02-23-2018, 09:14 AM
Final CASA Supp Estimates QON answered..
Yet another example of the disrespect for the Senate by the CASA Iron Ring - Less than 4 days out from the Additional Estimates and CC finally completes the answering of the previous estimates QON - Up yours Senators...
AQON received yesterday:
QON 112:
Answer
An independent review of the fatigue rules for operators and pilots contained in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013 is currently underway. It is being undertaken at the request of the CASA Board in response to feedback received from various sections of the aviation industry. CASA will consider the recommendations of the independent review in early 2018, including any impact on transition periods.
In April 2013, CASA introduced new rules for the management of pilot fatigue set out in CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013. Amendments to the new rules were made in July 2016 to adjust some flight and duty time limitations, along with providing additional sets of prescriptive limitations tailored to specific sectors of the aviation industry, for example, ballooning operations, medical transport and emergency service operators, and daylight aerial work operations (such as helicopter mustering).
CASA provided grandfathered operators—those who held, or had applied for, an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) prior to 30 April 2013—with a 3 year period transition to the new rules (this includes Part 141 certificate holders (flying schools) who held an AOC with flying training privileges prior to 30 April 2013). However, all other operators—those who applied for an AOC or Part 141 certificate on or after 30 April 2013—must comply with the new rules immediately.
The transition deadline for grandfathered operators has been extended three times:
- In 2015, by 12 months, in order for CASA to develop improvements to the rules in response to feedback on how the new rules were impacting different types of operators and included new limits and appendices
- In 2016, by a further 12 months, in response to industry feedback that more time was needed to incorporate amendments made to the rules in July 2016.
- This year, by a further 6 months, in order to enable sufficient time for the independent review of the fatigue rules to be carried out, and for recommendations to be considered.
QON 113:
[*]Answer
The offence occurred on 29 October 2016 at Bunnings Warehouse in Sunbury, Victoria. On 8 December 2016, an individual was issued with an Aviation Infringement Notice (AIN) for a breach of subregulation 101.395(2) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 — operating a powered model aircraft at a distance of less than 30 metres from a person not directly associated with the operation of the aircraft.
The penalty imposed for the AIN was based on the formula set out in regulation 296A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 of 5 penalty units or $900. At the time of the incident, the value of a penalty unit was $180.
[*]
QON 115:
Answer
Between 1 November 2015 and 8 November 2017, CASA issued 23 counselling letters to individuals in relation to apparent breaches of the regulations relating to the operation of remotely piloted aircraft.
Of these, one was issued to an individual who held a remote pilot licence issued under Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. None were issued to any individual holding a flight crew licence issued by CASA under Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
[*]
QON 118:
Answer CASA does not have before it an application or formal request seeking designation of prohibited, restricted or danger areas in respect of any area within the parliamentary precincts.
With respect to flights over the parliamentary precincts—CASA has:
• responded to requests from Senior Adviser Security Policy and Education, Department of Parliamentary Service outlining regulations relevant to the operation of aircraft in the vicinity of Australian Parliament House (APH) −11 August 2015
• met with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to discuss airspace management over APH − 11 November 2016
• responded to AFP request about airspace management over APH − 21 February 2017
• responded to APH Protective Operations request about process for establishing airspace restrictions over APH and information required to substantiate an airspace restriction − 31 May 2017
• responded to a Question on Notice from the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee Remotely Piloted Aircraft System Inquiry about the regulations regarding declaration of airspace over the APH − 20 September 2017
[*]
QON 124:
Answer
On 8 August 2017, in the course of an exchange with Mr Ashby about Mr Ashby’s operation of a drone in the Parliamentary precincts on 21 June 2017, Mr Ashby advised the CASA Investigator that he (Mr Ashby) had spoken to the AFP about his intentions, and that the AFP officer(s) with whom he spoke advised that they did not have any concerns about the location of his flight provided he remained a certain distance (not particularised) from Parliament House itself.
On 27 September 2017, the CASA Investigator sent an email to Mr Ashby, asking him (amongst other things) to identify the name(s) of the AFP personnel with whom he spoke, or the contact number he used to make that contact. Mr Ashby did not provide a response to that question.
On 23 October 2017, on the basis of the evidence available and an assessment of the apparent risks involved, in keeping with the applicable enforcement-related protocols it was determined that further investigation was not warranted. Accordingly, a counselling letter was issued to Mr Ashby admonishing him about his drone flight on 21 June 2017. With the closure of the investigation into this matter, no further attempts were made to seek a response to the question from Mr Ashby.
Mr Ashby does not hold either a remote pilot licence or a flight crew licence issued by CASA.
[*]
Of all the QON from Supp Estimates I note there is still one outstanding Senator Sterle QON yet to be answered by ASA's Harfwit:
Quote:+Overdue Yes[*]
Asked Of Airservices Australia
Proof Hansard Page/Written Written
Portfolio Question Number 475
Question
At the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates Hearing on the 23 October 2017, Airservices Australia were questioned about the continued use of non-CASA approved foams, and whether there is a national management plan to deal with the exposure to ARFFS firefighters to PFAS. At page 165 of the Proof Hansard Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield is recorded as stating Airservices Australia is currently reviewing its work health and safety controls:
Senator McCARTHY: A national management plan around dealing with PFAS? Mr Harfield: Yes. We have a national plan where we're going through preliminary site testing at all our locations, and they are underway. We just released last week the results for the Gold Coast for some off airport testing, and we continue to work with the Prime Minister and Cabinet PFAS task force for the whole-of-government approach, as well as, as mentioned before, continuing to review our work health and safety controls to ensure that they are as effective as possible.
Questions:
1.What controls are currently in place?
2.If PPE is your primary control, how and when is decontamination required?
3.who will be responsible for reviewing these controls?
4.When did this review begin?
5.In terms of the legacy of PFAS contamination, have you tested all ARFF fire grounds for PFAS?
6.Are firefighters still being exposed to PFAS when they train on the ARFFS fire grounds?
7.Is Airservices Australia resisting providing testing information to the firefighters union who have made four FOI Requests and are yet to be provided with the information requested?
8.Why is Airservices Australia not blood testing or health monitoring the firefighters for PFAS?
9.Why is Airservices Australia still using the non CASA approved foam at Darwin and Townsville? Is this a cost-saving measure that is putting the lives of firefighters, and the health of the community surrounding those fire grounds at risk?
Hmm...wonder what the sticking point is -
MTF...P2
