Senate Estimates - 2017-18.

Where the sun don’t shine….

At the end of this - POST – P2 has tacked on a rather good ‘letter’ addressed to our confounded Senators, some of whom, IMO may understand there are serious ‘problems’ within the Australian aviation industry, but have not as yet grasped how deep seated and debilitating the chronic problems are.

In part, the radical cause and much of the blame must be laid at the ‘political’ doorstep. Ministers - of every stripe – have happily divested the government's ultimate responsibility for aviation safety to the bureaucratic agencies. Many ministers have been not only captured, but have an acute case of the Stockholm Syndrome. This habitual arse covering and backsliding has come at a great fiscal cost to not only the industry, but to the nation. Deliberately acting against the general well being of the nation could, at a stretch be debated as ‘treasonable’. In fact it has – but I digress – in short, there is little in the way of excuses for not only the incumbent ministers (past and present) but of the entire parliament who, through sloth, ignorance, lethargy or indolence ‘rubber stamped’ some of the most ludicrous, inept, inutile ‘law’ into existence. With one exception – I have never heard a parliamentary debate on any of the ‘new’ aviation regulations. Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Parts 61 and 135 for example – absolute load of very expensive bollocks – which will not improve ‘safety’ one iota. These regulations will gift CASA even more power to ensure the ‘safe’ conviction of those it decides are ‘criminal’. Yet the parliament just waves them through, on a rubber stamp, without an eyebrow raised or a question asked. It is a national disgrace.

Enough of my rambling; let’s take a close look at ‘the letter’.

Anon - “May I express my thanks for your interest and concern of the plight general aviation in Australia faces struggling to survive under the burden of a capricious, inept and I believe a corrupt regulator determined to completely shut down a whole industry.”

One could quite easily forgive the venom in the opening paragraph. I could agree with most of it – except I would qualify the ‘corrupt’ argument. CASA don’t seem to be ‘corrupt’ in the normal ways of Baksheesh, despite the tales, there is little evidence of that sort of thing. What there is an abundance of is ‘corrupted’ use of power; a total arrogance based on two racing certainties. One – that no matter how ‘wrong’ an edict is, the ‘law’ as writ by CASA, for CASA purposes is almost unbeatable. Two – the absolute certainty that the CASA tried, tested and true system of ‘hay stacking’ any argument will carry the day. Many millions have been spent to categorically prove this as fact, when there is the chance to defend a case. Of course many, many cases are not defendable as they are deemed ‘strict liability’. Some would call that a corruption of the powers granted by parliament.    

Anon – “I understand you have examined a picture of a comparison between the US rule set and Australia’s. This picture only illustrates a small part of industries problems.”

The first picture does tell the story of ‘volume’, the almost unbelievable quantity of paper required to be  ‘available’ for audit – aptly dubbed ‘Shelf-ware’. How anyone is supposed to wade through that lot and remember it is a mystery. But the real story lays in how much time, trouble, angst and money is poured into producing an exposition which not only acknowledges the regulatory requirements, provides a company unique way of demonstrating compliance, that very same CASA accepted (or approved) manual suite can and will be used in evidence to aid any case CASA care to mount. Essentially the company manuals are the trapdoor on the hangman’s scaffold. Evidence to support this – by the truck load – where do you want it delivered?

Anon – “Commonly known as Shelf-ware within the industry, because they sit on the shelf and gather dust until the next CAsA audit, where the differing opinions of the Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) of the day invariably means re-writing large swaths of what was compliant one day and non compliant the next.”

Anon – “The cost of producing these manuals and expositions can run into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of maintaining them tens of thousands more.

Anon – “After a CASA audit more than a hundred thousand dollars was spent defending an AOC and re-writing its expositions after less than three years in operation.

Anon – “ It can take two years and cost a quarter of a million dollars to gain an Australian Air Operator Certificate (AOC)..

Anon – “These manuals largely regurgitate information already available in the manufacturer-supplied manuals, but with a unique Australian slant as well as directions from CAsA FOI’s. “Unfortunately many of these FOI’s have very little in the way of operational experience, which can lead to directions that are patently unsafe.

All spot on true; in fact it actually understates the case. Anon has used a generalised format to underscore only a few of the more obvious, serious, unnecessary imposts forced on industry in the name of ‘safety’. Many would agree it is all based on the ‘whim’ of the FOIs and their instructions on how the audit is to be handled. Once again, the truck can be despatched full of evidence to support not only this complaint, but other, more sinister claims related to the way in which CASA set about their business.

Anon – “An AOC can be granted in New Zealand in about two months and cost less than $10,000 dollars.

Anon – “You cannot object, not if you want your AOC or permission granted.

A NZCAA Operators Certificate takes a little while longer than two months to be issued. Much depends on the complexity of the operation and the way in which the ‘exposition’ is drafted and presented. If you have all your ducks in a row, then matters progress at an acceptable speed. But, I for one would not attempt to sell a faery story to the Kiwi’s; their operational folk do actually know what they are about and; (the big one) the rules are so straightforward any ‘breach’ or anomaly will stand out like the proverbial dogs whats’its. That is the beauty part of the Kiwi regulations; no legal if’s and but’s and maybe. Compliance made easier through simplicity. You are either in compliance or in deep do-do. Two options – no choices and they are every bit as strict as CASA, just not so ‘free’ with their personal interpretations. Are the Kiwi’s ‘safe’ – you betcha they are.

Anon – “Why was the regulation of aviation placed under the criminal code, reversing the onus of proof with strict liability? Very few first world countries have aviation laws in the criminal code.”

Anon – “The penalties applied are quite horrendous for trivial offences, such as failing to produce a logbook in the required time limit. The huge fine that can be applied if you happen not to be able to prove your innocent is trivial when one considers that a criminal conviction essentially ends a pilot’s career.”

Anon – “Imagine the general publics reaction if a minor traffic offence resulted in a criminal conviction that ended your career. Many countries in the world will not allow entry if you have a criminal conviction.”

Anon ends with the hammer, once again squarely driving the nail home. Not that anyone gives a continental – but granted parliamentary privilege, in camera, it would be a simple matter to place a dozen evidenced acts of pure spite and malice in front of a committee of inquiry. Do we need another one howls the mob.? Well, yes, I rather think we do; a one with teeth and claws – Royal Commissions seem to almost work – a Judicial Inquiry is difficult to mount – but whatever happens we do not need another non event like the Senate Inquiry into Pel-Air, nor another round of the Rev Forsyth being told politely to stuff his ‘opinion’ where the sun don’t shine.

Good one Anon – not too shabby an effort at all. Gold star, Tim Tam and as may Choc Frogs as you like.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Who cares?

Three little Faery tales, insignificant in themselves, but put together with hundreds of other tales make them very significant as they put a spotlight on the fetid pox that infects the Australian aviation industry.
Though not a virulent pox, its acts rather like HIV, slowly over decades breaking down resistance and weakening its host while it grows ever stronger and unassailable.

My first tale is of a gentleman who many years ago obtained a restricted Pilots licence. He had no ambition to enter the commercial field, neither did he want to travel. His home airfield and its joining training area was all he needed to enjoy his hobby, flying for him was a bit of fun, to be savoured and enjoyed on the six or so times a year he indulged himself.

Occasionally he'd take the missus or his kids for a ride or a friend. I had heard he was nothing flash in the skills department but was a very thorough and safe pilot.

All was good over a lot of years. Then he had a break from flying for whatever reason but decided to restart his hobby, so he booked for a biennial flight review with his local flying school.

Where it all came unstuck was he hadn't transferred his licence to a Part 61 licence. When his instructor looked at the dreaded MOS and the reg's it soon became apparent that this wasn't going to be just a biennial flight review. To recommence what he'd been doing for decades, under part 61 now required a raft of new courses and exams and "competencies" he'd never heard of, which were going to run him into hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

He decided he didn't like flying that much and I guess is looking for a new hobby.

How many thousands are there over the years who have come to the same decision? Bugger this its all too hard!

But nobody cares.

Not far from the entrance to Bankstown airport off Marion Street sits a tiny little brick building with a hanger next to it not much bigger than a garage. Been there for as long as I can remember, which is a long time. The gentleman (and he is a gentleman), who occupies this edifice is, now was, an overhauler and back in the day, a maker of propellers.
He's been declared by CAsA a "Not a fit and proper person" which effectively shuts down his business. Maybe it's an age thing that decided that, he is an octogenarian, or maybe he's been a naughty boy and forgot to put a tick in the right box on one of the thousands of forms that are now required to comply, easy enough to do especially for an old fella who was brought up to value workmanship over administration.

But it is sad to see a lifetime of experience just written off like that, there are a few people no wondering where to send their prop for overhaul.

All is not lost.

Our intrepid feisty octogenarian has put his middle finger up in CAsA's face and said F%CK you. He's moving his prop overhaul business to the Phillipines. So all you prop people out there don't despair, you'll soon have your props back being looked after by a man with decades of experience and skills. He'll be passing his knowledge on to Philippine kids  
and why not, it seems Australia doesn't want it. Another upside, Prop overhauls will probably be cheaper there without the mountains of paperwork required here.

There goes another Australian business offshore.

But nobody Cares


Been a bit of scuttlebutt about Emerald Airport allegedly closing an unsealed cross strip.

Seems like the New part 139 reg's require all runways to be sealed where RPT operates. Airport owner says can't afford that so, they are intending to close the cross strip. Bid safety benefit in that? Don't think so.

I had a think, I do occasionally, which begged a question.

Have the standards of RPT pilots degenerated to such an extent that they can no longer distinguish between a grass cross strip and the main runway? Na couldn't be.  There are rumours of one who had a go at a coal terminal, but they eventually worked it out, for the life of me I couldn't imagine a safety issue that cross strip would generate.

So on what Safety grounds "because safety is their imperative, did CAsA put that in their reg's?

I can think of a lot of Airports where RPT operate with unpaved cross strips. Will these have to be closed?

All passing strange

But who cares
Reply

Thorny, I asked a few punters I know about the issue with the Emerald airport cross runway. They reckon the runway is fine, so WTF? They also reckon the last airport manager before leaving secured around $2.5m to fix up and widen the GA apron (a rare event indeed, where GA is promoted) with a bunch of that money being federally funded. So it begs the question - why shmick up the GA area yet shut down the cross runway and a small taxiway that feeds the GA area?? Has the new management lost its marbles or been influenced by Dr Voodoo?
Reply

Oh Sinner man, where you going to run to.

It’s amazing – there’s old Moses doing all the clever (safety related) stuff he managed with 10 rules he found laying about under a bush in the mountains. Think about the safety implications of leading a nation to freedom. Mind you Moses kicked it all off with a justifiable homicide and had to depart the fix – at speed. Well, he ambled about the planet for a while before bumping into a talking, burning bush – which told him to set free the slaves. Well Moses toddles off back home and told the Fairy he wanted his folk kicked loose – “Nah” said the Fairy. Moses warned the Fairy – fair and square - that nasty thing would happen should overtime and bonus not be paid or; he let the workers go; and they did. Well after a bit more pushing and shoving and some bloodshed; Fairy let the people go. Fairy, as all good tyrants do, reneged and chased Moses across the deserts until the Red sea stooped them: No problem, Moses split the sea asunder with a wave of his walking stick and all the lads and lasses scampered across, safe and dry, to safety. Without GPS, they wandered about lost for a while until Moses found a mountain and got, direct from god, via Amazon drone delivery – a couple of stone tablets with ten rules. Safety rules, writ by a deity - after the event.

You have to wonder how modern OH&S would view these events; a burning bush, desert travel, armed pursuers, and then walking across a sea bed, mountain climbing, bonfires, etc.

You have then to wonder what CASA would do with the ten, simple, deity scripted rules.  Seriously, when you think about it, the same old killers have been dogging flight since the first one.  Here is 15 years worth, from the experts, who still have an active industry to draw on for modelling:-

FAA - The Top 10 Leading Causes of Fatal General Aviation Accidents 2001-2016:

1    Loss of Control Inflight
2.    Controlled Flight Into Terrain
3.    System Component Failure – Power plant
4.    Fuel Related
5.    Unknown or Undetermined
6.    System Component Failure – Non-Power plant
7.    Unintended Flight In IMC
8.    Midair Collisions
9.    Low-Altitude Operations
10. Other

CASA have drafted a whole range of penalties which, should you have an accident which contain much in the way of clever legal wriggle room to make sure that as you lay dying in your hospital bed, you are aware of the criminal charges to be brought against you. It was your fault, end of. The beauty part is that CASA have no responsibility whatsoever for your situation. You will not however be shown the in depth educational material CASA have produced to assist you in avoiding these problems. We used to rely on the ATSB ‘Crash Comic’ to do that, alas.

Take the FAA’s item 7 as an easily understood for example: Unintended flight into IMC.

The CASA rule is simple enough – don’t do it – 50 penalty points if you do. And yet it still happens despite the blood curdling legal penalties for doing so – strict liability etc. I’d bet many beers that almost every pilot has a ‘been there – done that’ story; very, very few of those tales would be a deliberate event, as in a deliberate, knowing, intended breach of the regulation. This event has claimed a lot more lives than any of the ‘competencies’ demanded by Part 61 have saved. Yet, apart from a few bits and pieces of ‘educational’ material CASA have not undertaken any sort of concerted program to drive the messages home, despite it being easily and inexpensively done; a video for example. It boils my blood when St. Comodey bangs on about how his decisions improve ‘safety’. The only safety he is ensuring is safe legal conviction – should you survive an unintended run in with low cloud and rising terrain. Pilots need weather understanding; flight planning expertise; a detailed knowledge of where the back door is and instrument flight competency to demonstrate a 180˚course reversal under the hood. Easy enough to dish up criminal penalties; wash you hands and walk away – but isn’t prevention better than cure?  

When you plough your way through the massive Part 61 tick-a-box exercise of obtaining a licence, you have satisfied the outrageous demands made – like ‘engine starting’ (tick). This is one of the many absolutely bloody useless waste of time in 61. It actually is borderline funny – you only need to have this box ticked once – yet I can think of no less than three different ‘start’ techniques required (Normal, Hot and flooded) which can catch you out, then there’s hand starting and using a battery cart (GPU), then there’s the risk of a fuel fed fire or even an electrical one – but not to worry – your ‘Start’ box is ticked and you are now, officially, CASA safe. Bollocks..

Then you get the brilliance of Hood and the ATSB leading the way to safety Nirvana:-

ATSB – “Recreational gyrocopters experienced the highest fatal accident rate for any aircraft or operation type, whereas recreational balloon operations had the highest total accident rate; almost four times as high as any other aircraft operation type. There were no fatal accidents involving recreational balloons reported during the study period

Aeroplanes remain the most common aircraft type flown which is reflected in their involved in accidents. In 2016, nine of the 15 fatal accidents involved aeroplanes—three helicopters and two powered weight shift aircraft were also involved in fatal accidents”.

Brilliant work – ain’t it.

Toot – toot.
Reply

ASA ARFFS Inquiry - Episode I:  A Harfwit under the Bus? (Thursday 14th)

Recap so far...

(03-08-2019, 01:38 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Senate Inquiry - The provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at Australian airports

Have just been yet again notified of more submissions to the above RRAT inquiry and on on preusal it would seem that submitters are taking advantage of the loosely worded ToR in order to have a crack at Harfwit and his trough feeding executive mob from all kinds of different perspectives... Rolleyes  

For example the 1st cab off the rank was from Willson Consulting, to which Ironsider refers in today's aviation section of the Oz:

Quote:Airport fire foams in spotlight

[Image: 817b3196c7307b37374be1cd032fa315]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Concerns have been raised about environmentally friendly firefighting foams to tackle life-threatening blazes at airports.




Then there is this typical self-serving, self-preserving - "not me who farted Your Honour" - weasel worded confection from St Carmody and his Iron Ring cronies at Fort Fumble: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667051

Anyway for those interested fill your boots, it seems it's a free for all Harfwit bashing... Tongue  

To begin, it has just been announced, that there is a public hearing with this inquiry on Thursday in Melbourne: see here - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...c_Hearings  


[Image: D1cP0ANVsAAzbOq.jpg]


The interesting part with this impromptu hearing is that it was St Carmody who let the cat out of the bag in his cover letter to the bollocks Fort Fumble submission (note para 3).... Rolleyes 



[Image: D1cTgMzVAAAS63W.jpg]
 

Hmm...'any other Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting matters'...well I could name a few?  Shy

But here is a hint from our patron Saint of Australian Aviation Safety... Dodgy

[Image: D1GJV4CU8AArpk2.png]  

Moving on, I note that the first cab off the rank is the United Firefighters Union of Australia and after reading their totally first rate expert submission, that for once addresses properly and transparently the full ToR of the inquiry, I can see why: ref -  https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667139

Quote:The effectiveness of the Regulator

When CASR 139H was established, caveats were placed on the development of the
regulations. Specifically, CASR 139H were the absolute minimum requirements, could not
place any additional cost on industry and had to reflect current standards and practices. As a
result, Australia has fallen well behind other nations and does not reflect ICAO SARPS for
the provision of ARFF service at all certified airports.

Airservices must adhere to the CASRs unless an exemption is applied for by Airservices and
granted by CASA. Though Australia is generally compliant with international aviation
standards as set out in the annexes of the Chicago Convention, currently CASR 139H falls
significantly short of the international standard in relation to providing ARFF services at
airports. In 2008, Australia gave an undertaking to review its non-compliance following an
ICAO audit, however, this only led to the provision of exemptions by CASA to Airservices,
some of which are listed below:

 Exemption not to hold Incident Control Systems and resource evaluation modules
when the Fire Station Manager is not available as Incident Controller;
 Exemption to allow inexperienced Sub Station Officers with certificate 4 qualifications
to act in place of Station Officers who are required by CASA to hold a Diploma in
order to be in charge of a crew;
 Exemption to reduce the frequency of foam application training, so that firefighters
can only apply foam through a monitor (turret) every 180 days instead of the previous
90 days;
 Exemption to respond to non-aviation buildings off airport without a DRV and crew,
resulting in insufficient personnel to maintain the airport’s advertised Category.
In addition to the above, as recently as 2016, Airservices proposed to widen the extent of
non-compliance by attempting to increase the requirement for the provision of an ARFF
service from 350,000 passengers per year to 500,000, which would have resulted in the
disestablishment of ARFF from 7 airports without adequate local brigade support. This
move was supported by CASA.

CASA is reluctant to investigate and act on the Airservices’ continual failure to provide and
maintain the advertised Category at numerous aerodromes. This failure is a result of
utilising part of an operational ARFF crew (which are required to maintain Category at an
aerodrome), to respond off airport to domestic calls or performing non-operational
extraneous duties subsequent to reduced staffing availability, due to the lack of forward
planning. In this respect, CASA has failed in its role as a regulator, at least in terms of
ARFF.

Airservices are seemingly able to request exemptions from CASRs and other ICAO
requirements easily. The following examples demonstrate the nature of these exemptions
and highlight the potentially dire consequences for Australian air travellers. They also raise
serious questions about CASA’s probity in its dealings with Airservices Australia:
 CASA exemption granted to provide Category 6 resources for 737 800 series aircraft,
which should be rated as Category 7, and which carries between 160 and 180
people. The effect was the previous Category 7 staffing of 2 officers and 5
firefighters was reduced to the Category 6 level of 1 officer and 4 firefighters.
 To further exacerbate this situation the Fire Station Manager (FSM), who would
normally act as an incident controller, was placed on shift, thereby replacing a Fire
Commander and reducing the number of responders available at an aircraft incident.
This means that Category 6 ARFF aerodromes respond to an aviation incident with 5
operational firefighters, as compared with the international benchmark (NFPA 403) of
9 firefighters.

Rescue Saws

At the 18 February 2019 Senate Estimates committee hearing, Airservices’ Chief Fire
Officer, Glenn Wood, informed the Committee of Airservices’ decision to remove rescue
power saws, used to cut through an aircraft’s fuselage in an entrapment emergency, from
operation.

This decision was made despite MOS 139H 13.1.1.3 compliance necessitating that among
the operational equipment required for operational use are power saws. The power saws
were removed from operations in September 2018, but still have no exemption from CASA
to do so. This action was also carried out without any consultation with the Union.
At the hearing, CFO Wood stated, “We’ve…got arrangements in place with the local fire
service to bring their rescue saw” (Senate Estimates, 2019: p134) which provides little to no
comfort for ARFF or the public.
Taking CFO Wood’s words into consideration, picture a scenario where an aircraft has
experienced an on-ground collision, resulting in passengers trapped within the fuselage
which is filling up with smoke. The ARFF arrives within 2 minutes but the responding
vehicle does not have rescue saws to cut into the fuselage. Relying on the local
suburban fire brigade to respond to the call (assuming they have the capacity to
respond), they arrive at the airport, wait to be admitted to the runway and escorted to the
scene of the incident. all in order to provide a power saw, resulting in a delay of 10
minutes or more. In this scenario, it is entirely possible that by the time the fuselage is
cut open, most if not all passengers on board could have perished by asphyxiation. The
death toll would only be limited to the amount of people aboard the aircraft.
In the above scenario, there would understandably be public outrage in the event that an
injury, or death, were to occur as a result of ARFF vehicles not containing important
rescue equipment such as rescue saws, and in particular towards the regulator and any
Government that has failed to intervene and maintain necessary standards for
maximising passenger safety and survival.
In recent years, when CASA or Airservices seek to alter ARFF standards, this has been
done without consultation with the Union, despite the Union being the employee
representative body for ARFF operational personnel. These reviews appear to be more
focussed on cost cutting rather than improving safety.

The UFUA supports a review of the current regulations as an opportunity to better align the
CASRs and MOS with international best practice and current ICAO standards. However, it
is questionable whether CASA have the expertise to conduct a review of ARFF services
effectively. This would be better achieved by appointing an independent ARFF expert for the
purposes of reviewing any proposed changes, ensuring alignment with ICAO standards and
instituting NFPA 403 standards as best practice. Any such review should also include the
UFUA as the employee representative body for ARFF.


Recommendation 4: That any review of CASR 139H Regulations or the MOS 139H be
conducted by a steering committee of ARFF and firefighting experts, including the UFUA as
the employee representative body for ARFF personnel.
Recommendation 5: That any Regulatory review has written into their Terms of Reference
that ICAO SARPs are followed as closely as practicable, including all recommended
practices.
Recommendation 6: That any review of Australian ARFF regulations should seek to adopt
the proven and internationally respected standards in NFPA 403 wherever possible as ARFF
best practice.


(Under sub-heading Economic importance of the Aviation sector)

...The presence of the ARFF service is key to safeguarding the safety and security at major
metropolitan and regional airports around the country, which is critical for international and
domestic tourism Any adverse impact on the reputation of Australia’s national and
international aviation industry, particularly those associated negatively with passengers’
safety and/or the seamless movement of both passengers and goods, therefore has the
potential to cause massive economic loss to the economy. Depending on the level and type
of reputational damage, including the quantum of fatalities, the affects could last for many
years.

If a significant downturn in aviation travel occurred due to an incident involving massive loss
of life, particularly if it was revealed that this could have been avoided through compliance
with standards that already exist internationally, the ARFF provider, regulator and ultimately
the Government who are blamed for not addressing the cause of the incident earlier, would
be held in public contempt and potentially exposed legally, politically and internationally
...
  

IMO this excellent submission basically sets the agenda not only for the public hearing but also for the whole inquiry, plus quite possibly for the Royal Commission/Judicial Inquiry that consequently would have to follow - choccy frogs all round to the United Firies Union... Wink


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Finally – a voice of reason.


P2 – “IMO this excellent submission basically sets the agenda not only for the public hearing but also for the whole inquiry, plus quite possibly for the Royal Commission/Judicial Inquiry that consequently would have to follow” etc. -

It was P2; our erstwhile skip diver and bin rummager who caught on to the fact that there was a hearing on the 14th.Inst.  That being Thursday – seems St. Comodey inadvertently tipped him off, then the Secretariat had a lay day and; there was no peace, not for anyone until he found his bone. Remarkable researcher – what else could I say. He now offers us one of the best, honest, cash and bullshit, clearly defined submissions to a Senate session ever. Plain, concise and absolutely an example of the plain truth; writ by the experts without agenda or axe to grind. The drafted submission is provided  by the very men and women who will be there when you are in mortal danger; not some plush arsed, overpaid bureaucrat who would rather cut his Mothers throat than risk getting the Armani suit singed, dragging your sorry arse out of an inferno.

Many of my friends (and possibly others) will tell you that I am not inclined toward asking for favours; let alone begging them; beseeching is out of the question and the very notion of ‘pleading’ is beyond my comprehension – however.

Cognisant as I am of the massive amounts of ’reading’ the Senators should do; I would, most respectfully ask that the committee due to ‘hear’ the evidence on Thursday, please, take the time to read, carefully, the UFUA submission – it is an accurate, comprehensive, no frills statement of the absolute facts. The statement also manages to convey exactly where the ultimate blame will come home to roost, should there ever be a major event and lives are lost because people like Halfwit and Comodey place the budget KPI benefits above life. One major incident will bring down a government; FDS Seaview nearly did and they had no ‘crispy critters’ on that ledger. ASA, ATSB and CASA are morally bankrupt, operationally inept and wool blind. They are also beyond any form of ‘governmental control, costing billions and failing in their duty of care. Time to reform the whole thing – start by retiring Aleck and firing, with malice aforethought Halfwit followed, by a ritual ‘tar and feathers' job on the Canary in the Hi-Viz vest and last, but not least – send St. Comodey to the next BRB indaba.

For your edification Senators, the following are essential hard points around which you cannot accept  any blarney or compromise:-

“CASA is reluctant to investigate and act on the Airservices’ continual failure to provide and maintain the advertised Category at numerous aerodromes. This failure is a result of
utilising part of an operational ARFF crew (which are required to maintain Category at an
aerodrome), to respond off airport to domestic calls or performing non-operational
extraneous duties subsequent to reduced staffing availability, due to the lack of forward
planning. In this respect, CASA has failed in its role as a regulator, at least in terms of
ARFF.”

Airservices are seemingly able to request exemptions from CASRs and other ICAO requirements easily. The following examples demonstrate the nature of these exemptions and highlight the potentially dire consequences for Australian air travellers. They also raise serious questions about CASA’s probity in its dealings with Airservices Australia:"

Recommendation 1: that the flawed methodology of using a threshold of passenger movements per year to determine the establishment of ARFF provision be reviewed for the purpose of replacing it with a system that provides greater ARFF coverage at more Australian Airports.

Like at ‘training aerodromes’ where the risks are much higher than the average. Qantas could afford one – to preserve their investment in training the next generation.

Recommendation 3: that minimum ARFF staffing levels at Australian airports be established through legislation rather than regulation or operational procedure. Any subordinate regulation should only address issues that do not relate to staffing levels or other critical factors.

Right there; in a nutshell, law verses ‘regulation’ writ to meet an agenda. No government control – yet is it not up to government to write ‘the law’?

Recommendation 4: That any review of CASR 139H Regulations or the MOS 139H be conducted by a steering committee of ARFF and firefighting experts, including the UFUA as the employee representative body for ARFF personnel.

About time some one who actually knows what they’re talking about was allowed to become involved. Who knows, we may even get some professional advice; as opposed to the CASA version based on inexperience.

Recommendation 7: That a Passenger Facilitation Charge be considered to fund and expand ARFF services in circumstances where there is insufficient funding from other sources.

Why? We waste millions on ASA, ATSB and CASA every year and achieve little to no increase in real ‘safety’. We get acres of manuals; trick loads of paperwork, millions of legal words which arrive – eventually, at the same conclusions we did almost 70 years ago. Nothing has changed that much.  

But, for my money the quintessential argument rests on a very, very real safety issue.

“Approximately 38% of airline accidents that result in fatal injury occur on or near the ground: whilst parked, being towed or during taxiing (9%); take-off (7%); and landing (22%) (Boeing, 2018). Ground damage is an under-appreciated aviation safety hazard, as an aircraft full of fuel at the gate is akin to a bomb in a confined space (James, 1997). When an accident happens on the ground (while taxiing, take off, landing, etc), in most cases passengers survive. However, in some cases, the cabins can be overcome by fire or smoke before passengers can escape, requiring the timely intervention of ARFF personnel to ensure passenger survival.”

That’s a 38% chance of never leaving the ramp Senators; think about what the experts are saying; just ignore the standard autocratic rhetoric. Just reduce the ASA, ATSB and CASA budget by a percentage point and you will dramatically improve, in real terms, the ‘safety’ of the voting, tax paying public.

The Essendon accident and the piss poor ‘safety’ management of matters aeronautical generally demand, that you, as member of the elected Australian government,do your duty - and   insist on a total overhaul of the expensive, autocratic, self serving and promoting  bunch od miscreants, purpoting to ‘serve the Australian public. Bollocks they do. Ayup. A complete overhaul, an apology and perhaps some hefty criminal negligence penalties will do very nicely – Thank you.

That’s it. Rant over. Sound and fury abates as thirst prevails. You don’t realise how far down the Swanee we are, not until you’ve been away awhile – then it hits you - what a bloody awful mess we are in.

“Yes; at least two more here please –much to catch up with”.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

ASA ARFFS Inquiry - Episode I: Hansard

(03-12-2019, 06:19 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  ASA ARFFS Inquiry - Episode I:  A Harfwit under the Bus? (Thursday 14th)

Recap so far...

(03-08-2019, 01:38 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Senate Inquiry - The provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at Australian airports

Have just been yet again notified of more submissions to the above RRAT inquiry and on on preusal it would seem that submitters are taking advantage of the loosely worded ToR in order to have a crack at Harfwit and his trough feeding executive mob from all kinds of different perspectives... Rolleyes  

For example the 1st cab off the rank was from Willson Consulting, to which Ironsider refers in today's aviation section of the Oz:

Quote:Airport fire foams in spotlight

[Image: 817b3196c7307b37374be1cd032fa315]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Concerns have been raised about environmentally friendly firefighting foams to tackle life-threatening blazes at airports.




Then there is this typical self-serving, self-preserving - "not me who farted Your Honour" - weasel worded confection from St Carmody and his Iron Ring cronies at Fort Fumble: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667051

Anyway for those interested fill your boots, it seems it's a free for all Harfwit bashing... Tongue  

To begin, it has just been announced, that there is a public hearing with this inquiry on Thursday in Melbourne: see here - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...c_Hearings  
 

Hmm...'any other Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting matters'...well I could name a few?  Shy

But here is a hint from our patron Saint of Australian Aviation Safety... Dodgy

[Image: D1GJV4CU8AArpk2.png]  

Moving on, I note that the first cab off the rank is the United Firefighters Union of Australia and after reading their totally first rate expert submission, that for once addresses properly and transparently the full ToR of the inquiry, I can see why: ref -  https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667139
Well done to the DPS?  Wink - This must be the Dunceunda's Federal Parliament quickest publication of an interstate RRAT Senate Inquiry public hearing Hansard, that I can ever recall? Shame there is not much adversarial content that is worthy of repeating, not to mention it was again somewhat hijacked/derailed by Senator O'Sofullofit... Dodgy  Anyhow for those interested 'fill your boots'... Rolleyes 
 
For mine one of the more interesting lines of questioning was to the Department:

Quote:Senator GALLACHER: How many category 6 airports do not have the ARFF provision?

Ms Spence : I don't have that in front of me. Can we take that on notice?

Senator GALLACHER: Would it be fair to say that that there are roughly eight million passengers, five per cent of airline passengers, who travel without the ARFF service?

Ms Spence : What I do know is that around 96 per cent of passengers are covered by our services. I just don't know if that four per cent equates to that eight million.

Senator GALLACHER: That is the great stat in Australia—most of us live within 100 kilometres of the coast and most of us live in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. But there are eight million passengers who don't live in those areas who don't have firefighting services. Is that correct?

Ms Spence : I would not say they have got no firefighting services. They don't have aviation rescue and firefighting services. We do have arrangements with the off-airport services. I appreciate the point that is going to be raised about the time it would take to respond, but there are arrangements in place for the other airports.

Senator GALLACHER: What is the situation for places like Yulara, which is 470 kilometres from the nearest firefighting crew?

Ms Spence : I would have to take on notice the specifics.

Senator GALLACHER: What oversight exists with CASA decisions regarding ARFF? How does the department interact with CASA?

Ms Spence : For example, we were the ones who ran the review. We work with CASA when they are doing their regulation updates. We are observers on their advisory panel and we have a general policy oversight for the operations of CASA but they are a statutory independent regulator.

Senator GALLACHER: You very helpfully supplied all the information about the major airports in Australia. How would you characterise those airports, particularly Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide? Are those passenger movements growing?

Ms Spence : I know Melbourne is. As a general rule, I would say the market is increasing rather than decreasing.

Senator GALLACHER: There will always be a debate about or an assessment of the risk. Senator O'Sullivan has highlighted a bit of that, both publicly and privately. But we do have ARFF in place at these airports where it appears to me as if the passenger numbers are growing.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: The traffic through the terminals is growing and there is a valiant attempt by Airservices to provide additional rescue and firefighting services in terminal emergencies, whether they be fires in terminals, people having heart attacks or whatever. How does the department look at how this affects the primary function, which is the aviation rescue and firefighting service in the event of the A380 or 777 or multiple events on the runways, versus spreading a lean resource more widely? Do you look at that or is it none of your business?

Ms Spence : We are not technical experts in that space, so we are reliant on the expertise that rests within the agencies.

Senator GALLACHER: So Airservices is a statutory authority and CASA is a statutory authority. If it goes belly up, they get it wrong and there is, heaven forbid, an inquiry that says you probably should not have spread your resources so thin, who does that come back to at the end of the day? It comes back to the department, doesn't it?

Ms Spence : We would then be looking at what needs to be done to change it but we don't have the technical expertise within the organisation to say that the settings are wrong at the moment.

Senator GALLACHER: We've had the Fire Protection Association saying that there's a diminution in the standards of the firefighting foams and that we don't test to Australian conditions; we test to 15 degrees, which is European conditions. We believe that the prudent thing to do here is some testing to make sure the replacement foam is the best one. Is that a departmental responsibility, or do you have no technical expertise in that area as well?

Ms Spence : It would be a matter for CASA. But, ultimately, what would be very helpful is if we could get more evidence from the organisation that was presenting about the basis for their statement. We'd be very happy to follow up with them to understand a bit more about what they were talking about at the table.

Senator GALLACHER: Just so I'm very clear on this, is our current Deputy Prime Minister the minister responsible for this area?

Ms Spence : Yes, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: And do Airservices and CASA report to the department?

Ms Spence : They report to their boards.

Senator GALLACHER: Their boards.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: They sit in estimates. We get nothing out of your secretary, but Secretary Mrdak used to say, 'We talk to them but they report through their board structure.'

Ms Spence : That's right.

Senator GALLACHER: If they don't meet a service requirement or if, through some decision they make, they cause something that inconveniences the minister, how does that get resolved?

Ms Spence : As Secretary Mrdak would have said, and as Secretary Kennedy would say now, we engage very closely with them. We can't direct them to do anything. The minister does have direction powers, and if there were a significant concern, that would obviously be something that could be looked at. But, as I said, we don't have any evidence in front of us to suggest that there is a significant issue that we need to respond to.

Senator GALLACHER: In particular, if there's the granting of exemptions to Airservices as an aviation rescue firefighting provider by CASA, that really is their business; it's nothing to do with the department.

Ms Spence : We couldn't require CASA to issue such an exemption or prevent them from issuing such an exemption.

Senator GALLACHER: But, in the event that, down the line, that exemption were proven not to have been the correct procedure, what would the department do?

Ms Spence : In that situation, we would work with CASA. If an amendment to legislation or regulation were needed to require changes to the way in which CASA was undertaking its functions or what Airservices was doing, we would be the lead in terms of any amendments to the legislation or regulation. That's from a formal point of view. If it were less formal, then, again, we would work closely with the agencies to address what issues could be addressed.

Senator GALLACHER: Airservices and CASA have been interacting with this committee for a number of years. How would you characterise the department's confidence level, in particular, in aviation rescue and firefighting services? Are they satisfying your department in the correctness and efficacy of their decision-making?

Ms Spence : I have no evidence to suggest that they're not.

Senator GALLACHER: Are you confident that they have made the appropriate and correct decisions?

Ms Spence : To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Senator GALLACHER: Thanks, Chair.

Senator PATRICK: I just want to clarify: is Airservices a GBE?

Ms Spence : No, Senator. It's an independent statutory agency. I think that's the right terminology.

Mr Lyons : It's a Commonwealth corporate entity, I believe.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator PATRICK: That's different to a statutory authority. CASA is clearly independent, created by statute.

Ms Spence : Yes, as is Airservices. It was created by statute as well.

Senator PATRICK: I was just looking at their structure. It has the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development sitting on top, engaging with the chair, who, through a board, deals ultimately with Mr Harfield as the CEO.

Ms Spence : That's correct.

Senator PATRICK: In that structure, can you or can't you have the minister issue a direction?

Ms Spence : I think that, under the legislation, there is a power to issue directions. I'd have to take on notice any caveats that sit around that directions power.

Senator PATRICK: I know that for GBEs, for example, there's a direction that can be issued by the government to the entity, and that gets tabled in the parliament.

Ms Spence : I think it's a similar provision. There's also the Statement of Expectations, which is issued at the outset, and I think there is a direction power within the Air Services Act. I assume, like the Statement of Expectations, that would also need to be tabled in the parliament.

Senator PATRICK: And there would be an expectation about return to the Commonwealth, because Airservices is run as an entity that makes money. It charges for its services.

Ms Spence : It fully cost-recovers its services. It's costed from industry. It doesn't get any appropriation from government.

Senator PATRICK: Okay.

Senator GALLACHER: Does it pay a dividend?

Ms Spence : It does pay a dividend to the government.

Senator PATRICK: In that context, it's similar to a GBE in that there is an expectation as to the return that comes in. I assume it has a value to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth would expect a return of a particular amount, like Australia Post or Australian Submarine Corporation?

Ms Spence : They certainly do return a dividend to the government. I'd have to take on notice any expectations around what the dividend would be. The first and foremost is they don't receive an appropriation from government.

Senator PATRICK: Sure. That leads to the question that was being asked before about expectations about profit and whether or not things are driven by cost or how much they are driven by cost.

Ms Spence : I'll just see if my colleagues have anything to add.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. Can anyone inform the committee as to whether or not there's an expectation in terms of profit?

ACTING CHAIR: How many answers to that question do you think there are from the officers?

Senator PATRICK: Well, Ms Spence was looking to her colleagues, that's all.

Ms Spence : Mr Moore has indicated that he might have something else to add.

Mr Moore : There's an expectation that it is fully cost-recovered. There is a dividend that is paid to the Commonwealth, but that dividend in relative terms to total revenue is usually relatively small.

Senator PATRICK: I seem to recall that the ACCC takes a close look at them as a monopoly supplier.

Ms Spence : The ACCC has to approve their charging framework. I think there's probably a more technical term to describe it, but, essentially, what they charge industry from a cost-recovery point of view is endorsed by the ACCC.

Senator PATRICK: Ms Pyett, you might have heard the discussion before when we were talking about a tasked resource analysis. If Airservices wants to make a change to the structure of its firefighting services, it needs to be CASA approved. I presume there are processes that things go through. Is that something that is driven from a policy perspective or is it something that CASA would drive?

Ms Spence : I think I can answer that. People can correct me if I'm wrong. As per the review, we would work on the policy framework and get approval from the responsible minister for what the key policy settings would be. Then it would go through the normal CASA regulatory reform steps, which involve consultation on a draft, establishment of a technical working group and further consultation. Then, ultimately, CASA would provide advice through the department to the minister on amendments to the regulation.

Senator PATRICK: Okay, but I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line between what is policy and what the agency or CASA might decide. From a policy perspective, can you set the benchmark to say that these sorts of changes must be done by way of a proper risk analysis?

Ms Spence : Essentially, that's what happened through the regulatory review process. The policy parameters that we were looking at were really around where ARFFs should be established and what the criteria, at an overarching level, should be in terms of passenger numbers and where that would trigger the requirement for an ARFFs. When it gets down into the detail of the way in which this would be done, that would be a matter for CASA to progress.

Senator PATRICK: So, from a policy perspective, you couldn't say, 'As a minimum standard, for any changes that might affect safety, we expect that a safety case is carried out.'

Ms Spence : The only other thing that I'd say is that we'd be mindful of ICAO—the International Civil Aviation Organization—requirements as well. But, for example, in the case of the triggers for when an ARFFs is required to disestablish, a risk assessment has to be done before you disestablish one and also before you would establish one. Mr Moore, did you want to add something?

Mr Moore : Yes, just for the record, on the pricing structure. Economic regulatory oversight is done entirely by the ACCC, because the provision of ARFFs is a declared service for the purposes of part VIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act. Airservices sets its prices with airlines using a five-year long-term planning agreement. The most recent long-term planning agreement expired 30 June 2016, and charges have been frozen at those levels since that point in time.

Senator PATRICK: Just to make sure I'm clear about that: the firefighting services are charged back to the airline operators on some proportional basis, or as part of a landing fee or recovered in some way?

Mr Moore : The charges are paid by the airlines on a per landed time fee, based on the maximum take-off weight of the aircraft.

Senator PATRICK: Okay. So Airservices is then expected to provide that particular service within a cost-neutral environment, but they recover that portion of the landing fee and that's what they end up having to provide the services with?

Mr Moore : Correct.

Senator PATRICK: Okay, thank you.

ACTING CHAIR: And that's approved by the ACCC—the framework for that?

Mr Moore : Yes. The ACCC has oversight of it.

Senator PATRICK: This goes to what Senator Gallacher was asking, and perhaps what Senator O'Sullivan was asking: clearly, then, they have a budget that they have to provide these services within. You said that it's static in the context of generally rising costs overall. Who made it static?

Ms Spence : It's set. I think it's a five-year agreement and then the Airservices board—I think it would be better to ask those questions of Airservices.

Senator PATRICK: Right, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Oh and I thought this (wishful thinking) comment from Senator Gallagher et.al on the non-appearance of Harfwit was quite amusing... Big Grin 

 
Quote:Senator GALLACHER: Where's the former CEO? Has he vacated the position?

Ms Bennetts : Do you mean Jason? Mr Harfield?

Senator GALLACHER: Yes.

Ms Bennetts : He's away at the moment.

CHAIR: He's still the CEO?

Ms Bennetts : Yes, he is. I am the acting CEO. He's overseas for work. Just for weeks—not months or years!

CHAIR: You got us all excited!

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Did he book that after the notification of the date for this hearing?

Ms Bennetts : No. We only knew about this literally two weeks ago!


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

P2;

Oh and I thought this (wishful thinking) comment from Senator Gallagher et.al on the non-appearance of Harfwit was quite amusing... Big Grin

Yes, quite amusing, mainly because the Senators can see through the toffee coated turd and know that Harfwit is........a Harfwit! The one to now watch is the new ARFFS GM, Mr Porter, aka Uncle Fester. I did some sniffing about and he is an ex firey and also ex MKY Airport. The nicest feedback about him I got was ‘tosser’. Nothing else can be repeated here. So it seems that yet another idiot is hired by ASA to compliment its already farcical and incompetent management team down in the Can’tberrra bubble.

Tick tock
Reply

Iron Ring pushback on WOFTAM changes to the Act -  Dodgy 

Ref: SBG 17/o3/19


(03-16-2019, 08:30 PM)Kharon Wrote:  Right then; back to my knitting...

. “Now I can remake the thing” she said with obvious satisfaction. Therein lies the solution to our current troubles.

[Image: giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c8d79152e36664e731e99c2]

We cannot, not without first unravelling, remake the way aviation is oversighted. The Act was made in a different time, with different dangers, risks and attitudes. It was also made in ignorance of the modern world and the progress made. Yet much of the original 10 Commandments of aviation safety have been obliterated, no longer applicable, not a threat.

So; and I ask why in all honesty, cannot we spend time and money, just one time to bring the Air Navigation Act up to date with aviation as it is today? Mostly, the ‘Bogey-Men of old have departed the fix. Look at Navigation for an example – in my lifetime it has changed so radically, I can barely understand how it all works – but it does, and very well indeed. I mourn the loss of an ADF approach, well judged; the loss of DME homing  as an art form; do I miss ‘em? No way GPS for me any day – ever try INS; thank the Gods it’s gone. The world has moved on; brilliant minds have removed the arcane threats. It is time our law makers caught up with modern aviation, re thought the ‘Act’ and modified our regulations to suit the modern era. Not that a new Act will matter a damn in ten years time. BUT – in the here and the now; it is well past the time when Grand Papa’s old sweater got a new lease of life. To do that, we must first be prepared to make the first snip and unravel the old. He hated the new jumper by the way – just on principal. But it was made for the best of reasons, with care and anticipation of the future. I don’t believe he ever had it far from him for the rest of his days. I can; if I close my eyes, still smell the ocean and tobacco and ‘him’ in the jumper, which was made, blended with skill, caring and an anticipation of future value to him. Thank you Grand Mama for a life lesson.

[Image: D1s6bzKU8AE8VVz.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...2#pid10042

That’s it – there’s enough on the forum to sate the appetite of those interested in aviation’s future. It looks grim. A useless minister, incontinent Senate, moribund government and no one with the brain of a sheep flying the ship. a 'R' regulator who should be an Administrator; Air Services on a KPR binge trying to find the money to pay for the One Pie project; and ATSB which, IMO knows not, whether it is punched, bored or countersunk. The whole lot relying on the manipulation of an outdated ethos. Full of self serving justification of function and wallowing in the mess they created. It just has to end. It is borderline lunacy to continue this way........

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-02-05-at-2.20.45-pm-1170x500.png]

In the Simply Marvellous Horsepooh today I note, that in the lead up to the next sitting of parliament, the Iron Ring captured side of the Feds (AFAP) is mobilising their inevitable MOAS (Mystique of Aviation Safety) campaign in response to the proposed WOFTAM changes to the Act... Huh

By Patrick Hatch, via the SMH:

Quote:Pilots, experts call out push to make CASA weigh costs of safety

By Patrick Hatch
March 19, 2019 — 12.00am

Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.

The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.

[Image: 1ee4cade766eeb13ee2d0ba189a6092eee7b471a]
An employee works on a Boeing 737 Max 9 plane at the company's manufacturing facility in Renton, Washington.CREDIT:BLOOMBERG

The FAA grounded all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in the US on Thursday, two days after Australian and European authorities ordered the relatively new aircraft to stop flying.

The 737 MAX crises has prompted fresh scrutiny of a bill the Morrison government introduced to parliament last month that would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the first time to "consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community" when making aviation safety rules.

Small aircraft operators who claim their industry is being strangled by onerous regulation and safety compliance costs lobbied deputy prime minister and transport minister Michael McCormack heavily for the change.

"Safety needs to be the primary and overriding consideration,"  said Simon Lutton, executive director of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which represents commercial airlines pilots.

We need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.

AFAP's Simon Lutton - “We have an excellent safety record in Australia and we need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.”

Aviation expert Neil Hansford, from Strategic Aviation Solutions, said the FAA's biggest concern last week appeared to have been "the Boeing share price and jobs in America".

“To commercialise the implementation of safety and operations regulations is not sound and could lean to the problem we have in the United States," he said.

He said that having to take into account the fact that "some people are going to go broke" as a result of necessary new safety rules "totally negates" the reasons of making the new rules in the first place.


The United States was the last major country to stop all Boeing 737 MAX jets from flying after the plane was involved in its second deadly crash in five months.

The changes have been designed to appease the general aviation industry - which includes including charter, pilot training, recreational and agricultural operators - which says it is being strangled by over-regulation.

Royal Flying Doctor Service chief executive Martin Laverty, who leads the minister's general aviation advisory group, said the change was a "step in the right direction".

“We at the Flying Doctors put safety above all else. We also have to be cost efficient in our flight operations. Legislative change to have the air regulator weigh cost whilst retaining safety as its key concern is a good step forward," he said.

“Anyone who says they’re not on board with making aviation safety regulation affordable... is privy to signing a suicide note to our entire industry," said Mr Morgan.

“We’ve watched thousands in our industry go broke in the past 30 years for no reasons other than the minister won’t stand up and do his damn job."

CASA would also take into account the differences in risks that apply to different sectors of the aviation industry under Mr McCormack's proposed changes.

Geoffrey Dell, an air crash investigation expert and associate professor at Central Queensland University, said part of the reason CASA was formed in 1995 was to address conflicts between safety and commercial interests inside the transport department.

“It’s a huge step backwards and sadly we keep forgetting the lessons of the past," Dr Dell said.

"It’s just an additional layer of white noise that potentially prevents safety corrective actions being taken promptly. You don’t know how much safety costs until you have an accident.”

A spokesman for Mr McCormack said aviation safety would always be the government's top priority and it had consulted industry before introducing the bill.

“This has no bearing on immediate safety issues, where CASA will continue to be able to act in the interest of safety," he said.

A spokesman for Labor's shadow transport minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the bill.

Qantas, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association and the General Aviation Advisory Group were all consulted on the changes and did not raise any concerns, according to the bill's explanatory memorandum.

Hmmm....UDB!  Dodgy

No comment but perhaps some pictures may tell the true story here... Rolleyes 

[Image: D1Am86LUcAAYchj.jpg]






MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

(03-19-2019, 07:21 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Iron Ring pushback on WOFTAM changes to the Act -  Dodgy 

Ref: SBG 17/o3/19


(03-16-2019, 08:30 PM)Kharon Wrote:  Right then; back to my knitting...

. “Now I can remake the thing” she said with obvious satisfaction. Therein lies the solution to our current troubles.

[Image: giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c8d79152e36664e731e99c2]

We cannot, not without first unravelling, remake the way aviation is oversighted. The Act was made in a different time, with different dangers, risks and attitudes. It was also made in ignorance of the modern world and the progress made. Yet much of the original 10 Commandments of aviation safety have been obliterated, no longer applicable, not a threat.

So; and I ask why in all honesty, cannot we spend time and money, just one time to bring the Air Navigation Act up to date with aviation as it is today? Mostly, the ‘Bogey-Men of old have departed the fix. Look at Navigation for an example – in my lifetime it has changed so radically, I can barely understand how it all works – but it does, and very well indeed. I mourn the loss of an ADF approach, well judged; the loss of DME homing  as an art form; do I miss ‘em? No way GPS for me any day – ever try INS; thank the Gods it’s gone. The world has moved on; brilliant minds have removed the arcane threats. It is time our law makers caught up with modern aviation, re thought the ‘Act’ and modified our regulations to suit the modern era. Not that a new Act will matter a damn in ten years time. BUT – in the here and the now; it is well past the time when Grand Papa’s old sweater got a new lease of life. To do that, we must first be prepared to make the first snip and unravel the old. He hated the new jumper by the way – just on principal. But it was made for the best of reasons, with care and anticipation of the future. I don’t believe he ever had it far from him for the rest of his days. I can; if I close my eyes, still smell the ocean and tobacco and ‘him’ in the jumper, which was made, blended with skill, caring and an anticipation of future value to him. Thank you Grand Mama for a life lesson.

[Image: D1s6bzKU8AE8VVz.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...2#pid10042

That’s it – there’s enough on the forum to sate the appetite of those interested in aviation’s future. It looks grim. A useless minister, incontinent Senate, moribund government and no one with the brain of a sheep flying the ship. a 'R' regulator who should be an Administrator; Air Services on a KPR binge trying to find the money to pay for the One Pie project; and ATSB which, IMO knows not, whether it is punched, bored or countersunk. The whole lot relying on the manipulation of an outdated ethos. Full of self serving justification of function and wallowing in the mess they created. It just has to end. It is borderline lunacy to continue this way........

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-02-05-at-2.20.45-pm-1170x500.png]

In the Simply Marvellous Horsepooh today I note, that in the lead up to the next sitting of parliament, the Iron Ring captured side of the Feds (AFAP) is mobilising their inevitable MOAS (Mystique of Aviation Safety) campaign in response to the proposed WOFTAM changes to the Act... Huh

By Patrick Hatch, via the SMH:

Quote:Pilots, experts call out push to make CASA weigh costs of safety

By Patrick Hatch
March 19, 2019 — 12.00am

Pilots and aviation experts have expressed alarm that proposals to force Australia's aviation regulator to consider the financial interests of industry operators could compromise the country's air safety regime.

The role of aviation safety regulators has been in the spotlight following the fatal crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 last Sunday, with the US Federal Aviation Administration facing questions about whether it gives too much weight to the US aviation industry's profits.

[Image: 1ee4cade766eeb13ee2d0ba189a6092eee7b471a]
An employee works on a Boeing 737 Max 9 plane at the company's manufacturing facility in Renton, Washington.CREDIT:BLOOMBERG

The FAA grounded all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in the US on Thursday, two days after Australian and European authorities ordered the relatively new aircraft to stop flying.

The 737 MAX crises has prompted fresh scrutiny of a bill the Morrison government introduced to parliament last month that would require the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the first time to "consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community" when making aviation safety rules.

Small aircraft operators who claim their industry is being strangled by onerous regulation and safety compliance costs lobbied deputy prime minister and transport minister Michael McCormack heavily for the change.

"Safety needs to be the primary and overriding consideration,"  said Simon Lutton, executive director of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which represents commercial airlines pilots.

We need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.

AFAP's Simon Lutton - “We have an excellent safety record in Australia and we need to have an independent regulator whose role it is to enforce that safety - not be compromised or confused by cost considerations.”

Aviation expert Neil Hansford, from Strategic Aviation Solutions, said the FAA's biggest concern last week appeared to have been "the Boeing share price and jobs in America".

“To commercialise the implementation of safety and operations regulations is not sound and could lean to the problem we have in the United States," he said.

He said that having to take into account the fact that "some people are going to go broke" as a result of necessary new safety rules "totally negates" the reasons of making the new rules in the first place.


The United States was the last major country to stop all Boeing 737 MAX jets from flying after the plane was involved in its second deadly crash in five months.

The changes have been designed to appease the general aviation industry - which includes including charter, pilot training, recreational and agricultural operators - which says it is being strangled by over-regulation.

Royal Flying Doctor Service chief executive Martin Laverty, who leads the minister's general aviation advisory group, said the change was a "step in the right direction".

“We at the Flying Doctors put safety above all else. We also have to be cost efficient in our flight operations. Legislative change to have the air regulator weigh cost whilst retaining safety as its key concern is a good step forward," he said.

“Anyone who says they’re not on board with making aviation safety regulation affordable... is privy to signing a suicide note to our entire industry," said Mr Morgan.

“We’ve watched thousands in our industry go broke in the past 30 years for no reasons other than the minister won’t stand up and do his damn job."

CASA would also take into account the differences in risks that apply to different sectors of the aviation industry under Mr McCormack's proposed changes.

Geoffrey Dell, an air crash investigation expert and associate professor at Central Queensland University, said part of the reason CASA was formed in 1995 was to address conflicts between safety and commercial interests inside the transport department.

“It’s a huge step backwards and sadly we keep forgetting the lessons of the past," Dr Dell said.

"It’s just an additional layer of white noise that potentially prevents safety corrective actions being taken promptly. You don’t know how much safety costs until you have an accident.”

A spokesman for Mr McCormack said aviation safety would always be the government's top priority and it had consulted industry before introducing the bill.

“This has no bearing on immediate safety issues, where CASA will continue to be able to act in the interest of safety," he said.

A spokesman for Labor's shadow transport minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on the bill.

Qantas, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association and the General Aviation Advisory Group were all consulted on the changes and did not raise any concerns, according to the bill's explanatory memorandum.

Hmmm....UDB!  Dodgy

No comment but perhaps some pictures may tell the true story here... Rolleyes 

[Image: D1Am86LUcAAYchj.jpg]




(03-19-2019, 01:25 PM)thorn bird Wrote:  Oh Gawd, where do you start with this one.

It's interesting and perhaps a tad sad that this Lutton guy from the AFAP seems to just not get it. How can decimating the bottom end of aviation possibly be in his unions interest? The "Air Crash investigation expert"sounds like he's been watching too many Air Crash Investigators on the box.

The new bill introduced into parliament if you read it and interpret it properly its obvious its been very craftily worded to ensure that nothing is really changed, the status quo remains intact and CASA will continue with its inane hillbilly regulatory fraud.

For all CASA's amateurish regulatory madness Australia is no safer today than when they started. We remain way behind the USA safety wise.

What is "Safety", How is it measured?Who sets the height of the limbo bar?.

CASA sets the height based on what parameters?

In reality safety is impossible to define, CASA sets the bar to suit themselves and their inflated ego's.

What is incontrovertible however is, over regulate and your industry dies as has been glaringly illustrated in Australia. If the industry dies what was the point of the regulation.

There has to be a balance between regulation and cost otherwise the country just does without aviation. An illogical proposition.

Following on the same theme... Rolleyes 

Via the Mandarin today:


Quote:APS Review sets out four priorities for change
By David Donaldson and Stephen Easton • 19/03/2019

[Image: aps-review-panel.png]

The Australian Public Service Review has published four new “priorities” for change ahead of its main findings later this year. Common pay and moving to a professional stream model are some of their ideas.

The report, released Tuesday morning, includes a broad range of interesting suggestions for reform under four priority headings.

Those priorities are: a stronger “culture, governance and leadership model”, more operational flexibility, continued investment in talent and capability, and stronger internal and external partnerships.

Proposed changes include common pay and conditions across the APS, professionalisation of roles through a move to a “professions model” with senior staff appointed to head up each professional stream, and a “stable spine” of common digital platforms and policy frameworks across the service.

How secretaries are chosen would change slightly, with a codified process to inform the prime minister’s choice of department heads, including published criteria, as well as clear criteria for evaluating performance.

The panel suggest annual external recruitment at EL and SES levels, modelled on the approach to graduates, to reduce barriers to entry from outside the APS, as well as making it easier for staff — and potential leaders in particular — to try out working in other sectors.

The APS should develop “an inspiring purpose and vision that unifies the public service”, backed up by a secretaries board with a mandate to push cross-portfolio outcomes. Departments and large agencies would be subject to regular, independent capability reviews, which would be publicly released.

The APS’s own sense of “primacy” can sometimes stand in the way of relationships with the public and ministers, the report notes. Improving mutual understanding of the roles and needs of the APS, ministers and ministerial offices, and opening up more ministerial staff positions to public servants, could improve public administration.




They also recommend formal recognition of “the distinct and important role” of ministerial advisors, including clarity of role — both in relation to ministers and public servants — and accountability.

There would also be a “revamped” APSC, empowered to fully deliver on its responsibilities, including through sustainable resourcing and strengthened in-house capability. The responsibilities of the APS Commissioner would be clarified in legislation, as ‘head of people’, including a reinforced role in appointment and performance management of Senior Executive Service officers, and responsibility for professions and for leading a strengthened pro-integrity regime. Measures would be put in place to ensure confidence in the appointment process for the commissioner, such as requiring parliamentary consultation.

“Our approach, our optimism, and our findings are reflected in one aspiration: a trusted APS, united in serving all Australians,” write the review panel.

“This aspiration forms the organising principle for the priorities for change set out in this report.”

Each of the report’s four priority areas — which build on the five big ideas review chair David Thodey set out in November — includes further initiatives.

To help strengthen the culture, governance and leadership model of the APS, the review panel recommend:
  • Common purpose and vision that unites and inspires the APS

  • Secretaries board driving outcomes across government and APS performance

  • A defined ‘head of service’ and ‘head of people’

  • Clarity and confidence in the appointment and expectations of secretaries

  • Genuine transparency and accountability for delivering outcomes for Australians

To build a flexible APS operating model:
  • Dynamic ways of working and structures to empower individuals and teams — making collaboration the norm

  • Strategic allocation of funds and resources to outcomes and essential investment

  • Networked enabling systems and common processes across the service

When it comes to investing in capability and talent development:
  • Professionalised functions across the service to deepen expertise

  • Empowered managers accountable for developing people and teams

  • Strategic recruitment, development and mobility to build the workforce of the future

  • 21st century delivery, regulation and policy capabilities

  • Policy advice that integrates social, economic, security and international perspectives

And for developing stronger internal and external relationships:
  • Seamless services and local solutions designed and delivered with states, territories and other partners

  • An open APS, accountable for sharing information and engaging widely

  • Strategic, service-wide approaches to procurement to deliver better value and outcomes for Australians

  • Ministers supported through easier access to APS expertise and insights and formal recognition of distinct role of ministerial advisors.

The challenge of implementation

The reviewers are very concerned about how any shifts will be implemented and made sustainable.
“Globally, there are more examples of failed public sector transformations than successes,” says the report.

“And there is inevitably some cynicism about the possibility of change, or about having heard it all before.

Simplistic solutions will not suffice. Nor should we just turn to the private sector for the answers.”

Much of what they suggest “can be readily implemented within existing legislative and policy frameworks”, they argue.

The report points to six key requirements for successful reform:
  • Senior leadership cohort who own transformation

  • Clear prioritisation of reforms, focusing on the most important things first

  • A transformation leader with the influence to drive and coordinate delivery

  • Deep engagement across the service in developing and implementing change with service-wide investment in capability building

  • Funding, resources and support to drive transformation

  • Meaningful metrics for short and long term success of transformation

Seeking feedback

The review panel is seeking further input from public servants to ensure their ideas are on the mark.

The panel is already considering upwards of 700 submissions, 270 suggestions on the review’s digital platform, 2900 survey responses, and the insights from 37 roundtables and workshops involving more than 550 members of the public and the APS. They’ve also completed 200 one-on-one meetings with parliamentarians, community and business leaders and others who work closely with the APS, as well as meetings with current and former public sector leaders.

But they want to keep testing their ideas.

“This report presents our current view — both what we think and what we’re still exploring,” they write.

“We were not asked to publish our interim findings, but we believe it is only through testing our thinking, openly and iteratively, that we will come to the best answers.”

So they are asking you the following questions:
  • How can we strengthen each proposal?

  • What are we missing?

  • How do we ensure lasting change?

Comments can be made on the APS Review website until May 2.

Apart from Thodey, a former Telstra chief executive, the panel includes former Environment secretary Gordon de Brouwer, former University of Melbourne vice-chancellor Glyn Davis, Coca-Cola Amatil managing director Alison Watkins, ANZ’s digital banking boss Maile Carnegie and University of Sydney chancellor Belinda Hutchinson, who also chairs the board of defence contractor Thales Australia.
 
And in response to that, via one of the AP/PAIN/IOS email chains:

Quote:APS Review sets out four priorities for change | The Mandarin


This is an interesting development, the current model of aviation governance in Australia has failed. 

In particular, mainstream General Aviation (GA) is in severe decline, resulting in job losses, business failures and loss of flying services. 

There would probably have to be significant changes to the ‘independent regulator’ model such as CASA, if changes were instituted as per this article. Quote:-

Proposed changes include common pay and conditions across the APS, professionalisation of roles through a move to a “professions model” with senior staff appointed to head up each professional stream, and a “stable spine” of common digital platforms and policy frameworks across the service.

I think worth noting that our main call is for a change to the model, and therefore change the Act. 

This should include a much greater degree of industry participation and responsibility in the administration of GA. The benefits to the membership and the growing industry of the self administered low weight category, Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd (RAAus), testifies to what might be achieved. The artificial split of RAAus from mainstream GA could be rectified. Many anomalies, and the illogical and deleterious distortions (suitability of aircraft type to task, maintenance, medicals) should be removed. 

Sandy 


https://www.themandarin.com.au/105701-aps-review-sets-out-four-priorities-for-change/



..Sandy very correct what you say - I have no idea how you fix the Bureaucracy because basically it seems to have the "convict mentality" You came as a convict and so we will beat you up all the time.

  • CASA needs to change its name - They are  not about SAFETY they are about ADMINISTRATION - this lot are about stopping GA and they are certainly no AUTHORITY. They should become The Civil Aviation Administration - it is their role to administer, not to create change for no reason and fight everyone for what it is worth over nonsensical opinionated decisions that are made by inept bureaucrats. - you only have to look at the empire built within the Medical Section. Look no further than Part 61 which is largely incomprehensible.  Look no further than the examining section of CASA - there will be no examiners as they are a monopoly and it will cost around $50000 to become one in all licences and ratings. This includes CASA fees, would be examiners time and the cost of an aeroplane.
  • They want a leadership model strengthening culture and governance.  What kind of culture what kind of governance? - it would have to be carefully described -  then how do you inculcate it into a large organisation full of overpaid over pensioned public servants.
  • Flexible operating model responding to change - fantastic -  A DEEP description of THE HOW to respond would have to be the first paper and Phd written on the topic. The HOW WHY WHERE AND WHAT - You only have to look in particular at Part 61 - it was absolutely apparent that part 61 came in with no thought, no consultation, no looking at the rest of the world's model Why?  Because Australia always feels it has to REINVENT the wheel and be the first to show their ignorance to the rest of the world.  Part 61 is largely incomprehensible and you should hear what the FAA said about it. No notice was taken from people in middle management in CASA down to us plebs who certainly know and knew a lot more than they did. We told them it would not work and then they asked us at a public meeting to help us fix their mistakes. When I asked how much money per hour the were they considering paying us they looked askance that I would wish to get paid - in other words let ones own company go down the gurgler due to their inept governance and let ones own company slip further down the gurgler due to no pay for our considerable knowledge and expertise.
  • Investing in our peoples capability and talent.  The talent within their organisation goes largely unrecognised and in fact one of the best examiners that they have has been sidelined to pushing a pen and interpreting the rules for us all because his boss who gave no reason stopped him testing then moved after many years to the RTA or whatever it is called now.  All he is now doing is waiting for retirement age to get his pension.  He is a hardworking good public servant who has been kicked around.  Yet another examiner who was just the worst one in CASA prospered. Why? easy if you know the names.
  • Building internal and external partnerships and collaboration that are stronger.  Yes well - if you want this why is AOPA being kept out of meetings and off panels,  why is the boss of CASA fighting the CEO of AOPA - amongst other reasons because he is very knowledgeable about aviation and is not afraid to advocate. You only have to look at the Senate committees on aviation and see the hash that can be made by the big guns of CASA - to know something has to be done about CASA.  WHY are you considered the enemy just because your are knowledgeable and articulate?
  • Aviation should have its own Minister of Aviation - it is a specialist field - It did when I first arrived in Australia. Then it got swallowed up in the Department of Transport.  Now it can happen that a train expert could be sent out to investigate an air crash and vice versa.  I listened to a whole lecture given by a member of the ATSB  about how great this was.  I am left wondering if the world has any common sense left.
The question is:
  • THE HOW of change?
  • GET RID OF THE CONVICT MENTALITY - that will be hard to change - over 200 years of it
  • STOP CASA FROM THINKING THEY ARE AN AUTHORITY BY CHANGING THEIR NAME TO ADMINISTRATION
  • STOP WRITING RULES THAT INCUR PENALTIES AND ARE SO PRESCRIPTIVE THAT WITH THE BEST WILL IN THE WORLD IF YOU HAVE A CASA BLOKE READING THE RULE WORD FOR WORD AND TAKING IT SO LITERALLY WE ARE ALL SUNK and you have the CHOICE TO GO COURT or WIND UP YOUR BUSINESS. LOSE YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR ENTIRE LIFE'S WORK. 
  • GET A PARLIAMENTARIAN WHO ACTUALLY IS INTERESTED IN AVIATION AND WISHES TO SEE IT PROSPER. there are several pilots within Parliament but where are they when it comes to aviation matters?
  • HAVE A MINISTRY THAT IS AVIATION ONLY AND HAS ITS OWN MINISTER - separate the trains, the ships the aircraft they are all very specialised fields and get away from the view that if you have a degree in business administration you can administer any sector of industry successfully - you cannot.
AMINTA HENNESSY JP, OAM
President - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) of Australia



MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

ASA ARFFS Inquiry - Episode II: ICAO & the Murky connection??

Ref: 
(03-15-2019, 01:19 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  [quote pid='10018' dateline='1552378788']
Hmm...'any other Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting matters'...well I could name a few?  Shy

But here is a hint from our patron Saint of Australian Aviation Safety... Dodgy

[Image: D1GJV4CU8AArpk2.png]  

Moving on, I note that the first cab off the rank is the United Firefighters Union of Australia and after reading their totally first rate expert submission, that for once addresses properly and transparently the full ToR of the inquiry, I can see why: ref -  https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667139
Well done to the DPS?  Wink - This must be the Dunceunda's Federal Parliament quickest publication of an interstate RRAT Senate Inquiry public hearing Hansard, that I can ever recall? Shame there is not much adversarial content that is worthy of repeating, not to mention it was again somewhat hijacked/derailed by Senator O'Sofullofit... Dodgy  Anyhow for those interested 'fill your boots'... Rolleyes 
 
For mine one of the more interesting lines of questioning was to the Department:

Quote:Senator GALLACHER: How many category 6 airports do not have the ARFF provision?

Ms Spence : I don't have that in front of me. Can we take that on notice?

Senator GALLACHER: Would it be fair to say that that there are roughly eight million passengers, five per cent of airline passengers, who travel without the ARFF service?

Ms Spence : What I do know is that around 96 per cent of passengers are covered by our services. I just don't know if that four per cent equates to that eight million.

Senator GALLACHER: That is the great stat in Australia—most of us live within 100 kilometres of the coast and most of us live in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. But there are eight million passengers who don't live in those areas who don't have firefighting services. Is that correct?

Ms Spence : I would not say they have got no firefighting services. They don't have aviation rescue and firefighting services. We do have arrangements with the off-airport services. I appreciate the point that is going to be raised about the time it would take to respond, but there are arrangements in place for the other airports.

Senator GALLACHER: What is the situation for places like Yulara, which is 470 kilometres from the nearest firefighting crew?

Ms Spence : I would have to take on notice the specifics.

Senator GALLACHER: What oversight exists with CASA decisions regarding ARFF? How does the department interact with CASA?

Ms Spence : For example, we were the ones who ran the review. We work with CASA when they are doing their regulation updates. We are observers on their advisory panel and we have a general policy oversight for the operations of CASA but they are a statutory independent regulator.

Senator GALLACHER: You very helpfully supplied all the information about the major airports in Australia. How would you characterise those airports, particularly Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide? Are those passenger movements growing?

Ms Spence : I know Melbourne is. As a general rule, I would say the market is increasing rather than decreasing.

Senator GALLACHER: There will always be a debate about or an assessment of the risk. Senator O'Sullivan has highlighted a bit of that, both publicly and privately. But we do have ARFF in place at these airports where it appears to me as if the passenger numbers are growing.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: The traffic through the terminals is growing and there is a valiant attempt by Airservices to provide additional rescue and firefighting services in terminal emergencies, whether they be fires in terminals, people having heart attacks or whatever. How does the department look at how this affects the primary function, which is the aviation rescue and firefighting service in the event of the A380 or 777 or multiple events on the runways, versus spreading a lean resource more widely? Do you look at that or is it none of your business?

Ms Spence : We are not technical experts in that space, so we are reliant on the expertise that rests within the agencies.

Senator GALLACHER: So Airservices is a statutory authority and CASA is a statutory authority. If it goes belly up, they get it wrong and there is, heaven forbid, an inquiry that says you probably should not have spread your resources so thin, who does that come back to at the end of the day? It comes back to the department, doesn't it?

Ms Spence : We would then be looking at what needs to be done to change it but we don't have the technical expertise within the organisation to say that the settings are wrong at the moment.

Senator GALLACHER: We've had the Fire Protection Association saying that there's a diminution in the standards of the firefighting foams and that we don't test to Australian conditions; we test to 15 degrees, which is European conditions. We believe that the prudent thing to do here is some testing to make sure the replacement foam is the best one. Is that a departmental responsibility, or do you have no technical expertise in that area as well?

Ms Spence : It would be a matter for CASA. But, ultimately, what would be very helpful is if we could get more evidence from the organisation that was presenting about the basis for their statement. We'd be very happy to follow up with them to understand a bit more about what they were talking about at the table.

Senator GALLACHER: Just so I'm very clear on this, is our current Deputy Prime Minister the minister responsible for this area?

Ms Spence : Yes, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: And do Airservices and CASA report to the department?

Ms Spence : They report to their boards.

Senator GALLACHER: Their boards.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: They sit in estimates. We get nothing out of your secretary, but Secretary Mrdak used to say, 'We talk to them but they report through their board structure.'

Ms Spence : That's right.

Senator GALLACHER: If they don't meet a service requirement or if, through some decision they make, they cause something that inconveniences the minister, how does that get resolved?

Ms Spence : As Secretary Mrdak would have said, and as Secretary Kennedy would say now, we engage very closely with them. We can't direct them to do anything. The minister does have direction powers, and if there were a significant concern, that would obviously be something that could be looked at. But, as I said, we don't have any evidence in front of us to suggest that there is a significant issue that we need to respond to.

Senator GALLACHER: In particular, if there's the granting of exemptions to Airservices as an aviation rescue firefighting provider by CASA, that really is their business; it's nothing to do with the department.

Ms Spence : We couldn't require CASA to issue such an exemption or prevent them from issuing such an exemption.

Senator GALLACHER: But, in the event that, down the line, that exemption were proven not to have been the correct procedure, what would the department do?

Ms Spence : In that situation, we would work with CASA. If an amendment to legislation or regulation were needed to require changes to the way in which CASA was undertaking its functions or what Airservices was doing, we would be the lead in terms of any amendments to the legislation or regulation. That's from a formal point of view. If it were less formal, then, again, we would work closely with the agencies to address what issues could be addressed.

Senator GALLACHER: Airservices and CASA have been interacting with this committee for a number of years. How would you characterise the department's confidence level, in particular, in aviation rescue and firefighting services? Are they satisfying your department in the correctness and efficacy of their decision-making?

Ms Spence : I have no evidence to suggest that they're not.

Senator GALLACHER: Are you confident that they have made the appropriate and correct decisions?

Ms Spence : To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Senator GALLACHER: Thanks, Chair...


...Senator PATRICK: Ms Pyett, you might have heard the discussion before when we were talking about a tasked resource analysis. If Airservices wants to make a change to the structure of its firefighting services, it needs to be CASA approved. I presume there are processes that things go through. Is that something that is driven from a policy perspective or is it something that CASA would drive?

Ms Spence : I think I can answer that. People can correct me if I'm wrong. As per the review, we would work on the policy framework and get approval from the responsible minister for what the key policy settings would be. Then it would go through the normal CASA regulatory reform steps, which involve consultation on a draft, establishment of a technical working group and further consultation. Then, ultimately, CASA would provide advice through the department to the minister on amendments to the regulation.

Senator PATRICK: Okay, but I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line between what is policy and what the agency or CASA might decide. From a policy perspective, can you set the benchmark to say that these sorts of changes must be done by way of a proper risk analysis?

Ms Spence : Essentially, that's what happened through the regulatory review process. The policy parameters that we were looking at were really around where ARFFs should be established and what the criteria, at an overarching level, should be in terms of passenger numbers and where that would trigger the requirement for an ARFFs. When it gets down into the detail of the way in which this would be done, that would be a matter for CASA to progress.

Senator PATRICK: So, from a policy perspective, you couldn't say, 'As a minimum standard, for any changes that might affect safety, we expect that a safety case is carried out.'

Ms Spence : The only other thing that I'd say is that we'd be mindful of ICAO—the International Civil Aviation Organization—requirements as well. But, for example, in the case of the triggers for when an ARFFs is required to disestablish, a risk assessment has to be done before you disestablish one and also before you would establish one. Mr Moore, did you want to add something?

Mr Moore : Yes, just for the record, on the pricing structure. Economic regulatory oversight is done entirely by the ACCC, because the provision of ARFFs is a declared service for the purposes of part VIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act. Airservices sets its prices with airlines using a five-year long-term planning agreement. The most recent long-term planning agreement expired 30 June 2016, and charges have been frozen at those levels since that point in time...

[/quote]

Plus from the BITN thread: 
(03-19-2019, 05:52 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  THE PROVISION OF RESCUE, FIREFIGHTING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT AUSTRALIAN AIRPORTS - UPDATE

Submissions update: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...ubmissions  
 
Plus tomorrow there will be a public hearing in Adelaide which again the Firies Union will be appearing at: 


Quote:[Image: D2AVqqXU0AUy4JR.jpg]

For those interested tune in tomorrow here: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/W...tent-panel


Quote from the tail end of the UFUA Hansard segment:

 
Quote:
Quote:CHAIR: In wrapping up, is there anything that you wish to leave us with that we might have missed?

Mr Marshall : Yes, there is. I do apologise. We actually have a supplementary submission that has been put together by the University of Newcastle, which is their CofFEE's report. I was hoping to be able to provide it.

CHAIR: As a supplementary submission?

Mr Marshall : Yes.

CHAIR: Absolutely, you can.

Mr Marshall : I will be able to confirm the time lines on that, but the availability of some of the academics became a problem.

CHAIR: What we might do then is accept that when you do have the ability to deliver that, because we know that, if we need to, we can bring you back in and you can talk to it.

Mr Marshall : Thank you very much.

Naturally the possibility of a supplementary UFUA submission supported by the UNSW CofFEE crew perked my interest... Rolleyes

This curiousity bump sent me to Google, to which I discovered the following 76 page UFUA/UNSW submission which ironically was addressing the DIRD 2016 ARFFS regulatory policy review (mentioned above): https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/a...es/UFU.pdf

Here is the conclusion from the excellent but very damning UNSW CofFEE attachment:

Quote:Section 9 Conclusion

The DIRD proposals constitute an intention to further diminish our compliance with ICAO
standards, and lower aviation safety standards in Australia, rather than raise them as should
be the function of aviation safety regulatory reform.

Raising the establishment and disestablishment thresholds for ARFF provision will further
delay the establishment of ARFF at airports where large passenger aircraft are routinely
landing and taking off with more than 150 passengers on board. Any day, something
unpredictable can cause one of them to overshoot a runway, placing every one of those lives
at risk. Without the means immediately at hand to apply appropriate quantities of fire
retardant foam within 2-3 minutes, all lives may be lost in what would otherwise have been a
survivable situation.

It is not just a problem of delaying the establishment of ARFFs at growing airports. The
DIRD discussion paper’s suggestion that projected passenger movement growth will
effectively preserve the status quo despite the higher establishment / disestablishment
thresholds relies on very optimistic growth estimates. Should these not turn out to be true, the
consequence will not just be a delay in ARFF expansion, but the removal of existing ARFF
services.

In any event, raising these thresholds reflects little commitment to enhancing aviation safety.
Why would increasing traffic volumes not be interpreted as a signal to expand fire and rescue
services, if the preservation of human life was really the policy priority? It is not possible for
policy makers to know that fewer aviation accidents will happen in future, but even if it were,
that would not justify the delayed establishment or removal of ARFF from any airport, since
we certainly cannot know at what airport a future aviation emergency will occur. Their
confidence in asserting that these proposals have negligible risk implications is baseless.

The issue cries out for a public education program explaining how poorly Australian airports
are prepared for aviation emergencies. This lack of public awareness, reflected in the
Braithwaite survey of 2001, has thus far enabled the commercial preoccupations of industry
stakeholders to hold sway, relying on the travelling public having little comprehension of the
risks they are taking in travelling to many major destinations in Australia.

The cavalier attitude that today’s industry players and policy makers show toward our special
reputation as a safe tourism and aviation destination is disappointing. They fail to recognise
the opportunity they have, to build on the enviable safety record they inherited from their
industry’s heavily regulated past, by enhancing the current system’s capacity to manage
future emergencies. Instead they see the safety legacy they inherited as something to cash in
on and risk for short term gain.

The proposed establishment / disestablishment changes are premised on two principal
assumptions. The first is that recent historic gains in aviation technical reliability mean that
safety regulation can and should be reduced if it produces a cost saving. The second is that it
would be possible to determine the probability of an aviation accident occurring at a given
airport. Both of these assumptions are unsustainable.
 
Firstly, we do not know that the past rate of improvement in the aviation accident rate is
indicative of its future course, given emerging challenges. Technological improvements were
relatively ‘low hanging fruit’ as compared to what remains, namely the human and
environmental factors that now constitute the major causes of aviation accidents. The rising
sophistication of technology is now being recognised to be producing new challenges on
many fronts.

Secondly, the literature is consistently sceptical as to the value of modelling the probability of
such rare events, as in the case of a commercial airliner accident occurring at a given
Australian airport. Airport risk assessments can meaningfully model the consequences of a
crash, but not the probability of it occurring at a specific time and place, owing to the relative
scarcity of the event.

If ARFF were to be subject to an airport ‘risk analysis’, where a faux science process claimed
to determine the risk of an accident occurring there, the situation would be ripe for regulatory
capture by the interest groups whose views have appeared to have held sway over this policy
area for decades. It would be prudent to require the auditor-general or similarly trustworthy
office to review any such assessment to establish how much of the analysis was mere
assumption.

If we actually are committed to prioritising passenger safety, and not just saying it, the logical
course is clear. To properly manage an unpredictable catastrophic event that may occur in
one of many possible locations, not knowing the time or place, but knowing its probable
magnitude, we would have to accept a high degree of redundant preparedness, and maintain
the means to respond in many locations. This reflects the ICAO position of ensuring that the
means of mounting an appropriate rescue firefighting response exists at all certified airports.
On the other hand, if our commitment to passenger safety is more verbal than actual, we
would probably view any redundant safety capacity as an opportunity for cost rationalisation.

It is our contention that Australia’s long term economic interests are far better served by
investing in a program of expanded ARFF protection, to leave the next generation an
enhanced aviation safety legacy that will continue to underpin the attractiveness of our
tourism and aviation industries in an increasingly unsafe world.

To this end we propose the adoption of the funding model similar to that recommended by
the 2003 regional aviation review, whereby a modest standard charge be added to the price of
every air ticket to fund (eventually) universal ARFF provision.

This should be achieved over time through a staged program, aimed at eventually making all
certified airports fully compliant with the ICAO, beginning with category 6 airports, then
category 5, etc.

For smaller airports with low volumes of traffic, combinations of retained and volunteer
firefighters could be utilised, depending on the amount of air traffic, as with fire management
regimes elsewhere in Australia. Airservices, or a dedicated national ARFF service, could be
responsible for delivering services, and training and equipping services operating on a small
scale.

By these means, the quality of Australian airport emergency response capability could then
become a proud national feature, not the guilty secret it has been allowed to become.
In the absence of such a strategy, and should the recommendations of the DIRD discussion
paper be adopted, certified airports that are without the capability to respond to an aviation
accident within ICAO parameters should be clearly identified to the travelling public with a
different certification designation. It is otherwise a clear betrayal of the trust that the
travelling public place in Australian aviation to allow them to believe such services are in
place when they are not.

Still reading but I am surmising that the content of the UFUA/UNSW submission will be an updated version of the above submission... Rolleyes

MTF? - Yes definitely...P2  Cool
Reply

2016 a very good year; for the grapes of wrath to be sown.

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”

I don’t care who reads this – HERE – so long as they do and be sure to brief, carefully and fully, any Senator, Minister, Back-bench layabout or even the PM himself. Just be sure to read it carefully, comprehend the messages and for Ducks sake; speak up and help put an end to the greatest con game ever perpetrated – the myth of ‘Australian Air Safety’. It is a racket, an endless bucket into which politicians of all stripes throw money in order to avoid responsibility for the well being of Australians who travel by air. A protection racket; sponsored and paid for by the very folk who rely, daily, on the government to act responsibly when ensuring that at very least, Australians, not the departments, benefit from the huge expense involved in pretending to  be ICAO compliant.

CASA insist on ‘black letter law’ compliance with every piece of aviation folly they dream up and foist on the industry as ‘law’ – writ by experts. Nothing could be further from the truth for them. You don’t need to believe me – just read the carefully researched, accurately presented, unbiased evidence based report provided - by real ‘experts’ - without an axe to grind. Grounded, independent intellectual study of just the facts, and the ways they are slithered around by the ungodly.

When you add the report to the ANO audit of ATSB, the Senate inquiry into Pel-Air, the dismissal of the Forsyth report as opinion and the clumsy, fumbling often derailed Senate Estimates questions – a very dark, dirty, carefully hidden secret is revealed.

The sacred cow of ‘safety’ was not only clandestinely slaughtered on the alter of KPI; but everyone involved had a good steak dinner afterwards (plus doggy bag) – and some left overs for the freezer.

Disgusting, deceitful and borderline criminal behaviour IMO. Anyway – FWIW and for what good it'll do you – take the time to read through the report – here’s a sample: an appetiser if you will. Sacred cow; served cold, regrettably, the gravy has been diverted to other, more important plates.

“Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. ”

“If DIRD was serious about  applying best practice regulatory systems then they should be
suggesting the establishment passenger benchmark should be lowered to 180,000 passengers (pax) rather than increasing it to 500,000 (refer to Attachment A: Overseas Practice). Australia has already been  identified  by  ICAO  as  failing  to  meet  international  obligations by not  having  ARFFS established at all Australian certified airports. The filing of differences identifies that Australia has failed to comply with ICAO SARPS. Further, Australia committed to review current 139H regulations and address the lack of compliance with any amendments necessary as part of the corrective actions proposed under ICAO’s USOAP (refer to Attachment A: Overseas Practice).

DIRD are proposing that the passenger benchmark be increased by 150,000

(almost the trigger for the establishment of an ARFFS in ICAO compliant countries)

and linking it to a 4% increase in the 90% POB determination to 94% despite previously stating –

“The percentage of overall passenger numbers (for a benchmark of 90 per cent or 95 per cent of passengers in transport flights at all Australian airports) was discounted as a viable measure on the basis that such arbitrary method of determination could likely result in some airports with similar risk profiles required to have an ARFFS where others may not.”

[Image: D2E_DsRWoAEc_Lo.jpg]

Toot – toot. MTF - a racing certainty.
Reply

Dear Senator’s Right hand man.

Should you be sat on an aircraft; or parked in the terminal awaiting departure, consider the men and women you see dressed in a pilot’s uniform. They are; or used to be, all trained and qualified in Australian flying schools and had a justifiable record of being ‘top drawer’.

A couple of these fellahin got together and looked at ‘the wall’ – four long, three high, covered in the paperwork required under the new regulation Part 61; to obtain the basic pilot licence. There are only a few pages and lots of photographs in ‘the Missive’. It is a plea for sanity, clear evidence of the lunacy inflicted on flight training and well worth the time taken to read.


Toot toot.
Reply

(03-29-2019, 07:22 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Dear Senator’s Right hand man.

Should you be sat on an aircraft; or parked in the terminal awaiting departure, consider the men and women you see dressed in a pilot’s uniform. They are; or used to be, all trained and qualified in Australian flying schools and had a justifiable record of being ‘top drawer’.

A couple of these fellahin got together and looked at ‘the wall’ – four long, three high, covered in the paperwork required under the new regulation Part 61; to obtain the basic pilot licence. There are only a few pages and lots of photographs in ‘the Missive’. It is a plea for sanity, clear evidence of the lunacy inflicted on flight training and well worth the time taken to read.


Toot toot.

Speaking of the good Senators, the program for next week's Senate Estimates has been published... Rolleyes 


Quote:2019–20 Budget estimates
Thursday, 4 April 2019
Agriculture and Water Resources—Senator Colbeck
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities—Senator McKenzie

Monday, 8 April 2019
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities—Senator McKenzie

Tuesday, 9 April 2019
Agriculture and Water Resources—Senator Colbeck

Program for 4 to 9 April 2019 (PDF 47KB)
  
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Not our Indaba – however.

AMAS v RRAT. Round 1.

No video of this hit out; the Hansard is published, about 20 pages of solid reading to plough through. Nothing whatsoever to with matters aeronautical – but of interest as a guide to what we may expect when CASA gets a turn. I know not many will read the Hansard – but for me it was (a) a required task and (b) it provides an insight to how Government agencies ‘think’ and operate; so in that sense, valuable. However, I have selected a few passages of play which reflect the Committee’s mood – in the matter being discussed. The session should be a wake up call for the ASA, ATSB and CASA, IMO there is a push on to upset the cosy, easy going attitude in which these agencies have cocooned themselves for far too long. It could just be that that the insulation against serious questioning, with venom is failing and the isolated splendour of ‘Safety’ as an endless trough is ending. We can only hope. Brockman, Gallacher, Patrick and Sterle were not there to kill spiders; it was good work by a fine team. Some of Glenn Sterle’s bowling is worth a few minutes, the closing remarks in particular.

Anyway – FWIW:–

ACTING CHAIR: because we're going to be back here, guaranteed—safer bet than Winx. Colleagues, if you want to have a chat outside, we can suspend for a minute and have a chat.

Mr Kinley: Thanks, Senator. I would like to make a short opening statement. But, before I do that, we did, of course, listen to the hearings in Perth for this inquiry. I would like to say that we apologise for not doing better in keeping our communications open with Mrs Nicole Mills. We did listen, in particular, to her evidence, and we will certainly do better in future. We will follow up on her suggestion to nominate a contact officer in such cases as this. What I do need to work out is what would be the appropriate training for our officers to be able to handle those sorts of issues properly and sensitively.

Prosecuting matters under the national law though remains complex and difficult, and AMSA recently met with the CDPP to discuss these ongoing issues. One matter we will be seeking legislative amendments for is to allow at least two years to commence proceedings rather than the one year now allowed under the Crimes Act for offences warranting less than six months imprisonment. We also suggest that the offences under the act be examined to consider if they're adequate for a matter involving a fatality. In this regard I would draw the committee's attention to the uncommenced amendments to the national law act that were intended to align the act with the health and safety laws with similar offences and penalties.

ACTING CHAIR: If you want to overrule me, that's fine. We'll do a count very quickly. I want everything on the record. We have deaths that have not been investigated by this mob, and all we've seen—you can smile as much as you like, Mr McKenzie, and whisper in your mate's ear or whatever you want to do. You people really are on the verge—I tell you: if I was the minister, none of you would even be sitting here unless you started owning up to whose incompetence led to this.

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Kinley, I'll talk to you, as the CEO, about what we have learnt recently in your term as the CEO, taking over under the national law. What brought this to our attention was the very unfortunate death of Mr Mills. As I said earlier, we're not going to stop here, because we know there have been so many more. For the families out there I'm going to mention Glen Wilson; Ryan Donohue; Ian Thompson; Paul McVeigh; Leila Trott; Murray Turner; Mason Carter; Chad Fairley; Andrew Kelly; Allan Russell; John Rodgers; Matthew Roberts; David Chivers; Martin Cunningham; one person on the Seabring; three people on a night raid, Luke Murray, Daniel Bradshaw and Tim Macpherson; Ben Leahy; Adam Bidner; Adam Hoffman; Zach Feeney; Chris Sammut; Eli Tonks; Harry Evans; Shalina Abdul Hussien plus about twenty more people who I'm not able to name, because no-one seems to collect the information. All these people have been killed on Australian vessels since AMSA took responsibility for the national system in 2013.

After what we learnt about the death of Mr Mills, I have absolutely no confidence that AMSA has done everything that it could have done to secure safety. I've got no confidence about the safety of workers or members of the public on other vessels. You could say that you've inherited a system that is a basket case, poor safety culture—all of that. What I don't understand where the plan is to improve this situation is. Looking at these numbers, they have got to be about the same as, or worse than, other dangerous industries, and it has been a priority industry for focus and action for Safe Work Australia. They have industry plans; they have safety codes of practice. I ask: where is your action and focus? All I see is vessels cobbling together—in my own words—their own safety management systems. I believe a lot of rules are made up, and they put as many people as they like on a vessel. If they don't like the basic rules that are there, I'm told they can go and talk to their mates on the AMSA board and get an exemption. When they do get in trouble or someone is killed, in my view, AMSA looks the other way.

I looked at your annual report hoping to find something to indicate that you have a plan. I'll talk about the chairman's report. I see that you have a new computer system, that there are plans to maintain your workforce, to deal with oil spills, for ship-sourced garbage, for new navigation systems, and that there have been important meetings in London. There is nothing about fatalities until you get to page 54. On page 54 it tells me that there were nine fatalities just last year, and this is not a huge industry. This was in your KPIs, coded amber, which I saw on page 12 is classified by AMSA as a 'minor' issue. There's nothing in there about what you're going to do to fix it. On page 23 it says that operators will be encouraged to take responsibility for safety outcomes. I can tell you all that that's not a plan to save people; that's a plan for more deaths, like the unfortunate death of Mr Mills.

People are dying and it looks to me like no-one is held accountable and, worse, no-one thinks that it's a problem that should be fixed. I hope that you're not willing to look the other way. I believe the minister has been trying to look the other way—that's my view, not the committee's—but I'm not going to look the other way and I know that the committee won't either. Election or no election, as I said earlier, we will get to the bottom of this. We will be looking at your marine orders, your legislation and your operation—everything that you do or don't do—and we will fix this. I'll leave it at that.

That concludes today's hearing. With the approval of my colleagues, we've set 15 April for questions on notice. Thank you very much.

Toot – toot….
Reply

(04-03-2019, 08:05 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Not our Indaba – however.

AMAS v RRAT. Round 1.

No video of this hit out; the Hansard is published, about 20 pages of solid reading to plough through. Nothing whatsoever to with matters aeronautical – but of interest as a guide to what we may expect when CASA gets a turn. I know not many will read the Hansard – but for me it was (a) a required task and (b) it provides an insight to how Government agencies ‘think’ and operate; so in that sense, valuable. However, I have selected a few passages of play which reflect the Committee’s mood – in the matter being discussed. The session should be a wake up call for the ASA, ATSB and CASA, IMO there is a push on to upset the cosy, easy going attitude in which these agencies have cocooned themselves for far too long. It could just be that that the insulation against serious questioning, with venom is failing and the isolated splendour of ‘Safety’ as an endless trough is ending. We can only hope. Brockman, Gallacher, Patrick and Sterle were not there to kill spiders; it was good work by a fine team. Some of Glenn Sterle’s bowling is worth a few minutes, the closing remarks in particular.

Anyway – FWIW:–

ACTING CHAIR: because we're going to be back here, guaranteed—safer bet than Winx. Colleagues, if you want to have a chat outside, we can suspend for a minute and have a chat.

Mr Kinley: Thanks, Senator. I would like to make a short opening statement. But, before I do that, we did, of course, listen to the hearings in Perth for this inquiry. I would like to say that we apologise for not doing better in keeping our communications open with Mrs Nicole Mills. We did listen, in particular, to her evidence, and we will certainly do better in future. We will follow up on her suggestion to nominate a contact officer in such cases as this. What I do need to work out is what would be the appropriate training for our officers to be able to handle those sorts of issues properly and sensitively.

Prosecuting matters under the national law though remains complex and difficult, and AMSA recently met with the CDPP to discuss these ongoing issues. One matter we will be seeking legislative amendments for is to allow at least two years to commence proceedings rather than the one year now allowed under the Crimes Act for offences warranting less than six months imprisonment. We also suggest that the offences under the act be examined to consider if they're adequate for a matter involving a fatality. In this regard I would draw the committee's attention to the uncommenced amendments to the national law act that were intended to align the act with the health and safety laws with similar offences and penalties.

ACTING CHAIR: If you want to overrule me, that's fine. We'll do a count very quickly. I want everything on the record. We have deaths that have not been investigated by this mob, and all we've seen—you can smile as much as you like, Mr McKenzie, and whisper in your mate's ear or whatever you want to do. You people really are on the verge—I tell you: if I was the minister, none of you would even be sitting here unless you started owning up to whose incompetence led to this.

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Kinley, I'll talk to you, as the CEO, about what we have learnt recently in your term as the CEO, taking over under the national law. What brought this to our attention was the very unfortunate death of Mr Mills. As I said earlier, we're not going to stop here, because we know there have been so many more. For the families out there I'm going to mention Glen Wilson; Ryan Donohue; Ian Thompson; Paul McVeigh; Leila Trott; Murray Turner; Mason Carter; Chad Fairley; Andrew Kelly; Allan Russell; John Rodgers; Matthew Roberts; David Chivers; Martin Cunningham; one person on the Seabring; three people on a night raid, Luke Murray, Daniel Bradshaw and Tim Macpherson; Ben Leahy; Adam Bidner; Adam Hoffman; Zach Feeney; Chris Sammut; Eli Tonks; Harry Evans; Shalina Abdul Hussien plus about twenty more people who I'm not able to name, because no-one seems to collect the information. All these people have been killed on Australian vessels since AMSA took responsibility for the national system in 2013.

After what we learnt about the death of Mr Mills, I have absolutely no confidence that AMSA has done everything that it could have done to secure safety. I've got no confidence about the safety of workers or members of the public on other vessels. You could say that you've inherited a system that is a basket case, poor safety culture—all of that. What I don't understand where the plan is to improve this situation is. Looking at these numbers, they have got to be about the same as, or worse than, other dangerous industries, and it has been a priority industry for focus and action for Safe Work Australia. They have industry plans; they have safety codes of practice. I ask: where is your action and focus? All I see is vessels cobbling together—in my own words—their own safety management systems. I believe a lot of rules are made up, and they put as many people as they like on a vessel. If they don't like the basic rules that are there, I'm told they can go and talk to their mates on the AMSA board and get an exemption. When they do get in trouble or someone is killed, in my view, AMSA looks the other way.

I looked at your annual report hoping to find something to indicate that you have a plan. I'll talk about the chairman's report. I see that you have a new computer system, that there are plans to maintain your workforce, to deal with oil spills, for ship-sourced garbage, for new navigation systems, and that there have been important meetings in London. There is nothing about fatalities until you get to page 54. On page 54 it tells me that there were nine fatalities just last year, and this is not a huge industry. This was in your KPIs, coded amber, which I saw on page 12 is classified by AMSA as a 'minor' issue. There's nothing in there about what you're going to do to fix it. On page 23 it says that operators will be encouraged to take responsibility for safety outcomes. I can tell you all that that's not a plan to save people; that's a plan for more deaths, like the unfortunate death of Mr Mills.

People are dying and it looks to me like no-one is held accountable and, worse, no-one thinks that it's a problem that should be fixed. I hope that you're not willing to look the other way. I believe the minister has been trying to look the other way—that's my view, not the committee's—but I'm not going to look the other way and I know that the committee won't either. Election or no election, as I said earlier, we will get to the bottom of this. We will be looking at your marine orders, your legislation and your operation—everything that you do or don't do—and we will fix this. I'll leave it at that.

That concludes today's hearing. With the approval of my colleagues, we've set 15 April for questions on notice. Thank you very much.

Toot – toot….

P2 Addendum: Sic'em Rex & Barry O'Bfuscation tag team undersecretary to Home Affairs:  https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Quote:Senator O'SULLIVAN: To capture this—tell me if I'm wrong—there has been no economic impact assessment done of the implications of the pending regulation on this cohort of airports that would assist this table to determine the impact on the local economy and the social implications of that, the impact on the cost of the operation of the airport and the impact on the travelling public?

Ms Langford : I can certainly say that, in terms of security, we've done the analysis. I can't say what my colleagues elsewhere in government have done in terms of the other analysis.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I didn't bring security into that question. It's nothing to do with security. I'm particularly exercised about this because, sadly for committee members, we've sat in the lounge rooms of the people who are going to be impacted by this. In some of these provincial airports you will get the ultimate security outcome, because the services will be terminated. That would have been quite predictable had anyone taken the time to have a look at the cost and the economic and social impacts of a decision of government. But it would seem to me we're driving this the other way. It really doesn't matter what those things are. We accept now that we don't know what they are. We don't, and you don't. The legislator and the regulator do not know. I don't know. We haven't been able to find out off anyone. But, despite that, we will make rule and we will follow it through. These impacts will occur. That's what we're dealing with, Ms Langford. That's what we're dealing with.

I have to tell you, I probably won't be in the parliament when the time comes. I am a member of the government. I would move a disallowance motion on some of these where I'm satisfied that it's going to impact on the public and where I'm satisfied that particular services are going to terminated because of it. I really think your department ought to have a thorough look at this. You should pick a couple of samples and see what the impacts are.

Senator PATRICK: I will just add to that. I will just put to you that this is what Qantas told this committee in Darwin:
Like all of the costs we've talked about, airport charges and others, on relatively marginal routes, there is always a tipping point. In the South Australian market, where we operate two Dash 8 Q300 50-seaters to Port Lincoln, Whyalla and Kangaroo Island, the impost of additional security charges to the level that you have described we think would be critical, in that it would move us beyond the tipping point of viability and put those services at risk.
I can also read from Rex airlines, who made a similar statement in Mount Gambier.

… if then the overhead of the company has to be carried by half of the routes, then that starts to make those viable ones suddenly unviable because the overhead is going to be a heavier burden on them.
They are talking about circumstances where, as it turns out, in some places the security charge is made even though they have a 34-seat aircraft. That's what we're staring down the barrel of. We're staring down the barrel of airlines saying they will shut down routes. Even when they don't, we have heard evidence that it will cause costs to go up that will decrease the amount of travel and it will affect access to travel.

As a South Australian senator, reading what Qantas has said—and they are going to provide the committee with more evidence—I will be in the next parliament and I will move a disallowance, in which case you're going to have to come up with the good reasons why you wish to do this. It appears to me that it hasn't been done yet. None of this has been done. I will be shouting from the inside of the chamber as loudly as I possibly can that this is going to affect regional communities and, on your own evidence, you haven't even considered those effects.  Big Grin

Ms Langford : No. We have considered the effects. That is why the contribution is being made in relation to supporting equipment purchases. Clearly, our responsibility is to ensure that the travelling public is secure. In establishing what the travelling public needs to be secure, there is a cost associated. We are very conscious of it, but we haven't capriciously put in place or proposed settings that we don't think are absolutely necessary to keep the public secure...

and on..and on until -  Wink


Senator O'SULLIVAN: But it's not your brief or the brief of your department actively at the moment to look at ways to relieve those economic impacts, even if you knew what they were. No-one is in the back room; you don't have a team going: 'Righto, the big fellas up the front are getting the security in place. It's our job to see that it doesn't have a negative economic impact on Charleville, Port Macquarie or Port Augusta.'

Ms Langford : It's certainly our job to work with those airports to make sure that we give them as much good advice as we can about standing up this sort of arrangement.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: What are the names of your public servants who are working on a model to alleviate these particular economic impacts on local authorities, airport operations and airlines in these provincial centres? What are the names of your staff who are tasked with that? That'll clear this up. I suspect you're going to tell me that there are none.

Ms Langford : We have an aviation security branch that has staff in it who are responsible for delivering this policy in the broad, and that includes working—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: We got that, and thank you for that. That was a given. How many of those staff—do you—

CHAIR: You're going to need a valium, Senator.  Big Grin

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, I've only got a week to go in this bastard of a job and I'm trying to behave myself. Is there anybody looking to develop measures within your department that will alleviate the economic impacts of this policy on small provincial airports such as Charleville?

Ms Langford : We're operating under a broader government policy which has been in place for a long time, where there is occasionally the option to provide capital funding, but, once we start to get into that operational funding space, it's outside our policy framework.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: Ms Langford, I promise you—

Senator PATRICK: So the answer, therefore, is no?

Ms Langford : Correct.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That's right—no. It took us an hour, but that's it.
Reply

WARNING ELECTION IMMINENT! - Barry O racks the RRAT cue... Rolleyes

With the calling of an election imminent, Barry O'Bfuscation was obviously tasked by the Govt with wrapping up RRAT budget estimates as quickly as possible. This didn't stop Carmody Capers passing up the opportunity to a) gloat over his grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX in Australia and b) his win over Angel Flight in the Federal court... Dodgy  

What a despicable trough feeding, fat cat bureaucrat using SAFETY as a big stick to ram home the unfettered power CASA has to squash any and all dissidents that dare to speak up or challenge their status quo - UFB!  Angry

However there is a light for it would seem that Senator Patrick, who is not up for election, is not inclined to unfurl the white flag on the attempted bollocks Angel Flight embuggerance just yet - choccy Angel for that man... Wink





MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(04-05-2019, 07:43 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  WARNING ELECTION IMMINENT! - Barry O racks the RRAT cue... Rolleyes

With the calling of an election imminent, Barry O'Bfuscation was obviously tasked by the Govt with wrapping up RRAT budget estimates as quickly as possible. This didn't stop Carmody Capers passing up the opportunity to a) gloat over his grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX in Australia and b) his win over Angel Flight in the Federal court... Dodgy  

What a despicable trough feeding, fat cat bureaucrat using SAFETY as a big stick to ram home the unfettered power CASA has to squash any and all dissidents that dare to speak up or challenge their status quo - UFB!  Angry

However there is a light for it would seem that Senator Patrick, who is not up for election, is not inclined to unfurl the white flag on the attempted bollocks Angel Flight embuggerance just yet - choccy Angel for that man... Wink



Hansard now out: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Also of interest McKenzie & the AMSA crowd still in Senator Sterle's sights... Confused 







MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Balloon flying – AMSA style.

Watch the faces and body language of the AMSA crew – Part 1 - above - at 0:08 the change when Sterle asks Ms Dean to step up. Sterle gets busy and the tension is palpable. The crew holding the balloon strings are loosing ground, in danger of floating away– they need an anchor point – fast type – now-now.

They drag Marsh off the bench who, being a light weight, will clearly need an anchor of is own. The whole thing is getting away. Watch carefully behind Marsh; at 05:08 the team coach gives McKenzie a nudge and sends him onto the paddock; he could see disaster looming. Enter McKenzie - now the balloon is anchored.

It would be fun to play Poker with Marsh – but you’d have to give him is money back at the end of the game – not so much McKenzie. In fact you’d have to give him man of the match. Sterle was on a mission – no doubt about it – probably still is, and more power to him. But and it is a significant ‘but’ there is a mile of ‘legal’ spaghetti to untangle. Although Sterle was in no mood to listen, McKenzie did try to explain what the ‘defence’ team would kick seven bells out of in court.

As Grand Papa used to say – there are two ends to a plank.

Anyway – what the hell has AMSA to do with ‘criminal’ activity. If there was a suspicion of a serious crime; surely the right folk to deal with that would be the Police. Sure AMSA could start the ball rolling – provide such evidence as they can muster and hand the whole thing over to ‘law enforcement’ who do that stuff all day, every day, Hiundai. The ‘law’ could then hand it over to the CDPP, who would bring the case to court. AMSA ain’t equipped to do that, nor should they be expected to do that. They did have enough ‘minor’ offences racked up to start the ball rolling and, that would greatly assist in any prosecution the CDPP and the Police thought worthwhile. IMO McKenzie tried to point this out – alas.

No matter, AMSA’s balloon survived the session – this time. But, MTF methinks.

There, my two bob spent as pleased me best. Back to my knitting.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Attention all Fairy Tale Creatures – Senators included..

“AAAA back at TAAAF today” – says Phil Hurst - CEO of Aerial Application.  

Lots of acronyms in aviation, TAAAF is

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum is an alliance of the majority of Australia’s major aviation associations to ensure the industry presents a united voice to government on key aviation issues and policy, characterised by expertise and a wide representation of people and organisations committed to aviation.

In theory, this is a very good organisation and worthy of support. The latest offering, released just before the election is – or; at least should be a wonderful thing; if it does not get diluted or lost endless discussion and/ or shape shifts through compromise and morphs into yet another ‘opinion’ consigned to the shelf ware dungeon.

TAAAF wants to see the lapsed Civil Aviation Amendment Bill re-introduced to parliament with amendments that bring about legislative changes to CASA.”

 Amendments that address safety issues and High Court challenges to the primacy of the Civil Aviation Act
•  addition of cost and sector risk approaches
•  CASA board to have full powers over strategy, operation and administration
•  CASA board to be comprised of people with relevant and significant aviation experience
•  Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) to be ex-officio member of the board
•  revision of CEO/DAS position to increase accountability to the board
•  establishing formal consultation with peak aviation bodies.

It will take some determination and a truck load of political support to get all of the above executed in a timely manner – big job; impossible odds and it will not be a clean race; the opposition ferocious. The TAAAF team will need more than good luck to pull off a win. On the plus side of the ledger – Phil Hurst is no mans fool and knows how the world wags – if he is prepared to back the proposal then there is no excuse for the rest of this benighted industry not to wake up, get behind it and for once get vocal – even if it’s just to keep ‘em honest.

Aunt Pru is determined to follow and support every whip and stitch of this effort – despite some misgivings, for the proposal has merit and could be the salvation of an industry slowly sinking into a deep mire.

It is time for petty grievances and ego’s to be put aside and every Alphabet outfit, no matter how one eyed to get in behind this push; support it, and make sure the whole process is conducted in a timely manner. If and it’s an IF the size of Everest – these changes can be made real, there is real hope for the industry. I can’t let it go without a reality fix – there is an extensive history which defines a long, long list of proposed reform measures; long gone to dust without effecting one change of any significance; I cite Forsyth and the Senate Recommendations on the Pel-Air debacle as the most recent.

No matter – its up to the ‘Silent Majority’ to speak up in support of this proposal – loud and long. It may well be the last chance -

Toot – toot.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)