Senate Estimates - 2017-18.

Air Routes Inquiry recommendations? - A wet lettuce dressing.

Via the North West Star:

Quote:JUNE 8 2019 - 10:54AM

Airline Inquiry hands down nine recommendations

Derek Barry

[Image: r0_482_4928_3264_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]

The Senate Inquiry meets in Cloncurry 2018.

Almost two years after it formed the Senate Inquiry committee has handed down its final report but it seems cheaper flights seem as far away as ever for people in North West Queensland.

The Inquiry into "the operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities" has handed down nine recommendations, including, wait for it, a call for another inquiry.

The first recommendation is for the federal government to direct the Productivity Commission to undertake a standalone, public inquiry into domestic airfares on routes to and between regional centres in Australia.

"The inquiry should, via a detailed economic analysis, investigate the feasibility of increasing operational subsidies and introducing other price control alternatives to address the high cost of regional airfares," the Inquiry said.

"The inquiry should consult with regional communities to determine whether additional routes should be subject to regulation."

They also recommended the Productivity Commission expand its terms of reference the economic regulation of airports, to investigate the social and economic impacts of air route supply and airfare pricing on rural, regional and remote Australia.

Other recommendations including looking at the increasing costs of security screening at regional airports, a reviewing the funding of regional and remote aerodrome infrastructure and maintenance, asking COAG to develop a nationally consistent framework for regulated routes across Australia.

The one recommendation that did actually address fare prices was also for COAG to "leverage each state's purchasing power...to expand access for regional communities to initiatives such as community and compassionate fares, particularly for 'last minute' flights".

[Image: r0_482_4928_3264_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
Hamish Griffin gives evidence to the inquiry in Cloncurry.


The committee said the framework should be developed in consultation with airlines to encourage greater transparency around the operation of such fares, and consider the feasibility of allowing residents in regional, rural and remote areas to access subsidised airfares through online purchasing.

The inquiry noted the committee received considerable evidence from the residents of Mount Isa and other regional Queensland centres.

The inquiry heard sessions in Cloncurry and Mount Isa and also heard from the major airlines including Qantas.

Cloncurry cheaper fares advocate Hamish Griffin said he was disappointed there was no recommendation for more regulated routes or capped fares.

"If I can find any positives in the findings would be additional funding for security services in regional airport which I hope would see less pass through costs to passengers and a call for some transparency in current regulated routes and the rendering process," Mr Griffin said.

"I call on the Queensland Labor Government to make public their reports on regulated routes in regional Australia."

Via the Senate:

Quote:Report

The operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities
7 June 2019

© Commonwealth of Australia 2019
ISBN 978-1-76010-979-0

View the report as a single document - (PDF 1MB)



Committee Secretariat contact:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600 

Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
Fax: +61 2 6277 5811
[email=rrat.sen@aph.gov.au]rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

[/email]


Quote:Recommendation 1
10.36 The committee recommends that the Australian Government direct the Productivity Commission to undertake a standalone, public inquiry into the determinants of domestic airfares on routes to and between regional centres in Australia. The inquiry should, via a detailed economic analysis, investigate the feasibility of increasing operational subsidies and introducing other price control alternatives to address the high cost of regional airfares. The inquiry should consult with regional communities to determine whether additional routes should be subject to regulation. The Productivity Commission should use its compulsory information-gathering powers to inform its investigations.

Recommendation 2
10.37 The committee recommends that the Australian Government direct the Productivity Commission to expand its terms of reference in all future reports into the economic regulation of airports, to include investigations into the social and economic impacts of air route supply and airfare pricing on rural, regional and remote Australia.

Recommendation 3
10.63 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Council of Australian Governments, review the efficacy of Western Australia's Strategic Airport Asset and Financial Management Framework in 2022, in accordance with the suggestion of the Productivity Commission. The Government should assess the efficacy of the Framework and determine its suitability for application across all jurisdictions.

Recommendation 4
10.74 The committee recommends that the Australian Government complete, as a matter of priority, a financial analysis to determine the ongoing operational, maintenance and staffing costs of proposed passenger security screening enhancements at regional airports, as announced in the 2018–19 Budget. The analysis should further consider ongoing security costs at regional airports more broadly.

Recommendation 5
10.75 The committee recommends that following a financial analysis into the ongoing costs of the provision of security screening at regional airports, the Australian Government consider providing ongoing financial assistance to those regional airports which have been identified as requiring passenger security screening enhancements as part of the 2018–19 Budget, where required.

Recommendation 6
10.86 The committee recommends that over the forward estimates, the Australian Government ensure the ongoing operation and funding of the Regional Aviation Access Programme and its component programs (the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Programme, Remote Air Services Subsidy Scheme and the Remote Aerodrome Inspection Programme).

Recommendation 7
10.87 The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake a review into the funding of regional and remote aerodrome infrastructure and maintenance, to ascertain whether financial support to such aerodromes should be increased, and whether the current grants programs are the best means of financial assistance. Local councils, as airport operators, should be consulted as part of the review to determine the annual financial impact on councils of aerodrome operation and maintenance.

Recommendation 8
10.96 The committee recommends the Transport Ministers of the Council of Australian Governments develop a nationally consistent framework for the tender process, implementation, operation and review of regulated routes in each jurisdiction. The framework should have a particular focus on improving the overall transparency of the operation of regulated routes. In developing the framework, affected communities should be consulted, particularly in jurisdictions where regulated routes are identified as being beneficial to the provision of regional air services.

Recommendation 9
10.105 The committee recommends the Transport Ministers of the Council of Australian Governments develop a nationally consistent framework which, by leveraging each state's purchasing power, aims to expand access for regional communities to initiatives such as community and compassionate fares, particularly for 'last minute' flights. The framework, which should be developed in consultation with airlines, should encourage greater transparency around the operation of such fares, and consider the feasibility of allowing residents in regional, rural and remote areas to access subsidised airfares through online purchasing.

P9 – Comment.
 
Recommendation 10 1/2
 
The IOS committee recommends the Transport Ministers of the Council of Australian Governments take a long, hard, close look at the fantastic cost, incredible operational hurdles unbelievable amount of time required and the unrealistic ‘administrative’ costs–all sanctioned and approved by government, through the CASA of establishing ‘competition’ on the routes in question. Acknowledging that the uncertainty of gaining approval and continuance of operation is the biggest disincentive for investment in local competition.


One bureaucrat to the other bureaucrat on announcement of the 9 Senate Inquiry recommendations: "Fancy some Wet Lettuce mayo with that smashed Avo sandwich?"  - MTF...P2  Dodgy  
Reply

Old sayings.

One of the reasons ‘old sayings’ and adages are old is because they make sense; reflect truth and common – or garden sense. Since aviation kicked off one adage has stood the test of time. “To make a small fortune out of aviation – start with a large one”. Another is “If it floats, flies or fornicates – rent it”. Nonetheless, some adventurous souls still persist investing time, money and life blood into matters aeronautical; some have even made a return. The most practicable example being American ‘corporate aircraft’. Forbes (must read) have done a much better job of reporting the story than I could on a thriving business model. Sure, the aircraft costs money – lots of – but the business of American business is – business and the doing thereof.

America seems to recognise the importance of 'cost effective'; almost every small town has an airport – at least one. The town fathers realise that in order for the world to come to their village, it must have somewhere to land. Rural communities in Australia nearly all have an airfield of some description – even if it’s only task is to support the Air Ambulance (RFDS). But mostly, the money for the even the upkeep is grudged; the ever tempting developers’ and a quick buck a temptation and the endless whining of those who bought ‘cheap’ near airports about ‘noise’ a further incentive to let the airfield fight it’s own battles.

From a pure ‘business’ perspective many small communities do not have the volume of traffic to tempt established airlines to offer a direct ‘Bush to Big Smoke’ service. Anything much less than an average 60% load, each way, on a round trip is a stone cold looser for the ‘bigger’ aircraft. 10 seats, with six full is a profit. 20 seats with six passengers is unacceptable. On a purely Direct Operating Cost (DOC) basis, which is a fixed, usually ‘per hour’ basis the risks are considerable – in terms of ‘real’ (cash and no bullshit) money loss. So, air ticket cost must reflect the worst case scenario, else there’s no point in running a ‘service’. Dickens’ Mr Micawber said it best.


"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

So what to do?

There are one or two business models which, although not perfect, could resolve some of the puzzle.

In primus, an ‘investor’ must be convinced that monies invested are not only secure but will meet the minimum return negotiated – the higher the perceived risk – the higher that return must be. This, standing alone, is a considerable challenge; many pairs of boots have been worn out tramping to meetings – with ‘the money’ – with nothing to show for the effort except a cobbler's bill and disappointment to carry home. However, for the sake of the exercise – let’s say a Fairy Godmother has miraculously appeared, prepared to stump up the cash. Once the ‘deal’ is done the next question is, inevitably, “when do we start?” Enter the dragon – operational approval. You dare not move without it.

If you carefully and honestly explain the time and the cost of gaining that ‘approval’ the small cloud of dust on the far horizon will be the Fairy Godmother scampering away – cheque book firmly clutched to her bosom. Back to square one. By now you are good mates with the cobbler.

[Image: D1_76vXXcAIugGl.jpg]

At the very top of the ‘cost’ list, from your seed capital is ‘approval’. Aircraft can be purchased easily enough; crew can be found, base facilities are a small, but do’able task, the infrastructure and route support is manageable. In short – without an ‘approval’ you could be up and running within weeks of receiving seed and start up capital, breaking even within months and holding your own within a twelve month. I did say could…….

It is do’able – setting up a small air service; you need to mean it and it’s hard yakka for ‘poor bull’ but with community support and a little luck your investment will pay a small dividend. In shāʾ Allāh

So where’s the big ticket item problem? It begins and ends in the plush offices of your friendly neighbourhood CASA office. Where the very antithesis of good business practice resides and rules supreme. I’m not kidding, the ‘approval’ process is a living, breathing hell spawned daemon. A place where time has no meaning, urgency unheard of, cost a thing of another world; this after many gallons of midnight oil have been burned producing the thousands of pages demanded have been read, examined, returned for correction and returned to you – repeat at least thrice. (Three shall be the counting).



Eventually, the mountain of shelf ware gains tacit approval; the cast and crew exhausted and almost homicidal; it is then the real dragon appears. For up until now you have only shaken the filthy hand of the daemon – enter (stage right) ‘the beast’. Shall we keep the beast a secret from those who have not been initiated? “Yes” say the mob – sotto voce.

Let us leave it that – for once the endless editing and frustration of ‘on paper’ compliance is nearly done – you need to get not only operational, but jump through many fiery hoops – like trying to operate to manufacturer check list and inside aircraft certification; there are many homemade recipes for this; all subjective, without defence and – subject to whim.

So, for those in ‘the bush’ wondering why they only have a slim service on a skinny route, often subsidised; and, no competition to reduce airfares – don’t look to the government for answers; for ‘tis their approved ‘safety’ systems which rules, without check, balance or even a modicum of sanity. Competition is an unrealistic dream; that’s before the major players cut the competition’s nuts off; they can and will (with malice) sustain a loss to keep competition out of the market; with a little help from their friends.

Aye; ‘tis a wicked old world – but: then, it always was. QED.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Shee-it boatmen,

neatly abridged description of the process, but you missed then end game.

Even after running the gambit you have described and driven yourself to distraction after seeing that
glow of light at the end of the tunnel snuff out time and again, when the approving crew get changed
with a whole new set of epiphanies of what "Compliance" entails, or an operational sticking point, where to do what's asked is an obvious no no safety wise, which you must carry responsibility and liability for. No use arguing they are the self anointed experts, you must accept their direction, then pray to the god "Murphy" for redemption.

Even if you manage to remain sane or solvent long enough to get the final tick in the box, that Damocles sword of CAsA remains gently swinging above your neck and can be lowered on a whim if CAsA so desires, "Sovereign Risk" does not apply to aviation and 100% Compliance is impossible under Australian rules.


The following article in the Australian ponders the question of Excessive airfares in Australia, some of the highest in the world. It also ponders the disappearance of air services to rural towns.

I would dearly like to find a study on the cost breakdown of running an air service. Much is made of Airport charges and there are all the other parasitic entities in the trough with them, but what everyone misses is the cost of "Compliance".

Before a wheel even turns there are massive set-up costs that must be amortised, and the ongoing costs are pretty staggering. Australian maintenance rules almost double the cost of maintaining the same aircraft here as opposed to the USA, thats if you can find an engineer these days. Just what percentage of operating cost is taken up with "Compliance"? I think we would all be shocked if we found out.


Quote:Excessive airfares a blight on regions

The World Economic Forum ranked Australia the 12th-most expensive in which to fly, out of 136 countries. 



EAN HIGGINS 

NATIONAL RURAL REPORTER


 


12:00AM JUNE 10, 2019

[Image: 85620664ad079a2ad89b22c9ed9d9ae8]


Airfares to regional Australia are among the highest in the world, and airlines and airports should be compelled to open their books to prove passengers are not being ripped off, a report has found.

The Senate report also found the high cost of regional flying had “a direct and detrimental effec­t on the lived experience of residents of these areas”.

The report reveals that while the government is planning to make more country airports introduce security screening, it has not done any analysis of what this would cost, and says such a study should be done with urgency.

One crossbench senator who participated in the inquiry, South Australia’s Rex Patrick, noted airlines­ had warned that routes to half the regional airports targeted for screening could become finan­cially unviable if the airports had to pay the ongoing labour and equipment costs of up to $1 million, and passed it on to airlines in airport charges.

Senator Patrick, of the Centre Alliance, said the government had blundered in failing to table legislation to extend the screening to more regional airports.

“That also means that the depart­ment never presented that cost to cabinet,” Senator Patrick told The Australian. He intends to put forward a disallowance motion­ to stop the legislation in a bid to force further consideration, and for the government to agree to fund the cost of the proposed extended passenger screening as a national security measure.

The Senate committee report has found many regional Australian airfares are astronomical.

“Despite the volume of passengers in the Australian aviation market, and the importance of commercial air travel in connecting Australians from rural and remote areas to essential services, Australia remains one of the most expensive countries in which to fly,” the report says.

The World Economic Forum ranked Australia the 12th-most expensive in which to fly, out of 136 countries. A study found the cost was $US29.39 per 100km, compared with Malaysia, the cheapest country in which to fly, where it cost $US4.18 per 100km.

“A lack of access to affordable airfares reduces the opportunities for residents to, among other things, attend family events, medical appointments, sporting events or explore and develop business opportunities,” the Senat­e committee report says.

It recommends that the govern­ment ask the Productivity Commission to use its powers to compel parties to provide financial data in “a standalone, public inquiry into the determinants of domestic airfares on routes to and between regional centres”.

The report highlights graphic examples of regional airfares so high that residents are forced to drive thousands of kilometres.

Hamish Griffin, a resident of Cloncurry, Queensland, told the inquiry for him to fly with his wife and son the 800km to Townsville would cost nearly $4800 return.

A doctor in Mount Gambier, South Australia, Richard Try, told the committee intermittent and costly air services meant specialists were less likely to travel there, and observed that a five- to six-hour car journey for ill patients could be onerous.

In one instance, because a flight was cancelled, a patient was forced to drive to Adelaide at 4am with what later turned out to be an undiagnosed life-threatening condition.

The report said the arguments between regional airports and airlines over which was responsible for high airfares was irresolvable, with airlines accusing some airports­ of monopolistic opportunism in their pricing, and airports denying it.

The committee accepted there were many inherent reasons why cost pressures were high in region­al air travel, including smaller economies of scale.

It said it “could not form the view that there was ‘price gouging’ or other market manipulation taking place by airlines operating in regional areas”.
Reply

Welcome to our world of - Who give's a rat's in Can'tberra -  Dodgy

From Ironsider, via the Oz:

Quote:Anger at lack of action on airfares

[Image: 0f20ad2d7d8fbba90eb9d13923696665?width=650]

Emma Harman at Mount Isa. Picture: Ruth Gear

Hopes a Senate inquiry would deliver much-needed relief from exorbitant airfares in regional Australia have been dashed by the final report.

The Rural and Regional ­Affairs and Transport References Committee found airfares to regional Australia were among the highest in the world, to the detriment of residents.

But the high prices were found to be justified by “economies of scale” and the fact the cost of aircraft operations had to be distributed across fewer people.

Mount Isa resident Emma Harman, whose husband Sean died in a car crash she blames on the high cost of airfares on ­regional routes, said the final report was “limp”.

“I’m not sure how they could form the view there wasn’t price gouging (by airlines),” Ms Harman said.

“It looks like price gouging from our perspective as consumers when a 2½-hour flight from Mount Isa to Brisbane costs three or four times as much as a 2½-hour flight from Brisbane to Melbourne.”

She said the recommendation to have the Productivity Commission conduct its own ­inquiry into how domestic fares were determined on regional routes seemed like buck-passing.

“It seems a bit limp and ineffective,” Ms Harman said.

Cloncurry resident Hamish Griffin was hoping to see the ­report recommend more regulated air routes and a cap on airfares.
“There doesn’t seem to be much focus at all on fares in the final report,” Mr Griffin said.

Winton Shire Mayor Gavin Baskett said he was disappointed the Senate committee was “just going to handball” the issue on to the Productivity Commission.

“It’ll just be another round of meetings and discussions. There doesn’t seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel,” he said.

Member for Traeger Robbie Katter, whose seat is based on Mount Isa, said there did not seem to be a political will to tackle the airlines on the issue of exorbitant regional airfares.

“The presumption is the Productivity Commission has more teeth in terms of extracting information from the airlines,
hence that’s a starting point to try and fix the problem,” Mr Katter said of the recommendation for a further inquiry.
MTF...P2  Angry
Reply

Lots of chatter in the press about regional fares.

This from the ABC:

Do airlines price gouge passengers for regional flights?

Senate investigation says no

A national inquiry has found no evidence airlines are price gouging travellers on regional routes.

Key points:

A Senate committee report found airport fees only make up a small portion of airfares
It raised concerns about the burden increased security screening would place on regional airports.
It also suggested international airlines be allowed to fly domestic routes through Darwin Airport on a trial basis

In its final report, a Senate committee that spent more than 18 months investigating air services in regional Australia put the world-topping fares down to genuine market forces and economies of scale.

That is despite numerous reports from travellers like Hamish Griffin who found it would cost $4,800 for his family to fly 800 kilometres from Cloncurry to Townsville and back, or John Pyper who said he was quoted $1,300 each way to fly from Central Australia to Sydney.

"Based on the evidence before it, the committee could not form the view that there was 'price gouging' or other market manipulation taking place by airlines operating in regional areas," the Senate committee report stated.
"While the committee notes that such a finding may frustrate residents who consider that regional airfares are unnecessarily excessive, the extensive evidence put before the committee in this inquiry does not allow such a conclusion to be reached.

Its major recommendation geared at lowering these prices was for airlines to consult with local councils, tourism operators and other stakeholders to better understand possible unmet demand and better tailor services to the needs of local communities.
But, speaking to ABC North West Queensland, committee chair senator Glenn Sterle said the failure to find evidence of price gouging did not mean it was not occurring.

"I could not prove that there was price gouging," Mr Sterle said.

He called on the Federal Government to use its powers to investigate the issue.

"We're now saying very clearly this has got to go further up the ladder," he said.

"The Federal Government has the remit around the aviation industry around Australia. The Federal Government has no desire to step up to the plate and do anything."

Federal Minister for Transport Michael McCormack said the Government would give careful consideration to the Senate committee's recommendations and respond in due course.

Trial lift of aviation cabotage suggested at Darwin.

The committee also suggested giving international airlines the go-ahead to fly domestic routes through Darwin Airport — the nation's closest international airport to Asia — saying lifting aviation cabotage could lower ticket prices for remote commuters.

Aviation cabotage refers to the transport of goods or passengers from two points in one country by a transport operator from another country — which is currently banned in most countries.

While the committee said it would not support removing cabotage restrictions more broadly, it said the Government could trial the idea in a location where suitable infrastructure already exists and where government underwriting costs would not be required.

Northern Territory economic groups have long argued that lifting the restriction in Australia's Top End would increase competition and drop prices for commuters currently forced to fork out for some of the most expensive routes in the country.

Is it really cheaper to fly overseas than to get to another Australian city from Alice Springs?

In turn, they said it could increase tourism and create business opportunities.

"For example, Mr Benjamin Quilliam of Alice Springs saw the lifting of cabotage to be of benefit to Central Australia, particularly if international airlines could fly to Alice Springs, then on to Uluru or another Australian capital," the report noted.

"Mr Quilliam argued that such a measure would increase tourist numbers to central Australia, while introducing competition to the market which could drive down fares for local residents."

However, Australia's major domestic carriers are likely to stand in firm opposition to the idea, with its biggest carrier Qantas claiming it would "destabilise the local aviation market" and would be detrimental to the nation's workforce and economic interests.

"You'll see people cherrypicking certain routes, so you damage the route network and the economics of Australia's competitive aviation sector with foreign carriers," a Qantas spokesperson told the inquiry.

"As we also said in our submission, it eliminates significant numbers of Australian jobs, particularly in the regions, as well as the long-term investment in the market.

Given Qantas has grounded its entire fleet over a union issue in the past, Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner has previously indicated any move to restrict cabotage should be made with caution.

"I think Qantas have shown they're very prepared to play hardball, and we've got to be extremely careful we don't lose Qantas seats into and out of the Territory," he said.

"The pricing's an issue, we've got to keep fighting Qantas on the pricing and get that pricing down, but Qantas is also the best friend to the Territory as well when we look at the number of seats."

Airport charges only 'very small component' of fare

The committee also found that — despite the outcry from airlines — airport charges make up only a small portion of airfares.

There may be half a dozen Asian megacities on Darwin's doorstep, but they are easier to access from airports located 4,000 kilometres south. Why can't Australia's northernmost city be the "Gateway to Asia" it's purported to be?
However, it also conceded that when combined with higher operational costs in regional and remote areas, it could be that airport charges become a more significant contributor to the overall airfare.

The issue has been hotly debated by airlines and airports in the Northern Territory, with last year Qantas allegedly refusing to pay airport charges at Alice Springs and Darwin.

In September last year, Northern Territory Airports claimed Qantas owed it $1.6m for three years worth of unpaid charges at Alice Springs and was "seriously contemplating legal action".

In response, Qantas had claimed the two Territory airports were the most expensive in the country, and called for better regulation to stop airports "charging whatever they want".

However, the recent Senate committee report cited evidence from Northern Territory Airports acting chief executive Tom Ganley, who said airport charges were only a "very small component of the cost of regional airfares".
The company also pointed out that airlines "took all the risks associated with demand" and highlighted that a $70m terminal expansion at Darwin Airport had doubled capacity but there had been virtually no passenger growth for the last five years.

It also said that if demand dropped, airlines could always deploy their planes elsewhere, whereas airports risked ending up with stranded assets.

However, Qantas told the inquiry that airport charges and security costs make up 17 per cent of its operational costs.

The committee also raised concerns about the cost of increased security screening on regional airports.
Senator Rex Patrick — who added his own comments to the end of his committee's report — said the equipment would cost regional airport operators between $530,000 and $760,000 annually for equipment, maintenance and screening staff costs — which would likely be passed onto travellers through increased ticket costs.

But given national security was a Federal Government issue, it said it should be stumping up the funds to cover these costs.

He also said it was strange that the Federal Government had allocated $50.1m for security screening equipment at regional airports, when these extra security measures were not yet legally required.

Senator Patrick also added comments about the issue of pilot shortages, which he said was due to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority suffocating the industry with regulation.
He urged the Australian Government to initiate a "major rewrite" of these rules, in a bid to reverse this trend.
CASA declined to comment.


Northern Territory Airports, Qantas and the Home Affairs Department have been contacted for comment.

Senator Patrick gets it.

Tens of thousands of pages of legislation controlling aviation in Australia against One thousand in the USA.

Comparison of regional airfares in the USA with Australia and one would wonder how can they be so cheap?

Comparison between the USA safety statistics and Australia indicates the US is also a lot safer than Australia, and is improving each year whilst ours remain static. So our miasma of legislation has nothing to do with safety.

The question that should be asked is what percentage of a ticket price is made up of "Compliance" costs.




Reply

As an operator of scheduled passenger services with light twin engine aircraft across Bass Strait to Tassie from Phillip Island (80s and 90s) I can attest that my services would not be possible today. CASA’s nightmare red tape, swinging fees and the requirements to employ discrete personnel, where one could easily fill certain positions, has put paid to the smaller operator who might well be servicing some routes and communities that can’t sustain larger aircraft types. With all the modern navigational equipment, such as virtual or synthetic vision, and superior engine monitoring, there’d be plenty of scope for regional operators if the regulatory environment was even half rational.

CASA will of course baulk at any suggestion about simplification or rational reform of the rules and will trot out the same old ‘safety’ frighteners to deter the Minister. CASA fights to maintain it’s big salaried importance, it’s make work programs, easy working conditions and Winter time escapes to conferences in Queensland or O/S.
I feel for those out in the bush that have lost so much by the destruction of General Aviation. Sadly many senior Can’tberra bureaucrats, all too often arrogant and full of hubris, couldn’t care less.
Reply

Make it happen REX -  Rolleyes

Here's one for the new Senate RRAT committee; today I got an update from the ANAO office with their proposed audits of agencies/entities that full under the Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development portfolio and once again CASA features:


Quote:Administration of regulation by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
POTENTIAL
Potential audit: 2019-20
Portfolio 
Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Entity 
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Contact 
Please direct enquiries through our contact page.
Activity 
Regulation


This audit would examine whether the Civil Aviation Safety Authority administers its legislative and regulatory responsibilities in an efficient and effective manner, consistent with the Australian Government’s Regulator Performance Framework and with other relevant standards and better practice principles.
 
Maybe it is about time that the Senators make this happen?  Shy

Especially when you consider the seriously sinister upcoming introduction of Part 149 and the ongoing embuggerance of APTA under the provisons of the dodgy Part 142 - reference the following well written letter from Glen Buckley to St Commode:


Quote:Dear Mr Carmody,

 
Prior to proceeding with the contents of this letter, it is important that I clarify some important matters.
 
The business has been operating for 15 years delivering well intentioned, safe and highly compliant flight training. CASA records will support that contention.
 
Flying schools conducting a practice referred to as ‘sharing an Air Operators Certificate” is a practice that has been going on for many decades within the flight training industry. The practice has been conducted with the full knowledge, consent, and support of CASA. This cannot be refuted.
 
There were deficiencies in those arrangements, as often the organisations operated independently and in their own interests.
 
APTA was the first time in Australia that the deficiencies in the existing practice were addressed. This cannot be refuted, as CASA personnel worked side by side with APTA personnel in designing the purpose built system that we now have. We attended to over 600 CASA requirements, and in fact we were one of the few schools that met the CASA stipulated deadline of September 1 2017. APTA was approved by CASA in April 2017 and has been operating in that format for more than two years. In November 2017, 6 months after we Transitioned, CASA conducted a level one audit (the highest available), and no concerns were raised.
 
At no stage during the process did CASA ever require contracts of us, or in fact any other flying training organisation in Australia. The requirements regarding contracts, is a requirement specifically being placed on APTA. Other operators continue to be exempted from this requirement. I assert that in the last 25 years of the practice of schools sharing AOCs, CASA does not hold any contracts on any other operators. They have chosen not to refute my allegation, because the fact is the CASA requirement is unique to APTA. It is unfair and unjust that you elect to single my Organisation out, and apply conditions to me that you choose not to apply to other operators.
 
Importantly, the use of a contract was an APTA initiative, and at no stage had CASA ever required a contract The contracts were drawn up by lawyers, and have been reviewed on at least 5 occasions since that time by lawyers. APTA and APTA members are satisfied with the contracts that we use. It is only CASA that is not satisfied. It is incumbent on CASA to tell me what you want in the contracts.
 
In October 2018, without any prior warning at all, CASA did a complete reversal of policy and initiated the action that has been continuing for more than 8 months now. The impact of that action on the business, my family, my members and staff has been traumatic. It is a clear breach of many aspects of your own regulatory philosophy.
 
Initially CASA action was not based on contracts, but the action was taken on the basis of 
  1. Aviation Ruling and
  2. Temporary locations procedure.
After approximately two months, CASA admitted that the Aviation Ruling was the incorrect basis to be taking the action and “took the Aviation Ruling off the table”.
CASA also realised that the Temporary locations procedure was in fact their own procedure that they had suggested, helped us design, approved, and in fact they approved bases under the system.  It is ludicrous that you now penalise me and my organisation for the very procedure that CASA in fact suggested.
 
After the CASA confusion was sorted out, they moved to the Latrobe Valley audit results. CASA has ignored 10 requests from me to finalise the allegations made, and they have tried to avoid addressing my concerns. The audit results and the associated process could not be justified, with new allegations arriving many months after you conducted an audit.
 
With the aviation ruling off the table, the temp locations embarrassingly identified as CASAs own procedure, and an inability to back up the allegations of regulatory breaches, CASA moved to the topic of contracts.
 
CASA initially accused us of not having contracts in place. CASA had forgotten they had been provided with contracts on multiple occasions. The topic them changed yet again but this time to a requirement to see signed copies of the contracts which we had, and they were provided to CASA.
 
As nothing appeared to be “sticking” he topic then moved yet again, but now back to the content of the contracts. CASA then provided guidance material on the first occasion that I fully adopted and submitted to CASA. For reasons that I cannot understand, they then rejected the contracts with their own material included.
 
CASA provided a second lot of guidance material, which I fully adopted.  CASA then accepted the second version of the contracts. CASA advised “I have reviewed the draft contract provided this date.  I can confirm the content is acceptable to CASA.  My appreciation to you and your staff for provision of same”, but hours later reversed their position and withdrew the approved contracts. It appeared that nothing could satisfy CASA and I have no doubt that there was a “hidden agenda” and that was driven by Mr Crawford.
 
After approximately 6 months, and a high level of confusion within CASA, they were forced into outsourcing the contract requirement to an outside lawyer. That begs the question. Why would CASA initiate the action back in October 2018? In order to know that something is wrong, you do need to know what is right. CASA obviously didn’t!!! It took over 6 months before CASA had the third lot of guidance material.
 
Eventually a third set of guidance was supplied. CASA advised that it was guidance only and I should use my own terminology, rather than take theirs verbatim. I reviewed that against our contracts and exposition and am satisfied that our current contracts and exposition meet all requirements from their “guidance” material. I have asked CASA to identify any deficiencies and I will attend to them if they provide that information. There is no resistance from me, but I do require clear and concise guidance.
 
Unfortunately another point of confusion exists, as CASA have provided information on our Part 141 operations only, and have not provided any guidance on the Part 142 component, which is the majority of what we do, so until they clarify that, I am unable to move forward. I have made two requests, but they have not been answered.
 
CASA have also stipulated that all personnel must be APTA “employees”. The existing definitions of employees support the APTA model, so I have asked CASA to provide a definition of an employee that meets their requirements for this situation, which I am waiting on.
 
The third lot of guidance material suggests that we need to be assessed on the following. I point out that these are the exact items I attended to with CASA years earlier.
 
  • Suitability of the organisation.
  • Chain of Command in the organisation.
  • The number, qualifications, and competency of personnel.
  • Sufficiency of the facilities.
  • Suitability of the procedures and practices.
  • Suitability of Key Personnel.
  • Full operational control.
  • Compliance with procedures.
  • Capability to comply with legislation.
  • Compliance with directions.
  • Understanding of commitments
  • Access to reference library
  • Standardisation and proficiency checks
  • Ability to remove unsuitable personnel
  • Notification of change of Key Personnel.
  • Maintain a register of instructors.
  • Notification of
  • Provide a copy to all parties of the Operations manual
  • Supervision to ensure compliance with the manual.
  • Audits.
  • Compliance with audit findings.
  • Access to records.
  • Log of all simulator training.
  • List of simulators
  • Information pertinent to aircraft
  • Log of medicals of all personnel
  • Ability of APTA to cancel or suspend the agreement.
 
As all members will be aware we do have all of these systems in place because we actually did exactly this more than two years ago, working with CASA personnel and that is what lead to our approval in April 2017. These were the exact items that I worked on with CASA over a two year period as we designed APTA, and they are the procedures we have been following for over two years.
 
It is obvious that the CASA personnel that I deal with really have no idea about APTA. I have asked CASA to describe to me their understanding of CASA, but they steadfastly refuse to do so. APTA is not confused. The members are not confused, and the personnel are not confused. It is in fact only CASA that is confused. It is CASA that is breaching its obligations placed on it by the Regulatory Philosophy. It is CASA that chose to initiate a complete reversal of policy with no warning, and it is CASA that has bought substantial damage to the business, the members, the staff and to me personally. There are no safety concerns, there are no regulatory breaches, and you cannot direct me to any legislative breaches. I am dealing with the “opinions” of CASA personnel who have displayed unconscionable conduct.
 
The current situation is that CASA will soon decide on continuing operations. I have engaged substantive legal advice, and a failure by CASA to act appropriately, will be met with a class action, and this will be immediately initiated if required. I will be calling on the wider industry and professional organisations to join me in that class action, as my concerns are shared by the wider GA community.
 
The failure of CASA to achieve clear and concise aviation safety standards, the failure of CASA to comply with its own regulatory philosophy, the malpractice of certain CASA individuals, and a flagrant disregard for the PGPA Act, the total disregard for the Ministers Statement of Expectation,  and a complete failure to act in a well-intentioned manner, and a preference to act in a bullying and intimidating manner are in fact the causes of the problems.
 
Quite simply, the confusion exists within CASA. APTA was designed to increase safety, increase regulatory compliance, protect our respective business, and to create jobs. The concept is fully approved by CASA and the complete reversal of policy is not acceptable.
 
CASA has placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that have had enormous consequences, and I emphasise that there are no allegations of safety concerns or regulatory breaches. This entire issue and all of the associated damage to so many businesses and people is truly disgusting and could have been avoided had Will Nuttalls, Brad Lacy, David Jones, and Craig Martin  acted in a well intentioned manner, and adhered to the obligations placed on them, in their roles.
 
Glen Buckley
 
 
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Senate News -  Rolleyes

At a 11:52 am yesterday in Can'terra the Civil Aviation Act amendment Bill was re-introduced into the Senate Wink :

Quote:Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019

Last Updated
04/07/2019
Type
Government
Portfolio
Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
Originating house
Senate
Status
Before Senate
Parliament no
46


PROGRESS OF BILL
Senate Introduced and read a first time

04 Jul 2019
Second reading moved

04 Jul 2019
DOCUMENTS AND TRANSCRIPTS
Text of bill
First reading
Download
Explanatory memoranda
Explanatory memorandum
Download
Proposed amendments
No proposed amendments have been circulated.
Schedule of amendments
No documents at present

Also from the Senate the membership of both RRAT committees appears to be firming up, although at this point in time there is no elected Chairs:

Quote:Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Legislation Committee Membership

Committee Members


References Committee Membership

Committee Members


Member
  
Although it is not mentioned above it would seem that we have that insufferable, time wasting, silly bloody WOFTAM Rice back -  Dodgy 

 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus.../&sid=0038

Quote:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Senator Rice
Participating member: Senator Roberts

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Sic'em REX!

Ref:

(02-09-2018, 11:18 AM)Peetwo Wrote:   "Sic 'em Rex!" - Big Grin

Maybe not entirely PC but having placed a cyber watch on the encouraging progress of Senator Rex (so far), I thought the following 1989 'Antz Pantz' advertisement quite appropriate.. Rolleyes

Via YouTube:


(02-13-2018, 02:46 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  And the legend grows - Shy

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]




 "Sic 'em Rex!" -  Wink


Slight diversion here but IMO it is important... Wink

Via the AFR:

Quote:This is what motivates the 'coalition of the reasonable'
[Image: 77c9959d881628b332d4171c8cde03187f290f40]
Andrew Tillett Political Correspondent


Jul 5, 2019 — 11.00pm

Call it South Australia's and Tasmania's revenge. Long derided as economic laggards and political backwaters, the first week of the new Parliament demonstrated these two states are now enjoying a super-sized role in Canberra's corridors of power and it's one the rest of the country had better get used to.

The government scored a huge victory on Thursday when it secured passage of its $158 billion tax cut package, but it was a triumph that rested in no small part on the amenability of the Senate crossbench – minus One Nation.

[Image: 93511dc6592ccdce33e10d32cf51e879393680e3]


Centre Alliance senators Rex Patrick and Stirling Griff with Senator Jacqui Lambie.  Alex Ellinghausen

And while three cross bench senators – South Australians Rex Patrick and Stirling Griff and Tasmania's Jacqui Lambie – have cemented their importance to this federal government, they are driven by a parochial desire to extract the best deal for their states.

"We have to approach every decision through a South Australian lens," Patrick tells AFR Weekend.

"We're mindful that there are only 10 members in the lower house, including Rebekha [Sharkie, their Centre Alliance colleague] that represent South Australia.

"Jackie's in the same position with only five [Tasmanian] members among the 150.

"So we are very alive to the fact we have to balance out that lack of representation in the lower house. We have to try to use this opportunity, this influence we have, to even the keel a little bit."

Asked whether, from their perches in the Senate, the trio should effectively impose minority rule, Patrick is unapologetic.


"That's the way the Constitution works. We are elected constitutionally by the people of South Australia and I have no problem looking at things through that South Australian lens."

As they started talking turkey with the government over tax cuts, Patrick and Griff quickly zeroed in on the need to lower the cost of gas, which fuels 51 per cent of South Australia's electricity needs.

They did not get a publicly signed, sealed and delivered agreement to reduce gas to a certain price (Patrick has floated a figure of $7 a gigajoule which competitor regulators have told him is possible). What they did get was a timetable for steps the government will take, such as tightening the Domestic Gas Security Mechanism.


"We turbocharged that," Patrick says.

South Australians Griff and Patrick belong to what remains of Nick Xenophon's political machine.  Griff was elected on Xenophon's coat tails at the 2016 double dissolution election while Patrick replaced the party founder when he tried to transfer to state politics.

Patrick emerged as the public face of the tax cut negotiations, in part because of his role as Centre Alliance's energy spokesman, but also because he is comfortable in the media spotlight.

A self-described workaholic, Patrick was born in New Zealand and moved to Australia with his parents and siblings seven years later, spending his formative years in the steel town of Whyalla.

Submarine service

Patrick had the typical bush childhood of his generation, where kids were allowed to roam far and wide and had to make their own fun. One game he played with his older brother and friends was fox hunt, where they would drive around trying to find each other using the signal strength of their CB radios.

It was a precursor to Patrick's time in the navy, which he joined as a 16-year-old. Patrick tells AFR Weekend he wanted to be a radar plotter but was guided towards becoming an electrical technician because he was good at maths and physics.

Patrick volunteered for submarine service early on and says his time under the sea was a useful training ground for life in the Canberra bubble.

"I often say that in order to be a submariner you do a psych test and if you fail, you're in," he says.

"Living on a submarine with 60 other people, as I did on an Oberon for a long period of time, teaches you how to get along with people.

"In those days you'd have one shower a week whether you needed it or not. It was a tough life. It was a 24/7 life. It taught you about working hard and working as a team as well."

After a 10-year stint, Patrick left the navy in the mid-1990s and joined an engineering firm building sonar systems before forming his own sonar training business in 2007.

It was here that Patrick's commitment to accountability and transparency in government crystallised.

New fleet

He wrote a series of articles for a defence trade publication on early preparations to acquire a new fleet of submarines where he advocated for the low-risk approach of adapting an existing off-the-shelf design. It didn't go down well with the military, who  tried to use his status as a defence contractor to gag him.

He says now that experience reinforced his belief in both the value of having different ideas and "not just accepting what governments said".

Patrick's entree to politics was originally as a volunteer to then shadow defence minister David Johnston, advising him on submarines. But when the Liberals won the 2013 election, Patrick knocked back a job offer because he was already wary of the Tony-Abbott-Peta Credlin centralised control approach to running a government.

Acquaintances suggested he get to know Xenophon and the two got on well instantly. Patrick saw in Xenophon someone who threw himself into trying to solve problems, rather than being shackled by the confines of a major party.

In 2015, he became Xenophon's senior adviser before entering the Senate in 2017.

[Image: 17c59e77472f085ca035d60631ca379dc7c91542]
"At no time throughout my career have I ever tried to climb a ladder, " Patrick says. David Rowe

"At no time throughout my career have I ever tried to climb a ladder, " Patrick says.


"All I've ever said is 'I want to do the job I'm doing right now and do that well'. Then people come and ask you to do something more. I wasn't pushing to be a senator.  Nick just recognised that I was probably the right person to take over and made the offer."


During his time in the Senate, Patrick has at times displayed an obsessive tendency to chase down every hole on issues that are important to him.


His commitment to winning, and keeping, defence jobs for Adelaide is ferocious, even when strategic interest suggests they could be better located elsewhere.


Dudded again

A good example of this is the investigations now under way at the Department of Defence to move deep maintenance of the Collins class submarines from Adelaide to Perth.

Such a move makes sense for a number of reasons. The subs' home port is Perth, and demands on labour and workshop space as construction of the new submarine ramps up will put the squeeze on Adelaide's ability to service the Collins submarines over the medium and long term.


But every little nugget that Patrick uncovers through Freedom of Information requests or Senate estimates invariably ends up in The Adelaide Advertiser as a warning of how SA is being dudded again.


Now unquestionably a Senate's kingmaker, Patrick insists his new-found clout "doesn't change me in any way, shape or form".


"I will still approach everything the way I always have, which is 'There is an issue before us. Let's get some perspectives, let's get some understanding. What is the right thing to do?'"


Patrick insists there is no ideological underpinning to how he tackles an issue.


"I am an engineer. So I don't think about things politically," he says.


Patrick points out that his and Centre Alliance's vote is irrelevant when Labor agrees with the Coalition.


"Sometimes the position is black or white, yes or no. Other times it's gray, and that's when the work starts," he says.


Like the gas price undertaking Patrick and Griff won as part of the tax negotiations, Lambie's agreement with the government is opaque. She raised the possibility of the Commonwealth forgiving Tasmania's $157 million debt for social housing as a way to ease the state's homelessness crisis.


The government has told her it will work through the issue with Tasmania's Hodgman government over coming weeks. If Canberra stops short of cancelling the debt altogether, it could waive the interest payments, which Lambie says cost the Tasmanian budget $15 million annually.


"I just wanted to come in here and show Tasmanians: 'You voted me in, you wanted me to get the job done, you wanted me to do something about this public housing'," Lambie explains.


Lambie says she is a changed person from the firebrand that characterised her first stint in the Senate between 2014 and 2017. She wants to start her second-chance political career with a clean slate.


Collegial relationships

She now appreciates, she says, the importance of having collegial relationships with government ministers if she wants to chalk up a record of delivering for those who voted for her.

[Image: 21809f2217927960377e8742529c6e36f797aa78]
Jacqui Lambie has a long list of things she wants for Tasmania. Alex Ellinghausen

"I've had relationships with these guys in the past. I've fallen out with all of them," she says.

"That 3½ years I was in, I've learnt from that because I did make mistakes. I isolated ministers and things like that. Some of the ways I did things, I look back and think 'I should have done it this way', but with that comes knowledge."

Part of her new-found savviness is working with the Centre Alliance pairing. While not a formal negotiating bloc of three, they are co-operating in areas where there is common ground.


The impact of Senate voting reforms that were introduced in 2016 to reduce the likelihood of micro party candidates getting elected were diluted that year because it was a double dissolution election with all Senate seats up for grabs. But in 2019, with the Senate formula back to the regular 50 per cent of seats, they worked as intended. The number of senators who are not members of any of the major parties or the Greens went from 11 elected in 2016 to five.

That changing dynamic was on show during the tax cut negotiations. With Labor at sixes and sevens, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson tried her luck with a multibillion-dollar ambit claim, asking for taxpayers to fund construction of a coal-fired power station and the 1930s-era Bradfield irrigation scheme.

"That's just silly stuff," Lambie says of Hanson's demands.


Lambie says she has a "big list" of things she wants for Tasmania but she is playing a long game.


"I've got six years up here. Unless there is a change of power in the Senate for some reason and someone goes down, slow and steady will win the race.


"If you over-ask, they will say "see you later, I'm going to deal with another crossbencher".


Next time the government comes looking for her vote, Lambie plans to focus on improving health services, particularly in her native north-west where small rural communities can face long waits or travel times to access treatment.

"It's worked well [the tax cut talks]. It would be nice to think it's going to be this kosher all the way along," she says.


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

CA Act gets bipartisaned -  Huh

I know bipartisaned is technically not a word but last night in the Senate the Civil Aviation Act Amendment Bill 2019 effectively got ticked and flicked through the red chamber to the 3rd reading with barely a whimper of protest or debate from either side. Is this just another classic example of the mystique of aviation safety befuddling our elected representatives and once again the aviation industry suffers from democratic neglect - ie we've been bipartisaned... Dodgy ?

For what it is worth here is the Hansard for the 2nd reading debate which included rejected amendments from the Greens and Jacqui Lambie.

For a much more concise and positive summary of the evenings proceedings it is now over to Ben Morgan... Wink


Quote:AUSTRALIAN SENATE DEBATES BILL TO AMEND CIVIL AVIATION ACT
July 22, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan reports.

[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-07-23-at-12.32.56-am-1170x500.png]

The Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act came before the Australian Senate on Monday 22nd July 2019, with a range of responses from Senators in attendance, successfully navigating its way through t0 the third reading where if voted by majority will become law.

The change to the Civil Aviation Act comes as a direct result of AOPA Australia’s General Aviation Summit 2018 in Wagga Wagga NSW, the Deputy Prime Minister’s federal seat of Riverina, calling on the government to make the Civil Aviation Safety Authority responsible for acknowledging cost and sustainability.

AOPA Australia and industry are seeking the changes in an effort to drive long-term regulatory cost reductions for general aviation, which is currently suffering from decades long decline as a result of over regulation.

Click to view the Explanatory Memorandum
Click to view the Civil Aviation Act Amendment Bill 2019

First up was Australian Labor Party Senator Murray Watt, declaring the ALP’s strong bipartisan support for the Bill.  During his speech, Senator Watt went on to highlight how well the ALP understood the aviation industry, especially in regional Australia, reflecting on the Aviation White Paper delivered under Anthony Albanese MP’s time as Transport Minister.



Australian Greens Senator Janet Rice came out strong against the Bill, asserting that seeking to make CASA accountable for cost impact on the sustainability of industry would lead to the wholesale abuse of the aviation regulator’s powers, resulting in the lowering of overall aviation safety.



South Australian Liberal Senator David Fawcett, took the opportunity to respond to Senator Rice’s opposition, highlighting that the Bill has followed many years of industry consultation and feedback which has highlighted the impacts of CASA’s all too often bureaucratic responses to industry.



Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick also put forward his strong support for the Bill, making clear that the sustainability of industry is just as important as safety. The Senator made clear that Australian general aviation is in a perilous state with the industry facing extinction. Senator Patrick highlighted how the decline in general aviation is driving Australia’s airline pilot shortage, which is placing pressures on regional airfares and services, making clear the need to reconfigure CASA. Senator Patrick made clear that CASA has been regulating general aviation out of existence.  Senator Patrick also went on to make clear that in fifteen days he will put a motion before the Senate to disallow CASA’s recent Community Service Flight regulations that have negatively impact on the industry, an example of their over-regulation and burden on the industry.



Liberal Party Senator Zed Seselja then spoke on behalf of the government to reiterate the commitment to aviation safety, stressing that the Bill is not intended to impede CASA’s ability to make operational safety decisions, stating that CASA must be able to make aviation safe and reliable.  The Senator went on to say that the Bill relates to the way in which CASA develops and regulates aviation safety standards, taking into account the differing risks posed by the various sectors of aviation, but not to individual decisions or directions by the regulator.



Australian Greens Senator Janet Rice’s motion to have the Bill referred to the Senate RRAT Committee for Inquiry, with the findings to be reported by 10th September, was eventually defeated in the Senate, with 9 voting in favour and 48 voting against.

The Senator took the opportunity to rebuke the defeat, pushing back against the government, Senator Patrick and Fawcett, claiming that the Bill would negatively impact on aviation safety and required the full consideration of a Senate Committee Inquiry.

Speaking for the government, Senator Seselja reaffirmed that safety remains the primary consideration and that the Bill would not impede CASA, making clear there would be no watering down of CASA’s primary objective to keep Australians safe in the air.

Senator Rice again responded, deeply disappointed and refusing to accept the government’s position, stating that whilst she understood that there was the best of intentions, the Bill would undermine CASA.

The Senator did concede that Senator Patrick’s concerns for Community Service Flights were a good example of why the Senate should be seeking to disallow, rather than the safety regulator being given unfettered power.



Tasmanian Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie put forward an Amendment to the Bill, seeking to introduce stronger wording to recognise the need for costs to be considered by CASA and for the industry to be sustainable.

The Senator stressed that excessive regulation by CASA was keeping the industry safe by keeping aircraft grounded, stating that costs must be considered when developing regulations for industry.

Before Senator Lambie could finish, the Senate was called to break for an hour.

On resuming, Senator Lambie argued that if regulation can save industry just one dollar, whilst not compromising aviation safety, then it should be supported.  Arguing a need for all regulations to be assessed for costs and benefits.



Senator Lambie highlighted that safety decisions by government ultimately are all paid for by the end users of aviation, with business being squeezed out through ever increasing costs, with each new regulation adding further to the costs of doing business.



The government’s response to Senator Lambie’s proposed amendment to the Bill was blunt objection, with Senator Duniam arguing that it would create ambiguity within the act, by obscuring safety as the sole most important consideration for CASA.



 
Australian Labor Party Senator Murray Watt also spoke against Senator Lambie’s proposed amendment to the Bill, reiterating the government’s position, and also spoke against Senator Rice’s motion to have the Senate RRAT Committee undertake an Inquiry into the Bill to amend the Civil Aviation Act.

Senator Watt stressed that the Bill was a result of strong bipartisan work.



Australian Greens Senator Janet Rice spoke in support of Senator Lambie’s proposed amendments, again highlighting the need to protect CASA’s focus on safety as it primacy.



It was then communicated that the Committee had considered the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 and agreed to it without amendments.  Senator Duniam, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, moved that the report of the Committee be adopted – which was carried by the Senate.  Senator Duniam then moved that the Bill be read the third time, which was also carried.



 
The motion was passed 38 for and 9 against.



(Choc frog for BM who I understand burnt the midnight oil on this one - welcome to my world... Wink )

Time will tell? BM's spin on this turn of events is much more upbeat than mine, maybe he is right and the small changes to the Act will be enough to kick start the industry out of coffin corner but my thoughts were that an opportunity for good debate was missed and I oh so hate it when they mention bipartisan support and aviation safety in the same breath...  Dodgy  


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Aviation Safety: USA vs Oz - Like chalk and cheese... Dodgy

From the latest off the UP glenb thread  - Australian small business V CASA - I note the following enlightening LeadSled post... Rolleyes 

Quote:Folks,

Following Lead Balloon's recent point: In the "reformed" certification regulations in 1998, great care was taken to exclude CASA "decision making".

The "rules" were written in "black and white", ie: Do A, B,C & D and you will get Certificate E, NOT the previous form of: Do A, B, C, and D, and CASA IS SATISFIED, , only then do you get the certificate E being applied for. Of course, there was no enforceable standard of "CASA is satisfied".

The reason for the "black and white" rules for design, certification and manufacturing was to eliminate CASA liability, or the perceived liability of CASA individual employees, a major factor in CASA (none or negative) decision making. Needless to say, we were much criticised at the time, and not just by CASA persons. And, needless to say, it has crept back in, and in recent " regulation development" the policy has been ignored.

As to why we do not have "binding aviation rulings" ------ because there is no legal capacity to make one.

Should CASA have such delegated law making power, without the scrutiny of parliament ( that is, CASA making legal instruments that are not disallowable) ---- my view is absolutely and definitely not ----- and there is a history, CAA tried this on years ago, having received legal advice that "Orders" could be legally enforceable, but be isolated from parliamentary scrutiny.

I even still have my "free" A4 binder that CAA gave to all license holders to file the forecast avalanche of "new" Orders, in lieu of "regulations".

Some smart footwork by several, again opposed by many in industry, not just CAA, challenged to legal advice as being unconstitutional, and the brave new world of rule by CAO without parliamentary disallowance fell over .

Aviation rules can be understandable, there are plenty of examples. However, when the criteria is: "Aviation law if for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers", and not the operating and airworthiness of aircraft, it ain't going to happen.

In one exercise in CASA, years ago during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review, a Canadian lawyer presented a paper on how rules could be written if the design prosecution conviction rate of 99% was reduced to "just" 95%.

All of a sudden, "plain English" regulations.

Another exercise, at the same time, was to remove from the regulations as criminal law all matters that were just administrative/procedural ---- in a section of maintenance ------ the result was to reduce the relevant MRO rules with criminal penalties by about 70+%.

Almost everything the bulk of industry wants is not just possible, but required in this day and age, and has been tried and proven before ----- but the bureaucracy (aka. CASA the iron ring) doesn't want it, so reforms forever slip backwards.

For a full non-aviation exposition of the "how and why", known as Hewart's Law, I can recommend reading "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the UK during a period in the 1920's.

Tootle pip!!

 However the part that really perked my interest was the PS... Shy 

Quote:PS: I always have a bit of a giggle when anyone comes up with the hoary old nonsense that we can't emulate US, because we have "The Westminster System" ---- izzatso ??

Folks, have a close look, the Australian Commonwealth (unlike CA or NZ) is closely modeled on the US, with a House of Representatives (not "Commons") and a state based Senate, and all our legal systems (AU, USA,CA, NZ etc) all drive from the Blackstone Commentaries, as opposed to Europeans (and Scottish) Roman law.

Indeed, on of the first things the brand new Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia did was legislate by reference --- by importing as Australian law large slabs of US Federal Law ---- the US Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890, only a couple of words were changed. But that is another story.
 
That being the case could we please have a Parliamentary Transportation and Infrastructure committee and Congessman/MPs with both the power and balls to take it up to the aviation safety bureaucracy like we saw portrayed by Congressman DeSaulnier with the recent introduction of the Safe Landings Act into the Congress??

Quote:


Rep. DeSaulnier and Captain “Sully” Sullenberger Announce Safe Landings Act
Press Release
By
 ECT
 -

Aug 8, 2019


[Image: Mark-Desaulnier.jpg]

San Francisco, CA
 – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) and Captain “Sully” Sullenberger announced the introduction of the Safe Landings Act (H.R. 4166), to address near-miss aircraft incidents like the Air Canada flight arriving at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on July 7, 2017 that came dangerously close to landing on a taxiway occupied by four aircraft loaded with more than 1,000 passengers.



“In recent years, runway incursions in the U.S. increased by nearly 83%. With near-misses on the rise, we need to act now to ensure that those incidents do not turn into accidents and that our aviation system remains the safest in the world,” said Congressman Mark DeSaulnier. “With two years of research and expert input on multiple near-miss incidents, the product is what the flying public deserves. I appreciate the guidance we received, especially from Captain Sullenberger and CAPA President Captain Rooney, to be proactive and address near-misses before they turn deadly.”

“As aviation has become safer, it has become harder to avoid complacency. We have made air travel so safe and routine, some have assumed that because we haven’t had a lot of accidents in recent years we must be doing everything right. But we can no longer define safety solely as the absence of accidents. We must do much more than that; we must be much more proactive than that. We need to proactively find flaws and risks and mitigate them before they lead to harm. We must investigate accidents before they happen. I enthusiastically support Congressman DeSaulnier’s bill, which will provide the resources and means to make that a reality, and allow us to continue to do everything possible to protect the safety of Americans when they travel by air,” said Captain Sullenberger.

The Safe Landings Act addresses technology needs, training expansion, and a new federal task force to research and identify safety risks from human error. Congressman DeSaulnier spent 2 years researching, reviewing numerous near-miss incidents, and holding more than 60 meetings to get the advice of multiple stakeholders in the aviation industry, including Captain Sullenberger, pilots unions, air traffic controllers, mechanics, ground safety crews, federal agencies (NTSB and FAA), and more.

Specifically, the Safe Landings Act:


  • Requires FAA to implement systems that would alert both pilots and air traffic controllers if a plane is not properly aligned to land on a runway;

  • Requires FAA to gather data and report on under what circumstances airlines require pilots to back up visual approaches with electronic guidance to verify they are landing on the correct runway, and issue guidance on the most effective techniques;

  • Requires the “notices to airmen” (NOTAM) system to be harmonized with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards;

  • Compels the GAO to do a study on the concerns some pilots have with cockpit voice recorders (CVRs), like inappropriate foreign government use, and provide recommendations to improve CVRs while protecting pilots;

  • Creates a Task Force onHuman Factors in Aviation Safety to review and provide recommendations.


“We applaud Representative DeSaulnier’s proactive efforts to improve aviation safety with the ‘Safe Landings Act’,” stated Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) President Captain Larry Rooney. “Aviation safety is a direct result of the continued collaborative efforts of all stakeholders to ensure that the safety of the traveling public remains paramount. This legislation provides the latest opportunity to further refine and improve on known and newly discovered safety deficiencies. CAPA looks forward to providing the subject matter expertise necessary to ensure that this important safety legislation becomes enacted into law.” CAPA represents roughly 30,000 pilots and many pilots unions.

As part of his ongoing effort to improve aviation safety, Congressman DeSaulnier also included four provisions in last year’s FAA Reauthorization Act (H.R. 4). They included measures to study pilot and air traffic controller alerts, reduce the risks associated with power outages at airports for landing aircraft, improve data analysis for safety, and make vehicle travel to and around airports more efficient.


Hmm...incoming perhaps??  Rolleyes


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Time to 'Bell the Cat'! -  Angry

Reference threads:

(08-14-2019, 09:11 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Angel Flight latest: Via Canberra Times.


AUGUST 14 2019 - 8:00AM
Angel Flight slams the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's 'damning' investigation

Annie Lewis

[Image: r0_0_2161_1440_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
FATAL CRASH: The wreckage of an Angel Flight plane that crashed at Mount Gambier in July 2017. Picture: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

A charity that flies sick children from regional areas to the city for crucial medical treatment has hit back at claims it has a fatal accident rate seven times higher than other private flights.

The report comes from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is investigating the safety of Angel Flight compared to other private flying operations, after a second fatal accident in the past decade.

The ATSB investigation came after a pilot and two passengers were killed when an Angel Flight service crashed at Mt Gambier in South Australia in June 2017.

Businessman Grant Gilbert, 78, was flying the SOCATA TB-10 Tobago to take 16-year-old Emily Redding to Adelaide for medical treatment, accompanied by her mother Tracy.

The investigation found Mr Gilbert, who had less than three years' experience, took off in heavy fog despite not being qualified to fly in cloud using the plane's instruments.

Shortly after, he likely lost visual cues and became spatially disorientated. The plane crashed within 70 seconds.

The same day, two Rex airline flights into Mt Gambier were delayed by poor weather.

Another plane running an Angel Flight mission crashed in similar circumstances near Nhill in Victoria in 2011, also killing all three people on board.

Angel Flight has more than 3000 volunteer pilots on its books and organises about 1600 flights a year.

A spokesperson for the charity said it engaged two senior expert statisticians and an analyst, all of whom concluded that the rate was not significantly different than other private airlines.

"The ATSB also chose to compare only the passenger-carrying sectors of flights coordinated by the charity," they said.

"It disregarded the flights ... where the aircraft flew from home base to the city collection points, the return trips back to base, and the positioning flights to collect passengers from their own home towns.

"It did, however, include those flights when reporting 'occurrences' against the charity flights."

The statement added that the ATSB had not adopted its own protocols of counting flight hours for general aviation accidents - instead, it counted only flight numbers.

"To disregard both the actual flight numbers and the flight hours, compounds the errors and unreliability of the findings to an extraordinary degree," the spokesperson said. 

Angel Flight expressed frustration it was not acknowledged that all volunteers are CASA-licensed, CASA-trained, and CASA-tested at least every two years. 

The charity also shut down the recommendation that it should book people on airlines for travel, claiming it did not factor in cost, flight schedules in regional areas and the strain on families.

It added, it uses airline flights where practicable and necessary, and will continue to utilise these services.

The ATSB report stated Angel Flight pilots were more likely to make operational errors when compared to other private operations.

"This investigation has shown that those conducted for Angel Flight are actually less safe than other private operations, let alone charter and scheduled airline flying," Commissioner Hood said.

The ATSB reported stated that it considered flight hours as a normaliser, however, were assessed as more limited in answering the safety objectives.

John Smith, captain of flying at Wagga City Aero Club, questioned the report, labelling the data as "rubbish". 

Mr Smith has been a pilot for 45 years, volunteering on and off with Angel Flight.

"It's very damming and very irresponsible of a department with that much power," he said. 

"It would be a real shame if Angel Flight has to close down because of this discrimination. 

"It's discriminatory against country people because city people have all the medical services at their fingertips."

Mr Smith added that commercial operations would benefit from the charity operator being shut down.




Via ABC Radio SA and AOPA Oz:


ABC RADIO: ATSB FINAL REPORT AO-2017-069
August 14, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Executive Director Benjamin Morgan speaks with ABC Radio South Australia's Selina Green.
[Image: ABCSelinaGreen-1170x500.jpg]
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia Executive Director, Benjamin Morgan, today spoke with ABC Radio South Australia’s Selina Green, discussing the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s final report into the tragic fatal accident involving TB-10 Tobago VH-YTM in 2017.



You can listen to the complete ABC Radio South Australia interview between Presenter Selina Green, and;
Mr Greg Good, ATSB Chief Commissioner
Senator Rex Patrick, Senator for South Australia
Mr Benjamin Morgan, Executive Director AOPA Australia






Plus: 

[Image: bannerrrr.jpg]
Inset pic reference links: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10542201 &

Choppagirl (Rossair crash) - Mythical reform post #109 & Catch Up or Ketchup? 

And: Latest on CASA embuggerance of Glen Buckley - 15/08/19.

Now borrowing a line from this "K" post - Old fashioned washing machines.:

"..This what the GlenB (fill in the blank: Angel Flight..Rossair etc..etc) story is becoming – a tangled mess. IMO; it’s about time our first class Senate crew had questions to ask which demand direct answers – there are just a few..."

Quite frankly it is way overdue that our elected representatives in the parliament, in particular the Senate committee responsible for oversight and scrutiny of this 'tangled mess', started actually doing their jobs and boring it up both the totally disengaged Minister and the aviation safety bureaucracy which supposedly he is responsible for... Angry

So to kick off the 'Bell the Cat' campaign I refer to a recent Sandy in reply comment to a Senator Fawcett shared Facebook post... Wink :

 
Quote:Ref: https://www.facebook.com/senatorfawcett/...=3&theater

[Image: 68245440_1608913352577144_50122728120569...e=5E14FD2F]

Senator David Fawcett

August 13 at 6:32 PM · [/url]
Consultation is now open on the European Union's request list of Geographical Indications as negotiations continue for the Australia-European Union Free Trade Agreement since July this year.

Currently, many of our agricultural exports can only be traded in small quantities, and some industrial products face tariff barriers.

An FTA with the EU has the potential to open up a market of 500 million people and a GDP of $25.1 trillion, underpinning the Government’s commitment to ensuring open trade, a key part of the plan to keep our economy strong. It will advance our election commitment to ensure that around 90% of Australia’s trade is covered by FTAs by 2022.
More information about the AUS-EU FTA is available here: [url=https://bit.ly/2KK54pA?fbclid=IwAR3Sp3Y7VhFW-dX_X82_c2eXMuZSpTtE66Z6YgcPGWh6V08DnactaDuIKbI]https://bit.ly/2KK54pA



And Sandy in reply -  Wink

...Laudable effort Senator, too bad we don’t have free trade internally. Your animal CASA has strangled the life out of General Aviation. Qualified instructors aren’t allowed to instruct without near impossible and super expensive permissions. We’ve lost hundreds of flying schools and maintenance organisations and CASA has persuaded you, the Parliament, to migrate, inappropriately and counterproductively, practically all the rules into the criminal code with strict liability. Not good enough, time for change and don’t talk jobs and growth to us before making some fundamental changes to the administration of aviation. Ripe for reform and just enough left of GA to achieve growth. The independent Commonwealth corporate model of governance has failed at great cost. For pity’s sake do something...



Plus: Sandy Reith And to illustrate flying school Oz, $thousands, negotiations months or years and maybe achieve it. 
USA. AIM book $14.95 start immediately.

[Image: 68756265_2494824187248716_67133797187096...e=5DD2AF01]

Next a glenb letter to ScoMo... Rolleyes 

 
Quote:14/08/19

Dear Prime Minister,

My name is Glen Buckley. I have over 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry. I have operated in the roles of Flying Instructor, Chief Flying Instructor, Head of Operations, and most recently as the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance. Based on my experience I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert, on aviation safety, training, and compliance matters.

I have raised my concerns internally within CASA, and most recently at the CASA Board level.

As this is primarily, a matter of aviation safety I am compelled to act. My claims are substantive, I have a significant body of supporting evidence, and I stand fully accountable in law, for all my statements and actions.

In the interests of aviation safety, I call on you to immediately remove the following CASA employees from any Safety Sensitive Activities (SSA) within CASA, and that they be returned to duties, pending the results of an independent investigation.

I can only comment on their conduct as CASA personnel, and make no assertions about them personally or outside of the work environment, because I have no knowledge of these matters.

In the conduct of their CASA duties, they will come in to contact with other operators, therefore this is a matter of aviation safety generally.

Those personnel are;

• Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Group Manager- Aviation.
• Mr Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
• Mr Will Nuttall in his role as CASA Certificate Team Manager-Southern Region
• Mr Brad Lacy in his role as CASA Flying Operations Inspector- Southern Region.

Those personnel have made decisions that demonstrate “unconscionable conduct” and those decisions compromise the safety of aviation. For clarity, this is an allegation of corruption within CASA.

In making those decisions and negatively impacting on the safety of aviation, I allege they have
clearly, repeatedly, and demonstrably breached their obligations in accordance with;

• Their respective Position Descriptions for their respective roles within CASA.
• Obligations placed on them by CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-...philosophy
• The Ministers Statement of Expectations. I include the Statement of Expectations that was
current at the time they made their decisions, and also the current Ministers Statement of
Expectations. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/F2019L00977
• Procedures outlined in CASAs own Enforcement Manual, and most particularly with regards
to the Preface written by Mr Shane Carmody in his role as and the manuals obligations, with
regards to Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and natural justice.
https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and...ent-manual
• The PGPA Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123
• APS Values and Code of Conduct. https://www.apsc.gov.au/5-aps-code-conduct

I have been through CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner, but found the final report showed a
lack of understanding of the complex nature of the complaints, as that department would generally
deal with more “administrative” matters. I appreciate that I can accelerate my complaints to the
Ombudsman, but as this is a matter of aviation safety, and relates to corruption within CASA, I am
bringing it to your attention.

Previous correspondence to the responsible Minister has been ignored, hence I bring this to the
attention of the Prime Ministers Department.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request that I present my case to you or your nominee, for
further assessment.

Most respectfully

Glen Buckley

The conduct of the named personnel, compromises aviation safety, brings harm to the integrity of
CASA, and most importantly damages confidence in the public administration of CASAs duties.
As the nature of these claims is substantive, I make myself fully available to meet with an
appropriate person and supply evidence in support of my claims.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

#BellingCat: Angel Flight embuggerance cont/-

Via AOPA Oz:
 

Angel Flight Press Release responding to concerns with the ATSB final report issued 13th August 2019.

[Image: angelflight.jpg]


ANGEL FLIGHT IS AUSTRALIA’S LARGEST AND LONGEST-SERVING CHARITY FACILITATING COMMUNITY BENEFIT FLYING

Angel Flight has co-ordinated free flights for more than 100,000 disadvantaged rural Australians, whose only other option to attend city hospitals for specialist treatment is ground transport – often taking days each way, at times with the driver/ patients being very elderly or accompanying very young children, on dangerous outback roads. These people cannot afford commercial air travel, which is more often than not, unavailable from their hometowns. Angel Flight recognises, publicly and privately with the affected people, the consequences of tragic fatal accidents, wherever and in whatever circumstances they occur, and is (and has always been) committed to safety and welfare as its priority.

THE ATSB REPORT INTO THE ACCIDENT AT MT GAMBIER ON 20 JUNE 2017

Click to download a copy of the ATSB Final Report

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ATSB offered no safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather.

The safety recommendation made was  for the charity to book people on airlines for travel: this does not adequately factor in cost (particularly where two or more people are travelling, which is often the case); nor does it properly factor in the infrequent scheduling or non-existence of airline flights into country regions across Australia; the inconvenience and difficulties faced by the elderly and families with young children at major city airports, and the associated ground travel; and appears to work on the assumption that city specialists and hospitals will gear their appointment times around airline timetables.  Angel Flight does use airline flights where practicable and necessary, and will continue to utilise these services.

The rules implemented  by CASA were not directed to the cause of the 2017 accident,  or any other accident in the community benefit sector, and the ATSB has not given any support for those rules, save and except for that requiring pilots to write community benefit flights up in their log books, and note that fact on flight plans: the only flow-on from those rules is one of policing data –  the very same data has been given by the charity to the ATSB.

It is regrettable, that the Bureau made no relevant safety recommendations, nor gave any guidance whatsoever, to pilots flying in poor weather conditions – the  cause of the accident: it would have been of benefit to the flying community had the ATSB focussed on these aspects of the accident.

The safety message raised  – induction training and safety management systems, together with a pilot mentoring programme, had already been implemented by the charity prior to the ATSB report and recommendations.  Angel Flight takes, and has taken, a very serious and proactive approach to improving safety, and will continue to do so.  Angel Flight will continue to urge CASA to improve its Human Factors training in the pre-licencing stage of training, in addition to the refresher courses now offered.

THE DATA

The charity engaged two senior expert statisticians and an analyst, all of whom concluded that the accident rate was not significantly different from the rate for other private flying across Australia. The ATSB also chose to compare only the passenger-carrying sectors of flights coordinated by the charity –it disregarded the flights, also coordinated by the charity, where the aircraft flew from home base to the city collection points, the return trips back to base, and the positioning flights to collect passengers from their own home towns:  it did, however, include those flights when reporting ‘occurrences’ against the charity flights.  There was, and is, no reason for this failure. To remove up to two-thirds of the coordinated flights in order to make statistical conclusions  is unjustifiable.  Moreover, when comparing the data with private flights generally, it did not exclude the non-passenger flights for that group  – all flights were counted in the general private sector, but not in the charity sector.

Angel Flight has coordinated more than 46,000 flights for the purpose of travelling to, returning from and carrying rural Australians to the city for non-emergency medical appointments. The ATSB has excluded more than half of these flights when assessing accident rates, with the result being to substantially increase the alleged statistical accident rates.

THE EXACERBATION OF THE DATA ERRORS

The ATSB has not adopted its own protocols (and those followed in the US) of counting flight hours for general aviation accidents – instead it counted only flight numbers. An example of that  methodology,  further invalidating the findings, is (a common route), where the pilot departs home base in Tyabb, flies to Essendon to collect passengers, flies from Essendon to Hay, then returns to Tyabb (three sectors) – this is counted as one flight by the ATSB for its statistical purposes. The flight time for this route in a Cessna 182 would be at least 3.5 hours yet the ATSB gives it is given the same status as a 6-minute touch-and-go circuit at Essendon. To disregard both the actual flight numbers, and the flight hours, compounds the errors (and unreliability) of the findings to an extraordinary degree.

OCCURRENCES

The ATSB also looked at  ‘Occurrences’  in controlled airspace  (in comparison with private flights  generally, most of which occur in uncontrolled space, and therefore  are not reported).  The ATSB acknowledged that they have no data from flights OCTA, so they did not take that fact into account. The investigators also included in the occurrence data (adverse to the charity), instances where the admitted and conclusive report findings included ATC errors;  errors of other aircraft causing safety breaches (not the fault of the charity flight);  the proper reporting  by the charity-organised flights where others had caused danger (including, for example, a pilot reporting a model aircraft illegally on a flight path, causing the authorised charity aircraft to take evasive action:  this was included as a ‘negative’ occurrence against the charity; and diversions to other airports in the interests of safety.

This cannot be regarded as valid in the collection of statistical data, and nor was it found to be so by the experts.

OTHER FINDINGS

The ATSB, amongst its findings, noted that Angel Flight was planning a mentoring program: this is incorrect, and known to the ATSB – the charity implemented its pilot mentoring programme more than a year ago. It was required  to stop because CASA introduced rules which imposed restrictions on who could accompany a pilot, as was made very clear by the written advice of  a senior CASA executive that “another pilot can accompany a pilot on a CSF as operating crew, so long as the other pilot qualifies to be a co-pilot of the aircraft and has such duties in relation to the CSF”:  this clearly  precludes pilots from being on board for mentoring, familiarisation, and observation of  Angel Flight’s processes and safety culture.

FURTHER OVERLOOKED FACTS

It has not been acknowledged that all volunteers operating their own (CASA-approved and maintained)  aircraft for the purpose of these community benefit flights, are CASA-licensed, CASA-trained, and CASA-tested on a one or two-yearly basis. Angel Flight has ensured that the volunteer pilot qualifications are  not less than as permitted by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and for the entire period leading to the investigation (14 years), these pilots have had substantially more than the required experience for passenger-carrying private flights in Australia. The new Rules decreed by CASA would have had no bearing on the accident under investigation, and this has been acknowledged by CASA. The pilot under investigation had greater experience than that required by either the former or the current Rules.

Angel Flight has been urging CASA for a substantial time, to re-visit and strengthen the training of its pilots in the human factors area prior to issuing licences.  With the additional safety, risk-management and induction training that Angel Flight has already implemented, the addition of CASA training would be beneficial for all pilots in this and other general aviation environments.

This message has been authorised by Angel Flight Australia.



And from the ABC News:

Quote:Angel Flight hits back at 'grossly wrong' ATSB report into fatal Mount Gambier plane crash
By Rhett Burnie
Posted Fri at 3:20pm
[Image: 8724242-3x2-700x467.jpg]
PHOTO: The Angel Flight crash that killed Tracy and Emily Redding and pilot Grant Gilbert. (ABC: Stuart Stansfield)



The head of Angel Flight Australia is calling for a Senate review into an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report that found the charity was seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than other private flight operators.

Key points:
  • Three people were killed in an Angel Flight crash in Mount Gambier in 2017

  • ATSB investigators found the charity was seven times more likely to crash

  • Angel Flight's CEO has hit back at the findings, labelling them "grossly wrong"

Marjorie Pagani slammed the ATSB investigation into a fatal Angel Flight crash in regional South Australia in June 2017, labelling it "demonstrably wrong".

Tracy Redding, 43, her daughter Emily, 16, and Angel Flight volunteer pilot Grant Gilbert, 78, were killed when the light aircraft they were in crashed into a paddock, 70 seconds after take-off at Mount Gambier on June 28.

A two-year investigation into the triple fatality found Mr Gilbert had taken off in low cloud, despite not being licenced to do so, and had likely become "spatially disorientated" before the plane flipped midair and nosedived into the ground.

The accident was the second triple fatal Angel Flight crash in Australia.

ATSB investigators calculated the number of flights Angel Flight had made since it started in Australia in 2004 and the two fatal crashes to conclude the charity was seven times more likely to be involved in a deadly plane crash than other private pilots.

However, Ms Pagani said the ATSB had not included the flights in which its volunteer pilots flew solo to and from passenger transfers.

"We've had three experts look at this — two of Australia's top statisticians and an analyst — all of who conclude that it is grossly, demonstrably wrong," she said.

"They have counted less than half our flights in order to arrive at this statistical conclusion.

Quote:"They're not [comparing] apples with apples … it's wrong, it's grossly in error.

"If they counted all of our flights there is a conclusion from them that our safety data would be not significantly different from any other private flight."

Better training needed for pilots

Ms Pagani said Angel Flight was only able to engage with qualified pilots from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the issue of training was squarely on the regulator.

[Image: 8723790-3x2-340x227.jpg]
PHOTO: The scene of a fatal Angel Flight crash near Horsham in Victoria. (ABC News)


"This accident was caused by a pilot making a poor decision to fly into cloud and lost control," she said.

She said CASA needed to "strengthen their awareness" and "their training prior to the licensing stage".

"If there is an issue in this area — provide better training prior to the licensing stage," she said.

Quote:"We have safety programs in place, but it is not the role of a charity to do the job of the ATSB or CASA.

"They are the ones who are responsible for training the pilots — we rely on it — we use their pilots.

"We do everything we can to prevent this sort of thing and our hearts are with those people."

Calls for Senate review of ATSB report

Ms Pagani said Angel Flight would appeal the investigation's findings if it could and would call on the Senate to review the report.

"Basically, without Parliamentary intervention, the ATSB can do and say whatever it likes because none of us can legally challenge it," she said.


[Image: 11160834-3x2-340x227.jpg]
PHOTO: Centre Alliance senators Rex Patrick said a review could take place in Senate Estimates. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)




South Australian Senator Rex Patrick said he believed the data in the ATSB's report "did not include the pre-positioning flight".


"So, for example the flight from an airport to the place where the patient needed to be picked up and indeed from where the patient was dropped off back to where the pilot originally started off from," he said.


"That has the effect of — in effect of — halving the number of flights for the same amount of instances.


"In that way it distorts the figures … I would have to talk to my colleagues in the Senate."


Senator Patrick said a review could be made during Senate Estimates or "it might end up being a Senate inquiry".


More concerns raised with charity


However, the ATSB's Dr Stuart Godley told The World Today the calculation was correct.


"That's the way we always do it when the data is available and its pretty consistent around the world," he said.

"Generally, when you're looking at operational risk, most of the risk is connected with the landing and the take-off in the flight, so really the most appropriate way to look at risk is to look at [it] per flight."


Dr Godley also said more people had come forward to raise their concerns over Angel Flight since the ATSB report was published.


"Generally, a lot of people are supporting our report and actually coming in with a lot of stories that we hadn't heard before that actually support the conclusions of our report," he said.


Ms Pagani countered that by claiming many people had contacted Angel Flight to express their support for the organisation.


On Friday, Angel Flight published two full-page advertisements in News Corp newspapers, refuting much of the ATSB's findings.

Ms Pagani said supporters of the charity paid for the advertisements, which cost $30,000.

[Image: 11420850-16x9-large.jpg?v=2]

And via the UP, some commentary etc..etc beginning and ending with Sunfish  Rolleyes :


Quote:Sunfish

But wait, there’s more.......

In using the safety system “occurrence” database for what is clearly a partisan political purpose - helping CASA destroy Angel Flight, the ATSB has not only utterly compromised its alleged independence but has destroyed any faith in the alleged anonymity of ALL reporting schemes, both mandatory and voluntary.

As for the analysis, I fail to understand why the ATSB has not discussed or commented on its startling finding that Angel Flight operations are seven times more dangerous than ordinary GA operations. The only reason I can think why is that at least someone is ashamed of this hatchet job.

It appears ATSB is now part of the problem, along with CASA.

To put that another way, I am aware, I think, of safety occurrence reports that are, to put it mildly, less than frank about what happened. The current ATSB behaviour seems to provide a strong disincentive to report anything at all if it can be avoided.



Lead Balloon

Quote:Angel Flight offers an invaluable service to families in regional and remote areas burdened with an ill or disabled family member. Only two nights ago I spoke with Senator Hollie Hughes’ who had used Angel Flight for her own autistic son, Fred, to access city services from remote areas of NSW. She described it as a Godsend.

The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.

Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.

The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.

Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.

If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads.

Hear! Hear! Senator Patrick.

Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.



Sunfish

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon  

Quote:Hear! Hear! Senator Patrick.

Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.

‘’But that matter is dealt with every day by actuaries and risk management professionals.

The ICAO understands it.

https://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyMa...alltext.en.pdf




IFEZ

Good to see Angel Flight defending themselves. That report is a joke. If that was a school assignment it would have been handed back with a big “F” stamped on it and an instruction to resubmit. Come on ATSB, that’s just embarrassing. What the hell is going on..? You’re trashing the legacy of what was once a world leading investigation agency. I just don’t understand how they can sign off on this tripe and think it’s acceptable or that no one will question its veracity.



Stickshift3000

Originally Posted by IFEZ  View Post

Quote:I just don’t understand how they can sign off on this tripe and think it’s acceptable or that no one will question its veracity.

It's pretty clear to me that CASA has 'influenced' the content of this report.



Lead Balloon


Irrespective of what ATSB continues to do to ensure its trashed reputation remains trashed, there should be:

1. More effective safety education, including more effective human factors education, not mere words parroting lessons already learned and not mere seminars and videos the equivalent of “drugs are bad”. They don’t count as “comprehensive safety education and training programs” in terms of CASA’s functions.

2. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to highly experienced private pilots to become instructors of key airmanship issues. Private VFR pilots with thousands of hours in their logbooks have a better insight into the practicalities and risks of VFR flight and human factors risks and, more importantly, more experience in how to mitigate them in the real world, than a freshly minted CPL Grade 3 instructor or an ATPL with 20,000 hours at 35,000’. Any idiot can say: “just don’t fly VFR when the weather’s IMC”. That’s not how to effectively mitigate the risks of ‘getthereitis’.

3. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to IFR ratings. PIFR has been stuffed by the complicators. (Yes I know that some theorise that the conditions at Mount Gambier in this case were not conducive even to IFR flight. That merely reinforces the other points.)




Old Akro

The problem with this ATSB report is that it has been used to pursue a political agenda against community service flights.

The accident itself was tragic and the cause pretty much black & white without any real extenuating circumstances. They pilot had trouble landing visually. What bigger sign do you need to not immediately turn around and take off??

All pilots like me who have cancelled Angel Flights due to weather know that the Angel Flight organisation is extremely understanding and supportive in such circumstances.

The ATSB maliciously misrepresents the Angel Flight accident rate. It does not count the full hours of Angel flights.

And the life’s of the poor passengers are no more (or less) special because its an Angel Flight. This accident should be examined as an accident regardless of who is on board.

The CASA argue meant that community service flights should be charter flights is completely flawed. A
private pilot should be safe to carry passengers. Period. The CPL training and study is about working in a commercial environment that runs to time, has last minute changes, carries minimum fuel and is done day in day out so that duty times are an issue.

The ATSB / CASA should be really use these accidents as cause for reflection on a) whether the PPL flight training requires improvement, b) if the CASA safety education mechanisms are working and c) whether CASA’s bureaucracy around IFR ratings is discouraging pilots from becoming IFR rated and how many lives would be saved if Australia had the same level of IFR ratings as the US.

There is a real argument that CASA’s over regulation of IFR is costing lives.



Sunfish

I know I am overreacting having spent the day introducing a Five year old to the joys of skiing. I also should add that I am NOT an Angel Flight pilot nor associated with them in any way.

I am simply pissed off at first of all CASA, who senses that Angel Flight is an organisation with credentials that make it a threat to CASA domination, so they have, like many others, to be destroyed, then with CASA's lapdog, the ATSB who have produced a turd of an analysis in an attempt to justify its masters position. Then along come players and axe grinders who want to stroke their own ego by sinking the slipper into Angel Flight.

Of course it was "getthereitis"! I can't think of any other reason either. However two incidents of it in 10,000 odd Angel Flight over ten years are statistically insignificant. By that I mean rigorous statistical testing of the hypothesis "Angelflight pilots flights are more likely than the rest of the pilot population to suffer from gethereitis" will draw a big ******* blank at the 99.999% confidence level or ATSB would have shouted it from the roof tops by now.

So since that fails, ATSB then invents a convoluted pseudo scientific analysis claiming Angel Flights are seven times more dangerous than ordinary private flying! I looked in vain for the causal link in that steaming pile of shit for the link between runway incursions and gethereitis but haven't found it.

So CASA and ATSB would have the general public believe that Angel Flight is populated by weak minded emotionally unstable pilots with sub human flying skills to boot - the very dregs of the private pilot population! That is the exact conclusion and the obvious corollary is that Angel Flight should be destroyed as a danger to the man in the street, just like a dangerous dog. Nice one CASA, protecting us all the time. At least Angel Flight was able to kick CASA in the balls over that one -you licenced those pilots CASA, didn't you?

And the ATSB, now in full Marie Antionette mode, ruffles its corsets and tells Angel Flight customers not to use Angel Flight but instead to use Regular Public Transport to hospital - Rex, Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar! What are they smoking in Canberra?????

....And then people, come here to PPRuNe and solemnly nit pick and criticize Angel Flight - for trying to help people??? CASA and ATSB make the pre revolutionary French aristocracy look grounded and in touch with the common man by comparison, they are the problem.

There is a cure to this madness and it doesn't involve ******* over Angel Flight. Maybe we need our own form of French revolution in Canberra.

*The asterisked word involved is a synonym for intercourse with the suffix -ing.

Finally comments in reply to last week's LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...ugust-2019

Quote:Mike Borgelt • 4 days ago

"shouldn't they be recommending that private operations be disallowed because they are dangerous?"

Careful Steve, that is already clearly CASA and ATSB's game plan. Of course they are less than honest about this goal and instead of an outright ban they will just load up our activities with so much pointless and unproductive bureaucracy and expense that everyone gives up



Sandy Reith • 4 days ago

Hitch is quite correct when he says that the regulator has given up looking for answers to one of aviation’s oldest and most common forms of accident. Visual flight into non visual conditions which can cause disorientation and loss of control. Such accidents commonly result in fatalities. Loss of visual reference can be largely overcome with low cost technology for pilots that normally only fly, and are only qualified for visual flight by regulation, in visual conditions. Around twenty years ago operators in Alaska set about developing and using hand held tablet computers capable of synthetic vision. Speaking with a leader of this program, called Operation Capstone, I was informed that their weather related accident rate was reduced by half.

Why not here? CASA is dysfunctional, absolutely hidebound and will not countenance any innovation. The other obvious route is to gain the Instrument Rating which has never been more expensive and difficult due to CASA’s extreme measures preventing new flying schools and caused hundreds of schools to close. CASA’s inappropriate mandating of the Cessna additional Inspection Documents, has caused huge financial losses on private pilots and again going against training for the Instrument Rating.



Ian • 4 days ago

There are a couple of semi-related issues. For which I have questions but no answers.

1) How do you measure pilot competence. The traditional measure is hours, and there seems to be a weak correlation between raw hours flown and pilot competence.

2) Who is responsible for a pilot's competence.The Pilot seems the obvious answer but that isn't bringing the results we desire. Angle Flight is the worst placed because they have no control over pilots or flights.

I would hesitate disparaging CASA investing in education because education is far more effective in achieving quality results that rules compliance. (rules compliance is the worst method of effective risk mitigation)

If people are going to quote Statistics it would be desirable that they made their raw data available. Extra marks for showing your working.



Sandy Reith in reply to Ian • 3 days ago

Ian, quite right, having CASA investing more in education is not the answer because CASA’s raison d’être is is to stiffen the straight jacket not to try a new cut or taylor it fit for purpose. Having persuaded a thoughtless Parliament into migrating the rules into the criminal code, with strict liability as the criterion for ease of convictions, there’s nothing to suggest the slightest willingness of CASA to alter it’s trajectory. On the contrary the practical implications of such wrong policy clearly demonstrate CASA’s mindset of supremacy and strict control. Its nearly thirty two years since it was divorced from Ministerial and Departmental control and tasked with rewriting the rules. It still hasn’t finished because it is incapable and has no incentive to change.

The independent Commonwealth corporate as means of undertaking this function of government has failed with disastrous effects for General Aviation and the thousands of jobs, businesses and services that have been lost.
Two factors stand out from the embedded CASA modus operandi; unwillingness on the part of aviation personnel to admit to, or share lessons from their errors, mistakes or even totally innocent misadventures, for fear of criminal prosecution leading to heavy fines and problems with criminal history such as gaining visas for international travel.
That is bad enough, arguably worse is the excessive fear factor that flows through the whole of one’s flight training, this factor has been evident in my experience as an instructor and flying school operator over very many years. This excessive fear factor stems directly from the fear of Big Brother CASA armed with it’s frightening legal weapons.
In the last few years risk aversion has increased and is more unhealthy than ever before. The fear factor means that the pilot has lost much of his or her adrenaline before takeoff. I have witnessed this phenomenon, and experienced it personally as have most pilots.

This comes to Ian’s question about the value of experience in flying hours. There’s much reduced value if judgement is impaired by psychological stress that leads to a loss of adrenaline and subsequent heavy and debilitating physical and mental weariness. This is precisely the point; l when inevitably circumstances will come together and an accident like this occurs.

There’s nothing odd or new about weather problems, but advances will require serious reforms by Parliament and new thinking in GA.



Ian in reply to Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

I'll try to be clearer

1a) Education: a good way to achieve desirable outcome.
1b) Rule Compliance: the worst way way to achieve desirable outcome.

2) We need a better method of measuring competence than raw hours flown.



Finally Hitch in reply to all:

SteveHitchen Mod • 2 days ago

Guys. Isn't better training a form of education? We need to continue to educate, but more seminars and bigger, shinier posters doesn't cut it. There is always the thinking that "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" and that training VFR pilots to save themselves in IMC might encourage them to enter IMC deliberately, but considering that it's happening anyway, maybe we need to revisit that thinking.


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(08-22-2019, 06:45 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  The Hooded Canary's ATSB to face Senate Inquiry -  Rolleyes

(08-20-2019, 05:47 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  #BellingCat: Angel Flight embuggerance cont/-

Via AOPA Oz:
 

Angel Flight Press Release responding to concerns with the ATSB final report issued 13th August 2019.

[Image: angelflight.jpg]


Quote:[Image: 11420850-16x9-large.jpg?v=2]

Quote:Lead Balloon


Irrespective of what ATSB continues to do to ensure its trashed reputation remains trashed, there should be:

1. More effective safety education, including more effective human factors education, not mere words parroting lessons already learned and not mere seminars and videos the equivalent of “drugs are bad”. They don’t count as “comprehensive safety education and training programs” in terms of CASA’s functions.

2. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to highly experienced private pilots to become instructors of key airmanship issues. Private VFR pilots with thousands of hours in their logbooks have a better insight into the practicalities and risks of VFR flight and human factors risks and, more importantly, more experience in how to mitigate them in the real world, than a freshly minted CPL Grade 3 instructor or an ATPL with 20,000 hours at 35,000’. Any idiot can say: “just don’t fly VFR when the weather’s IMC”. That’s not how to effectively mitigate the risks of ‘getthereitis’.

3. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to IFR ratings. PIFR has been stuffed by the complicators. (Yes I know that some theorise that the conditions at Mount Gambier in this case were not conducive even to IFR flight. That merely reinforces the other points.)




Old Akro

The problem with this ATSB report is that it has been used to pursue a political agenda against community service flights.

The accident itself was tragic and the cause pretty much black & white without any real extenuating circumstances. They pilot had trouble landing visually. What bigger sign do you need to not immediately turn around and take off??

All pilots like me who have cancelled Angel Flights due to weather know that the Angel Flight organisation is extremely understanding and supportive in such circumstances.

The ATSB maliciously misrepresents the Angel Flight accident rate. It does not count the full hours of Angel flights.

And the life’s of the poor passengers are no more (or less) special because its an Angel Flight. This accident should be examined as an accident regardless of who is on board.

The CASA argue meant that community service flights should be charter flights is completely flawed. A
private pilot should be safe to carry passengers. Period. The CPL training and study is about working in a commercial environment that runs to time, has last minute changes, carries minimum fuel and is done day in day out so that duty times are an issue.

The ATSB / CASA should be really use these accidents as cause for reflection on a) whether the PPL flight training requires improvement, b) if the CASA safety education mechanisms are working and c) whether CASA’s bureaucracy around IFR ratings is discouraging pilots from becoming IFR rated and how many lives would be saved if Australia had the same level of IFR ratings as the US.

There is a real argument that CASA’s over regulation of IFR is costing lives.



Sunfish

I know I am overreacting having spent the day introducing a Five year old to the joys of skiing. I also should add that I am NOT an Angel Flight pilot nor associated with them in any way.

I am simply pissed off at first of all CASA, who senses that Angel Flight is an organisation with credentials that make it a threat to CASA domination, so they have, like many others, to be destroyed, then with CASA's lapdog, the ATSB who have produced a turd of an analysis in an attempt to justify its masters position. Then along come players and axe grinders who want to stroke their own ego by sinking the slipper into Angel Flight.

Of course it was "getthereitis"! I can't think of any other reason either. However two incidents of it in 10,000 odd Angel Flight over ten years are statistically insignificant. By that I mean rigorous statistical testing of the hypothesis "Angelflight pilots flights are more likely than the rest of the pilot population to suffer from gethereitis" will draw a big ******* blank at the 99.999% confidence level or ATSB would have shouted it from the roof tops by now.

So since that fails, ATSB then invents a convoluted pseudo scientific analysis claiming Angel Flights are seven times more dangerous than ordinary private flying! I looked in vain for the causal link in that steaming pile of shit for the link between runway incursions and gethereitis but haven't found it.

So CASA and ATSB would have the general public believe that Angel Flight is populated by weak minded emotionally unstable pilots with sub human flying skills to boot - the very dregs of the private pilot population! That is the exact conclusion and the obvious corollary is that Angel Flight should be destroyed as a danger to the man in the street, just like a dangerous dog. Nice one CASA, protecting us all the time. At least Angel Flight was able to kick CASA in the balls over that one -you licenced those pilots CASA, didn't you?

And the ATSB, now in full Marie Antionette mode, ruffles its corsets and tells Angel Flight customers not to use Angel Flight but instead to use Regular Public Transport to hospital - Rex, Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar! What are they smoking in Canberra?????

....And then people, come here to PPRuNe and solemnly nit pick and criticize Angel Flight - for trying to help people??? CASA and ATSB make the pre revolutionary French aristocracy look grounded and in touch with the common man by comparison, they are the problem.

There is a cure to this madness and it doesn't involve ******* over Angel Flight. Maybe we need our own form of French revolution in Canberra.

*The asterisked word involved is a synonym for intercourse with the suffix -ing.

Finally, without top cover from Barry O'obfuscation, the Hooded Canary and crew have been referred to a Senate Inquiry... Wink

Quote:Performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry into the performance of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).

Committee Secretariat contact:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600 

Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
Fax: +61 2 6277 5811
rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

Hmm...now where do I start with a submission... Big Grin

How about here: #SBG 18 August 2019: Belling the Cat?? & Time to ‘Bell the Cat!’ or maybe here: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...0#pid10520 etc..etc..  Shy 

Update 23 August 2019:

A couple of additions/changes to the Inquiry webpage... Wink 

 
Quote:Title change:

Operation of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia..  

Plus a Public Hearing: 04 Sep 2019 Sydney, NSW [Image: pdf.png]
[url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?hearingid=28835&submissions=false][/url] 
MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Time to 'Bell the Cat'! -  Part II

From Nick Christie, via AOPA Oz:

Quote:SENATE RRAT COMMITTEE INQUIRY ANNOUNCED INTO ATSB FOLLOWING BUNGLED ACCIDENT REPORT

August 23, 2019 By Nicholas Christie


AOPA Australia's NICHOLAS CHRISTIE reports.


[Image: Screen-Shot-2019-08-23-at-1.08.23-pm-1170x500.png]

The Australian Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (RRAT) has announced it is conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia, under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).

The Inquiry will commence on the 4th September 2019, in Sydney, NSW.  The Senate RRAT Committee is Chaired by Queensland Senator, Susan McDonald (see photo above), a member of The Nationals.

The Inquiry comes following strong representation by AngelFlight and AOPA Australia who have both rejected the ATSB Report, citing serious concerns with data and statistical manipulation.  Additionally, both associaitons have rejected CASA’s 09/19 administrative rules, which do not address any relevant safety concerns, resulting in unncessary restrictions for the Community Service Flight sector and private pilots alike.

Click to view the AngelFlight response to the ATSB report



“AOPA Australia thanks the Senate RRAT Committtee for bringing this inquiry forward and for giving the safety stakeholders involved the opportunity to provide evidence in a transparent manner.”, Executive Director Benjamin Morgan.

“Angel Flight is appreciative of the opportunity to be heard by an impartial inquiry on both the CASA 09/19 regulations and the ATSB report into the traigc 2017 accident.  I look forward to giving evidence at the enquiry.”, Marjorie Pagani, AngelFlight CEO.

Hmm...next??

(08-15-2019, 10:28 AM)Peetwo Wrote:   

[Image: bannerrrr.jpg]
Inset pic reference links: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st10542201 &

Choppagirl (Rossair crash) - Mythical reform post #109 & Catch Up or Ketchup? 

And: Latest on CASA embuggerance of Glen Buckley - 15/08/19.

Now borrowing a line from this "K" post - Old fashioned washing machines.:

"..This what the GlenB (fill in the blank: Angel Flight..Rossair etc..etc) story is becoming – a tangled mess. IMO; it’s about time our first class Senate crew had questions to ask which demand direct answers – there are just a few..."

Quite frankly it is way overdue that our elected representatives in the parliament, in particular the Senate committee responsible for oversight and scrutiny of this 'tangled mess', started actually doing their jobs and boring it up both the totally disengaged Minister and the aviation safety bureaucracy which supposedly he is responsible for... Angry

So to kick off the 'Bell the Cat' campaign I refer to a recent Sandy in reply comment to a Senator Fawcett shared Facebook post... Wink :




Next a glenb letter to ScoMo... Rolleyes 

 
Quote:14/08/19

Dear Prime Minister,

My name is Glen Buckley. I have over 25 years’ experience in the flight training industry. I have operated in the roles of Flying Instructor, Chief Flying Instructor, Head of Operations, and most recently as the CEO of the Australian Pilot Training Alliance. Based on my experience I consider myself a Subject Matter Expert, on aviation safety, training, and compliance matters.

I have raised my concerns internally within CASA, and most recently at the CASA Board level.

As this is primarily, a matter of aviation safety I am compelled to act. My claims are substantive, I have a significant body of supporting evidence, and I stand fully accountable in law, for all my statements and actions.

In the interests of aviation safety, I call on you to immediately remove the following CASA employees from any Safety Sensitive Activities (SSA) within CASA, and that they be returned to duties, pending the results of an independent investigation.

I can only comment on their conduct as CASA personnel, and make no assertions about them personally or outside of the work environment, because I have no knowledge of these matters.

In the conduct of their CASA duties, they will come in to contact with other operators, therefore this is a matter of aviation safety generally.

Those personnel are;

• Mr Graeme Crawford in his role as CASA Group Manager- Aviation.
• Mr Craig Martin in his role as CASA Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
• Mr Will Nuttall in his role as CASA Certificate Team Manager-Southern Region
• Mr Brad Lacy in his role as CASA Flying Operations Inspector- Southern Region.

Those personnel have made decisions that demonstrate “unconscionable conduct” and those decisions compromise the safety of aviation. For clarity, this is an allegation of corruption within CASA.

In making those decisions and negatively impacting on the safety of aviation, I allege they have
clearly, repeatedly, and demonstrably breached their obligations in accordance with;

• Their respective Position Descriptions for their respective roles within CASA.
• Obligations placed on them by CASAs own Regulatory Philosophy
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-...philosophy
• The Ministers Statement of Expectations. I include the Statement of Expectations that was
current at the time they made their decisions, and also the current Ministers Statement of
Expectations. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/F2019L00977
• Procedures outlined in CASAs own Enforcement Manual, and most particularly with regards
to the Preface written by Mr Shane Carmody in his role as and the manuals obligations, with
regards to Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness, and natural justice.
https://www.casa.gov.au/publications-and...ent-manual
• The PGPA Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123
• APS Values and Code of Conduct. https://www.apsc.gov.au/5-aps-code-conduct

I have been through CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner, but found the final report showed a
lack of understanding of the complex nature of the complaints, as that department would generally
deal with more “administrative” matters. I appreciate that I can accelerate my complaints to the
Ombudsman, but as this is a matter of aviation safety, and relates to corruption within CASA, I am
bringing it to your attention.

Previous correspondence to the responsible Minister has been ignored, hence I bring this to the
attention of the Prime Ministers Department.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request that I present my case to you or your nominee, for
further assessment.

Most respectfully

Glen Buckley

The conduct of the named personnel, compromises aviation safety, brings harm to the integrity of
CASA, and most importantly damages confidence in the public administration of CASAs duties.
As the nature of these claims is substantive, I make myself fully available to meet with an
appropriate person and supply evidence in support of my claims.

[Image: D3gYNu5UwAAVrqX.jpg]

Dear Glen - L&Ks St Commode... Dodgy



[Image: St-Commode.jpg]


Once again St Commode shows his true colours (bullying, intimidation and arrogance) and that - along with his bunch of executive, trough feeding, sociopath, Iron Ring cronies - he is of the belief that he is untouchable and CASA are simply a 'law unto themselves:

   


So how about it Senator Mack, time to Bell the CASA CAT??  Rolleyes 


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Angel Flight embuggerance inquiry update -  Shy

Via the RRAT inquiry webpage: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...sport/ATSB

Quote:Operation of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia, under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).
 Submissions close on [b]Wednesday, 4 September 2019.
[/b]


About this inquiry


An inquiry into the operation of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia, under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).

Note that the inquiry is open for submissions only until the 4th of September??

Hmm...the line up for next week's hearing seems very unfairly stacked against Angel Flight IMHO.. Angry 


Quote:[Image: AP-PH-4-Sept-YSSY.jpg]
NB: Program has been amended to include AOPA Australia's Executive Director Ben Morgan. - Wink  
 

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Butterfly wings and Tsunami.
[Image: D9JTGMhUwAA5rAZ.jpg]
Ref: https://auntypru.com/not-only-captive-cu...loving-it/

A highly technical, subjective debate. I prefer more down to earth examples of cause and effect; things the common man can readily understand. For instance, the click of a switch which launches a holocaust; or, the small, sharp tap of the conductors baton before a full orchestra bursts into glorious sound.

Dare I imagine that the sibilant rustle of paper being shuffled by a Senate committee secretariat in Canberra heralds the long awaited beginning of the demise of a truly evil empire? There’s money for it; reasonable odds for the punter early in the piece; and, some of the more adventurous IOS & BRB souls have already taken a plunge. Fair warning though; those odds will change as the start approaches; and once they are truly off and running the tote will close.

There are two events to consider; the ATSB Maiden Handicap and the CASA Race to the Bottoms cup. Much to consider before parting with hard earned. For a start, there are the preliminary events, not designed to test the runners and their connections. These seemingly sedate opening events are meant to test both mettle and suitability to the course. But, they are (to a Bookie) important. From these canters around the course, battle plans are laid, strategy formulated and final runners decided. Much like the opening stanzas of a concerto; a hint of what is to come. The first round begins in Sydney, open to the public, Wednesday, 4, September, 2019.

This will be a team event, not the final competition (Round one, if you will M’lud) - an introduction to the course. Each team will be given an equal amount of time to ‘test the running’ - get a feel for both track and hurdles.

From this, both connections and Bookies will gain a feel of what is to come, when the Balloon finally goes up and the competition is entered – in reality. Make no mistake boys and girls, the stakes are high and ‘the game’ being played ‘off track’ (behind the scenes) is well and truly afoot.

So, dear Anti Post sports, take care, pay attention, for not only will the odds be shifting, but so will the ‘team’ entered. Runners and tactics will be a constantly shifting bagatelle, which will present some serious challenges to the untested Senate team connections, hamstrung by the absence of Fawcett Prince (MTF).

Form guide and Tote odds to follow post first event.

Toot – toot.
Reply

The USA – Aviation Nirvana?

Just over the way, across a puddle known as the Pacific ocean lays America; land of the free etc. A mecca for aviators, for the USA does it in style and they do lots of it, despite some fairly significant terrain and unruly, often unpleasant weather conditions. There is a misconception that it is ‘easy’ the US to get things done; and, up to a point, this is true, primarily due to the regulatory system and a ‘can do’ attitude. But, it would be an error to believe that clear cut rules are ‘soft’ - they ain’t; particularly when the legal eagles get involved.  So where are the big differences between Australia and the USA?

Approach and attitude do have an impact:-

Angel Flight accidents In 2007 and 2008 the NTSB investigated four accidents that involved flights that were operating as charitable medical transport flights, organised by various Angel Flight agencies. Three of the accidents occurred with patients on-board; one was a positioning flight to collect a patient. The age range of the pilots was from 57 to 81 years old. While the circumstances of the accidents differed, the NTSB was sufficiently concerned that a number of similarities existed between the occurrences that on 9 June 2010, they issued a Safety Recommendation to the Air Care Alliance (ACA). According to their website, the ACA is a nationwide league of humanitarian flying organizations whose volunteer pilot members are dedicated to community service. The three separate Angel Flight charities that had organised the four accident flights in 2007 and 2008 were members of the ACA.

Safety concern neatly identified, no great theorising or statistical models; just a plain straightforward identification of a ‘problem’ area, followed by an offered solution.  

The NTSB recommended that the ACA: Require voluntary pilot organizations to verify pilot currency before every flight. Require that voluntary pilot organizations inform passengers, at the time of inquiry about a flight, that the charitable medical flight would not be conducted under the same standards that apply to a commercial flight (such as under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 or Part 135). In conjunction with your affiliate organizations and other charitable medical transport organizations, develop, disseminate, and require all voluntary pilot organizations to implement written safety guidance, best practices, and training material for volunteer pilots who operate charitable patient transport flights under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The information should address, at a minimum, aeronautical decision-making; proper pre flight planning; pilot qualification, training, and currency; and self-induced pressure.

What happened next is an almost perfect example of ‘Operator’, Safety Agency and Regulator making certain that a legitimate safety case was properly and comprehensively dealt with; done right, finished tidy and the tools put away. This did not happen overnight, it took time, effort and probably cost money, from all parties. But it worthy of note that it was a collaborative effort. ACA did the heavy lifting, NTSB assessed and commented on the proposed solutions. When the dust settled, the FAA ran a compliance rule over the proposal and made sure it was all Kosher and issued exemptions which encompassed the areas which fell outside the rules – as writ.

In short; a first class example of how a safety oversight system functions. Today, in the USA there will be ACA members operating public service flights under an improved safety management system, quite legally; and, holding their operation, the NTSB and the FAA in high regard. Win, win for all concerned.

Just over the way, across a puddle known as the Pacific ocean lays Australia; land of Senate committee inquiries into just what part of Hell aviation safety oversight has descended into. The links below may provide a clue or two on ‘how’ ‘professional’ organisations set about resolving a ‘safety case’ - a decade ago.

Operation of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and in particular its report on the June 2017 crash of a flight conducted on behalf of Angel Flight Australia, under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).
 Submissions close on [b]Wednesday, 4 September 2019.
[/b]


[b]ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...sport/ATSB[/b]
Reply

Why White should place its bishop to b5 square?

Feste: “And thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges.”

Shakespeare’s use of the whirligig as a metaphor for "what goes around, comes around” seems apt today. The expression also serves to neatly summarise one of the shortest BRB indaba in the history of the association; and, a record when matters aeronautical are due to be examined by a Senate committee.

‘Twas P7 in the chair who kicked it off and set the tone.

Feste: "By the Lord, fool, I am not mad." “But do you remember?”

Twelfth Night – or; if you prefer the twelfth time a full house BRB discussed the scheduled hearing by a RRAT committee; ostensibly to do with Angel Flight. The usual suspects are due to appear, namely ATSB and CASA; invited to attend games of genteel ‘duck shoving’ and ‘pass the parcel’.

Submissions have been called for – This is the bit I dread; many (many) pages off the E-mail loops to digest and condense into a cohesive, representative submission, takes forever and usually gives me the hump. Not to be; as it happened the consensus vote came back in record time – in short; an expression of ‘no confidence’ would suffice. “No confidence in what?” I growled – expecting the worst. “Why, the whole charade of course” was the stern reply – “from the minister, through the Boards, on to management and down to the lowliest pencil sharpening expert in the place”.  End of - no further discussion. 

Glasses were charged and darts practice began – Canadians next week and they have been practicing; it’s for bragging rights and therefore an important match. Waiting my turn I had time to mull over the terse edict of the senior BRB crew; and decided it was probably a sensible decision. Consider; the working time allocated for the entire hearing is a meagre three hours; one hour each, Angel Flight, ATSB and CASA. The event is scheduled for next Wednesday, which allows four days to prepare a submission; it would take me, with nothing else to do at least that long to condense the notions of the association members , let alone draft and edit submission; and let’s face it, it has all been said before – in Spades, redoubled.

It seems to me the only real area of doubt is in the determination of RRAT committee itself to get things sorted out; once and for all. But then I think back to Forsyth, Pel Air and the disgraceful performance of O’Sofullofit and the any hours of hearings we have listened to and watched; the countless pages of Hansard ploughed through; then I weigh that against results. Aye, the BRB and IOS may well have the right of it.

Walking home with P7 he broke the silence – “I can hear the wheels turning in that wooden head of yours; while you’re at it, consider this; there’s enough rope between Angel Flight and Glen Buckley to hang he entire cast and crew of this little pantomime, let’s wait and see what the RRAT committee makes of it – then we’ll see what’s to be done – for best”.

Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth,
Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name—
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause:
This is the happy Warrior; this is he
That every man in arms should wish to be.

Supper, cigar and a nightcap ended an evening of much to consider. Handing over.

Toot – toot.
Reply

ATSB ops inquiry update: Submissions so far.

Via the RRAT inquiry website:



Mr Howard Hobbs (PDF 118 KB) 


Quote:"..The ATSB report is based on a flawed statistical analysis of accident and incident data. ATSB has

ignored more than half of the flights conducted by Angel Flight and compared Angel Flight
operations with a range of irrelevant other private operations. Consequently, the results lead to
conclusions that have incorrectly and unnecessarily tarnished the safety record of Angel Flight
when Angel Flight’s own comprehensive data shows that it’s safety record is similar to other
operations in private flying.

The report is not an investigation into the accident – it is an investigation into Angel Flight. The
cause of the accident is obvious – the pilot elected to fly in conditions that were unsafe, beyond
his training and abilities, and in contravention of the present rules and regulations - had the
existing rules been followed then the accident would not have occurred.

Making more wide ranging restrictive regulations severely impacting on others to try and stop
those who don’t adhere to regulations is not productive or sensible.

This pilot obtained a pilot’s licence under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regulations,
had done bi-annual flight reviews and medicals under CASA rules and would have received
notices of all the CASA pilot AvSafety seminars and updates.

What the industry needs to know is what the pilot could have done to avoid this mistake and
how others can learn from this accident to avoid making the same mistake. For example was
this pilot, and are pilots generally, aware that regular updates of weather forecasts and actual
weather conditions are readily available from sources such as METARs, SPECIs, AWIS, webcams
etc. and do pilots find reports difficult to interpret.

There must valuable lessons to be learnt from the accident but ATSB has not considered that at
all..."

Mr Shaun Aisen (PDF 1164 KB) 



Quote:"...I was at Essendon Airport on the morning of 21 February 2017, due to fly

to Flinders Island when the tragic accident involving a Beech King Air 200
occurred where it crashed into the Discount Freight Outlets killing all
onboard. The findings from the ATSB, A0-2017-024, continue to
astonish a significant portion of the Australian aviation industry, in
particularly well-qualified Beech 200 pilots.

Of significance to me, the report concentrated on the pilot's reputation,
past occurrences and the findings of aircraft configuration issues.

Surprisingly, the report did not address medical issues or potential
medical issues. The bodies of the occupants could not be recovered.

But, as the pilot maintained a Class 1 medical, it was 'assumed' that a
medical occurrence could not have arisen...

...Furthermore, if one continues to concentrate on 'reputation' as the
ATSB has concentrated on with its references to Community Service
Flight fatality rates and its associated assumptions, the pilots of the Fine
Air DC8 cargo jet that crashed at Miami on 7 August 1997 would have
been 'roasted' by the NTSB. Thankfully, a Cockpit Voice Recorder was
recovered, and even though the flight crew had 'a reputation', it was
found that they did everything right on that flight and that the issues
arising with the aircraft was completely out of their control.

The ATSB purports to report the facts, but based on the evidence
assembled in the Mt Gambier finding and that at Essendon Airport,
seemingly relies on assumption and presumption, whilst eliminating
from consideration real and possible contributing issues. In the case of
the King Air, without being able to recover any bodies and perform
necessary post mortems, how could they eliminate a medical event as
not being the prime cause of the accident..."

&..


"...The ATSB's reputation and integrity is detrimentally affected by the

supporting data - it is significantly skewed, blatantly incorrect and
appears pre-conceived. This is deceitful, dishonest and inappropriate.

The statistics are contrived and 'cherry pick' best opportunity to
substantiate the ATSB's findings.

Improvements in safety can only occur if it results from the accurate
provision and interpretation of available data. It is highly likely that it
will be clearly found that Angel Flight operations are vastly safer than
private category flying.

Ultimately, with nearly 50% of the report relating to Angel Flight
operations, it appears that the report's intent was nothing less than a
'cheap kill' or 'witch hunt' with the intent to hamper an organisation
that directly and positively affects thousands of regional Australians
each year.

The report devalues the lives of those directly and indirectly affected on
that day by not concentrating on the accident and what could have been
learnt directly from the occurrence.

What can we learn? To work collaboratively, using justified and
appropriate data to improve aviation safety across Australia..."


Mr Allen Hilton (PDF 116 KB) 




MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)