Senate Estimates.

Qantas v Sen Sheldon?? - Plus 2nd Hansard out  Rolleyes

Via Oz Aviation:

 


written by Adam Thorn | March 3, 2021



[Image: AJ-1_1170-770x431.jpg.webp]

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce on Wednesday skipped his airline’s appearance before a Senate committee that descended into a heated row between senior executives and Labor’s Tony Sheldon.

Sheldon, who previously headed the TWU, said he was disappointed Joyce chose not to appear when his counterpart at Virgin, Jayne Hrdlicka, gave evidence at an earlier hearing.

He then proceeded to grill Qantas’ Andrew David, Andrew Parker and Andrew Finch over a number of newspaper claims, including that the outsourcing of 2,500 workers was planned years ago.

“Qantas is not Alan Joyce, and certainly isn’t the three of you,” said Sheldon, who also accused the business of having a “cavalier” approach to its workers.


Wednesday marked the fourth hearing of the Senate committee examining “the future of Australia’s aviation sector, in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post-pandemic”.

It’s designed as a forum for top industry figures to discuss how the pandemic has affected the industry and to examine how it can best recover.

Qantas was represented by Parker, who heads up International and Sustainability; Finch, its general counsel; and David, the CEO of Qantas Domestic and International.


Parker hinted Joyce was unable to attend because he was “on a roadshow this week talking to employees, as well as investors”.

Sheldon began his questioning by asking if the three were aware of an internal document, obtained by The Sydney Morning Herald last year, that appeared to suggest the airline had planned the recent outsourcing of workers years ago.

“Here’s the facts,” said David, “Last year, we were hiring people into the business, including into our ground operation business. We were invested in equipment to turn aircraft, we had a plan to invest $80 million over the next five years in equipment for ground operations. And indeed, every six months, I was attending internal roadshows with those staff to explain exactly that. And we had been rolling out equipment.

“COVID hit, we lost 11 billion in revenue, we ended up in a crisis situation, that meant we’ve had to recapitalise to resize the business. And we have to restructure to ensure that when we come through this pandemic, we are in a position where we can grow and start earning people back into the business.

“What we’ve done is we’ve looked at ground operations, and we’ve been very, very clear. Outsourcing to providers that we already used in 55 of 65 airports saves $100 million, it avoids $80 million of capital spend when we no longer have that capital, and it totally verbalises our cost base, which is proved to be essential in these uncertain times. Because as you would understand, we can’t afford to have high fixed costs to our business.”

Sheldon interrupted and said, “We aren’t talking about high fixed costs. We’re talking about 2,500 workers, many of whom have been there for decades, supporting the airline through thick and thin. So we’re not talking about costs.

“We’re talking about those people that have been doing it hard. Was it 10 years ago? Can you please answer this? I’m giving you a fair go. Was it 10 years ago, there was a document prepared by Qantas that there was an intention to exit ground services by 2020. Does that document exist?”

David responded, “I can tell you, Senator, I’ve worked at six airlines, every airline would have a document at some stage that would have looked at ground operations. All airlines around the world use external providers. I can tell you last year, we were hiring into ground operations. We had no intention of outsourcing ground operations.”

Sheldon also questioned the executives on the apparent suspension of a Qantas worker who raised coronavirus safety concerns and the business’ cleaning standards.

At one point, he told the committee, “Qantas is not Alan Joyce, and certainly isn’t the three of you. It’s the workforce and all of you. And the way this company has approached those individuals is an outrageous consideration after the billions of dollars we’ve given in support as a community as taxpayers to this airline.

“I don’t begrudge that support at all. What I begrudge is how you’ve used it, and the lack of responsibility that the company has taken for the way that they’ve approached these workers.”

Sheldon and Qantas have a long-standing bad relationship going back to his decade in charge of the TWU. At one point, The Australian reported that he said he would consider launching “a campaign of civil disobedience” over job cuts.

The disputed Qantas outsourcing plans, meanwhile, have seen the airline brand remove operations at the 10 Australian airports where the work is done in-house, which includes Adelaide, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Townsville.

The TWU responded by securing the services of Waterfront dispute lawyer Josh Bornstein, who is set to argue in the Federal Court in April that Qantas’ proposals contravene the Fair Work Act. If successful, a potential ruling could have major ramifications for other businesses.

Even though Qantas in the process of making the redundancies, current TWU national secretary Michael Kaine has told the Australian Aviation Podcast the workers could be subsequently rehired.

In response, Qantas has accused the TWU of not telling the truth. In particular, it has rejected accusations that it has transferred ground handling roles to “labour hire firms” and denied it has abused JobKeeper subsidies. It’s also hit back at the central claim that it removed in-house roles to avoid collective bargaining agreements.





MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Interesting OBS in Senate Estimates program - The DARD??  Rolleyes

Via the RRAT Committee webpages:



2020–21 Additional estimates


Monday, 22 March 2021
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications


Tuesday, 23 March 2021
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment

Program 22 to 23 March 2021 (PDF 170KB)

Friday, 26 March 2021
Cross Portfolio Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters

Program 26 March 2021 (PDF 154KB)



Hmm...this is interesting??  Rolleyes

Quote:1.45pm Domestic Aviation and Reform Division

2.15pm Airservices Australia

3.00pm Civil Aviation Safety Authority

From my reasonably informed position, this is the first time the departmental entity (ie the DARD) has been mentioned in any Senate RRAT Estimate dispatches. This would appear to be backed by the fact that when you Google the DARD it's web history only goes back to the beginning of February 2021?? 

However there is a history which leads to this webpage: see HERE      

Quote:First Assistant Secretary
Ms. Janet Quigley
(02) 6274 6061

janet.quigley@infrastructure.gov.au

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au

111 Alinga Street, Canberra City ACT 2601

GPO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601

Sections

Still got some more dots'n'dashes to join but I've got the feeling that the formation of the DARD is significant?? Shy

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Sterlo's aviation inquiry update: Interim Report out -  Rolleyes

Via the RRAT webpages: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...idAviation



Quote:On 17 February 2021, the Senate granted an extension of time to report until 13 May 2021. The Committee further agreed that it would table an interim report on or before 18 March 2021.

As promised: Interim Report


Hmmm...now this is interesting -  Confused

Government members - additional comments

Quote:
...Government members wish to note their disappointment that they were given a period of less than 24 hours during a busy parliamentary sitting week to read and respond to this interim report. It is requested that the Chair acts more courteously and provides more time to consider reports in the future. Given this, Government members will include their full commentary regarding this inquiry within the final report....

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Senate Estimates today: Pick up video link HERE

To monitor progress refer 'Dynamic Red' - HERE.

Ciao...P2  Tongue
Reply

[Image: sbg-21-03-21.jpg]
Additional Estimates 22/03/21: The DARD (& agencies) -  Rolleyes

Competence and action in pictures, via Youtube: Ms Christine Darcey and the DARD (Chocfrog nominee -  Wink )






[Image: Aviation-Safety-Fatcats.jpg]

Versus these industry and taxpayer bloated, self-serving, self-preserving and arrogant sycophants... Dodgy    







Plus via 'Tabled Documents':


Quote: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
 Responses to Senator Sterle's written questions
 22 March 2021
 PDF 12,002KB

 Senator Murray Watt
 Tourism Aviation Support Network Program
 22 March 2021
 PDF 557KB

 Senator Murray Watt
 Sydney Morning Herald article titled 'Angry Nats pushing change to aviation support package'
 22 March 2021
 PDF 591KB

 Senator Susan McDonald
 Airservices submission to the CASA preliminary review of Hobart Airspace
 22 March 2021
 PDF 8,377KB

 Senator Susan McDonald
 Correspondence regarding CASA's Hobart Class C airspace
 22 March 2021
 PDF 1,861KB

 Senator Glenn Sterle
 Stainless steel fastener standards
 22 March 2021
 PDF 16,580KB

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(03-23-2021, 02:51 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: sbg-21-03-21.jpg]
Additional Estimates 22/03/21: The DARD (& agencies) -  Rolleyes

Competence and action in pictures, via Youtube: Ms Christine Darcey and the DARD (Chocfrog nominee -  Wink )






[Image: Aviation-Safety-Fatcats.jpg]

Versus these industry and taxpayer bloated, self-serving, self-preserving and arrogant sycophants... Dodgy    







Plus via 'Tabled Documents':


Quote: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
 Responses to Senator Sterle's written questions
 22 March 2021
 PDF 12,002KB

 Senator Murray Watt
 Tourism Aviation Support Network Program
 22 March 2021
 PDF 557KB

 Senator Murray Watt
 Sydney Morning Herald article titled 'Angry Nats pushing change to aviation support package'
 22 March 2021
 PDF 591KB

 Senator Susan McDonald
 Airservices submission to the CASA preliminary review of Hobart Airspace
 22 March 2021
 PDF 8,377KB

 Senator Susan McDonald
 Correspondence regarding CASA's Hobart Class C airspace
 22 March 2021
 PDF 1,861KB

 Senator Glenn Sterle
 Stainless steel fastener standards
 22 March 2021
 PDF 16,580KB

Hansard out Rolleyes

Via the hard working APH Hansard team - 

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
22/03/2021
Estimates
INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Hmm...still trying to get my head around this -  Huh


Quote:CHAIR: I've got a couple of questions about a case that's just been completed in the Supreme Court but held in Mount Isa. Judge Henry said that he'd dismissed the jury—this is the Josh Hoch case—telling them that the case had been dropped. He said, 'Evidence linking Mr Hoch to the alleged crimes was lacking,' and he 'officially concluded it was not sufficient to pursue a case'. That is a case that was scheduled to go for three weeks and went for three days. After a 120,000-page brief of evidence, they didn't have enough evidence to get past three days. I understand that the police have been collecting evidence for CASA's trial against Mr Hoch. How is your confidence, in your case, now that it has just been thrown out after such a short amount of time and the judge was scathing in his comments?

A 120k brief of evidence - UFB! I can't even imagine what that looks like but I can imagine the Judge's incredulity when faced with such a mountain of paper. Is it any wonder the case was chucked out -  Dodgy

However note the comments in bold from two of the most senior members of the current crop of self-serving, self-preserving, fat cat executives at CASA... Blush 

Quote: CHAIR: Alright. There is an interesting question—I guess this is potentially more for the police, but it applies to CASA as well—about what it costs you to collect this evidence for a prosecutor to take forward. Do you feel that the amount of time and effort you are taking to pursue some of these cases is reasonable and that the outcomes are reasonable?
Dr Aleck : By and large, yes, I do. Certainly in this case I do. Some very serious charges were laid, and some very serious issues were raised in this case.
CHAIR: For which it was found that he did not have a case to answer. The estimate is $300,000, at least.
Dr Aleck : That part I can't speak to, because we weren't involved in that, but that's one part of a much larger case. There are proceedings for Commonwealth and state offences as well.
CHAIR: But the Queensland police collected the evidence for both?
Dr Aleck : They were involved in much of it, but so were our investigators.
CHAIR: If you're satisfied, Dr Aleck, then we'll continue, but I just feel horrified for this person. After hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and a case that's been thrown out, I hope that you have good grounds for proceeding and that they are reasonable and fair. I think this is an Australian who has been treated poorly.
Dr Aleck : I'm hopeful and confident that the case that CASA was involved in won't be thrown out, but that remains to be seen.
Mr Crawford : We believe it is reasonable and fair.
CHAIR: You believe it is reasonable and fair?
Mr Crawford : Yes. That's our position at the moment.
  
As I say UFB!  Dodgy

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Aviation in Budget Estimates: 2021-22

Via RRAT Estimates webpage:

Quote:2021–22 Budget estimates

Monday, 24 May 2021
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications


Tuesday, 25 May 2021
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications 


Quote:[Image: program-1.jpg]
[Image: program-2.jpg]
[Image: program-3.jpg]

Wednesday, 26 May 2021
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment


Thursday, 27 May 2021
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment


Program 24 to 27 May 2021 (PDF 204KB)

Friday, 28 May 2021
Cross-Portfolio Murray Darling Basin Plan matters


Program 28 May 2021 (PDF 172KB)

Also Additional Estimates AQON:

Airservices Australia:

1. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber99

2. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber100

3. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber101

4. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber102

5. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber103

6. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber104

7. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber105

8. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber106

9. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber107

10. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber108

11. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber109

12. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber110

13. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber112

14. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber113

15. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber114

16. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber115

17. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber116

CASA: 

1. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber117

2. https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber118

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(05-21-2021, 12:56 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Aviation in Budget Estimates: 2021-22

Via RRAT Estimates webpage:

Quote:2021–22 Budget estimates

Monday, 24 May 2021
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications


Tuesday, 25 May 2021
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications 


Quote:[Image: program-1.jpg]
[Image: program-2.jpg]
[Image: program-3.jpg]

Wednesday, 26 May 2021
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment


Thursday, 27 May 2021
Agriculture, Water and the Environment, excluding the environment


Program 24 to 27 May 2021 (PDF 204KB)

Friday, 28 May 2021
Cross-Portfolio Murray Darling Basin Plan matters


Program 28 May 2021 (PDF 172KB)

Watch Senate Estimates - HERE.

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Budget Estimates 25/05/21 - Video segments  Rolleyes

1st from the (soon to be departing) Hooded Canary:



Next from ASA:





Finally, without further Suspence, CASA... Dodgy 



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

The Casa session was interesting. It would seem CASA is endeavouring to force everyone into producing an FRMS.

One question I didn't see asked was how much would it cost to produce an FRMS and get it approved, all to continue doing what they have been doing safely for years.

There is also a niggling feeling that the whole process is about absolving CASA of liability rather than safety.
Produce overly prescriptive regulation that forces people to spend money on approvals that were not necessary in the first place.

In other words an over complicated make work program.

If it was about safety and cost effectiveness, far simpler to just adopt FAA rules, as New Zealand did, their industry thrives ours dies, go figure.
Reply

(05-26-2021, 01:33 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Budget Estimates 25/05/21 - Video segments  Rolleyes

1st from the (soon to be departing) Hooded Canary:



Next from ASA:





Finally, without further Suspence, CASA... Dodgy 


Addendum - Hansard etc..etc..WALOB!! (What a Load of Bollocks)

To begin the Hooded Canary's (vomitus -  Confused ) tabled opening statement:

Mr Greg Hood, Chief Commissioner, Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Opening statement
25 May 2021
PDF 1,263KB


Hmm...wonder why HC (conveniently -  Dodgy ) omitted the following from his verbalised version of his opening statement??

...To highlight just one example, in January of this year, the ATSB released the final report into the accident involving a de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver aircraft on the Hawkesbury River on New Year's Eve 2017. The accident resulted in fatal injuries to the five passengers and the pilot.

During the course of the investigation, the ATSB identified safety issues that needed to be brought to the immediate attention of the industry regarding the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. So well in advance of the  publication  of the  final report, we published two  Safety Advisory Notices - one, to the maintainers of piston-engine aircraft to inspect exhaust systems and engine firewalls and the second to operators, owners and pilots of piston-engine aircraft to consider the fitment of active carbon monoxide detectors .

Then, with the publication of the investigation's final report this year, the ATSB formally recommended that the International Civilian Aviation Organization mandates the fitment of recording devices in smaller passenger carrying light aircraft, something the accident Beaver aircraft lacked. Had there been a recording device on board, that would have considerably aided the ATSB's investigation into this tragic accident...


WALOB 1: Refer here - Incompetence it is then? - and here: An insignificant Penny drops; with a loud clang.

I also note there was no mention of the Essendon DFO cover-up despite Senator McDonald's apparent concerns over the implications for that particular crash?? Ref: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companie...55zmf.html

Quote:Queensland Nationals senator Susan McDonald, who chairs the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, said she was "massively concerned" about what happened at Essendon Airport, in Melbourne's north, as well as other developments in and around major, secondary and regional airports across Australia.

"We can’t risk aviation safety over commerce," Ms McDonald said. "We need to shine a spotlight on the decision making for infrastructure within air spaces and ensure that there is a clear understanding that maintaining airspace is a priority."

Hmm...I wonder whatever happened to that Senate probe?

Quote:..The chair of the Senate transport committee is chasing a sweeping inquiry into commercial developments around Australia's airports amid concerns that new office blocks, retail developments and hotels are jeopardising the safety of critical transport infrastructure...

WALOB 2.

Next the Hansard link:

25 May 2021 - Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, excluding communications (HTML & PDF)


Quote:CHAIR: Do you have to assess it, if they're managing it and they're operating safely?

Mr Crawford : If we're going to have an FRMS we have to assess it, yes.

CHAIR: Why?

Mr Crawford : Because that's what our rule set says.

CHAIR: Because why?

Mr Crawford : Because that's what our regulations require.

Ms Spence : We need to be able to—

CHAIR: Because your regulations require it. Because you need a rule.

Mr Crawford : That's a standard across the globe. If you go to other aviation regulators, they have a mechanism for assessing people who want to deviate from prescriptive limits. That's a standard practice in aviation.

CHAIR: It's a way of operating that doesn't reflect—it's whether or not you're addressing proportionality of regulation around different sectors within the industry.

Mr Crawford : I understand the proportionality argument. We're in favour of the proportionality argument.

Ms Spence : Essentially, we want to demonstrate that you can be an outcomes based regulator through using the FRMS but that does require us to be able to do our side of it and say, 'Yes, we think this delivers a safe outcome on the basis of the proposal that's been put to us.'

CHAIR: Some operators have been using standard industry exemptions for many years. What did this allow for? I assume that the exemptions approved by CASA and oversighted by CASA meant that they were operating safely.

Mr Crawford : There were a variety of industry exemptions in the past. It reverts back to us having brought in a new set of rules. If operators want to operate differently from prescriptive rules—and there are four or five annexes—there is a vehicle. We created an 'FRMS light', where we said that if you've just got a minor change to an appendix we would allow that. So you could work still within the appendix but have a minor deviation. But if it's a significant deviation from the appendix they have to have an FRMS. That's the way the regulation's constructed.

CHAIR: But if they've had these exemptions for a long time, they've not had a problem and they've got a proven track record, is the limit under the new exemption allowed to be carried over into the new rules?

Mr Crawford : If they wanted to continue with what they'd done previously and it didn't fit within an existing appendix, they would have to submit an FRMS that said, 'This is how we want to do it.' By all means, they can share their past experiences and we do a trial.

CHAIR: You make it seem so reasonable and so straightforward, but we know that's not the case people have had, particularly in the Far North where they have different flying conditions and livestock handling and so forth. Are you telling me that if people come to you with examples of where they want to vary their appendix this is not a process that will leave them lying awake at night worrying that they're going to lose their business?

Mr Crawford : On the assumption that they're adequately managing the risks, yes.

CHAIR: They must be, because they've been flying with these exemptions for some time.

Mr Crawford : That's a big assumption, I would suggest.

Ms Spence : The bottom line is, if they capture what they're doing into an FRMS and submit it for assessment, we would go through a trial process and, assuming that everything's okay, that could be approved. But we do have to meet our requirements of ensuring that everybody is safe, and that includes the people in the plane.

CHAIR: Indeed. They are the most keen on being safe. If they've been able to demonstrate that over a very long period of time, I just worry that this is another example of the tightening of the aviation noose on aviation in the north.

Ms Spence : One option we could do is to look at how many FRMS applications we've had and what processes we've done, through those, to give you some level of comfort that we're trying to work collaboratively but maintain a strong safety record.

CHAIR: Are these current rules going to allow you to monitor fatigue and make adjustments where needed?
Mr Crawford : The reality is, the operator should monitor their own fatigue management system, because it's a subset of a safety management system. When we go in and review operators and assess their safety management systems we're interested in how they're taking safety information, data, and how they're addressing things as they materialise. That's how we do it. We do it during our oversight processes.

CHAIR: I want to flag that I hear that the Air Force comment on general aviation, safety and operations. The Air Force flies a fraction of the hours that these guys in the north fly. I'm really worried that as an organisation you're focused on big operations, Qantas, Virgin and Air Force pilots, and the guys who are—and girls, aviatrix; four per cent of pilots are women—in this sector of the industry that is so critical to developing industry in the north, tourism, moving people around on charters, are going to end up with another gold-plated requirement that's going to force aviation companies, in GA particularly, to jump through another level of red tape and cost just to continue doing what they've been doing safely for years.

Mr Crawford : All I can tell you is we did a lot of consultation on the new fatigue rules—

CHAIR: Great.

Mr Crawford : with technical working groups through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel. We had representation from a variety of the aviation sector. There were genuine concerns about us coming up with a set of rules that may be too restrictive or not proportionate, so our board engaged an independent entity to review it. They came back with recommendations and we, essentially, adopted those recommendations.

CHAIR: On notice, could I ask for who you consulted with, where they were from, what sector of the industry, who the independent consultant was?

Mr Crawford : Yes.


Hmm... Dodgy

"..through the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel. We had representation from a variety of the aviation sector..."

...representation that did not include any of the professional pilot associations or indeed AOPA Oz - UFB! 

MTF with much more WALOBs...P2  Tongue
Reply

Many are trying to understand this:-

CHAIR: I am just trying to understand why the operator can't continue to manage their fatigue and their flying hours in the way that they've been able to do previously, using common sense, using the practical industry requirements. Remember, this is a small part of the industry but very important

Ms Spence: Essentially, we want to demonstrate that you can be an outcomes based regulator through using the FRMS but that does require us to be able to do our side of it and say, 'Yes, we think this delivers a safe outcome on the basis of the proposal that's been put to us.'

Bollocks: what in the world would Spence or Crawford know about operational risk analysis?

Ah, there's the rub. An operator may have a legitimate requirement for say an extended duty period on a regular basis. It may well be a carefully considered and scripted system, designed to suit and accepted by the crew. It may have worked very well – under exemption – for donkey's years with a strong safety record to back up the system. Then, it is submitted for CASA approval – enter the 'specialist consultants'. Ex CASA – their very expensive version of the SMS or the F&D is the only one which will be accepted. (Arses covered).

There is a high risk element associated with 'fatigue'. There is an even higher risk element when a SMS fails. These are the two victims of an inflexible system. To this equation you may add operator attitude – overt and covert – to the mix. A classic example is found in the Pel-Air debacle. In the CASA accepted and approved operations manual there is no attempt at a 'risk matrix'. A long flight, requiring a fuel stop at an island notorious for chancy weather, the alternate a long march away with the associated 'fatigue' accumulator of uncertainty and additional flight time – ignored. Communication problems not a factor, despite being a known possibility; no flight following, no support. Then, the crew have problems getting food and adequate rest. Then the imperative pressure to move the patient. Holes in the cheese begin to align. The rest is history. A high risk flight, no support and a potential fatigue trap. That crew should have only had one problem – to find a phone, call the base, declare fatigue and waited until the next day – the patient was stable and comfortable in hospital. So where was the support? Where was the fatigue matrix? Where was the flight following which could have advised – Norfolk looks marginal – best come back through New Cal? Except that solution was fraught – the French were not happy with it (story for another day).

CHAIR: But if they've had these exemptions for a long time, they've not had a problem and they've got a proven track record, is the limit under the new exemption allowed to be carried over into the new rules

The problems do not lay in the flight and duty rules Senator; they lay within the approval system. They lay within poorly constructed rules, applied as seen by individuals with NDI about operational management. Rules may serve to sketch out the basic requirements – serve as a starting point – but they fall way short of 'understanding' operational risk. The blind compliance CASA demand and support with criminal law, using 'strict liability' to prevent tailor made risk analysis to each operational type must be addressed – and soon.


CHAIR: My experience to date, though, is that most operators are very reluctant to come to you with a specific requirement, because it doesn't always work out well for them. That's the reason why people don't want to give evidence publicly. I'm just telling you that. That's feedback. This is why you have operators that are saying, 'I'm terrified of telling CASA that I need to manage things differently because I may well be managed out of profitability or practicality

Spot on – nearly. CASA are empowered by the Commonwealth only to ensure compliance with the ICAO. They are not empowered to micro manage industry; yet they do. Listen; once again, carefully to the silver tongued Scot as he clearly defines the intent to 'manage' industry risk and fatigue strategy – through CASA approval only for those who comply with their version. Crawford could not find a cat in a cat-house with a spotlight; yet the RRAT seem quite happy to bandy words and be led around like obedient children visiting a museum. Ayup; the 'mystique' of aviation safety weaves it's magic as scared politicians happily avoid any blame.

There is your Catch 22 Senator – Heads they win – Tails you loose. What's not to enjoy eh?

[Image: 10815878_0.jpg]
Reply

(05-30-2021, 08:33 AM)P7_TOM Wrote:  Many are trying to understand this:-

CHAIR: I am just trying to understand why the operator can't continue to manage their fatigue and their flying hours in the way that they've been able to do previously, using common sense, using the practical industry requirements. Remember, this is a small part of the industry but very important

Ms Spence: Essentially, we want to demonstrate that you can be an outcomes based regulator through using the FRMS but that does require us to be able to do our side of it and say, 'Yes, we think this delivers a safe outcome on the basis of the proposal that's been put to us.'

Bollocks: what in the world would Spence or Crawford know about operational risk analysis?

Ah, there's the rub. An operator may have a legitimate requirement for say an extended duty period on a regular basis. It may well be a carefully considered and scripted system, designed to suit and accepted by the crew. It may have worked very well – under exemption – for donkey's years with a strong safety record to back up the system. Then, it is submitted for CASA approval – enter the 'specialist consultants'. Ex CASA – their very expensive version of the SMS or the F&D is the only one which will be accepted. (Arses covered).

There is a high risk element associated with 'fatigue'. There is an even higher risk element when a SMS fails. These are the two victims of an inflexible system. To this equation you may add operator attitude – overt and covert – to the mix. A classic example is found in the Pel-Air debacle. In the CASA accepted and approved operations manual there is no attempt at a 'risk matrix'. A long flight, requiring a fuel stop at an island notorious for chancy weather, the alternate a long march away with the associated 'fatigue' accumulator of uncertainty and additional flight time – ignored. Communication problems not a factor, despite being a known possibility; no flight following, no support. Then, the crew have problems getting food and adequate rest. Then the imperative pressure to move the patient. Holes in the cheese begin to align. The rest is history. A high risk flight, no support and a potential fatigue trap. That crew should have only had one problem – to find a phone, call the base, declare fatigue and waited until the next day – the patient was stable and comfortable in hospital. So where was the support? Where was the fatigue matrix? Where was the flight following which could have advised – Norfolk looks marginal – best come back through New Cal? Except that solution was fraught – the French were not happy with it (story for another day).

CHAIR: But if they've had these exemptions for a long time, they've not had a problem and they've got a proven track record, is the limit under the new exemption allowed to be carried over into the new rules

The problems do not lay in the flight and duty rules Senator; they lay within the approval system. They lay within poorly constructed rules, applied as seen by individuals with NDI about operational management. Rules may serve to sketch out the basic requirements – serve as a starting point – but they fall way short of 'understanding' operational risk. The blind compliance CASA demand and support with criminal law, using 'strict liability' to prevent tailor made risk analysis to each operational type must be addressed – and soon.


CHAIR: My experience to date, though, is that most operators are very reluctant to come to you with a specific requirement, because it doesn't always work out well for them. That's the reason why people don't want to give evidence publicly. I'm just telling you that. That's feedback. This is why you have operators that are saying, 'I'm terrified of telling CASA that I need to manage things differently because I may well be managed out of profitability or practicality

Spot on – nearly. CASA are empowered by the Commonwealth only to ensure compliance with the ICAO. They are not empowered to micro manage industry; yet they do. Listen; once again, carefully to the silver tongued Scot as he clearly defines the intent to 'manage' industry risk and fatigue strategy – through CASA approval only for those who comply with their version. Crawford could not find a cat in a cat-house with a spotlight; yet the RRAT seem quite happy to bandy words and be led around like obedient children visiting a museum. Ayup; the 'mystique' of aviation safety weaves it's magic as scared politicians happily avoid any blame.

There is your Catch 22 Senator – Heads they win – Tails you loose. What's not to enjoy eh?

[Image: 10815878_0.jpg]

Addendum... Rolleyes :

The CASA Briefing - May 2021

From CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Pip Spence
 
As the newly appointed CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, I count myself fortunate on a number of fronts. I'm fortunate to have secured a job in an organisation that plays a vital role in a sector of the Australian community I value very much. I'm also fortunate to have worked in a range of aviation-related positions over a number of years, allowing me to develop a solid understanding of how the sector works, the challenges faced by its organisations and people and emerging opportunities. Importantly, I'm fortunate to have met many people in a wide range of positions in aviation and to have been a part of interesting and at times inspiring conversations. I do not pretend to know everything about aviation and aviation safety, but I do bring a depth of knowledge and experience to my job.

Over the last few weeks, I have heard from people across the spectrum of Australian aviation. Irrespective of the nature of their operations, they have all emphasised their commitment to working with CASA, and the importance of having a strong and respected safety regulator. This is very heartening and tells me the values of the aviation community align very much with my own. I place great store in respect, collaboration and engagement. Under my leadership, CASA will show respect for the aviation community and actively seek to work with people from all parts of aviation to maintain and improve safety. We have a common goal of achieving the best possible safety outcomes for ourselves and the broader Australian community, and we should never lose sight of this objective.

We have a great team of people within CASA who have a strong commitment to supporting the aviation community achieve the best in safety. I will be giving them my support to further strengthen our national aviation safety culture and I ask you to constructively work with them as the inevitable challenges arise. Over the coming months and years, I look forward to meeting with as many people from Australian aviation as possible as we continue to deliver safe skies for all.
 
All the best
Pip



EWH take on that:

  New CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Pip Spence has landed at Aviation House and has opened her first CASA Briefing newsletter by outlining her expertise in the aviation industry and how much she understands it. I have no qualms as such with blowing your own trumpet, but if the tune you're playing is not one the audience wants to hear it's still just noise. There is a greater risk; a gauntlet that Spence had chosen to run, and that's to put promote yourself on a platform that currently doesn't exist. In this case, it's a promise of respect. She said "Under my leadership, CASA will show respect for the aviation community and actively seek to work with people from all parts of aviation to maintain and improve safety." Right now that's an unfathomable proposition; the operations side of the regulator has a reputation for disrespect and roughshod tactics when it comes to dealing with the GA community. It's almost part of their DNA. If Spence is going to achieve her platform, some serious changes are needed; changes that will thresh out the dead wood within the department and allow new growth to thrive. Spence's problem is that she has now boldly gone where so many have gone before, and if, like the others, she fails to deliver, the aviation industry will stop listening to her tune because they will have heard it before...



Confused Sad
Reply

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Reply

The Suspence Saga.

And so, we open yet another new ledger for yet another DAS.

This one is not off to an auspicious beginning; there are blots on the first page.

No one likes to be patronised or fed platitudes; we cannot, not as yet, call Pony-Pooh or Bollocks but already the mood is trending toward that and more. The unfortunate opening address and the latest round of Estimates have gone down like a well trimmed man-hole cover and landed with a loud 'clang' on the stony ground of industry good will toward CASA. That was in short supply before the appointment – in tatters now. Consider:-

“I do not pretend to know everything about aviation and aviation safety, but I do bring a depth of knowledge and experience to my job.”

Aye: but from which end? Certainly not from the coal face. What can possibly be learned in the sheltered, cloistered world of secure employment, comfortable surrounds, working with like minded people and all the time in the world to arrive at a politically acceptable decision, on behalf of someone else – and no can to carry when it all turns to worms. Want a 'depth' of knowledge? Fine, take the family mortgage and bet it on gaining an AOC. Write your own manuals and travel the long weary road of gaining approvals; then set about building a business and earning a honest crust from a flight school, or charter outfit or even a third tier regular service. Try that for a couple of years; then perhaps the claim of to 'know' the industry problems will gain some credibility.


“Over the last few weeks, I have heard from people across the spectrum of Australian aviation.”

Oh! well then; that's just Fine and Dandy. Now, having said that, it will OK to retire behind the barricades and work closely with those who created the 'problems' and enforce the rules as they interpolate those to suit their own 'vision' or personal agenda.

We will set aside the bollocks which flows from the "Over the last" & etc. rubbish. All this 'heartening' collaboration, engagement and 'respect' dribble has all been said before; indeed they are now words to ignite resentment and fury – so often trotted out – placebos and patronising twaddle, used to sooth the politicians.

The last paragraph of the Spence platitude raised an urgent call for the bucket. It simply and honestly sends the wrong message. Industry's problems begin and end deep within the bowels of CASA; look to the where the rot lays and cure that; the rest will come to hand as a direct result of that. Anything else is demeaning platitude and a modified version of the same old song. I may add (as a personal note) the coy use of a 'pet' forename, to sign off is presumptuous; I will let you know when we are on a first name basis; until then, mind your manners and show some respect. Adding insult to the injury of using Crawford as your mouthpiece demonstrates clearly - just how far off track Spence has been led already, within the swamps and mires of Sleepy Hollow.

Master Hitch has penned a short piece which is worthy of inclusion on the opening page.

“New CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Pip Spence has landed at Aviation House and has opened her first CASA Briefing newsletter by outlining her expertise in the aviation industry and how much she understands it. I have no qualms as such with blowing your own trumpet, but if the tune you're playing is not one the audience wants to hear it's still just noise. There is a greater risk; a gauntlet that Spence had chosen to run, and that's to put promote yourself on a platform that currently doesn't exist. In this case, it's a promise of respect. She said "Under my leadership, CASA will show respect for the aviation community and actively seek to work with people from all parts of aviation to maintain and improve safety." Right now that's an unfathomable proposition; the operations side of the regulator has a reputation for disrespect and roughshod tactics when it comes to dealing with the GA community. It's almost part of their DNA. If Spence is going to achieve her platform, some serious changes are needed; changes that will thresh out the dead wood within the department and allow new growth to thrive. Spence's problem is that she has now boldly gone where so many have gone before, and if, like the others, she fails to deliver, the aviation industry will stop listening to her tune because they will have heard it before”...

We shall leave the matter of presenting Crawford as the face of the CASA in abeyance for the moment; just until the dust has settled and the vomiting has ceased. However, it is a rather large black mark on a brand new ledger. Mistake #1 and a biggy.

I hereby declare the new DAS season open.

Toot – toot.
Reply

On behalf of the 60% - NOW - calling BOLLOCKS.

Too ancient and set in my ways. Learnt the way this CASA world wags, decades ago. Time to call this latest fairy tale for what it is. 'All the best Pip” has just sent a huge 'Up Yours” to industry. I'd bet many choc frogs that she is the the useless ministers hand maiden – political expediency and election angst over rules all.

In some countries – corruption is an open game; available to all with the gelt. But never mind – the only problem aviation has according to the ministerial 'vision' is all fixed wing pilots learning VTOL skills – someone should tell him the Jetsons were no more than a cartoon fantasy – bit like SOAR – the inspirational idyll. Far removed from the Buckley common sense way to aid a dying industry.

That's my two Bob spent as pleases me best. The next two, and another two after them may buy enough Ale to allay the fury at this monstrous insult to industry's legitimate complaint being reduced to a demeaning 'piss take'. Second the motion – SHAME on that Estimates committee.

Set 'em here – and keep 'em coming; thank you.

[Image: D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg]
Reply

A gentle whack at Mac...

I was tempted to kick off the post with “As the boot comes off the gas pedal” - but that ain't strictly true, is it. We seem to be heading toward even more voluminous  clouds of noxious, gassy words.

[Image: SBG-201019-964454_1080x675.jpg]

You know, you pick up the FAA flight bag sized volume of rules and can, very quickly get a definitive, legally supportable answer to whether you are 'legal' or not. There is no huge volume of explanation or torturous tomes of legal jargon to wade through. 

But, here in Australia we are blessed with all of the paper mountain – which most can struggle through and nut out the fine points of prohibitive law and can operate on the razor's edge of not being condemned to a criminal record – just. Help is at hand however; we now have booklets which seek to explain those rules. Is it just me, or; can anyone else see just how ridiculous this is? In the USA one book, quick reference – plain words – good to go. Here in Oz, the regulations are so complex that we need a 'plain English' guide to explain them – and you can get manifold different legal opinion on what they actually mean – before CASA begin to twist 'em to suit purpose (or personal preference). 

Now it seems McDonald has eased off the gas pedal; perhaps the statement made in the beginning could be modified -


if they came back now and saw what we, the Senate Committees, have allowed to be done to our aviation industry, despite the protests of industry experts”.


We have heard for more than a year now the rhetoric – and what's changed? What changes are imminent? What steps toward legal sanity have been taken? The short answer is ZERO – no one has the balls or the brains to bring CASA back to ICAO compliance or operational sanity. Time for government to start 'governing' at put an end to this ever mounting pile of paper – before we drown in it.


Toot – toot...
Reply

A division is called.

Wiki - “In parliamentary procedure, a division of the assembly, division of the house, or simply division is a method of taking a vote that physically counts members voting. Historically, and often still today, members are literally divided into physically separate groups.”

M'lords, ladies and gentlemen; time to ante up; or, cast your vote.

The questions before the house demand resolution; to wit:-

Has McDonald taken her foot off the gas pedal?

Has the Sterle inquiry been broadened to take up the slack?

Much vexed conversation around these subjects; but nothing in the way of firm resolution. The McDonald performance at last Estimates has raised many eyebrows, even to the point of drawing a parallel with the behaviour of the unspeakable O'Sofullofit...

On the other hand, Sterle seems to be kicking goals – even taking an interest in the embuggerance of Buckley. An astute politician, with a real interest in 'transport' could find a very handy, large stick with which to beat the incumbent minister into a cocked hat.

Aviation is important – about time that was realised at the top level and something actually gets done; not just paid lip service and shovelled under the ministerial hearthrug.

That's it – speak now or forever hold your bits and pieces.

Toot – toot.
Reply

Its all coming to rights gentlefolk, here’s the answer :-

FOR IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION TO ALL.

Civil Aviation Act 2021
Amendment 8 MAy 2021
Tabling of Directions or notices of the Minister

69:123, (1) No pilot, or pilots or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots, may try, or attempt to try, or make, or attempt to make, or attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part, of the herein mentioned Civil Aviation Act.2021, Civil Aviation Regulations or Civil Aviation Orders, except as authorised by the Minister or a person authorised by or inspected by the Minister.

(2) If the pilot or group of associated pilots becomes aware or realises, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are, or have been beginning to understand the Civil Aviation Act 2021. Civil Aviation Regulations or Civil Aviation Orders, They must immediately, within three (3) days, notify the Minister in Writing.

(3) Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Minister will immediately re-write the Civil Aviation Act 2021. The Civil Aviation Regulations or the Civil Aviation Orders in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

(4)The Minister may at his or her opinion, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Civil Aviation Act 2021. The Civil Aviation Regulations, or the Civil Aviation Orders until such time that the pilot or pilots, are too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

Author unknown to me.

The sad fact is that not one MP in government ranks has been prepared to put their personal standing within their parties at risk for the good of General Aviation (GA), and by extension every Australian. I thought Susan McDonald might have made a start when she said that their RRAT Committee would look to correct the obvious wrong that helicopter chief pilots couldn’t sign off some proficiency checks in the same manner as their fixed wing counterparts.

The ancient Greeks valued courage as the highest virtue.

Today one could be forgiven to think that we put timidity, dressed up as safety, before even fairness, freedom and the prosperity of GA that would ensue with a rational and reformed regulatory and administrative environment.
Reply

Sandy I fear you are so right.

The more things change the more they stay the same.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)