[Peetwo]

Risk mitigation Oz aviation (ASA/CASA/ATSB) style - Part I

 Joining the Swiss cheese craters..err dots...

Remember this? - Day 12 - Well I'll be buggered...  :

"..The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against ­reforming airspace management along US lines.."  

 
Well in the course of a current PAIN research project - - while trolling Google, I came across some very interesting info that relates to  (a.) of a 2013 written QON from Senator X:

 Senator Xenophon asked:


The ATSB recently completed a review of loss of separation incidents in Australia, and concluded that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame.

a. How does this compare with the CASA review of Airservices Australia, which found serious regulatory breaches and resulted in CASA revoking ASA’s ongoing approval? Isn’t this in contrast to the ATSB’s findings?

b. Given the findings of the Pel-Air report, what confidence can the Australian public have that the ATSB was thorough and rigorous in its investigation, and did not seek to mitigate any impact the investigation may have on CASA or Airservices Australia?

c. Does the ATSB acknowledge that the significant failings of the Pel-Air report, and the lack of response to those failings, puts the ATSB’s reputation at risk?

 
This was answered by the ATSB like this (warning bucket may be required.. ):

Answer:

The ATSB’s review did not conclude that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame for loss of separation incidents in Australian airspace.

a. The CASA Part 172 audit solely looked at Airservices Australia and used an audit methodology concerned specifically with regulatory compliance.

In contrast, the ATSB’s Loss of separation (LOS) between aircraft in Australian airspace, January 2008 to June 2012 research report analysed safety data in relation to reported incidents and associated ATSB investigations. Using an evidence-based approach, it aimed to document the level of safety in relation to aircraft separation across all controlled airspace. In doing so, the ATSB examined CASA’s involvement in aircraft separation as well as that of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence.

The ATSB research report found that most (80%) LOS incidents involved aircraft under the control of Airservices. The report highlights areas of concern relating to Airservices in relation to these occurrences; it also identified a safety issue relating to Airservices not actively monitoring or investigating LOS occurrences deemed attributable to pilots. This resulted in a recommendation to CASA, who currently do not require Airservices to report on pilot-attributable LOS occurrences. The research report also makes reference to other safety issues involving Airservices that were concurrently identified in ongoing ATSB occurrence investigations, two of which were released on the same day and identified a range of safety issues relating to Airservices and included recommendations to Airservices (AO-2011-144, AO-2012-012). The research report also noted that:

While a number of the above investigations are ongoing at the time of writing this report, and more detailed findings and associated safety actions will be included in those reports when published, most of the issues are consistent with some of those identified in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service Approval of Airservices Australia, which was finalised in January 2013.

The ATSB research report also examined LOS occurrences involving military air traffic control, which is currently not regulated or overseen by CASA. Analysis found that there was a disproportionate rate of LOS incidents in military terminal area airspace, and that these occurrences involved contributing air traffic controller actions more often than for equivalent civil airspace occurrences. The ATSB considers that, although small in terms of the volume of aircraft controlled, military airspace currently carries a higher risk of a separation loss than civil airspace and attention should be directed to reducing this risk. Two recommendations were made in relation to this, one to the Department of Defence, and the other to CASA.

Still with me? Okay this bit - Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service Approval of Airservices Australia - was in fact the subject of my research. However to actually find a full and complete (not redacted or pc'd) version of the CASA audit is proving to be a bit of a challenge..

Anyway I did come across the following courtesy of the former DAS McComic's regime - Civil Aviation Safety Authority report- Part I :






As can be seen the letter to 'Dear Margie' from J'Mac only has the first 10 pages of the 113 page audit report. Okay still trolling, I then discovered that the other Aunty ( i.e. the ABC) apparently also had a passing interest in seeing a lot more of that report...

How did I discover this?- Well apparently on the 4 March 2013 the ABC made a formal FOI request to CASA for that audit report & 'other' associated documents. However certain parts of the ABC request were rejected by CASA LSD under certain exemptions. The ABC not happy with this outcome then took the matter to OAIC review.

On 10 April 2015 - from what was probably one of the former OAIC Commissioner Prof McMillan's final review decisions (see here) - the OAIC decision was handed down:

Decision

1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I vary the decision of the  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  (CASA) of 29 May 2013 to refuse access under the FOI Act to the documents referred to in [3] below. I substitute my decision to provide access to all documents except an email dated 4 December 2012 (incorporating an earlier email dated 12 November 2012). That email is conditionally exempt under s 47E(d) of the FOI Act and to give access at this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)).
   
2. This decision rejects an exemption contention that public release of segments of a report and related documents would impair a government regulatory function, by causing government officials to be less cooperative in providing information for the purposes of this regulatory function. The exemption contention rested principally on s 47E (certain operations of agencies exemption). The decision affirms the exemption of a document that discussed a draft of the report.
   
   

Scope of IC review

1. The CASA decision under review refused access to two categories of documents:
   • Parts of a report prepared by CASA, Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service approval of Airservices Australia (January 2013) (specifically, pages 11-13, 17-20, 22-23, 40, 49-51, 52-53, 56, 77-79 and recommendation 11 on pages 6 and 82). The remainder of the report has either been published by CASA or released in response to the FOI request considered in this matter.[1]
     
   • Communications between CASA and Airservices Australia (Airservices) relating to the report (comprising five emails/letters and attachments).
     
2. The relevant stages in this matter are:
   • 4 March 2013: the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) made a request to CASA under the FOI Act for access to the documents referred to in [3] and for other documents.
     
   • 25 March 2013: CASA undertook third party consultation with Airservices, as required by s 27 of the FOI Act; Airservices made a submission on 8 April 2013 that the documents were exempt under s 47C (deliberative processes exemption) and s 47E© (management or assessment of personnel).
     
   • 15 April 2013: CASA made a decision to release the report in its entirety, and to release the communications between CASA and Airservices subject to the redaction of the names and identifying details of persons mentioned in the report under s 47F (personal privacy exemption).
     
   • 29 April 2013: Airservices sought internal review of CASA’s decision under s 54A of the FOI Act. The submission raised two additional grounds of exemption – s 45 (breach of confidence exemption) and s 47G.
     
   • 29 May 2013: CASA made an internal review decision not to release the pages of the report referred to in [3] or the communications between CASA and Airservices. The decision was based on s 47E of the FOI Act, but did not specify which of the four paragraphs of s 47E was relied upon. CASA did not accept Airservice’s submission that the documents were exempt under s 47G.
     
   • 26 July 2013: the ABC sought IC review of CASA’s internal review decision under s 54M of the FOI Act. The ABC’s submission addressed the application of s 47E.
     

  
P2 comment: My personal fav from the Prof McMillan decision:

29. It is not necessary that I fully consider the application of s 11A(5) to the remaining documents in light of my earlier findings that those documents are not conditionally exempt. I note, however, that had this arisen for decision there would be weighty public interest factors in favour of disclosure. They include that air safety is a matter of substantial public interest, and that the findings of a government regulator about the performance of another government agency are equally a matter of substantial public interest. The public debate that could ensue from release of those findings would be a healthy development that is more likely to enhance rather than impair air safety.

Well done that man & well said..

From that I assumed (wrongly apparently) that the additional information released should now be publicly available via the CASA FOI Disclosure log.

Hmm...maybe someone from the 'other Aunty' can help me out??

MTF..P2