[Peetwo]

 Budget Estimates Report & QON list - 

For those remotely interested the diligent committee Secretariat has managed to compile the Budget Estimates report:

2018-2019 Budget estimates

Report
2018-19 Budget estimates - (PDF 180KB)

     
The report states that answers to the QON are due by this Friday, yet historically the due date is very rarely complied with. A quick look at the QON list would appear to show there is not going to be any change in precedence this time - see HERE - with not one QON answered at this time...  

Now although this expensive taxpayer funded Parliamentary Q&A process - treated by the Mandarins and their minions as nothing more than a petty irritation to be treated with disdain and the use of all manner of bureaucratic obfuscation tactics to totally avoid answering the questions honestly and transparently - the following is a couple of QON of minor interest to certain sectors of the IOS fraternity...

Question on notice no. 193

Portfolio question number: 297
2018-19 Budget estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Jonathon Duniam: asked the Airservices Australia on 22 May 2018—
Airservices stated in its evidence that it complied with its obligations under the EPBC
Act when implementing the new paths. However, according to the Air Noise
Ombudsman's report, Airservices said that its 'environmental assessment' report
should not be considered as a record of its decision-making process in this regard.
Please provide a record of the environmental assessment decision-making process
which demonstrates how Airservices met its legal obligations to determine the
significance of the impact of the new flight paths within the meaning of the EPBC
Act.

---

Question on notice no. 194

Portfolio question number: 298
2018-19 Budget estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Jonathon Duniam: asked the Airservices Australia on 22 May 2018—
Airservices stated in its evidence that the number of 'go arounds' (missed approaches)
had reduced by 5 compared with the same period in the previous year to illustrate that
safety has been improved by the new paths. However, I understand that Airservices
does not classify go-arounds as a safety breach. For example, regarding go-arounds, I
note that its website states 'This standard manoeuvre does not constitute any sort of
emergency or threat to safety'. Please advise why you used these incidents as a
measure of safety performance. Regarding the period you used as the baseline for
comparison of go-arounds at Hobart in your evidence, is it the case that construction
works had made the runway approximately 500m shorter at that time, thereby
increasing the likelihood of go arounds, making this an inappropriate comparison?

---

Question on notice no. 195

Portfolio question number: 299
2018-19 Budget estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio

Senator Jonathon Duniam: asked the Airservices Australia on 22 May 2018—
From safety data obtained from Airservices under the Freedom of Information Act, I
note that there appears to have been a pattern of aircraft failing to meet the
appropriate height requirements of the new paths (particularly SIDs) , including the
two 'loss of separation' and one 'loss of separation assurance' incidents referred to in
your evidence. These appear to involve different types of aircraft and presumably
different airlines. Can you confirm whether all of these incidents are 'pilot
attributable' and if not, please provide the cause of the incidents from September 2017
to March 2018 Can you also please provide dates and explanations of similar
incidents (i.e. where an aircraft has failed to comply with the height requirements of
the SIDs or STARs) post-16 March 2018.

---

Question on notice no. 207


Portfolio question number: 236
2018-19 Budget estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure, Regional
Development and Cities Portfolio
Senator PATRICK:  asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 22 May 2018
—
Senator PATRICK: So these photographs are of the state of a tyre for a Qantas aircraft that landed in Brisbane. It was transiting through Townsville, this was in
2016, and the log of events shows that, due to insufficient manpower available to
carry out the wheel change, the aircraft was sent on: 'The tyre may continue in service without safety concerns but must be replaced at the next check.' The bottom line is that there were not enough engineers on the ground to change the tyre, so they sent the aircraft on to the next location-possibly under commercial pressure; I don't understand the reasons why. But you would I'm sure appreciate, Mr Carmody, the seriousness of having an aircraft take off with a tyre in that state, noting in extremis the Concorde, when it took off from Paris, shed a tyre which went through the fuel tanks, with a tragedy at the end of that. So I suspect you would be concerned about an aircraft that might take off with a tyre like that?

Mr Carmody: I'm aware of the matter because it was 18 months ago. It's been referred to us. It's been referred to the Industry Complaints Commissioner, and the Industry Complaints Commissioner has reviewed the matter. So it's gone through our internal processes. I will make a couple of points: I saw the document, which hasn't been tabled but which you read out, that the tyre was released. So an engineer certified that the tyre was okay. I don't know,therefore, what damage occurred on subsequent landing. I assume that's not take-off damage; that's landing damage. An engineer certified it was suitable for take-off.

Senator PATRICK: I've talked to a number of engineers who have suggested that that
sort of damage to a tyre couldn't happen on a single landing; you might get an isolated  location; the point of the two photographs is they show that it's all around the tyre. But, in general, would that not concern you at all?

Mr Carmody: I was concerned, but, as I said, the matter was raised, it went to the independent Industry Complaints Commissioner and it was reviewed. So, as far as I'm concerned, any matters have been resolved.

Senator PATRICK: That's noted.

Mr Carmody: There is a completely independent mechanism; it's independent of me.

CHAIR: I appreciate that. I often have a plumber come to my house and the tap is still leaking afterwards. If that's the case, then I'd be concerned about the independence or the attention paid by an independent-

Senator PATRICK: Can I just stop, because I think there is a step in the middle that you are missing. That is that this gets investigated by CASA, and in this instance it was. There were concerns over the investigation and it then went on to the
complaints commissioner. The role of the complaints commissioner is not to conduct
an investigation. The complaint was that CASA had not conducted its job properly.

Mr Carmody: So it was investigated by CASA and it was then peer reviewed by
another office, so a different part of the organisation, to see whether the investigation
was well founded, which we do quite often in contentious cases. We put inspectors
from a different location on to review the matter so that we have a different set of
eyes-an independent set of eyes. That was done in the process. Then it went to the
industry complaints commissioner.

CHAIR: We could spar around all day here-I hope I don't mow your lawn, Senator-I'd like you to take on notice to supply the committee with the entire file, cover to cover: any artefacts; any photographs; any interviews, whether audio or otherwise; any files that are held, IT, however it does. You know the drill. From A to Z, supply it to the committee so that we can have a look at this.

Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator....

Senator Scullion: Can I just get a point of clarification. For the interests of completeness, the body is slightly independent from you. So thematerial of the committee you are going to provide includes their deliberations as
well?

CHAIR: Absolutely. Senator Scullion: Just for clarification. CHAIR: Thank
you for that, Minister-A to Z.

MTF? - Probably not...P2