficiently
themselves…”.

It seems to us that public safety would be enhanced and that PSZ decision-making
would be made more efficient and standardised if one agency (preferably DIRD)
became the sponsor and supplier of mutually acceptable iso-risk contours for all
Australian airports. AusALPA notes that, as we have limited aviation infrastructure
compared to the UK, the creation of a centralised source should neither be expensive
nor overly demanding.

Conclusions

AusALPA applauds the introduction of PSZs at all significant airports (not just exCommonwealth airports).
The PSZs should be defined by iso-risk contours generated by appropriate risk
modelling. While the current emphasis is on the assessment of individual risk, existing
inappropriate land use may mandate consideration of societal risk assessments as
well.

AusALPA does not accept 1000m as a valid parameter for truncating the length of
PSZs or as a filter for determining the need for development assessments.
AusALPA is disappointed that the Draft Guideline is not more focused on a single
uniform approach to defining PSZs.

AusALPA is disappointed that Western Sydney Airport has adopted a known deficient
PSZ template that ignores areas of equal risk and, by so doing, has undermined any
potential Commonwealth leadership in implementing PSZs.

AusALPA suggests that NASAG adopt a common risk assessment model such as used
in the UK and, further, that the model is maintained and operated by a single, mutually
accepted agency.

 If this is an example of the calibre of expert consultation submissions provided to the NASAG then one wonders why it is that they did not include an appraisal/review of why the AusALPA type criticisms and recommendations weren't embraced inside of the new 'Guideline I' - https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...-I-PSA.pdfHuh 

Hmmm...I think I smell a RAT??  Dodgy 


MTF? - Much...P2  Cool
Reply
#93

(01-07-2019, 10:36 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  TICK TOCK goes the DFO disaster warning clock Confused  

(01-07-2019, 07:12 AM)Kharon Wrote:  There were ten in the bed –

P2 has provided a great deal of data relating not only to the proposed development of a new hospital at Tweed Heads, but to the general disregard for public safety in and around our aerodromes. This latest debacle has been caught in the slips – before ground is actually broken and the building ‘exists’. Unlike the DFO at Essendon which, like Topsy, grew and grew, without any adult supervision. Indeed, the responsibility ball was passed around so quickly that it is almost impossible to determine how the minister was prepared to sign the wretched approval and on who’s say so. Result five dead, a fire and the potential for carnage on a grand scale. I’ll say it again – ‘we’ were incredibly lucky that the Essendon crash of a five ton aircraft at better than 200 Kph, into a potentially busy shopping complex was NOT very nearly one of the worlds worst aviation disasters.

Doc. Gates is heavily involved in the proposed siting of a new hospital – P2 has provided the ‘words and music’ .– HERE.

One particular paragraph from Gates ../


"There are better solutions to the current problem such as a new location for the hospital.  Health claims it reviewed 30 potential sites for the hospital.  Surely one of these would be better than the current site? The State government needs to make the site evaluation process public so that we can see how the current site was chosen.  Public access to this process is critical to public confidence in our institutions and the political process for this controversial hospital site."  

/.. grabbed my attention. The sentence (my bolding) gets to the heart of the matter. I have asked a couple of folk, developer types I know, how the process really works. In short, it is not ‘corrupt’ in fact it is completely legal. It works like this: the sequence and timing of events is super critical, a bit like the three card trick, or; the shell game. Let’s say you own a parcel of land; then one day a Benz or Beemer pulls up at the farm gate and a fellah say’s “I’d like to buy that tract of land down there, by your Southern boundary”. You scratch your head for while, working out the value then add a healthy margin and state your price. “Deal” say’s the buyer and so it is done. Speculators DO NOT part with a bucket full of cash just because the view of the swamp appeals to their sense of nature and beauty. Now the local council (or whatever) announce there is to be a new hospital built on that land, the site has been deemed the ‘best’ spot for it. Cui bono?  

The only ‘problematic’ parts left are public protests and ‘safety’ concerns; but reports are written for those who pay for them, it is a wordsmiths business to shade and colour the reports, not actually ‘lying’ through their teeth, but eloquently shading the ‘awkward’ bits to seem ‘plausible’. Aye, tis a game worthy of Caligula; Machiavelli would have approved.

Before there is a major catastrophe (for the government) involving the deaths of the public or patients in a hospital; someone needs to get a rope on developments around airports. The British system, developed and researched by the USA into a scientific ‘formula’ for reducing and mitigating the risks of aircraft, the public and buildings colliding is freely available. Why can that code not be made into law? A honest man could sort it out – but where; in this godforsaken political environment do you find one that species?

Have been doing some digging of late and the more I dig the more disturbing the airport tale becomes. In order to simplify this unbelievable tale of corruption, where human greed simply overwhelms IMO the greater issue of mitigating the risk to public safety around airports, I propose to start from the present and working backwards on what I will dub the TOASI (timeline of airport safety ignorance).

One of the (potentially...err maybe?) good things that come out of Albo's GWEAP (Great White Elephant Aviation Paper) was the formation of the NASAG (National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group). This group of Federal/State/Local Govt bureaucrats was tasked by the Rudd Labor Govt to set in motion the setting up of guidelines under the banner of the NASF (The National Airports Safeguarding Framework):

Quote:The National Airports Safeguarding Framework is a national land use planning framework that aims to:

  • improve community amenity by minimising aircraft noise-sensitive developments near airports; and

  • improve safety outcomes by ensuring aviation safety requirements are recognised in land use planning decisions through guidelines being adopted by jurisdictions on various safety-related issues.
The National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG), comprising of Commonwealth, State and Territory Government planning and transport officials, the Australian Government Department of Defence, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), has developed the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (the Framework).

This process has taken nearly a decade to get close to some sort of consensus amongst the bureaucrats (Federal/State/Local)

This brings me to the present - 2 months ago our dopey NFI miniscule signed off on the NASF guideline on PSAs (Public Safety Areas) around airports: (ref here for links: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...lines.aspx )

Quote:The new National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guideline I on Public Safety Areas (PSAs) was agreed by Ministers at the Transport and Infrastructure Council on 9 November 2018.

PSAs are designated areas of land at the end of airport runways within which certain planning restrictions may apply. The new PSA Guideline was developed to mitigate the risk of on-ground fatalities from an aircraft incident, by informing a consistent approach to land use at the end of Australian airport runways.

In March 2018, the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the new NASF Guideline - Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways.

This public consultation process commenced on 11 May 2018 and closed on 12 July 2018.
Submissions were considered by NASAG and used to inform further drafting of the Guideline.
 
 
"..In March 2018, the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the new NASF Guideline - Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways....This public consultation process commenced on 11 May 2018 and closed on 12 July 2018...Submissions were considered by NASAG and used to inform further drafting of the Guideline..."    - Of interest here is that when you search the Dept website or Google any of the combinations around NASF consultation etc..etc you will not find any submissions from any relevant stakeholders. This would appear to indicate that although the Dept has said they have consulted there is NO public record of such consultation - WTF?  Dodgy

However I did stumble across one letter of correspondence from AusALPA to 'Dear (Old) Lachie ( Big Grin )' from the Dept which IMO absolutely nailed the significant and (disturbingly) still outstanding safety issues surrounding (inappropriately unsafe - ala YMEN DFO) urban development encroachment around airports... Dodgy  

Ref: https://www.aipa.org.au/media/1136/17-10...-zones.pdf

Quote:AUSALPA COMMENTS ON THE NATIONAL AIRPORTS
SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK DRAFT GUIDELINE - MANAGING
THE RISK IN PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES AT THE ENDS OF RUNWAYS


The Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA) represents more than 5,000
professional pilots within Australia on safety and technical matters and we welcome the
opportunity to contribute to improvements in aviation security in Australia.

AusALPA is the Member Association for Australia and a key member of the
International Federation of Airline Pilot Associations (IFALPA) which represents over
100,000 pilots in 100 countries. Our membership places a very strong expectation of
rational, risk and evidence-based safety behaviour on our government agencies and
processes. We regard our participation in the work of the Department of Infrastructure
and Regional Development (DIRD) as essential to ensuring that our aviation and
airports policy makers get the best operational safety and technical advice that is
completely independent of the vested commercial interests that currently dominate
Australia’s aviation regulation decision-making.

Our Commitment

More than any other stakeholders, our members sample the positives and negatives of
our approach to airport safeguarding every day. Consequently, AusALPA is committed
to the NASF and the Guidelines as well as the long-term strategy of a single broadbased
national approach to safeguarding aviation infrastructure at all levels of government across
Australia.

The Downside of Federalism

AusALPA is entirely sympathetic to the difficulties faced by DIRD in trying to influence
the States to adopt robust safeguarding measures for our aviation infrastructure. While
we understand that the States are wary of the economic consequences of various
safeguarding proposals, history already tells us that failure to act decisively and at the
first opportunity will not be forgiven in the aftermath of a major accident.

We were astounded to discover that the UK, following the recommendations of the
Committee on Safeguarding Policy (the Le Maitre Committee), has had Public Safety
Zones (PSZs) in place at major UK airports since 1958. The US has had the
equivalent prior to 1989 and the Netherlands reviewed their existing policy settings
following the 1992 El Al crash after take-off that killed 39 people on the ground.

While we note that DIRD has been trying to get agreement from the States on PSZs for
about a decade, AusALPA strongly suggests that the NASAG should closely ponder on
the irony that we in Australia will still not have national PSZ planning restrictions in
place some 60 years after the Le Maitre Committee in the UK provided all the
necessary public safety policy considerations. NASAG should take no comfort in
Australia’s good fortune in regard to major aviation accidents and certainly should not
continue to prevaricate in establishing a universally stringent set of safeguarding rules.

Our Major Concerns

Our major concerns in this particular safety/public risk debate are about the extent to
which both the economic consequences and the size of the affected population may be
understated in order to nudge the risk management aspects across the line.

Economic Consequences

The Covering Document states:

The introduction of a PSZ will not have any impact upon existing properties.
While it may be true that existing land use remains unaffected under this proposal, the
principled approach set out in the UK Department of Transport Circular 01/2010
Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones includes:

The basic policy objective governing the restriction on development near civil
airports is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working
or congregating in Public Safety Zones and that, over time, the number should be
reduced as circumstances allow.

The proposed Guideline appears to be ignoring this issue as well as the fact that any
future planning restrictions will have a material effect on property values, especially
where lucrative redevelopment options will now be prevented. AusALPA suggests that
these economic consequences, while regrettable, are nevertheless necessary for the
greater public good.

Spatial Considerations

AusALPA is particularly concerned about this quote from the Covering Document and
its apparent influence on the Draft Guideline:

Data collated by the International Civil Aviation Organization indicates that, while
statistically very low, accidents that occur during the take-off or landing phase are
most likely to occur within 1km before the runway on landing or within 500m
beyond the runway end on take-off.

We are concerned because the dataset and the basis for these conclusions are not
identified in the document and are not readily found in extensive internet searches. For
example, the only ICAO work cited in the early NLR studies (see NLR CR-2000-147)
was a 1980 document, since withdrawn.

Our own research into the accident location data suggests that the unsubstantiated
“most likely to occur” statement is statistically and evidentially problematic, particularly
in regard to take-off overshoot and landing undershoot accidents. We have attached
two pages extracted from NLR CR-2000-147 that amply demonstrate the inaccuracy of
this unsubstantiated and misleading assertion.

The documented outcomes of the UK and Netherlands approach suggest that the 1:105
public risk boundary often extends to around three or four times this distance at high
traffic runways. We have attached a clear and relevant figure from NLR TP-2013-550
that of itself clearly illustrates that using 1000m as a filter for development
consideration as stated in paragraphs 56-59 of the Draft Guideline is, while better than
nothing, is a most inappropriate distortion of the public risk.

Is NASAG Showing Leadership?


While we note the politics of Commonwealth/State cooperation attendant upon land
use issues and we recognise the difficulties in even getting this far, AusALPA is
strongly of the view that the NASAG needs to free itself of excessive dependence on
past decisions and to avoid the “two bob each way” approach taken in this draft:

The approach to PSZs in Australia, through the proposed new NASF Guideline,
provides flexibility for state/territory governments to be proactive and identify and
map PSZs at airports, or take a reactive approach and consider public safety risk
on a case-by-case basis in response to development proposals in close proximity
to airport runways.

There needs to be acceptance of the history of poor safeguarding decisions in the past.
However, we need to move forward by ensuring that we take positive steps to reduce
the readily foreseeable risks. The introduction of a single uniform approach to PSZs for
all significant airports is one such step.

Queensland’s PSZ Legacy

AusALPA applauds Queensland for their leadership in airport safeguarding. We have
no doubt that the Queensland public has been far better served in regard to public risk
management at their airports than can be said of any other Australian State.

Nonetheless, the current approach to PSZs in Queensland is deficient to the extent that
it is inconsistent in applying land use restrictions to areas of identical risk. While
AusALPA would dearly like to understand the rationale for truncating the PSZ at 1000m
along the centreline beyond the threshold, the reality is that the full extent of the risk
contours have been known for decades and inappropriate development at 1001m on
the centreline may well be at far greater risk than developments located closer than
1000m but further off the centreline.

AusALPA therefore questions whether offering the Queensland example as a future
option for other States is defensible, given that NASAG knows the model is deficient.

Western Sydney Airport

AusALPA is disappointed that the Western Sydney Unit and DIRD were unwilling or
unable to negotiate with NSW to implement a full set of untruncated PSZs at Western
Sydney Airport, despite it being a greenfields site with essentially no legacy land use
planning problems.

In effect, the Commonwealth has undermined any future agreement to fully risk-based
PSZs by opting for a truncated zone which ignores the real risk contours. Moreover,
that decision opens the door for incompatible land use options just beyond 1000m that
may also fail the societal risk tolerance that is otherwise avoided by population density
controls.

The statement at paragraph 8 on page 13 of the Draft Guideline is demonstrably
untrue: the so-called 1000m ‘clearance zone’ does not “cover the area of highest safety
risk”.

International Standards

The covering document states that: “There is no international standard promulgated by
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for PSZs.” However, while that
statement is accurate, it is not complete. ICAO does provide some guidance in
Chapter 5 Land Use Planning of Part 2 Land Use and Environmental Control of ICAO
Doc 9184 Airport Planning Manual (3rd edition). While that guidance in Doc 9184
basically describes only the Netherlands process, it also mentions other circumstances
where external risk assessment is required.

In any event, AusALPA views the ICAO approach as entirely supportive of the
production of appropriate risk contours, as distinct from “one size fits all” templates that
are of varying correlation with the real risk to the public.

US DoD Accident Potential Zones

While recognising the value of the Annex A to Attachment 3 to the Draft Guideline,
AusALPA does not believe that the illustrated public safety areas are appropriate for
the Australian NASF. The US classification of runways as the controlling variable is
naive and over simplistic – it is not consistent with Australian aviation infrastructure
usage or consequence modelling and the areas appear to significantly exceed that
required by the iso-risk contours.

World’s Best Practice


We recognise that there are a number of ways various jurisdictions approach PSZs.
Some approaches (US DoD, QLD) are clearly deficient while there remains some
debate about whether individual or societal risk assessments are preferable. However,
“world’s best practice” is most often a function of popularity rather than absolute quality
– NASAG should just choose a single approach to be uniformly applied across
Australia in the full knowledge that others will consider our choice to help elevate that
approach to “world’s best practice”.

Centralised Modelling of Risk Contours

AusALPA notes from the literature that NATS became the dominant provider of the risk
modelling and contour production for UK runways (and internationally on contract).
Competition and transparency issues aside, the immediate and obvious benefit in the
UK is that the outcomes were and are standardised. Similarly, we became aware that
from 2006 the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) “has been providing all planning
authorities in England, Scotland and Wales with on-line access to the (risk
assessment) software it has developed to generate its land use planning advice, known
as PADHI (Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations), so that
they can generate the health and safety advice more quickly and efficiently
themselves…”.

It seems to us that public safety would be enhanced and that PSZ decision-making
would be made more efficient and standardised if one agency (preferably DIRD)
became the sponsor and supplier of mutually acceptable iso-risk contours for all
Australian airports. AusALPA notes that, as we have limited aviation infrastructure
compared to the UK, the creation of a centralised source should neither be expensive
nor overly demanding.

Conclusions

AusALPA applauds the introduction of PSZs at all significant airports (not just exCommonwealth airports).
The PSZs should be defined by iso-risk contours generated by appropriate risk
modelling. While the current emphasis is on the assessment of individual risk, existing
inappropriate land use may mandate consideration of societal risk assessments as
well.

AusALPA does not accept 1000m as a valid parameter for truncating the length of
PSZs or as a filter for determining the need for development assessments.
AusALPA is disappointed that the Draft Guideline is not more focused on a single
uniform approach to defining PSZs.

AusALPA is disappointed that Western Sydney Airport has adopted a known deficient
PSZ template that ignores areas of equal risk and, by so doing, has undermined any
potential Commonwealth leadership in implementing PSZs.

AusALPA suggests that NASAG adopt a common risk assessment model such as used
in the UK and, further, that the model is maintained and operated by a single, mutually
accepted agency.

 If this is an example of the calibre of expert consultation submissions provided to the NASAG then one wonders why it is that they did not include an appraisal/review of why the AusALPA type criticisms and recommendations weren't embraced inside of the new 'Guideline I' - https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...-I-PSA.pdfHuh 

Hmmm...I think I smell a RRAT??  Dodgy 


MTF? - Much...P2  Cool
Reply
#94

CSF's about to become political - Part II

Reference SBG:

(01-06-2019, 07:48 AM)Kharon Wrote:  When you’re in hole- Stop digging.

The following impressive statement was written by someone who not only understands aviation very, very well, but the law and the politics associated. The lady even has the best interests of all topics at heart and; obliquely, offers solutions.

“Thanks Leddie. Ben at AOPA has been very helpful. But I think the real focus is on how they are attempting to bypass proper democratic and legislative processes ( quite apart from lack of consultation with AF and industry). To take away rights or impose restrictions on licence holders, with the stroke of the CEO’s pen, is dictatorial and an abuse of process. Our licences and maintenance requirements are governed by the Regs: any amendment should be by proper Regulatory change . By ambushing us all on the eve of long holidays , and by proposing an administrative direction, ensures no ‘interference’ by our elected representatives in parliament. Parliamentary members can disallow Regs - they cannot disallow a direction, and nor does it have to be presented to either House. The implications of this high-handed and undemocratic action, if allowed to proceed, sets a dangerous precedent which could see all or any of our aviation rights cancelled at the whim of CASA, and not the legislature.

Contacting State and Federal members to alert them to this proposed action would be helpful, particularly the attempt to block them from having a say in this process, which fundamentally alters the rights of licence holders and aircraft owners/operators.  - Marjorie Pagani Chief Executive Officer, Angel Flight Australia.

Ref: https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10351035

Say’s it all don’t it? By identifying the ‘nub’ of the distrust, dislike and disrespect of both ATSB and the CASA, the solution presents. It would be a simple matter to replace the three stooges at the top of the CASA heap and let the revised top end attitude flow down through the ranks. Despite rumour to the contrary, not all CASA employees are terminally stupid; they may be ‘dumbed down’ to preserve their rice bowls but there is some talent their – not much but some. Although why we have inexperienced flight instructors drafting regulation basis I’ll never understand; but it’s wrong...


In support of the above, from me on Twitter today: https://twitter.com/PAIN_NET1/status/108...6784174080

Quote:Look what Marjorie Pagani CEO of Angel Flight had to say about the attempted embuggerance of CSF's by @CASABriefing RT: https://auntypru.com/when-youre-in-hole-stop-digging/ … via @Aunty_Pru https://auntypru.com/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_CmZsl...4-N5t930fw … @infra_regional https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/m..._2018.aspx … #auspol #aupol #avgeek #Avgeeks

9:37 AM - 11 Jan 2019
AirservicesAustralia, Michael McCormack, AOPA Benjamin Morgan and 5 others

[Image: DwlT3_AV4AA61Uj.jpg]


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#95

McDo’nothing and the National/Liberal fools

Seems that Deputy PM McDo’nothing and his embecilic Liberal friends are not only content to kill off Aviation, the so-called National leader is keen to allow the countries rivers, fish and ecosystem to also die a painful death;

From The Simply Marvellous Horsepooh

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conse...50qlb.html

Is there anything that these fools can do properly?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)