[Peetwo]

Waving the OAR - Government vs CASA policy??

Referring to my previous post - Raiders of the lost trough - Part II - & in particular the bizarre obfuscation by Sir A in answering QON 8 from the 9 Sept 2015 Senate Inquiry hearing:

[quote pid='2446' dateline='1445203065']

Airservices Australia's Brisbane tower. (Airservices)

 

Senator XENOPHON: So there has never been a circumstance where Airservices have said, 'We are concerned about the safety aspects of this', but you have been overruled by government policy?

Sir Angus Houston: Not to my knowledge.

Senator XENOPHON: Could that be taken on notice. I might be surprised if there was.
Mr Harfield: We can take that on notice to find out. But not to my knowledge.

Answer:

In 2007, airspace regulatory function transferred to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) reinforcing Airservices role as a service provider.

CASA makes the ultimate decision on issues of aviation safety as the responsible regulator.

In addition, Airservices works very closely and effectively with CASA and the Aviation Policy Group, consisting of key aviation related agencies, to ensure effective inter-agency coordination on strategic policy issues.

[/quote]
I think I may now have some insight to the obvious - Sir A & Harfwit - non-answer to Senator Nick's QON #8...

First of all NX made a simple mistake in asking the question as being 'overruled by government policy.'  Government would never have a overruling policy on any matter remotely to do with aviation safety, that is the sole domain of CASA. So the question should have been - 

"So there has never been a circumstance where Airservices have said, 'We are concerned about the safety aspects of this', but you have been overruled by CASA policy?"

If asked like that the resulting AQON may well have been much more informative - though somehow I doubt it.

However recently in the course of reviewing old ASA AQON - see here - from the Senate PelAir inquiry, we may have stumbled across at least one instance where CASA policy overruled the air safety risk concerns of Airservices...   

A journey, through the Swiss cheese - Part II

To continue P6 in the above post said:

...allowing the operation to continue with almost 20 potentially serious ‘events’ on record.  Many operations have been closed down for much less.  To this day, the errors have not been acknowledged, there is no effective remedy in place for rehabilitation, nor is there any intent to correct the gross negligence.  No apology, no corrections.  Just another pilot crucified...

   
The 'almost 20' incidents to which he refers were on the record in the ASA answer to QON for PelAir inquiry public hearing on the 19 Nov 2012 - Answers to questions taken on notice on 19 November 2012, in Canberra; (PDF 9401KB):

8. HANSARD, PG 9

Senator FAWCETT: Could you take on notice whether you passed on to Pel-Air the
concerns about their Westwind aircraft.

Mr Harfield: Yes.

Answer:

In the period five years before the Norfolk Island accident (2004 to 2009) Airservices

reported to both CASA and the ATSB, 19 safety incidents that were known to Airservices involving VH-NGA.

In July 2005, VH-NGA was involved in a safety incident during a flight from Nowra to
Darwin whereby the aircraft was unable to maintain it’s assigned level in RVSM airspace
and another aircraft was therefore required to change its altitude in order to maintain
the separation standard. Pel-Air was informed about this incident under a standing
Letter of Agreement.

Also in the period, VH-NGA was involved in 18 other safety incidents – 16 were pilot or
aircraft attributable (2 engine failure, 2 fuel dumps, 1 Loss of Separation, 3 incorrect
time and position reporting, 8 pilot errors) and two were air traffic control attributable
information display errors. Pel-Air was also informed about the details of these
incidents under the Letter of Agreement.

And the overruling policy from CASA in regards to the 19 recorded previous incidents involving the accident aircraft VH-NGA - "..who gives a rat's arse, we're nailing the pilot.."

Which makes you wonder about the veracity of the ASA answer to QON 9:

9. HANSARD, PG 11

Senator FAWCETT: So if we asked you to take on notice how many such
recommendations over the last five or 10 years you have made to CASA and how many
have been actioned and closed out, you should be able to come back and tell us that?

Mr Harfield: That is correct.

Senator FAWCETT: Could you do that, please.

Mr Harfield: Yes.

 Which was answered with this now typical non-answer:

Answer:

Since 2007, Airservices has made 110 recommendations to CASA for changes to the AIP
all of which have been actioned.
Refer to Attachment 2 (Airservices recommendations are identified as “Internal”).

  
Mostly those 'internal' recommendations are something, nothing and hardly anything like the serious reported incidents on VH-NGA, which should have at least led to ASA recommending CASA have a close look at the PelAir Westwind operation...   

CASA: "Nothing to see here, move along..& next time mind your own business!"


MTF...P2