Senate Estimates - 2017-18.

Dear @BarryOQld - I'm sorry...L&Ks ShaneO @CASABriefing. 

Three days ago on one of his 2-3 days of turning up to Aviation House (for a measly 600K per year) Carmody Capers tapped out this weasel worded confection to the resident RRAT Senate Committee CASA-sexual @BarryOQld... Dodgy 



[Image: DtM2FkcVAAAjWFk.jpg]

[Image: DtM2TK3VsAAebQs.jpg]


 
"...This was my understanding of the advice I had received and was tabled on that basis. On subsequent review it is now clear that my statement was incorrect..."

Hmm...I reckon your left with one of two choices who gave that advice and they both feature here:

[Image: Dsz60IBUUAEAsbJ.jpg]

My money is on Dr A (aka the Mad Hatter) but I reckon he was gleefully encouraged by the designated (by himself) left hand of God Crawford (aka the White Rabbit)- see from 7 seconds here:

It would seem that in his haste, to persecute certain members of the General Aviation fraternity, the sociopath White Rabbit is making a habit of forgoing the rule of law semantics in order to vigorously endorse yet another black letter law embuggerance: see http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-57-...ml#pid9583

[Image: DtDkPSaUcAA7kbC.jpg]

MTF...P2  Cool

Ps Hmm...passing strange but I wonder what prompted the RAAus Acting Chair to tap out this Dear Jane on the same day of the first Oversight of CASA public hearing?

[Image: DtNY98UVYAAY7H3.jpg]

Reckon it is a fair bet that Dr A (aka the Mad Hatter) has placed a flea in the King ear not long after he got back to the RAAus HQ... Dodgy
Reply

(11-30-2018, 08:35 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Dear @BarryOQld - I'm sorry...L&Ks ShaneO @CASABriefing. 

Three days ago on one of his 2-3 days of turning up to Aviation House (for a measly 600K per year) Carmody Capers tapped out this weasel worded confection to the resident RRAT Senate Committee CASA-sexual @BarryOQld... Dodgy 



[Image: DtM2FkcVAAAjWFk.jpg]

[Image: DtM2TK3VsAAebQs.jpg]


 
"...This was my understanding of the advice I had received and was tabled on that basis. On subsequent review it is now clear that my statement was incorrect..."

Hmm...I reckon you're left with one of two choices. Who gave that advice and they both feature here:

[Image: Dsz60IBUUAEAsbJ.jpg]

My money is on Dr A (aka the Mad Hatter) but I reckon he was gleefully encouraged by the designated (by himself) left hand of God Crawford (aka the White Rabbit)- see from 7 seconds here:

It would seem that in his haste, to persecute certain members of the General Aviation fraternity, the sociopath White Rabbit is making a habit of forgoing the rule of law semantics in order to vigorously endorse yet another black letter law embuggerance: see http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-57-...ml#pid9583

[Image: DtDkPSaUcAA7kbC.jpg]

MTF...P2  Cool

Ps Hmm...passing strange but I wonder what prompted the RAAus Acting Chair to tap out this Dear Jane on the same day of the first Oversight of CASA public hearing?

[Image: DtNY98UVYAAY7H3.jpg]

Reckon it is a fair bet that Dr A (aka the Mad Hatter) has placed a flea in the King ear not long after he got back to the RAAus HQ... Dodgy

Pps I note from yesterday's Senate Hansard that the RRAT committee are slated to have another public hearing after 6pm on Monday 3rd December:


Quote:..Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 3 December 2018, from 6 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the performance of departments and agencies pursuant to standing order 25(2)(a)...
 
Standby for further details... Wink
I also note that Harfwit and his merry band of OneSKY trough feeders are due to give evidence on Tuesday the 4th from 8:45 am?? see here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...g_hearings
[Image: DtN5yzRV4AEeLEE.jpg]
Reply

PRE-START NOW!!

Thrust levers idol
Engine masters off
Engine mode selector normal
Park brake set
Gear selector down
Wipers off
Batteries on
APU test
APU master on. APU start
Gobbledock ON.......

The three muppets in the Senate video are a mish mash of what CAsA stands for - arrogance, ignorance, sociopathy, narcissism, bullying, incompetence, apathy, antagonism and deception.

The Mad Hatter is in his element. He is like a Doctor who likes to play God. CAsA truly think that it is they who rule aviation, it is they who understand aviation, it is they who should decide what is safe and what is not. Wrong wrong wrong. It is they who can’t hack working in the real industry, it is they who have no idea what is safe, what isn’t safe, what actually works and what doesn’t work, and it is they who are holding back, destroying and sabotaging the industry.

The Witch Doctor has been there for 30 years, he has sat through countless Senate grillings and he has privately grinned at the Senate assaults upon many different CAsA DAS/CEO’s, Senior Executives and so-on. He always comes up squeeky clean.

Indeed P2, you are putting your money on the right man sir. And this Witch Doctor certainly has more than 9 lives.

Tick Tock
Reply

Who’s on First;

Cheers P2 – those few seconds of video provoke some interesting notions. Watching the Crawford creature scampering about, retrieving his name plate and casting a covetous glance at the Aleck chair reveal much. Note the Aleck elbows; firmly planted on the table and the body determinedly facing forward. Crawford ain’t going to get that seat – Aleck shuts him out completely and retains the seat of power – to the right. When Crawford steps up to the table (with his name plate) watch as Carmody leans toward him as Crawford slithers into his seat. All significant of SDA except perhaps the underlying ambitions. Who knows; it just amuses me to watch the by-plays.

“In conclusion, the Bible reveals that no one sits on God's left hand. This situation is likely to continue into the ages yet to come (see Revelation 22:3)”.

Entertaining as that is; what followed was nowhere near ‘amusing’. Of all the able crew toiling away at CASA; the Carmody selection of his front row is sinister, underscoring the determination to keep CASA as it is; reform, from the top down is definitely not on the agenda.

“The first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them." (Machiavelli).

It makes one wonder why we even have a CASA board; unless that is also ‘sinister’. The man at the back of the room could be forgiven for expecting a ‘board’ to control the ways in which business is transacted. Even a fellah with the clout Alan Joyce has does, eventually, have to answer to a board. Yet the CASA board seem to do little but take their stipend and allow the CEO and his minions to do exactly as pleases ‘em; when it pleases ‘em with little or no consideration to not only the incredible damage being done to industry, but to Australia’s international reputation. The whole debacle is becoming the noted butt of aviation jokes; being classed with some of the less – shall we say – rigorous safety authorities.

There is talk that in both law and fact; the CASA board does have the ascendency. They don’t have to fight for it, it is theirs. So it begs the question – why, FDS do they tolerate the front row antics? The board have a large axe and the power to use it. Why then won’t they swing the bloody thing and end this embarrassing mess; quickly, cleanly once and for all?

Pitiful, pathetic and cowardly.

Toot-toot….


Sinister is the Latin word for left-handed. What evolution of meaning turned left-handed into evil and threatening?
Reply

Gloves off; and, a little more steam – thanks GD.

I am becoming just a little disenchanted with the O’Sofullofit sheltered workshop. Seriously, consider the words spoken in what is, probably, a smart Aleck throw away line, an unplayable challenge:-

O'Sofullofit - "[If you've got evidence of what you've just spoken about, you need to particularise it carefully, you need to underpin it with the physical evidence, reference it and get it to the committee]."

Evidence – certainly.

Particularise? WTD is that? - Oxford – “Treat individually or in detail”. OK, so, we name names, dates, times and recount individual (stand alone) incidents. Furry Muff; but, unless there is a body of evidence citing ‘an individual’ and a particular case; the impetous of ‘collective embuggerance’ becomes bogged down in individual ‘cases’. CASA thrive on individual complaint. Here needs to be a cohesive, collective – almost a ‘class action’ mounted to demonstrate the habitual, sanctioned, legal actions against ‘the individual’. One at a time, they don’t signify. Collectively, they tell another story. O’Sofullofit, and his committee need to stop pissing about and allowing the CASA to claim ‘individual’ as in isolated affront. One scratch is something nothing. !000 cuts is certain death. The Coppers (bless ‘em) know this very well; one car pinched could be joy riders: but 20 is impossible to ignore; one thief OK; but to whom is he delivering? Thus major, organised crime is discovered. Particularise – Bollocks; shove it where the sun don’t shine.

Underpin Oxford - Support, justify, or form the basis for. What a load of twaddle from O’Sofullofit. In short, you must be able to ‘prove’ a case before the investigators will even lift a buttock to break wind, let alone ‘investigate’. Problem is, without investigation and evidence of an act being produced – you’re buggered.

‘Reference it’. More pro-Bono  ‘investigative’ required from the complainant before anyone will even take the trouble to make a note and take a look – time permitting. Another ‘qualified’ crock of the proverbial;  from a man who should, and probably does, know a whole lot better.

It wearies my old bones to watch a fully cognisant committee stooge about the periphery; knowing full well that CASA is a basket case; fit only for the knackers yard and yet, despite the overt provocation; do sweet sod all to tackle the matter.

Time's up; Rome is burning, small Willy’s and low manifold pressure will not extinguish the flames. The committee probably ‘know’ more than even we do. Time fellah’s; piss on the pot or get off it. Two choices; no options; no negotiation.

Dancing around the Daisy’s is good fun when the sun shines bright. Now is the winter of our discontent – think on Senators; think long, hard and deep.

Will we rock you? Oh yes; on that you can rely - absolutely.

[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]
Reply

The CAsA bucket of money.......it’s bottomless

The waste of money, at the hands of CAsA, is truly extraordinary, but not surprising. It’s like playing with Monopoly money, to CAsA it’s no big deal to have spent $300m on the regulatory reform program. It’s no big deal to fight innocent aviators in court over pithy, irrelevant folly, while paying for top tier Barristers. It’s just money, our taxpayer money and they don’t have to account for its waste or misuse. They don’t give a shit, and neither does the Government.

George Carlin aptly describes Government in the below clip. Sounds like CAsA to me;



Tick $$$ Tock
Reply

10 years on - Let's not do the timewarp again... Dodgy

I see that over on the embuggerance thread - ref: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-57-...ml#pid9605 - that Ol'Tom has started up a tote on the 'Race to the Bottom Cup':


Quote:So, boys and girls, the rules are the same as always – you pays your money and you takes your pick.  


There is a side book running:-

Judicial Inquiry. 15/1.
Royal Commission. 5/1.
Senate Inquiry. 4/1.
Sweet Duck All. Odds on.

Happy punting………………"Yes please; same again; thank you"..............
 
Which brings me to the following 2008 SMH article on the infamous, shelf-wared and Iron Ring obfuscated, Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA (ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...casa/index )

SMH link: 
Quote:On a wing and a prayer

By Richard Baker
21 July 2008 — 6:43pm


Are we safe up there? Damning evidence to a Senate inquiry suggests the Civil Aviation Safety Authority may be failing as a safety watchdog.

SENIOR executives from Australia's air safety regulator were disgruntled when they fronted a special Senate inquiry earlier this month. Surprised by the Federal Government's decision to call a snap inquiry into their administration of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, they made their displeasure clear.

"After we had given our evidence at the last estimates (in May), the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed ... a number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot," CASA's deputy chief Shane Carmody told the senators.

Carmody's comments highlight the friction that has developed between members of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and CASA management in recent years.

Labor's Kerry O'Brien and CASA chief Bruce Byron have been particularly prickly combatants, with the Tasmanian senator pursuing the Howard-government appointee over his expensive overseas travel, his scheduling of time-off to coincide with Senate hearings and his $350,000-plus annual salary.

In addition to showing their displeasure at being the subject of an inquiry, CASA's leadership let it be known they were disappointed that the many changes they had introduced to the organisation - including reform of its approach to safety regulation and a 50% staff turnover - had not been "broadly recognised in the community".

While it may be true that most Australians are unfamiliar with CASA's reforms, the policy changes - particularly regarding safety regulation - have not been lost on pilots, engineers, former CASA staff, families of air crash victims and other industry participants.

In fact, Byron's mission to have CASA seen as a "valued partner" of the aviation industry rather than a "nanny regulator" is a topic that features prominently in many of the 50 submissions received by the inquiry.

Critics of Byron's policy argue that the move towards self-administration is worrying, particularly as airlines look to cut costs to cope with soaring oil prices and a bleak global economic outlook. Submissions from pilots, unions and former CASA officials said such times demanded a rigorous regulator.

But Byron, an experienced pilot and former airline executive, has made little secret over the past three years of his desire to introduce a "more sophisticated" approach to CASA's role as safety regulator. It is, he said last year, "something that has really been dear to my heart for some time".


Looking to the aviation regulatory regimes in the US, Canada and Europe for inspiration, Byron has pushed CASA in the direction of educator rather than enforcer. "CASA will not be knocking on your door armed with the regulations and a plan to dig around until breaches are found," he said in 2006.

The desire for a smooth relationship with industry is evident right across CASA. Even its job advertisements contain the sentence: "CASA works to be a valued partner with the aviation industry."

Byron and his management team reject criticisms that this approach has led to a cosy relationship between CASA and the aviation industry. "When at times we have to be a firm regulator, that is what we have to do," he told the inquiry.

CASA's ostensibly firm hand was on display soon after the Senate inquiry was announced late last month, with the authority ordering a safety check of air operations in northern Australia, where in one of the nation's worst air crashes 15 people were killed at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005.

However, the initiative was not well received by some of the families of the Lockhart victims, who regarded it as a cynical attempt to appear tough as the organisation faced parliamentary scrutiny.


What the Senate inquiry has made clear is that CASA's approach to safety regulation has been the cause of considerable debate and angst within the organisation. Deputy chief executive Carmody revealed an almost 50% turnover in staff, with some choosing to move on and others going "because we no longer had a place for them".

Byron linked some of the 134 redundancies at CASA to the cultural change he and his team have tried to implement.

A victim of that change is the man who was its general counsel between 1995 and 2006, Peter Ilyk. The lawyer told senators that CASA was treading on dangerous ground by playing down its responsibility for safety regulation.

"It (CASA) was not set up to be a partner with industry. It was not set up to promote industry. It was not set up to bow to industry pressure. CASA was set up to regulate the industry and enforce the safety rules," Ilyk argued.

CASA's decision to stop publishing air operator suspensions or cancellations on its website suggests a dangerously close relationship between the regulator and industry, according to Ilyk. "Such publication would not be in the spirit of partnership," he said.


Ilyk told senators that governance failures had flourished under the new arrangements, including a reluctance to tackle the big operators such as Qantas. He said he had brought these to Byron's attention but "not long after raising my concerns, I was terminated".

"I think there was a lot of industry pressure to get rid of particular people that happened to criticise industry or took a tough stance," Ilyk said.

"Towards the end of my career, the CEO simply ignored all of my emails ... One of the ones I sent to the CEO at the time outlining my concerns about governance failures in CASA was never answered formally. We had a CEO meeting about three months later and the only response I got from the CEO was, 'Don't you ever send me a minute like that again.' At that point I knew I was on the slippery slope out."

Asked about Ilyk's claims, Byron said that to the best of his knowledge he always responded to concerns raised by senior staff, either by accepting what they said or rejecting it. He did not recall ever telling people not to send him certain material again and reminded senators that ex-CASA staff making submissions might be "disaffected".

Another former CASA employee, Joseph Tully, who was a policy manager in the general aviation group, supported Ilyk's criticisms.

Tully told the inquiry that four senior CASA technical staff had been forced out of the authority since 2005 after registering concern about CASA's approach to safety regulation.


Rod Bencke, a CASA veteran of 21 years, was blunt in his assessment of the authority's standing: "It is my belief that CASA will not be an effective regulator until its operations and ethos have been comprehensively reviewed and effective correction action taken."

On what has CASA based its controversial new regulatory approach?

The answer is a mix of the "partnership" models adopted by aviation regulators in the US, Europe and Canada in recent years.

Unfortunately for CASA, these regimes, which emphasise industry self-administration, have this year come in for strong criticism from law-makers and public sector watchdogs in their respective countries.

In April, James Oberstar, the chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said the US Federal Aviation Administration had shown a dangerous lack of compliance with inspection requirements, resulting in thousands flying on potentially unsafe aircraft.

Oberstar's comments came after a congressional investigation revealed a discount airline was flying 737s that had defects which should have been detected by FAA inspections.


"It reflects an attitude of complacency at the highest levels of FAA management, a pendulum swing away from vigorous enforcement of regulatory compliance towards a carrier-friendly, cozy relationship with the airlines," he said.

Two months ago, the Canadian Auditor-General Sheila Fraser criticised Transport Canada's decision to let the aviation industry conduct its own safety inspections without first assessing any of the risks involved. Fraser said the policy "could have sweeping implications for air safety in Canada".

In Australia, it is not just former CASA employees who are worried by the authority's push for better relations with industry while moving away from the traditional role of a watch-dog style regulator.

Captain Ian Woods, president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, told senators that CASA had failed to meet required standards in enforcing industry compliance with safety regulations.

This failure, he said, meant CASA was "unable to act as a necessary counterweight to balance shifting economic and regulatory frameworks".

"Some people would say that it is never possible for the one organisation to balance safety regulation with commercial necessity and they should be separated," Woods said.


"A number of occurrences I have personally witnessed lead me to conclude that CASA gave due consideration to its obligations there and at times confused those obligations and was not clear and definitive enough standing up for safety regulation."

Adding weight to criticism of CASA's relationship with industry is its refusal to release its audits of the overseas facilities, mainly in Asia, that are increasingly used by Qantas and Virgin Blue to maintain their jets. This has caused the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association to accuse CASA of putting the interests of foreign-owned companies before those of the Australian public.

Though the Senate inquiry has been a bruising experience for CASA executives, they have not been without support. Qantas and Virgin Blue applauded CASA's regulatory policy.

"The shift by CASA to a risk-based approach to safety, where the focus is on safety outcomes, with the responsibility for managing day-to-day safety risks resting with industry, is supported," Qantas said.

Importantly, Byron can point out to his critics that Australia still enjoys an airline safety record the envy of the world. "I am the first to say that we, CASA, do not have an easy job, but I stand by the record of my organisation over the last few years. We do not expect to receive bouquets for the work we do, but I would like to believe that most of the industry, from time to time, and on considered and calm reflection, acknowledges that CASA delivers real safety outcomes," said Byron, who is not seeking re-appointment as CASA chief.


But critics, such as CASA's former chief lawyer Peter Ilyk, suggest Australia is more than ever in need of a strong aviation regulator, given the growing pressure on airlines to cut costs and the possible negative effect that could have on safety and maintenance standards.

"The fact that there have not been any accidents and the fact that people have not died does not mean that there is no safety problem."

Very troubling when you consider the current status quo on aviation safety administration and not to mention that the same core of Iron Ring executives are still to this day scurrying around and permeating the halls of Aviation House with their self-serving, rotting stench of corruption and evil malevolence... Undecided

As an example take the current embuggerances of Clinton McKenzie (see: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-17-lastpost.html ) and Bruce Rhoades (see: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-57-...ml#pid9594 ) then consider the following QON Hansard text and the subsequent CASA(Dr A) AQON from the 2008 Additional Estimates: 

Quote:Senator O’BRIEN—I am told that CASA provided advice for a letter signed on
9 May last year by the former Attorney-General, through his Queensland counterpart, in relation to the Transair 15 fatality accident that: ‘The Civil Aviation Act 1988 which CASA operates provides a regulatory framework for the maintenance and improvement of safety in civil aviation and relates to the prevention of aviation accidents and incidents, not their prosecution.’ Does that accord with your understanding of the sort of advice that you would provide?

Mr Carmody—I am afraid I am not familiar with that letter or that advice.

Senator O’BRIEN—Indeed, it would be wrong, would it not, because you are responsible for the initiation of prosecutions under the Act in some cases.

Senator O’BRIEN—And CASA, if it discovered—for example, with an organisation like Transair—transgressions of the law, it would be responsible for referring those matters to the DPP.

Mr Carmody—Senator, if we are going to a bit of detail on the legalities of the Act, I would prefer to have Mr Aleck, our General Counsel, come to the table because he is better equipped to answer these questions than I am.
Senator O’BRIEN—It is up to you.

Dr Aleck—I do not want to speak in detail about that letter at this point; I want to take it on notice. I do recall some questions were raised by the Queensland
Attorney-General’s office, if I am not mistaken, about the basis on which CASA might initiate action, and as I recall it was against Mr Wright himself. I think the view that we put at the time, and I would want to confirm this, is that there was no basis under our legislation, and I would maintain that that is so, on which we could recommend prosecutorial action against Mr Wright at that point.

Senator O’BRIEN—So, what you are suggesting is that you would not have given advice to suggest that in a general sense under the Act which CASA operates your regulatory framework was to do with prevention of accidents and incidents, not prosecution?

Dr Aleck—No, I would not agree with that, and I would be surprised if what we said was precisely that in the letter. Virtually every provision of the civil aviation regulations and most of the requirements specified in the Act contain offences and penalties which are designed to be amenable for prosecution should the occasion arise. CASA’s responsibility is to investigate these matters and, when the evidence supports it, to make recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions to commence prosecution.

Again, I am a little uncomfortable speaking without that letter in front of me, but I remember the discussion at that time and it had to do with the propriety of pursuing action against Mr Wright, which we said (a) was really a matter for State authorities and (b) in the circumstances, and it is so, there was nothing in our legislation that would permit us to initiate prosecutorial action successfully or recommend such action against Mr Wright. I have seen nothing since then that would suggest that that is so.

Senator O’BRIEN—So, I guess if the passage that I refer to exists in a letter from the Commonwealth Attorney-General to his State counterpart, it would not be on the basis of advice from CASA?

Dr Aleck—If the Commonwealth Attorney-General wrote a letter to the Queensland Attorney-General stating that CASA’s legislation is not oriented towards or permissive of prosecutorial action, then that would be incorrect. I would be very, very surprised if that statement would have been made on the basis of any advice coming from CASA. But, as I said before, I will take that on notice and review that letter.

Senator O’BRIEN—Sure. The passage that I am referring to states the following: that ‘the Civil Aviation Act of 1988 under which CASA operates provides a regulatory framework for the maintenance and improvement of safety in civil aviation and relates primarily to the prevention of aviation accidents and incidents, not their prosecution’.

Answer:
One of the primary aims of compliance with aviation safety regulation is the avoidance of aviation accidents and incidents. Where an accident or incident can be attributed to a failure to comply with aviation safety regulation, offences and penalties are set out in the civil aviation safety legislation to support prosecution wherever it is appropriate.

Now think on this?

.."After we had given our evidence at the last estimates (in May), the inquiry was announced and certainly I was disappointed ... a number of these issues have been ventilated quite a lot," ...
 
The same man that defended CASA with that statement is now the (part time) top dog at CASA and was also presumably the same man that was first privy to the findings/recommendations of the ICAO Audit team in 2008 - see: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...rt2008.pdf - and now some ten years later is supposedly instrumental in writing up and actioning the Australian CAP addressing the findings/deficiencies in the March 2018 ICAO final audit report - see: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/i...t_full.pdf .

Quote:Analysis
Considering the overall results outlined in Figures 1 and 2, the information below has been developed to assist the State in prioritizing its remedial actions.
High Priorities:

LEG:
1) Review the processes, procedures and/or arrangements in place to ensure that all relevant State safety oversight and investigation authorities (particularly with respect to Annexes 3, 12 and 13 to the Chicago Convention) are involved, in a coordinated manner, in the processing of adopted Annex amendments, with a view to:
a) identifying all differences between the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and the State’s regulations and practices; and
b) determining any need to amend the State’s legislation.
2) Ensure a timely and consistent update of national regulations whenever amendments to Annexes 1, 6 and 18 are received.
3) Ensure a consistent, thorough and documented review of the State’s enabling airworthiness-related regulations and national standards subsequent to an Annex amendment or an amendment by the originating State/organization, if applicable, to decide on the next course of action.
4) Establish requirements regarding the documents to be carried on board, to include the journey logbook.
5) Establish requirements, based on scientific principles, knowledge and operational experience, for flight time, flight duty period, duty period and rest period limitations applicable for cabin crew.
6) Establish requirements for human factors principles to be observed in the design and application of maintenance programmes.
7) Amend the State’s legislation to require the re-opening of an investigation if new and significant evidence becomes available.

ORG:
1) Include all required training in the training programmes established for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)’s airworthiness inspectors and engineers, and ensure the effective implementation of such training, in particular during the on-the-job training (OJT).
2) Finalize the recruitment and training of additional investigators to ensure that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) can meet its national and international obligations with respect to aircraft accident and incident investigations.
PEL:
None.

High Priorities: (cont.)
OPS:

1) Establish and implement procedures to ensure that air operators develop instructions to preserve flight recorders to the extent possible, in the event that the aeroplane becomes involved in an accident or incident and to keep flight recorders and associated records in safe custody pending their disposition.
2) Establish a system to ensure that air operators implement and maintain requirements, in the operations manual, to establish flight time, flight duty period, duty period and rest period limitations for cabin crew.
3) Establish a system to ensure full compliance of air operator certificate (AOC) associated operations specifications with the elements and the format/layout outlined in the relevant provisions of Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention.
4) Establish and implement a system to ensure that procedures for the approval of operations specifications are fully defined and implemented.
5) With respect to the transport of dangerous goods by air, ensure that procedures for the surveillance of authorized or non-authorized air operators, national and foreign operators are fully defined and implemented, and include regular and random inspections.

AIR:

Airworthiness Inspection:
1) Establish and implement procedures for the approval of leases among commercial air transport operators.
2) Review procedures/guidance for adequacy and, where possible, use standardized terminology to minimize misinterpretation.

Design Certification and Production:
None.

AIG:
Fully implement the ATSB’s action plan to ensure that all accident and incident investigation reports are completed within the established timelines.

ANS:
None.

AGA:
1) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements on Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) at aerodromes.
2) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements for the provision of rescue and firefighting (RFF) services at aerodromes, which take into account the aerodrome location and the surrounding terrain.

Other Priorities:

LEG:
1) Amend the State’s primary aviation legislation to include explicit provisions to recognize as valid personnel licences, certificates of airworthiness and radio station licences issued/renewed by the State of the Operator under an Article 83 bis agreement between two third-party States.
2) Ensure that the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) contains all significant differences, not only with the SARPs, Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS)-OPS and PANS-ATM, but also with all other PANS and the Regional Supplementary Procedures (SUPPS).

ORG:
Ensure that aerodrome inspectors are provided with training related to the regulation, acceptance and surveillance of the safety management system (SMS) which is customized to suit to specificities of aerodromes.

PEL:
None.

OPS:
None.

AIR:

Airworthiness Inspection:
Clarify the procedures, including associated flowcharts, which describe the granting of the noise certificate.
Design Certification and Production:
1) Review the documentation published on CASA’s intranet to ensure that obsolete documents (in particular AEB Form 002) are not available to staff, in order to minimize inadvertent use.
2) Enhance the control of existing forms and checklists by including revision/issue control reference in addition to date of revision.

AIG:
None.

ANS:
None.

AGA:

Ensure that the State has a coordinated mechanism to ensure full and effective implementation of the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) at aerodromes, including arrangements to prohibit any building developments which could create an obstacle to aircraft operations.

Above AGA (Annex 14) refer Airports thread post:
Quote:Federal Govt continues to obfuscate decades old airport safety issue?   

IMO it is deeply disturbing that many of the 2017 ICAO audit identified 'High Priority' and 'Priority' safety issue deficiencies were also identified some ten years before by the 2008 ICAO audit team and yet there Carmody and Dr Aleck still sit with impunity presiding over a draconian regulator that is still firmly of the belief that they are a law unto themselves:



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Beers with TOM.

Late afternoon, warm, gentle breeze, the nearby Hibiscus tree almost in full flower with a mob of Lorikeets enjoying the nectar; every door and window of the stable open, cricket on the radio while I tidy up the many joints made for the rocking cradle – there is a new keg in the fridge; all quiet. The dogs (as always) picked up the first hints that we had a visitor, two sets of ears tracking the approach; together they amble over to the doors, tails wagging, then they sit, like stone idols, not a sound. A full two minutes later TOM ambles across the yard; dogs go ballistic and I turn off the radio, find a couple of clean glasses and start to pull off  the first pints. He has his talking face on. Comfy chair, dogs parked between, the top inch off the Ale; then, “are we pissing into the wind?”  ‘Tis rhetorical – we both know the answer, talked it over a dozen times. I have found it is better to wait for the rest and light an illicit cigar to provide time while thoughts are marshalled, this is serious.

“Bloody Senate committee’s; seen this”:-

P2 “Which brings me to the following 2008 SMH article on the infamous, shelf-wared and Iron Ring obfuscated, Senate Inquiry into the administration of CASA”.

As it happens – I had; and, the one from the previous decade which ran along similar lines and the one from a decade before that. This nation has spent the budget of a not so small nation and the time it takes newly born children to have their own children, faffing* about with these very subjects. This endless pooh-fight began when many of today’s pilots were flying a Mum powered stroller. There is a very clearly defined path through the history of aviation leading to the current cross roads where we are, once again, doomed by history, to repeat. The road makers are ahead of us, beating out the inevitable track back towards the starting place. It is the stuff of nightmare and yet we all keep plodding along the preordained track.

P2“Quite obviously the committee were unimpressed with the ASA evidence provided yesterday because I note that today in the Senate Senator Sterle had a proposed inquiry motion agreed to”: etc.

“We keep falling for it” growls TOM – “every bloody time; even Sterle is dancing around the shit pile, screaming for someone else to clear it away; and, the same clean up crew is sent in again, to move the mess to one side, only to leave it festering, while the Senate committee wafts by without befouling their expensive boots, it’s ridiculous ”.

I had to agree. TOM got up and pulled us both a new Ale in the silence that followed.

What can you say? Even when a committee get serious, like with Pel-Air or Lockhart River, kick up a dust cloud, issue recommendations and generally make a lot of noise; what happens? SDA is not the correct answer. What history shows is, that without exception, any Senate committee or even Royal Commission edicts are carefully wrapped up in pony-pooh, sprinkled in faery dust and shelved by those who gain more knowledge on how to beat the committee and gather even more confidence in their ability to politely, but positively tell the committee to bugger off. We agreed the committees are made up of rank amateurs, with NFI, even less understanding  or real experience of just how unholy the mess is. 'Expert' panels are only very carefully selected, by only the right people.

TOM and I both agreed that despite the appearance of yet again going to get something done; nothing will change until the government grows a set and begin to tackle the core issues. Those that have been reoccurring and will continue to do so until they are eliminated. This committee has been offered an opportunity to do exactly that; and guess what? That’s right, they soft cocked it - once gain. Pitiful.

Aye, have your roaring and growling sessions; then, pick up your hat and feel good about a half a job done poorly. Don’t forget the pay cheque and perks as you walk away, feeling good to write your memoirs. Oh, and forget about a dying industry, you did your best – didn’t you?

“No matter” says TOM – “come along boy, I’ll help you put the tools away, then we shall see if that new keg can withstand a serious challenge”. “At least one job will get done, finished properly, tools away, bench tidy this night”. And, as men who can make and keep a promise - that’s exactly what we did.

Toot (dusty) Toot.

*Faffing ? It may have been imitative of the sound of gusty wind, or it may be a variation on maffle, a more widely distributed dialect term in Scotland and England that means to stutter or stammer, or to waste time and procrastinate; this might be from the old Dutch regional word maffelen, meaning to move the jaws.
Reply

(01-04-2019, 09:50 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  HOT OFF THE PRESS! via the EMAC (Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee) - Wink

Reference:


(12-30-2018, 07:05 AM)Kharon Wrote:  ...The Murky Machiavellian and his side-kick Dolan were granted all manner of latitude to make the sale of airport land (Commonwealth land) to developers as attractive as possible. Hell they even ‘finessed’ some definitions to assist. All in the name of progress aligned with public safety of course....



Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/thread-30-pos...ml#pid9711

...For example; there is a plan to build a large hospital in a regional centre; it is to have all the toys – including a helipad. Bravo. There is even an approach path mapped out for the Choppers which is touted as ‘the best’. For many reasons, that ‘selected’ path suits many people and puts a nice shine on the ‘spin’ delivery. Cool Banana’s; right. Well, answer me one question – just the one, a short one. Do you know what a Flying Fox is?...


[Image: b88716670z1_20170425222537_000gtrjle3b2-...00x300.jpg]

Flying-foxes are the largest flying mammals in the world, acting as long-range seed dispersers and pollinators for a large number of native trees.”

“The maps below show the general location of flying-fox roosts in Queensland recorded by the department, and include continuously and periodically (seasonally or irregularly) used roosts. The exact location of roosts may vary within a small localised area.”

Around dusk, grey-headed flying foxes leave the roost and travel up to 50 km a night to feed on pollen,


[Image: bats1.JPG]


..Well done class; all correct – now then, for Choc Frog; one last question. How would you like to be a patient flying in a helicopter to hospital, at low level <500' around about tea time or breakfast time through a 1.5 kilometre ‘launch zone for hundreds of flying foxes? For a bonus point, how many Fruit Bats to kill a Chopper?. Give up, can’t guess, well wait a while and the answer will become clear – the route to the emergency ward through the Fruit Bat launch zone is ‘approved’. Consequences? Wuzzat - Never heard of ‘em. The local airport development plan has - but 'what-the -hell'..




Ref: https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...-2018.docx

Quote:
Media Release
Helicopter Flight Path for Tweed Valley Hospital in Flying Fox Buffer Zone: Why wasn’t this serious risk included in the aviation assessment?


The Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Incorporated has serious concerns about the adequacy of the Aviation assessment for the proposed Tweed Valley Hospital rooftop Helicopter Landing Site, and the appropriateness of the location because of risk to public safety.  
The Committee has formed the view that the proposed location for the hospital is not appropriate because of significant risk of helicopter collision with flying foxes from a nearby colony.

 “In our view this aviation/flying fox conflict has serious ramifications for the siting of the hospital because of the need for helicopter access for emergencies.  If the hospital is to have a helicopter emergency facility at all then the hospital needs to be relocated to a safer area. 

As the hospital is only in the planning stage this is the ideal opportunity for the State government to relocate the proposal from the current site to one which is safer.    There is not only the risk to the helicopter and its crew and retrieved patient to consider with the current location, but also the community at large should a helicopter be impacted en route to the hospital or on call-out.  Risks to the public must be reduced as much as possible and the State government should discard any use of an “affordable risk” model in its decision-making.  It seems ironic to us that the State should be going to all this trouble to create a health facility to save human life while putting the public at a risk which is clearly avoidable.  This risk cannot be ignored.”

Dr Richard Gates, President of the Committee said today that “the flight path for the helicopter crosses the buffer zone for an identified flying fox colony not far from the hospital[1](see Figure 1).   The helicopter would be flying at low level in this area for more than a kilometre increasing risk of conflict as at airports.  Flying foxes don’t tend to get out of the way.  They are a known risk to aviation.”

Dr Gates said he was surprised when he read the aviation review on the rooftop Helicopter Landing Site (HLS) that there was no mention whatsoever of the flying fox risk for the proposed Tweed Valley Hospital location.  

“The organisation which prepared the report for the government has prepared many such reports for them and we would have thought by now that a risk assessment for birds and bats for northern NSW locations would be considered ‘routine’ given their well-known presence.  Clearly the Health Department Guidelines for HLS, which were recently revised, are not up-to-date and require the addition of such an important consideration and assessment.  Federal National Aviation Safeguards have identified these risks for some time now (see footnote 2)”.
“Birds and flying mammals such as the echo-locating bats and flying foxes are identified in the National Airports Safeguarding Framework Principles and Guidelines (see paragraph 26).  While the HLS is not an airport, well-known risks to aviation MUST be canvassed particularly when there is an established Plan of Management for Flying Fox in the Tweed Valley area and the matter of aviation risk has been canvassed in that Plan for both the existing hospital and the Gold Coast Airport.  The proposed new 



[1]https://www.tweed.nsw.gov.au/Documents/E...t_Plan.pdf (see pages commencing 100)



hospital site is much, much closer to the bat colony.  In our view this is a serious problem requiring urgent attention before any more work is done on the hospital at the current site. 

“Wildlife strikes and / or avoidance can cause major damage to aircraft and / or reduction of safety.  The consequences of wildlife strike can be influenced by the number and size of wildlife involved, phase of flight and the aircraft part hit by the wildlife”.[1]

 “The vast majority of wildlife strikes take place at or close to airports.  Almost all involve birds and flying mammals (such as bats and flying foxes)”[2].  In the case of the proposed Tweed Valley Hospital the flight path to access the hospital is at a low level and well within the heights the bats use to and from their colonies”.  

The NSW North Coast is not without its tragedies relating to bird strike.  “The loss of an F-111 and its personnel to bird strike many years ago at Evans Head is an example close to us[3],” said Dr Gates.   

He went on to say that his committee also has concerns about the independence of the SEARS aviation report prepared for the State government[4]

The consultant referred frequently to the NSW Health Department Guidelines for Helicopter Landing Sites[5]and stated clearly that they were “best practice”, and certainly from our reading implied that they were better than existing pertinent federal government guidelines which had yet to be finalised. 
 
Indeed the consultant made comment on the apparent tardiness of the federal government in this matter:  “..new rules will form Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 139R, however it is not expected that they will be completed any time soon” [emphasis ours].   

In our view the consultant’s comment is hardly a vote of confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) which is charged with aviation safety matters under its Act[6].  And in our view the comment begs questions about CASA and the federal government and delays in matters involving human safety and human life as they have with Public Safety Zones around Australia’s airfields[7]?
 
When we reviewed these State Health Guidelines about Helicopter Landing sites we noted that the consultant who prepared the Aviation Assessment for the proposed Tweed Valley Hospital was also cited very frequently in the Guidelines.  

We formed the view that the consultant to the NSW government should have declared this fact about the use of its material in the Guidelines in their assessment particularly when using them to guide their hospital HLS review.   The consultant may well be the best in the field and that may be why their materials were used by NSW Health, but if this is so why not declare this fact to allay any concern about independence of the assessment process?

We also noted in our review that the consultant has provided a number of reports about HLS for NSW hospitals which also raised questions for us about the tender processes for engagement of consultants specialist in this area.  Is there a tender process and how are consultants selected?  If not, why not?  These are questions which must always be asked in any economy driven by ‘the market place’, a 



https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/e...line_C.pdf 
[2]Ibid. 
[3]https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=137482 
[4]https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/...15-12.ashx 
[5]NSW Health GL2018_010 Guidelines for NSW Hospital HLS  
[6]http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewd...aa1988154/ 
[7]https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus.../INF/index 


hallmark of the current State and Federal governments, to protect the public interest.  There doesn’t seem to be easily-accessible publicly-available information about this process.  

Dr Gates said that in view of the identified flying fox problem for the proposed hospital site not raised in the Aviation Assessment, the State government needed to review its location, the HLS Guidelines which seemed to be deficient with regard to aviation risk assessment, mechanisms for consultant choice and declaration requirements so that the public has confidence in the planning processes for the new hospital.  The public interest with focus on public safety must always be ‘front-of- mind’.
       
He said his committee also had concern that the solution the government might find for the flying fox problem was a lethal one: The colony to be destroyed ‘in the public interest’ so that there was no longer any risk to the helicopters! “This would be an incredibly dumb solution given the important role flying foxes play in the productive economy of our forests[1][2], something the State government already knows! 
There are better solutions to the current problem such as a new location for the hospital.  Health claims it reviewed 30 potential sites for the hospital[3].  Surely one of these would be better than the current site? The State government needs to make the site evaluation process public so that we can see how the current site was chosen.  Public access to this process is critical to public confidence in our institutions and the political process for this controversial hospital site.  
  
Concluding Remarks

Clearly our evidence suggests that the evaluation process used by NSW Health in selection of the site was deficient.  Where was the due diligence for public risk and why was the flying fox matter missed when it figured prominently in other documentation available to the State government and a report referenced by the consultant?    Certainly Tweed Council raised its concerns publicly with regard to the impact the proposed hospital at its current location would have on the local biology including the flying fox[4].   Surely that query from the local council in whose jurisdiction the hospital is to be built should have set alarm bells ringing about flight risks and proposed location of the hospital?  

 But more than that why was the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which is charged with aviation safety and related standards for Australia, not involved in this critical process as an independent authority? 

[1]https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildl...tance.html 
[2]https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...37%2F24314 
[3]https://www.hinfra.health.nsw.gov.au/new...pital-site 
Reply

I would pay good money to see a handful of those disease ridden bats get ingested into one of the PM’s planes while visiting the region on the campaign trail.
Reply

Not a serious safety concern – Indeed.

I love the bit where Beaker (paraphrased) shrugs and wriggles then says ‘when you look at the numbers – it is not a safety concern’. Bloody hell – it was a ‘safety concern’ to the poor sods banged into a building at high speed, then being burned alive (or partially).

I wonder what Beaker’s ugly, weasel face would look like if it were him sat watching a pilot fighting for his life and aircraft as the concrete monstrosity approached at 200 Kph. Would his last disingenuous comment be ‘it is of no great safety concern’.

The last words of the pariah – the Uriah Heep of a shamed industry safety authority. Rot in Hell you pathetic, disgusting Twatt; rot in hell.

[Image: 2007-06-26twatt.jpg?w=468&h=351]

“Yes dearest heart; I shall have another; I have a great need of numbing my ears against the puling whining of the unspeakable”. “Set it down right here – I thank you”…………(Retch)..”Standby the bucket GD”.
Reply

(01-05-2019, 05:24 PM)P7_TOM Wrote:  

Not a serious safety concern – Indeed: Part II


I love the bit where Beaker (paraphrased) shrugs and wriggles then says ‘when you look at the numbers – it is not a safety concern’. Bloody hell – it was a ‘safety concern’ to the poor sods banged into a building at high speed, then being burned alive (or partially).

I wonder what Beaker’s ugly, weasel face would look like if it were him sat watching a pilot fighting for his life and aircraft as the concrete monstrosity approached at 200 Kph. Would his last disingenuous comment be ‘it is of no great safety concern’.

The last words of the pariah – the Uriah Heep of a shamed industry safety authority. Rot in Hell you pathetic, disgusting Twatt; rot in hell.

[Image: 2007-06-26twatt.jpg?w=468&h=351]

“Yes dearest heart; I shall have another; I have a great need of numbing my ears against the puling whining of the unspeakable”. “Set it down right here – I thank you”…………(Retch)..”Standby the bucket GD”.

From the same 23 May 2012 Senate Estimates Senator Fawcett pursued the airport safety questioning and that same ATSB report across other DIRD agencies/divisions.

The first was the Aviation & Airports division where Fawcett appeared to be somewhat incensed by the answers given to his QON 89 from the February Additional Estimates:

Quote:Senator Fawcett asked:

1. Given the Aviation White Paper statement that the primary purpose of airports is aviation,
what is the government’s strategy to ensure the long-term viability of leased airports
under pressure to sell off or develop airport land?
2. Does the government believe that long-term viability includes the potential to expand
facilities to accommodate larger aircraft?
3. Do the existing Acts and Deeds governing transition of airport ownership allow the
Commonwealth to intervene where development plans could restrict the future viability
of a leased/Council owned airport?
4. Does the government believe the existing focus on noise and airspace provides adequate
consideration of factors that affect the airports?
5. The ALOP transfer deeds clearly state that aerodromes are to be managed in such a way
as to maintain the current type and category of aircraft operations. Is it a breach of the
deed for a Council to limit operations of certain aircraft in order to change the ANEF to
accommodate a development on or near the airport?

Answer:
1. The Aviation White Paper committed to ensuring airport master plans maintain a
continued focus on aviation development at secondary airports and not allowing nonaeronautical
uses to compromise future aviation development.
2. The Aviation White Paper noted the importance of continued investment in leased federal
airports as national economic infrastructure.
3. For former ALOP airports transferred to council ownership, the Government considers
local authorities are best placed to make decisions regarding the operational arrangements
and day-to-day management of aerodromes under Transfer Deeds, balancing a broad
range of community interests.
The Commonwealth’s key interest is to ensure the aerodromes are not closed without the
consent of the Secretary of the Department and that they remain open for aviation
activity.
4. Yes.
5. Under the Transfer Deeds, it is the responsibility of the local authorities to make
day-to-day aerodrome management and operational decisions, including for the
management of aircraft noise impacts on or near the aerodrome.




This was the department's response to the intense questioning by Senator Fawcett, (note how M&M's dept neatly sidesteps the true thrust of Senator Fawcett's questions -  Dodgy ):

Quote:Senator FAWCETT asked:

Senator FAWCETT: There is a specific report. I would like you to look into it. That report
made recommendations about the requirement for forced landing areas for aircraft. There were
240-odd incidents leading up to 31 December 2010 in the decade before that. They include
degradations in the forced landings and 75 energy failures. I would like you to revisit the
discussion on public safety areas that has been pushed off to a later date. I would like your
response to that on notice as to whether it is adequate.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly, Senator. I will do that.

Answer:

The intention is that guidance on public safety zones will be developed by the National
Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG), with the guidance material then submitted
to the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure for consideration by ministers.
The ATSB report ‘Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single-engine aircraft’ will be
put before NASAG for consideration in that process. P2 - Yep the ATSB report was considered and then totally ignored... Dodgy  




Senator FAWCETT asked:

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, thank you. I ask you to take this on notice, given that we
are rapidly running out of time. How will the department implement your stated vision from
the white paper and your response to me that airports are predominantly about aviation? How
will you actually achieve that vision statement for your department’s view of airports if you do
not monitor the investment and the upkeep? I ask you to also extend that to ALOP aerodromes,
particularly given that the transfer deed specifically prohibited local government from doing
things like building dams or things that might attract bird life? Right at the moment there are a
number of councils who are doing things like interrupting drainage, creating bird habitats and
building dams right next to runways. I would like your detailed explanation about how you will
maintain oversight of aviation infrastructure that is clearly degrading at both the leased airports
and within the ALOP space.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly, Senator. I think Mr Doherty was talking about specific development
commitments, but we will come back to you with a statement in relation to how we oversight
them. As I said, ALOP, as we have discussed, is largely a matter for local government. The
guidelines under NASAG try to deal with some of those issues you have raised. So we will
come back to you with a detailed answer.

Answer:

The 21 leased Federal airports are subject to the planning and development framework
established in the Airports Act 1996. In relation to the leased federal airports, regulatory
control is achieved through the master planning process, development approvals and reviews of
compliance with lease conditions. Building and development activity is subject to building and
environmental approval processes. P2 - Notice there is no mention about public safety

The Sale Agreements for 10 of these airports included capital expenditure obligations for
aeronautical infrastructure of $700 million over the first 10 years of the leases. These
obligations were met and exceeded.

The same level of controls are not available at other airports, such as ex-ALOP airports, which
fall outside the planning and development framework established in the Airports Act 1996.

The Australian Government is working through NASAG to improve the arrangements for the
protection of all airports from developments which have the potential to impact on airport
operations, such as wildlife hazards, wind turbines’ lighting hazards and incompatible
infrastructure developments. P2 - Again no mention of public safety areas around airports.

On 18 May 2012, the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI) agreed to a
suite of national guidelines including ‘Managing the Risk of Wildlife Strikes in the Vicinity of
Airports’ as part of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. - And again... Dodgy

This guideline is intended to assist State, Territory and Local Governments to ensure that the
risk to aviation safety from land uses near airports that attract wildlife such as birds is managed
or eliminated.

In relation to the ex-ALOP airports, the Deeds of Transfer between the Commonwealth and
local and airport owners require that the facilities continue to operate as aerodromes.

In relation to aviation safety, the standards for the operation of the different categories of
aerodromes are determined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). These standards
are established under Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 and the Manual of
Standards for Part 139. The provisions include requirements to maintain the facilities in safe
working condition. P2 - Finally aviation safety gets a mention - well in passing at least... Undecided   

While the responsibility for maintenance and other aerodrome works rests with the owners and
operators, the Australian Government has worked with a number of local aerodrome owners to
provide funding assistance for key projects.

Since 2008, the Australian Government has provided $75.8 million in funding to regional
airport projects for infrastructure and upgrade activities under various programs targeting
assistance to regional Australia. The Australian Government has also allocated $51 million for
aerodrome upgrade works in remote and very remote locations over the period 2008 to 2014.

This funding is in addition to the financial assistance provided to the States and Territories
through GST revenue distribution and to local councils through Financial Assistance Grants.
As both are in the form of untied grants, these funds may be used for the maintenance or
development of regional aerodromes as appropriate. P2 - waffle...piffle..& folly QON once again successfully subverted... Dodgy  

Next to step up to the plate on Airport safety was McComic and his motley crew of Iron Ring trough feeders:



Ah yes the old buck passing exercise starts up once again... Dodgy 

Note how Dr A passes across the CASR section 92 reference? As a head of power I am not sure how much teeth it has but nonetheless for those interested here it is:


Quote:CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 92
Use of aerodromes
             (1)  A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:
                     (a)  the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;
                     (b)  the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a certificate granted, or registration, under Part 139 of CASR;
                     ©  the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraft engaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section;
                     (d)  the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or ©) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft;
and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.
Penalty:  25 penalty units.
             (2)   CASA may, in relation to an aerodrome, issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation.
             (3)  A person must not contravene a direction.
Penalty:  25 penalty units.
             (4)  An offence against subregulation (1) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.
  
Hmm...I wonder whether there has been any cases where CASA has enforced part (d)?

Next, remembering that this was nearly six years ago, Senator Fawcett puts a QON to McComic which also ironically brings us full circle back to the EMAC media release in regard to the helicopter flight path to the proposed new Tweed Head hospital  : 



Quote from the EMAC MR:

Quote:...The consultant referred frequently to the NSW Health Department Guidelines for Helicopter Landing Sites[5]and stated clearly that they were “best practice”, and certainly from our reading implied that they were better than existing pertinent federal government guidelines which had yet to be finalised. 

 
Indeed the consultant made comment on the apparent tardiness of the federal government in this matter:  “..new rules will form Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 139R, however it is not expected that they will be completed any time soon” [emphasis ours].   

In our view the consultant’s comment is hardly a vote of confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) which is charged with aviation safety matters under its Act[6].  And in our view the comment begs questions about CASA and the federal government and delays in matters involving human safety and human life as they have with Public Safety Zones around Australia’s airfields[7]?



...But more than that why was the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which is charged with aviation safety and related standards for Australia, not involved in this critical process as an independent authority?... 
 

Finally this was the somewhat muted and typically disingenuous response from Fort Fumble:
 
Quote:Senator FAWCETT asked:

Senator FAWCETT: I will come back quickly to your role in the process of airport
development, under local government. In fact under MOS 139, when an airport operator wishes to
choose things like critical aircraft to determine runway length and a whole range of other things
for the aircraft, you are supposed to be consulted. Can you confirm—I am happy for you to take
this on notice—who was consulted when, for example, Jandakot decided that 2 Bravo would be
their critical aircraft? Local government and state government in New South Wales have similar
requirements to MOS 139 in terms of consultation, particularly where proposed development may
infringe on the obstacle limitation surface. Were you consulted at Bankstown when the Toll
building was put in on the final approach for the helipad? The helicopter operators now have to fly
over, the whole time. For example, with places like Casino, they built a whole caravan park or
motor home village on the extended centre line of the runway and had to shorten the runway by
1,500 feet to still allow appropriate clearance. Were you consulted on that? Bearing in mind that it
might not be your regulation but that it was state and local government requirements, you should
have been consulted on that.

Mr McCormick: I will take that on notice because Airservices and the department are involved
in this to some extent as well.

Answer:

Whether CASA is consulted in relation to specific aerodrome developments depends on the nature
of the development and the type of aerodrome.

In relation to the examples given:

(a) CASA was not consulted on the determination at Jandakot as that is a matter for the
aerodrome operator.
(b) In the case of Bankstown’s Toll building, CASA was consulted and the aerodrome operator
used the guidance, with respect to the final approach to the helipad, contained in Civil
Aviation Advisory Publication 92-2(1).
© In the case of Casino aerodrome, the decision to shorten the runway is a matter for the
aerodrome owner noting that Casino is not a certified or registered aerodrome and therefore is
not covered by the Part 139 Manual of Standards.

MTF? - Definitely...P2  Tongue
Reply

As the parliament slowly gets back into gear; there is, despite several potential disaster areas a small ray of welcome sunshine. We may on the negative side be loosing the well liked and respected Whacka’ Williams; but O’Sofullofit has been dumped. That is the best bit of political news I’ve heard in a long, long time.


- HERE -

My wrap up of the O’Sofullofit era is deemed unprintable – so I’ll content myself by deeming it a ‘good riddance’. A very ‘good riddance indeed..

[Image: 2007-06-26twatt.jpg?w=468&h=351]

“Of course it’s my shout – charge your glasses, ye lads and lasses – a toast to - (censored)……….
Reply

BARRY O’SULLIVAN - Farewell, grub

I’ve not yet learned the politically correct ways of someone I admire, P7 Tom. I envy his ability to keep emotions in check on most occasions. Sadly, that is not my strong suit.

The departure of the braces wearing tub of lard O’Sullivan is great news. A narcissistic grub who should’ve walked the green mile years ago. What a fool with his Colonel Sanders white moustache and the gay braces holding up his stomach from collapsing onto his cock. It’s only because he is a bully and an arrogant revengeful stain that he stayed in parlousment for so wrong. People were scared to roll him. But finally the LNP, an utter train wreck, has no choice but to cut loose some ailing dross from its books and look to endorse some fresh talent. But good luck with that because by far majority you are all complete and utter wankers.

Barry, piss off, don’t come back and don’t let the door bang you on your fat arse on the way out....this one fingered salute is for you.
Reply

Barry O'Nomore -  Big Grin


(02-04-2019, 09:09 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  BARRY O’SULLIVAN - Farewell, grub

I’ve not yet learned the politically correct ways of someone I admire, P7 Tom. I envy his ability to keep emotions in check on most occasions. Sadly, that is not my strong suit.

The departure of the braces wearing tub of lard O’Sullivan is great news. A narcissistic grub who should’ve walked the green mile years ago. What a fool with his Colonel Sanders white moustache and the gay braces holding up his stomach from collapsing onto his cock. It’s only because he is a bully and an arrogant revengeful stain that he stayed in parlousment for so wrong. People were scared to roll him. But finally the LNP, an utter train wreck, has no choice but to cut loose some ailing dross from its books and look to endorse some fresh talent. But good luck with that because by far majority you are all complete and utter wankers.

Barry, piss off, don’t come back and don’t let the door bang you on your fat arse on the way out....this one fingered salute is for you.

By Hugh Riminton, via 10 Daily: https://tendaily.com.au/views/a190201auy...d-20190204


Quote:Two Senators Will Go This Federal Election. Only One Will Be Missed.

[Image: bebb55904504a87567593656d1d1d069-11150.j...&io=square]
Hugh Riminton
National Affairs Editor

Mon 04 Feb 2019 2.08 PM

The 2019 federal election will end of the careers of two National Party Senators. Both are men in their 60s. That is where the similarity ends.

Senator Barry O’Sullivan will probably best be remembered for his slurs against women. Search “O’Sullivan Misogyny” and in 0.44 seconds Google returns 142,000 results.

But his difficulties went well beyond that.

O’Sullivan’s career is over because he has been dumped by his own party pre-selectors.

It's a humiliating rejection. The one time Queensland detective was one of the richest men in federal Parliament and was once a powerful figure in conservative politics.

[Image: 7c9850c1bc232b88df4825cc79a1a201-189686....=landscape]Nationals senators Barry O'Sullivan and John Williams (right) during Question Time in the Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Thursday, November 30, 2017. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

He was treasurer of the Queensland LNP and a party kingmaker. He chaired the committee that decided who could run for the Coalition north of the Tweed.

But his methods have raised more than a few eyebrows. He boasted of convincing former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to establish a special drought relief fund.

On the quiet -- as reported last year by 10 News First -- his own family engineering firm then tendered successfully for lucrative contracts from the same fund.

The same engineering firm, now run by his son, has also done well out of the Toowoomba Second Range crossing and other Commonwealth-funded schemes like a post-disaster damage repair fund.

Despite his clear family and personal interests, O’Sullivan sat on the Joint Parliamentary Committee for Public Works and the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.

[Image: 019c3810060dd8a034b3e53c2f544c2f-189701....=landscape]Nationals Senators John Williams and Barry O'Sullivan during the Registered Organisations Bill vote in the Senate at Parliament House in Canberra, Monday, Nov. 21, 2016. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

In those roles, he would grill the public servants who ran the programs from which his family companies were profiting.

And he was brazen. At one Senate hearing, he thanked one agency head for their “professional and prompt” payment.

One of Australia’s most senior Constitutional Law experts believed O’Sullivan was “very probably” ineligible to be in Parliament at all.

That’s because the Constitution forbids federal politicians from having any pecuniary agreement with the public service of the Commonwealth.

Quote:In the end, his own party dumped him.

He won’t be missed.

The other National Senator leaving the stage is made of different stuff.

John “Wacka” Williams came into Parliament with personal experience of being done over by a bank.

For years, he accumulated detailed evidence of the arrogant, life-destroying policies of a whole range of banks and financial institutions, starting with Storm Financial.

As a political operator, “Wacka” was quite happy to be under-estimated. He listed his pre-Parliamentary qualifications as “truckie, shearer, farmer.”

With his sun-leathered skin, broad country accent and physique made chunky by years of hard work, he was written off initially as another boofhead from the bush. “Barnaby without the brain”, in the withering assessment of one wit.

But people who got to know him saw a lot to admire. His personal demeanour was friendly and humble. His mood was determined. His small staff were totally loyal. They knew they had a good one.

[Image: 84077407522d956670eff84a6850d606-189706....=landscape]Nationals Senator John Williams during Question Time in the Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Wednesday, March 22, 2017. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

More than any other backbencher, “Wacka” Williams did the spadework that led to the Royal Commission into Banking and Finance. It was Williams’ long demand for a far-reaching inquiry that ultimately left Malcolm Turnbull with little option but to call one.

The result revealed alleged criminality and unjust practices in the great financial institutions of the land. The arrogant in their towers have been humbled, their institutions’ misbehaviour exposed.
Australia will ultimately be stronger and hopefully more ethical for what Williams has done.

“Wacka” Williams intended to retire at this election even before his diagnosis with Parkinson’s Disease. He will return home to Inverell in northern NSW, relish some time with his wife Nancy, and take his big new “retirement” 4WD on some long drives through the country he loves so much.

So farewell Wacka Williams. And thank you.

As for Barry O’Sullivan, perhaps the door will hit him on the way out.
Reply

2019 and all that.

AD 2015 - P2 - "Now given that last week CASA put out a presser through the DAS Skidmore - indicating they have backed down on the NPRM Charity flight thing - wouldn't you think the miniscule's office would have got CASA's answer to reflect the good news story before releasing the AQONs to the Senate committee??

I'll be back with MTF..

Almost to the day...........

2019 - January, the worst month on the calendar is over and 2019 has begun – proper. What’s in store for aviation this year? Last year, like so many previous years saw little to no improvement for industry in the form of regulatory relief, that pile keeps growing as do the budgetary demands needed to support same.

I cannot think of one ‘win’ the SEC had; they may have rattled some cages but that was about the sum of it. Of course O’Sofullofit didn’t help matters; but, he’s departed the fix now and perhaps the committee can get a bloody wriggle on and sort out at least some of the mess. -  (P7 just growled – you’re dreaming boy). Perhaps I am, but there are things Estimates could ‘sort’. Some of the big ones could take a while; for example:-

The notion of placing unique conditions on permissions. It is quite important that when the SEC tackle CASA over the Angel Flight bun fight that the easement CASA wrote into law needs to be removed. Your driving licence grants you ‘permission’ to drive a class of vehicle; the DMR cannot restrict or place a unique, extraordinary condition on ‘your’ licence. General conditions apply of course – but they are not unique to the individual permission. Like, young Johnny’s Mum can pick up him and his mates from school – but Charlie’s Mum cannot. Why, well just because the DMR said so; that’s why. Crackers – right.

The ‘sympathy’ card being passed around relating to Angel Flight is, I’m sure, very nice and will keep the media entertained for about 30 seconds; but after that it’ll wind up in the bin with the other advertorial crap. Nothing there for the SEC to work with. They need a ‘legal’ angle to work around. CASA and their tame minister have just about killed off the ‘sympathy’ shout; using the smoke generated by that to distract the mind and eye away from some fairly hefty constitutional matters. Like a unique condition placed on an individual ‘permission’; or, amendments to licencing standards – changing the ‘law’ without the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny.

A ‘Private Pilot’ licence (PPL) allows an individual to gain aircraft type ratings up to 747, gain operational ratings, like a Single Pilot Multi engine instrument rating, like an aerobatics rating, a low level rating – the whole lexicon. The PPL also allows the holder to carry passengers anywhere, any time within the constraints of the ‘ratings’ held. They just cannot do it for ‘hire and reward’. But suddenly, CASA declare that to carry a passenger to a destination to meet a medical appointment demands that many more ‘requirements’ (see unique conditions) must be met. So, yesterday I gave old Ma Smith a lift into town to go shopping, then I gave her a lift home – no problem at all. Today she needs to get to the dentist – I would volunteer the same lift – if I could – but now I can’t because of some fanciful CASA notion and imposition placed on my valid licence and well maintained engines. Bollocks; There is no safety benefit or logic supporting that ruling. Now, if the CASA said I need to have logged ‘X’ amount of cross country navigation time, done at least ‘X’ number of night landings; or, flown a minimum number of hours on type, then the ‘changes’ would make sense. Oh, but wait a bit – I have to do that anyway to keep my licence current – and anyway.

There is no safety case supporting the CASA edicts. Perhaps the SEC can make some sense of it all. At least it will be entertaining – with the added fillip of CASA ignoring any and all recommendations made and the miniscule scampering off to hide under the nearest rock.

Will air shows be banned because of the Perth accident. Will fire flight be banned because we had an accident. Will float plane services be banned because we had an accident. Will B200 flight out of Essendon be banned because there was an accident.  Aye; happy daze for Senators is here again.

If if’s and but’s wuz candy and nuts

What a Christmas we would have….

Toot – toot.
Reply

A hopeful Hansard -  Rolleyes

While trolling through pages and pages of Senate hearing transcripts sometimes I come across a section of Hansard that truly gives me hope that the shiny bum Senators may actually give a toss about the parlous state of affairs inside of the Australian aviation industry. The following Hansard, from last Friday's Senate air routes inquiry, is one such occasion... Wink  

Quote:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
15/02/2019
Operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities


HEATLEY, Ms Jayne, Partner, Norton White Lawyers

McMILLAN, Mr Scott, Managing Director, Alliance Airlines

MARTIN, Mr Ben, Partner, Norton White Lawyers

SCHOFIELD, Mr Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Alliance Airlines


[11:49]

Mr McMillan : May I introduce Ben Martin, partner of Norton White, who are a specialised law firm based in Sydney who solely do aviation.

CHAIR: Thank you. I'm not going to offer for you to do a brief opening statement. We know why you've been called to the table. We're very keen. We are on a timetable. We'll give you the nod on—what's the name of the thing—

Senator PATRICK: CASA v Caper Pty Ltd I guess. Is that what it is?

Mr Martin : That's right. This is a decision that Scott McMillan mentioned. It started as an administrative action by CASA against the charter operator that was flying to, I think, the Tiwi Islands in the Northern Territory. The operator was selling its services to a tour company that was selling a tour. So you could go to Tiwi Islands. You could go in the morning. You got a package, if you like, and then came back in the afternoon. CASA took the view that that operation met the criteria for regular passenger transport operations.

In the Australian regulations we have different classifications of operation. They range from private, aerial work, charter and regular passenger transport. Obviously, the highest standards apply to regular passenger transport operations. But the regulation, which is civil aviation regulation 206, that defines the different classifications of operations is a problematic regulation that has caused difficulty for many years. Both the industry and CASA have recognised that there is this difficulty in defining it. In the Caper decision, and it was a Federal Court appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the court—and it was Justice Murphy—determined that that particular operation fell within the definition of regular passenger transport operations. So that meant that many operations that for a long time had been considered by industry, and possibly the regulator, as being a form of charter operation had been determined by the court to be a regular passenger transport operation. So that then meant that many of those flights that could be conducted as a charter flight could no longer be conducted.

It's important to bear in mind that when you look at the requirements they are requirements not just on the operator. If you classify a flight as a regular passenger transport flight the aerodrome has to meet different standards to a charter flight. What it meant was that some flights to remote areas could no longer be conducted, because if they were regular passenger transport operations then the aerodrome didn't meet the requisite standard.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: What was the test they applied there? Was it the frequency, the rhythm of frequency or—

Mr Martin : I don't have the regulation in front of me. But the regulation provides something like a regular passenger transport operation is a flight conducted for the carriage of passengers, or cargo, to fixed schedules between fixed locations for hire and reward. It is a problematic regulation and there needs to be regulatory change essentially to eliminate this classification. The Caper decision was handed down in 2012. The Civil Aviation Regulations, as Mr McMillan said, are in a state of change. They've been in that state of change, I think, since about 1988. This particular issue has been identified for a very long time as an issue that needs to be rectified. In the new regulations that CASA is working on putting into effect, there will be a difference in the change in the classification of operations. No longer will there be private aerial work charter and RPT. RPT and charter will be called air transport, and this issue will be resolved. The difficulty is in where the standards sit, because if you get rid of the two classifications and treat them as one but impose the higher standard then you're potentially going to affect a lot of remote and regional operations.

Senator PATRICK: What's CASA's current position on that?

Mr Martin : To be frank, I'm not entirely certain as to whether the detail has been finalised. The regulatory change is essentially happening. CASA wants to bring the change into effect by 2020, when new parts of new parts to the regulations are coming into effect.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: It won't just take some. Really, that's where the impact is going to be in relation to regional and remote areas. You couldn't compete to say, 'We're going to put a charter together between Brisbane and Sydney for the day to go to the Sydney Opera House and the Darling Harbour and then I'll fly them back.' You just would not be able to go anywhere near it, would you? You wouldn't be able to compete. I can go to the internet and get my $140 return ticket today from Virgin.

Mr McMillan : We might be able to, but this impact has been far more in remote areas, particularly with tour operators, as Mr Martin said. We published at two o'clock on every Tuesday afternoon we're going to take you out to the Tiwi Islands. By publishing that, from Darwin to Tiwi Islands, it's a fixed location so it's regular public transport.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Let's pretend that you could do that in the city. You probably wouldn't, but, if you did between cities, it wouldn't matter because the travelling public would choose to go there, there or there. It seems like we're determined at a federal level right at this moment in time to do all that we can to inhibit the free movement and passage of people and goods around this country with regulations between security and this crap and half a dozen other things. Somehow we need to have a big, hard look at this, not just a Senate inquiry. This requires—

Mr McMillan : We would regard that as a very good summary of the situation.

Senator PATRICK: That's something we can ask at estimates.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You think they're going to answer?

Senator PATRICK: No, I'm just interested in where the standard will shift to the highest. That sounds like our CASA—I don't want to pre-empt their answer—but it's better to stop this and deal with it before—

The view that the court took was that it was fixed schedules, fixed frequency, and therefore it fit within the definition. So, the advertising wasn't the point in difference.

Senator PATRICK: And I offer no criticism of the court. The court's clearly simply defining the law as it is as opposed to where we can take it.

Mr Martin : The definition is fraught with difficulty, has been debated several times over the years and really needs to be amended.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Was this the High Court?

Mr Martin : No, it was a single judge in the Federal Court.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Obviously, it hasn't been tested. Can it be tested? Is there a judicial appeal to the High Court on this?

Mr Martin : The time period for appealing has passed.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: But, in theory, it could've been contested?

Mr Martin : In theory, if the issue came up again, someone else could test it. But what you would be looking at is a case involving the safety regulator against probably a smaller operator—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: David and Goliath.

Senator PATRICK: But that doesn't stop the parliament from redefining what the circumstances are.

Mr Martin : And that is what CASA is doing. CASA does recognise the issue, and so this next round of regulatory change will—

Senator PATRICK: But they brought the action.

CHAIR: You say CASA want to work with you to change it—is that what you just said?

Mr Martin : I should add—and perhaps I didn't say this at the beginning and I should have—in the rest of the world there is no distinction between charter and regular passenger transport. There's just air transport, so there's commercial and then there's aerial work, which is—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Is it a higher standard of regulation or is it more relaxed?

Mr Martin : I don't know what the operating standards are in other parts of the world but, essentially, they don't have this distinction in classification which has caused the difficulty with CASA and, obviously—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:
But we want the distinction, don't we? Sorry: it depends on what their view of the planet is, but if their view of the planet is, 'We'll make everyone meet the highest standards' then the distinction's the only way we're going get exemptions for operators.

Mr Martin : I think the answer is having a definition and standards that are capable of flexibility so that you can have the same high standard that you know and expect on a flight between Sydney and Melbourne. But then, if you have a single charter flight to a remote location, the regulations have to be sufficiently flexible—that is, not prescriptive—so that you can achieve the safety standard that's acceptable.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: My experience with CASA—and we're about to at lunchtime meet the good folk from Angel Flight—is: it's not always all about safety; it's introduction of regulation and processes that don't yield up a safety outcome. They're motivated—it's a bit like someone stabbing someone with a butter knife. The next thing you and I are buttering our toast with our thumbs along with the rest of the nation because of that. I see that attitude frequently that they're not prepared to have a tolerance level. There are acceptable tolerances—I know that's a hard term to make—even around safety, God forbid, but we just seem to go to the—

Senator PATRICK: You've been hanging around Senator Leyonhjem too long, Senator. Look, that's a really helpful regulation to us.

CHAIR: Can I just go back—sorry, Senator Patrick. Mr Martin, I didn't get an answer. Did you say that CASA were trying to work with the industry to change that?

Mr Martin : They are, so there are new regulations that have not come into effect yet that will remove this distinction between charter and regular passenger transport. There are working groups between CASA and industry that are trying to set the standard which, as I understand it, is based on a more variable set of requirements so that you don't have the Qantas-Virgin standard applying to the four-seat single-engine charter operator flying to somewhere remote. There's a differing standard that applies, depending on the particular operation.

CHAIR: And are you involved in those conversations with CASA, or is it industry?

Mr Martin : No. It's technical people in the industry who understand what the different technical requirements are for the—

CHAIR: Is your company involved in the conversations, Mr McMillan?

Mr Martin : No.

CHAIR: Not at all.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: To get back to the chairman's observation, that's like suing someone then paying for their defence team. They've created the problem that they want to work with industry now to solve. Are we missing something?

Mr Martin : The difficulty was in the legislation. I'm not sure CASA created the legislation. It's a difficulty that has been there for a very long time. It became a practical difficulty when a court interpreted the regulations. Before then—

Senator PATRICK: After CASA brought the application?

Mr Martin : After CASA brought the application. That's right.

Senator PATRICK: I think we need to maybe put a question on notice about the weight of the old documentation set versus the new documentation set, or the new regulation.

Mr McMillan : I can answer that question. We went very close two years ago, because we have a very good arrangement with New Zealand. There is nothing to stop Alliance—nothing—registering all of its aircraft in New Zealand and not being subjected to CASA at all, because of our trans-Tasman arrangement. We haven't done that, but I can tell you that in part 61, which is the pilot training area, there has been this huge blockage. Ours is about as thick as I am indicating, and the Kiwis—

Senator PATRICK: For the Hansard, what was that?

Mr McMillan : It is five inches, and the Kiwis' is probably half a centimetre. We've often asked—I'll get this off my plate and then I'll feel really good—why we just can't pick up the legislation that the New Zealanders have adopted. They adopted it in two years. We're now 24 or 25 years into it. Every country surrounding Australia has adopted the New Zealand regulations.

CHAIR: What is the answer—

Mr McMillan : Well, the impact of that means that if you're a Pacific Islands carrier and you want to get something fixed—

CHAIR: I understand that. But what was CASA's response?

Mr McMillan : They didn't seem to care.

CHAIR: You're not going to shock us. Just get it on the record. What was it?

Mr McMillan : They didn't seem to care.

CHAIR: That has not come as a shock.

Mr McMillan : So, all of the Pacific countries now send all of their aircraft for overhaul and repair to New Zealand.

CHAIR: Has CASA come back and said that we're smarter than the rest of the world and we're far more safety conscious? Is that their reason?

Mr McMillan : No. We are constantly told that this country will not adopt legislation that's been drafted by another country.

CHAIR: It's a shame we don't have that with the wine equalisation tax and apples and pears. We won't go down that path, will we?

Mr McMillan : To Senator O'Sullivan's earlier comment: if I were king for a day I would simply go to Wellington with my photocopier and photocopy all their legislation and come back and wipe New Zealand off it and put Australia on top of it.

CHAIR: Luckily, I'm not king for a day, because I'd start with CASA!

Senator O'SULLIVAN: We've got a problem but it's not just a CASA problem. We've got it with the APVMA with the adoption of herbicides and pesticides. We've got it with medicines. Other developed nations—Germany, Japan, France—have spent millions of dollars approving a particular product and we just duplicate it here. Our stupidity as a parliament sometimes knows no bounds. These things typically fall into some of that.

CHAIR: Ms Heatley, did you wish to add anything?

Ms Heatley : It's probably worth adding that there's been a recent High Court case that is going to have quite a large impact. I think it impacts on cost. That's in the area of safety. Ben will probably summarise the case a lot better than I will. Essentially, the outcome of the case was that the court found that state and territory WHS legislation can also apply to air operators. Prior to that time it was believed that the Civil Aviation Safety Act covered the field in relation to safety matters with aviation, and that's consistent with the global position—the Chicago Convention, and the way that that's supposed to work. Now, we have a position where you can have two sets, or more, applying to the operator, depending on how many states and territories you're going to operate through for a flight. And they can have differing sets of requirements. CASA might say that you need to have a certain safety belt on a helicopter but the local state or territory WHS officer might want a harness. The operators are now going to have to work through that minefield and it's obviously going to have a cost impact.

CHAIR: I'll have to go to the expert here. Did you have a question, Senator O'Sullivan?

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, but when I reflected on this it's just what we've dealt with in the transport industry, where we've got transport operators having to pull up at the border between the Northern Territory and Queensland to let one beast off three double-deckers with 180 beasts. They've got to put one off because there's a slight variation in the tare weight and a range of things. So we're used to it in the transport industry, and we've actually been going the other way. We've had some success recently the other way.

But you should write to the chair or to me in my capacity as chair of the other part of this committee, and we will take this up. These are things that exercise our minds. We will take this up and take up the fight. We've got estimates coming up on Monday. I don't mean to burden you, but if there's a prospect that we can get a copy of the brief of the judgement that will give impact to this, and that can get to Dr Thompson by Monday—

CHAIR: By close of business today.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I promise you CASA will be at the table a lot longer than otherwise.

Senator PATRICK: Not just the case but maybe just a short brief that says, 'This is the impact that will flow from that decision as opposed to the decision reasoning.'

CHAIR: Sorry, it has to be by close of business today, or before Monday.

Ms Heatley : That's fine. This is something that we've raised with the lobbying groups, and the industry associations are all over it. So we have material that we can provide to you quickly.

CHAIR: Let me just assist everyone. Hello, CASA down in Canberra. You heard that. The questions are coming. They're listening too.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: The problem with CASA is that it's easy as a regulator or a law enforcement agency or whatever it happens to be to have people who are unhappy with you but—if CASA are listening, and I'm sure they are—it just seems like everybody's unhappy with them. It doesn't matter whether it's our retired pilots flying Spitfires or major airlines. We really need, I think, to turn our minds to this and have a very thorough look at this whole stuff at a level that's beyond a Senate committee or a select committee. But we'll take it up in estimates. If you've watched us in the past, we look forward to CASA's visits at estimates. It's a time when nobody nods off.

Mr Martin : What we'll put in that paper is what we think a possible solution is, and it does involve amendment of the regulation. Looking at your analogy, the difficulty we have here is that it applies to international operators as well. So it's not just a case of interfering with operations between states; it will apply to the foreign airlines that are flying in. Of course, Australia has agreements and obligations in relation to international harmonisation of civil aviation safety that are affected.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I know state governments have a peak body with respect to, say, the standards that we build roads to. They're based out of Melbourne. They're an instrument funded by all of the states and territories. That's where they send their briefs. They give advice back, very much like in a COAG capacity. Does anybody know whether the states have such a body for aviation, or, as we see with things like transport and debt mediation and all that, do the states do it in isolation?

Senator PATRICK: In Western Australia, they've got a federally owned airport.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, an association that is funded by the states. There are quite a number of them in other areas. Do we know whether there's one around aviation regulation?

Mr Martin : My understanding is: no, there isn't. It's principally because, for a very long time, it's been settled that the Commonwealth has control over—

Senator PATRICK: It's the Constitution, isn't it?

Mr Martin : Well, the Constitution came before flight, but certainly there are settled cases from the High Court from very early on in civil aviation days that made it clear that the Commonwealth controlled civil aviation.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: But now the High Court have taken a different view—is that what we're seeing?

Senator PATRICK: I presume that if there were a regulation or a Commonwealth law in place that stated what needed to happen then section 109 would kick in. That's what I would have thought

Mr Martin : That's what the High Court decision was all about—whether there was a conflict between the laws. The solution is to make the law a little clearer.

CHAIR: Sorry, I'm going to show some discipline here. It is now 12.15, so thank you Ms Heatley and we look forward to that information. I thank you Mr McMillan, Mr Schofield, Ms Heatley and Mr Martin for your time. Thank you very much. We know where to find you should we need to follow anything up. I look forward to talking with CASA on Monday.

Proceedings suspended from 12:15 to 13:03




This was the lead up to the above witness evidence:

Senator PATRICK: No—I just thought that, if counsel were not giving advice to the witnesses, they could give us a brief summary of the Caper decision, because you said it had unintended consequences. So, rather than wasting your money today, you could perhaps be helpful—if you wouldn't mind, Chair.

CHAIR: I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm mindful of timing. We have a meeting at 12.15, so, rather than doing half—

Senator PATRICK: No—I'm talking about a 10-minute summary of what counsel—

CHAIR: What time do we have now?

Senator PATRICK: We've got another—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I won't object to this, as long as it is relevant to the exercise of our minds on the terms of reference and where we'd like to be.

Mr McMillan : I think it is very relevant, Senator—

CHAIR: All right. Let's make it easy. Before we go to that, I just want to throw a quick one at you, Mr McMillan and Mr Schofield. We have had a lot of conversation around the alleged pilot shortage, to which we commissioned some work to be done through the Parliamentary Library to inform the committee of what's going on. The information came back saying, 'No, there's no pilot shortage,' but with subsequent conversations with the airline industry, the evidence is absolutely at the other end.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: The result was that the take-up of traditional advertising for vacancies for pilots hadn't changed They didn't pick up any trend in that: 'Last year there were 10 ads and this year there are 20.' There were 10 ads last year and there were 10 ads this year. I think what challenged us was whether that was the only pathway for recruitment.

Mr McMillan : The truth is always somewhere in the middle, Senator.

CHAIR: That's why I'm going to give you the opportunity to tell us.

Mr McMillan : We categorise it not as a pilot shortage but as a pilot training blockage. That might sound like a euphemism, but, at the end of the day, we've got to roll back five years. We've had aviation regulatory reform that's been going on for 23 years and it's not finished. Some of its been okay; some of it's been appalling. In the pilot training area, it's been an absolute disaster. There's a whole heap fewer pilot training centres in Australia than there used to be. Many of them are foreign owned and they're only training pilots for their own operations elsewhere and the number of training establishments has shrunk considerably. Australia's population is growing. You could only think that the same percentage of people want to be pilots. I think what's happening is that the sausage machine has shrunk so small that it's very hard to get a training place. We would say that, from Alliance's perspective, as many people are out there wanting to be pilots. As a company, we are always training ahead. We train eight pilots at a time. We bring them in. We seem to be a good place to work. There are all the different places around Australia to go and live. There is a whole range of different training techniques and things have come in that are far smarter than they were 10 years ago. Some of the regulatory requirements that we have to meet in this country are absurd. That's a separate argument for a separate place. There were no safety issues; there wasn't a number of accidents or anything. But the unintended consequence of what CASA have done with some of their regulations has caused this issue, particularly in Australia.

CHAIR: We are a very long way back.

Senator PATRICK: I presume, because we've also heard evidence in other inquiries, that there used to be a whole bunch of training entities in GA, and GA has also been killed off by those regulations?

Mr McMillan : Correct.

CHAIR: I just wanted to get your view on the record. Thanks very much.


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

(02-20-2019, 11:21 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  A hopeful Hansard -  Rolleyes

While trolling through pages and pages of Senate hearing transcripts sometimes I come across a section of Hansard that truly gives me hope that the shiny bum Senators may actually give a toss about the parlous state of affairs inside of the Australian aviation industry. The following Hansard, from last Friday's Senate air routes inquiry, is one such occasion... Wink  

Quote:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
15/02/2019
Operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities


HEATLEY, Ms Jayne, Partner, Norton White Lawyers

McMILLAN, Mr Scott, Managing Director, Alliance Airlines

MARTIN, Mr Ben, Partner, Norton White Lawyers

SCHOFIELD, Mr Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Alliance Airlines


[11:49]

Mr McMillan : May I introduce Ben Martin, partner of Norton White, who are a specialised law firm based in Sydney who solely do aviation.

CHAIR: Thank you. I'm not going to offer for you to do a brief opening statement. We know why you've been called to the table. We're very keen. We are on a timetable. We'll give you the nod on—what's the name of the thing—

Senator PATRICK: CASA v Caper Pty Ltd I guess. Is that what it is?

Mr Martin : That's right. This is a decision that Scott McMillan mentioned. It started as an administrative action by CASA against the charter operator that was flying to, I think, the Tiwi Islands in the Northern Territory. The operator was selling its services to a tour company that was selling a tour. So you could go to Tiwi Islands. You could go in the morning. You got a package, if you like, and then came back in the afternoon. CASA took the view that that operation met the criteria for regular passenger transport operations.

In the Australian regulations we have different classifications of operation. They range from private, aerial work, charter and regular passenger transport. Obviously, the highest standards apply to regular passenger transport operations. But the regulation, which is civil aviation regulation 206, that defines the different classifications of operations is a problematic regulation that has caused difficulty for many years. Both the industry and CASA have recognised that there is this difficulty in defining it. In the Caper decision, and it was a Federal Court appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the court—and it was Justice Murphy—determined that that particular operation fell within the definition of regular passenger transport operations. So that meant that many operations that for a long time had been considered by industry, and possibly the regulator, as being a form of charter operation had been determined by the court to be a regular passenger transport operation. So that then meant that many of those flights that could be conducted as a charter flight could no longer be conducted.

It's important to bear in mind that when you look at the requirements they are requirements not just on the operator. If you classify a flight as a regular passenger transport flight the aerodrome has to meet different standards to a charter flight. What it meant was that some flights to remote areas could no longer be conducted, because if they were regular passenger transport operations then the aerodrome didn't meet the requisite standard.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: What was the test they applied there? Was it the frequency, the rhythm of frequency or—

Mr Martin : I don't have the regulation in front of me. But the regulation provides something like a regular passenger transport operation is a flight conducted for the carriage of passengers, or cargo, to fixed schedules between fixed locations for hire and reward. It is a problematic regulation and there needs to be regulatory change essentially to eliminate this classification. The Caper decision was handed down in 2012. The Civil Aviation Regulations, as Mr McMillan said, are in a state of change. They've been in that state of change, I think, since about 1988. This particular issue has been identified for a very long time as an issue that needs to be rectified. In the new regulations that CASA is working on putting into effect, there will be a difference in the change in the classification of operations. No longer will there be private aerial work charter and RPT. RPT and charter will be called air transport, and this issue will be resolved. The difficulty is in where the standards sit, because if you get rid of the two classifications and treat them as one but impose the higher standard then you're potentially going to affect a lot of remote and regional operations.

Senator PATRICK: What's CASA's current position on that?

Mr Martin : To be frank, I'm not entirely certain as to whether the detail has been finalised. The regulatory change is essentially happening. CASA wants to bring the change into effect by 2020, when new parts of new parts to the regulations are coming into effect.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: It won't just take some. Really, that's where the impact is going to be in relation to regional and remote areas. You couldn't compete to say, 'We're going to put a charter together between Brisbane and Sydney for the day to go to the Sydney Opera House and the Darling Harbour and then I'll fly them back.' You just would not be able to go anywhere near it, would you? You wouldn't be able to compete. I can go to the internet and get my $140 return ticket today from Virgin.

Mr McMillan : We might be able to, but this impact has been far more in remote areas, particularly with tour operators, as Mr Martin said. We published at two o'clock on every Tuesday afternoon we're going to take you out to the Tiwi Islands. By publishing that, from Darwin to Tiwi Islands, it's a fixed location so it's regular public transport.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Let's pretend that you could do that in the city. You probably wouldn't, but, if you did between cities, it wouldn't matter because the travelling public would choose to go there, there or there. It seems like we're determined at a federal level right at this moment in time to do all that we can to inhibit the free movement and passage of people and goods around this country with regulations between security and this crap and half a dozen other things. Somehow we need to have a big, hard look at this, not just a Senate inquiry. This requires—

Mr McMillan : We would regard that as a very good summary of the situation.

Senator PATRICK: That's something we can ask at estimates.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You think they're going to answer?

Senator PATRICK: No, I'm just interested in where the standard will shift to the highest. That sounds like our CASA—I don't want to pre-empt their answer—but it's better to stop this and deal with it before—

The view that the court took was that it was fixed schedules, fixed frequency, and therefore it fit within the definition. So, the advertising wasn't the point in difference.

Senator PATRICK: And I offer no criticism of the court. The court's clearly simply defining the law as it is as opposed to where we can take it.

Mr Martin : The definition is fraught with difficulty, has been debated several times over the years and really needs to be amended.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Was this the High Court?

Mr Martin : No, it was a single judge in the Federal Court.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Obviously, it hasn't been tested. Can it be tested? Is there a judicial appeal to the High Court on this?

Mr Martin : The time period for appealing has passed.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: But, in theory, it could've been contested?

Mr Martin : In theory, if the issue came up again, someone else could test it. But what you would be looking at is a case involving the safety regulator against probably a smaller operator—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: David and Goliath.

Senator PATRICK: But that doesn't stop the parliament from redefining what the circumstances are.

Mr Martin : And that is what CASA is doing. CASA does recognise the issue, and so this next round of regulatory change will—

Senator PATRICK: But they brought the action.

CHAIR: You say CASA want to work with you to change it—is that what you just said?

Mr Martin : I should add—and perhaps I didn't say this at the beginning and I should have—in the rest of the world there is no distinction between charter and regular passenger transport. There's just air transport, so there's commercial and then there's aerial work, which is—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Is it a higher standard of regulation or is it more relaxed?

Mr Martin : I don't know what the operating standards are in other parts of the world but, essentially, they don't have this distinction in classification which has caused the difficulty with CASA and, obviously—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:
But we want the distinction, don't we? Sorry: it depends on what their view of the planet is, but if their view of the planet is, 'We'll make everyone meet the highest standards' then the distinction's the only way we're going get exemptions for operators.

Mr Martin : I think the answer is having a definition and standards that are capable of flexibility so that you can have the same high standard that you know and expect on a flight between Sydney and Melbourne. But then, if you have a single charter flight to a remote location, the regulations have to be sufficiently flexible—that is, not prescriptive—so that you can achieve the safety standard that's acceptable.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: My experience with CASA—and we're about to at lunchtime meet the good folk from Angel Flight—is: it's not always all about safety; it's introduction of regulation and processes that don't yield up a safety outcome. They're motivated—it's a bit like someone stabbing someone with a butter knife. The next thing you and I are buttering our toast with our thumbs along with the rest of the nation because of that. I see that attitude frequently that they're not prepared to have a tolerance level. There are acceptable tolerances—I know that's a hard term to make—even around safety, God forbid, but we just seem to go to the—

Senator PATRICK: You've been hanging around Senator Leyonhjem too long, Senator. Look, that's a really helpful regulation to us.

CHAIR: Can I just go back—sorry, Senator Patrick. Mr Martin, I didn't get an answer. Did you say that CASA were trying to work with the industry to change that?

Mr Martin : They are, so there are new regulations that have not come into effect yet that will remove this distinction between charter and regular passenger transport. There are working groups between CASA and industry that are trying to set the standard which, as I understand it, is based on a more variable set of requirements so that you don't have the Qantas-Virgin standard applying to the four-seat single-engine charter operator flying to somewhere remote. There's a differing standard that applies, depending on the particular operation.

CHAIR: And are you involved in those conversations with CASA, or is it industry?

Mr Martin : No. It's technical people in the industry who understand what the different technical requirements are for the—

CHAIR: Is your company involved in the conversations, Mr McMillan?

Mr Martin : No.

CHAIR: Not at all.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: To get back to the chairman's observation, that's like suing someone then paying for their defence team. They've created the problem that they want to work with industry now to solve. Are we missing something?

Mr Martin : The difficulty was in the legislation. I'm not sure CASA created the legislation. It's a difficulty that has been there for a very long time. It became a practical difficulty when a court interpreted the regulations. Before then—

Senator PATRICK: After CASA brought the application?

Mr Martin : After CASA brought the application. That's right.

Senator PATRICK: I think we need to maybe put a question on notice about the weight of the old documentation set versus the new documentation set, or the new regulation.

Mr McMillan : I can answer that question. We went very close two years ago, because we have a very good arrangement with New Zealand. There is nothing to stop Alliance—nothing—registering all of its aircraft in New Zealand and not being subjected to CASA at all, because of our trans-Tasman arrangement. We haven't done that, but I can tell you that in part 61, which is the pilot training area, there has been this huge blockage. Ours is about as thick as I am indicating, and the Kiwis—

Senator PATRICK: For the Hansard, what was that?

Mr McMillan : It is five inches, and the Kiwis' is probably half a centimetre. We've often asked—I'll get this off my plate and then I'll feel really good—why we just can't pick up the legislation that the New Zealanders have adopted. They adopted it in two years. We're now 24 or 25 years into it. Every country surrounding Australia has adopted the New Zealand regulations.

CHAIR: What is the answer—

Mr McMillan : Well, the impact of that means that if you're a Pacific Islands carrier and you want to get something fixed—

CHAIR: I understand that. But what was CASA's response?

Mr McMillan : They didn't seem to care.

CHAIR: You're not going to shock us. Just get it on the record. What was it?

Mr McMillan : They didn't seem to care.

CHAIR: That has not come as a shock.

Mr McMillan : So, all of the Pacific countries now send all of their aircraft for overhaul and repair to New Zealand.

CHAIR: Has CASA come back and said that we're smarter than the rest of the world and we're far more safety conscious? Is that their reason?

Mr McMillan : No. We are constantly told that this country will not adopt legislation that's been drafted by another country.

CHAIR: It's a shame we don't have that with the wine equalisation tax and apples and pears. We won't go down that path, will we?

Mr McMillan : To Senator O'Sullivan's earlier comment: if I were king for a day I would simply go to Wellington with my photocopier and photocopy all their legislation and come back and wipe New Zealand off it and put Australia on top of it.

CHAIR: Luckily, I'm not king for a day, because I'd start with CASA!

Senator O'SULLIVAN: We've got a problem but it's not just a CASA problem. We've got it with the APVMA with the adoption of herbicides and pesticides. We've got it with medicines. Other developed nations—Germany, Japan, France—have spent millions of dollars approving a particular product and we just duplicate it here. Our stupidity as a parliament sometimes knows no bounds. These things typically fall into some of that.

CHAIR: Ms Heatley, did you wish to add anything?

Ms Heatley : It's probably worth adding that there's been a recent High Court case that is going to have quite a large impact. I think it impacts on cost. That's in the area of safety. Ben will probably summarise the case a lot better than I will. Essentially, the outcome of the case was that the court found that state and territory WHS legislation can also apply to air operators. Prior to that time it was believed that the Civil Aviation Safety Act covered the field in relation to safety matters with aviation, and that's consistent with the global position—the Chicago Convention, and the way that that's supposed to work. Now, we have a position where you can have two sets, or more, applying to the operator, depending on how many states and territories you're going to operate through for a flight. And they can have differing sets of requirements. CASA might say that you need to have a certain safety belt on a helicopter but the local state or territory WHS officer might want a harness. The operators are now going to have to work through that minefield and it's obviously going to have a cost impact.

CHAIR: I'll have to go to the expert here. Did you have a question, Senator O'Sullivan?

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, but when I reflected on this it's just what we've dealt with in the transport industry, where we've got transport operators having to pull up at the border between the Northern Territory and Queensland to let one beast off three double-deckers with 180 beasts. They've got to put one off because there's a slight variation in the tare weight and a range of things. So we're used to it in the transport industry, and we've actually been going the other way. We've had some success recently the other way.

But you should write to the chair or to me in my capacity as chair of the other part of this committee, and we will take this up. These are things that exercise our minds. We will take this up and take up the fight. We've got estimates coming up on Monday. I don't mean to burden you, but if there's a prospect that we can get a copy of the brief of the judgement that will give impact to this, and that can get to Dr Thompson by Monday—

CHAIR: By close of business today.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I promise you CASA will be at the table a lot longer than otherwise.

Senator PATRICK: Not just the case but maybe just a short brief that says, 'This is the impact that will flow from that decision as opposed to the decision reasoning.'

CHAIR: Sorry, it has to be by close of business today, or before Monday.

Ms Heatley : That's fine. This is something that we've raised with the lobbying groups, and the industry associations are all over it. So we have material that we can provide to you quickly.

CHAIR: Let me just assist everyone. Hello, CASA down in Canberra. You heard that. The questions are coming. They're listening too.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: The problem with CASA is that it's easy as a regulator or a law enforcement agency or whatever it happens to be to have people who are unhappy with you but—if CASA are listening, and I'm sure they are—it just seems like everybody's unhappy with them. It doesn't matter whether it's our retired pilots flying Spitfires or major airlines. We really need, I think, to turn our minds to this and have a very thorough look at this whole stuff at a level that's beyond a Senate committee or a select committee. But we'll take it up in estimates. If you've watched us in the past, we look forward to CASA's visits at estimates. It's a time when nobody nods off.

Mr Martin : What we'll put in that paper is what we think a possible solution is, and it does involve amendment of the regulation. Looking at your analogy, the difficulty we have here is that it applies to international operators as well. So it's not just a case of interfering with operations between states; it will apply to the foreign airlines that are flying in. Of course, Australia has agreements and obligations in relation to international harmonisation of civil aviation safety that are affected.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I know state governments have a peak body with respect to, say, the standards that we build roads to. They're based out of Melbourne. They're an instrument funded by all of the states and territories. That's where they send their briefs. They give advice back, very much like in a COAG capacity. Does anybody know whether the states have such a body for aviation, or, as we see with things like transport and debt mediation and all that, do the states do it in isolation?

Senator PATRICK: In Western Australia, they've got a federally owned airport.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, an association that is funded by the states. There are quite a number of them in other areas. Do we know whether there's one around aviation regulation?

Mr Martin : My understanding is: no, there isn't. It's principally because, for a very long time, it's been settled that the Commonwealth has control over—

Senator PATRICK: It's the Constitution, isn't it?

Mr Martin : Well, the Constitution came before flight, but certainly there are settled cases from the High Court from very early on in civil aviation days that made it clear that the Commonwealth controlled civil aviation.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: But now the High Court have taken a different view—is that what we're seeing?

Senator PATRICK: I presume that if there were a regulation or a Commonwealth law in place that stated what needed to happen then section 109 would kick in. That's what I would have thought

Mr Martin : That's what the High Court decision was all about—whether there was a conflict between the laws. The solution is to make the law a little clearer.

CHAIR: Sorry, I'm going to show some discipline here. It is now 12.15, so thank you Ms Heatley and we look forward to that information. I thank you Mr McMillan, Mr Schofield, Ms Heatley and Mr Martin for your time. Thank you very much. We know where to find you should we need to follow anything up. I look forward to talking with CASA on Monday.

Proceedings suspended from 12:15 to 13:03




This was the lead up to the above witness evidence:

Senator PATRICK: No—I just thought that, if counsel were not giving advice to the witnesses, they could give us a brief summary of the Caper decision, because you said it had unintended consequences. So, rather than wasting your money today, you could perhaps be helpful—if you wouldn't mind, Chair.

CHAIR: I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm mindful of timing. We have a meeting at 12.15, so, rather than doing half—

Senator PATRICK: No—I'm talking about a 10-minute summary of what counsel—

CHAIR: What time do we have now?

Senator PATRICK: We've got another—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I won't object to this, as long as it is relevant to the exercise of our minds on the terms of reference and where we'd like to be.

Mr McMillan : I think it is very relevant, Senator—

CHAIR: All right. Let's make it easy. Before we go to that, I just want to throw a quick one at you, Mr McMillan and Mr Schofield. We have had a lot of conversation around the alleged pilot shortage, to which we commissioned some work to be done through the Parliamentary Library to inform the committee of what's going on. The information came back saying, 'No, there's no pilot shortage,' but with subsequent conversations with the airline industry, the evidence is absolutely at the other end.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: The result was that the take-up of traditional advertising for vacancies for pilots hadn't changed They didn't pick up any trend in that: 'Last year there were 10 ads and this year there are 20.' There were 10 ads last year and there were 10 ads this year. I think what challenged us was whether that was the only pathway for recruitment.

Mr McMillan : The truth is always somewhere in the middle, Senator.

CHAIR: That's why I'm going to give you the opportunity to tell us.

Mr McMillan : We categorise it not as a pilot shortage but as a pilot training blockage. That might sound like a euphemism, but, at the end of the day, we've got to roll back five years. We've had aviation regulatory reform that's been going on for 23 years and it's not finished. Some of its been okay; some of it's been appalling. In the pilot training area, it's been an absolute disaster. There's a whole heap fewer pilot training centres in Australia than there used to be. Many of them are foreign owned and they're only training pilots for their own operations elsewhere and the number of training establishments has shrunk considerably. Australia's population is growing. You could only think that the same percentage of people want to be pilots. I think what's happening is that the sausage machine has shrunk so small that it's very hard to get a training place. We would say that, from Alliance's perspective, as many people are out there wanting to be pilots. As a company, we are always training ahead. We train eight pilots at a time. We bring them in. We seem to be a good place to work. There are all the different places around Australia to go and live. There is a whole range of different training techniques and things have come in that are far smarter than they were 10 years ago. Some of the regulatory requirements that we have to meet in this country are absurd. That's a separate argument for a separate place. There were no safety issues; there wasn't a number of accidents or anything. But the unintended consequence of what CASA have done with some of their regulations has caused this issue, particularly in Australia.

CHAIR: We are a very long way back.

Senator PATRICK: I presume, because we've also heard evidence in other inquiries, that there used to be a whole bunch of training entities in GA, and GA has also been killed off by those regulations?

Mr McMillan : Correct.

CHAIR: I just wanted to get your view on the record. Thanks very much.

Addendum to last:  Answer to QON addressed to Norton White at 15/02/19 Senate Spring Hill public hearing (see: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...d54d50078a )

Quote:Judicial decisions requiring urgent legislative attention

In this paper we outline:

• two judicial decisions that have, in the opinion of the aviation industry, had significant and
unintended consequences on air operators and require urgent legislative attention; and
• our recommendation as to how the Commonwealth Government can remedy the issues
created by these decisions.

1. Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 2


This case concerned the prosecution of Outback Ballooning, a hot air balloon operator based in Alice
Springs, under sections 19 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT)
(the NT WHS Act).

A passenger was unfortunately killed when her scarf was caught in an inflation fan as she was boarding
the balloon. The NT Work Health Authority alleged that Outback Ballooning breached its duty of care
under the NT WHS Act through its failure to eliminate or minimise risks to embarking passengers.
The question before the High Court was whether or not the NT WHS Act was inconsistent with the
Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act 1988 (which imposes its own very specific regulatory regime
conformably with the Chicago Convention for the safety of air navigation) and therefore inapplicable.

The Court, by majority, found that sections 19 and 32 of the NT WHS Act are not inconsistent with the
Commonwealth civil aviation regime. The effect of this decision is that aircraft operators and airlines
are now subject to both:

• Commonwealth laws in relation to aviation safety; and
• State and Territory laws (including occupational health and safety laws).

Aviation safety worldwide depends on uniformity. This is recognised by the Chicago Convention,
which sets out international standards and practices for the safety of civil aviation. Australia is a
signatory to the Chicago Convention. The importance of international uniformity in safety standards
for civil aviation is recognised in the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Act, which by section 11 requires
that CASA perform its functions in a manner consistent with the Chicago Convention. The High Court
majority decision undermines Australia’s obligations pursuant to the Chicago Convention and also
uniformity of safety standards. State and Territory Workplace Safety Regulators, unlike CASA, are not
obliged by legislation to act in a manner consistent with the Chicago Convention.

The risk of subjecting air operators to a multitude of non-uniform laws was addressed by Justice
Edelman in dissent:

“…it would be surprising, confusing, and potentially dangerous if the Civil Aviation Law were
to have the effect that the rules of the air on a flight from Darwin to Melbourne, via Sydney,
could be regulated not merely by the comprehensive and uniform rules policed by the
Commonwealth Civil Aviation Safety Authority ("CASA"), but also, depending upon the
airspace, by separate and different rules policed by the Work Health Authority and its
inspectors in the Northern Territory, or regulators in New South Wales and Victoria.”


Justice Edelman argued that an exclusive civil aviation regime is necessary to achieve a uniform
national safety regime and rules of the air.

The decision is also likely to add to costs for air operators who will be required to comply with up to 9
sets of safety laws (that may not be consistent) and deal with safety regulators in each State and
Territory in addition to CASA. The maximum penalty for a corporation for a breach of workplace health
and safety legislation can be up to $1.8 million in Western Australia and $1.5 million in other States
and Territories.

Recommendation: As this is a decision of the High Court, it can only be rectified if the
Commonwealth Parliament amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) to include an express statement
of legislative intention that the Civil Aviation Act and its Regulations are intended to cover the field in
respect of the safety of civil aviation.

2. Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd (2012) 207 FCR 357


In Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Caper Pty Ltd, CASA cancelled Caper’s AOC on the basis that Caper
was providing regular passenger transport (RPT) when its AOC only permitted charter and aerial work
operations. Caper appealed to the Federal Court.

The case turned on the classification of air operations as either charter or RPT under regulation 206 of
the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (the Regulations):

• Charter operations are defined in regulation 206(b) as:

(i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than
carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals;
(ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of
passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the
accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally.

• RPT operations are defined in regulation 206© as: transporting persons generally, or
transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules
to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places
between terminals.

Caper’s AOC authorised charter flights between Darwin and Bathurst Island. Caper had an
arrangement with a tourist operator (AAT Kings) who chartered Caper’s aircraft for AAT’s tours from
Darwin to Bathurst Island. Only people on the AAT tour were permitted to travel on the aircraft. The
flights operated to fixed schedules between fixed terminals and persons seeking transport on the
flights were referred by Caper to AAT. CASA cancelled Caper’s authorisation to conduct the flights on
the ground that the flights were, in reality, RPT flights and not charter flights.

The Federal Court looked at the concept of ‘closed charters’ in Regulation 206(b)(ii) and found that
the words ‘persons generally’ referred to the general public, so the test for a closed charter was
whether or not travel on the flight was offered to the public at large. In other words - if the flight was
available to the general public then it was an RPT operation.

The Court found that the Caper air operation was available to the general public because the
advertised offer of the flight, albeit bundled with the tour, was made to any member of the public who
wished to join the tour.

This decision had significant ramifications for the use of charter flights to access remote locations for
tourism flights as well as essential services such as regular medical appointments. It created confusion
over the classification of operations which had long been operated safely as charter flights. The fact
that these operations now required RPT authorisation meant that many could not meet the stringent
regulations governing RPT operations and had to withdraw flight services.

The distinction between charter and RPT operations will be removed from the Civil Aviation Safety
Regulations 1998 when the new Part 119 (which deals with the issuing of Air Operator’s Certificates
to Australian operators) and the suite of regulations that set the minimum acceptable standards for
large aeroplanes (Part 121) and small aeroplanes (Part 135) come into effect into effect in 2021. These
regulations include a new classification of operations as Air Transport Operations, dispensing with the
distinction between charter and RPT and creating a single standard for carriage of passengers and
cargo for hire or reward.

CASA has stated that the new regulations are intended to provide graduated requirements
proportionate to the risk.

Recommendation: It is critical that CASA consults and works closely with industry on the
development of the Manual of Standards for the new classification to:

• ensure appropriate levels of regulation apply to each type of flight operation; and
• avoid adverse impacts on air access to remote communities.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

CASA red tape embuggerance through Caper & Part 135 -  Dodgy 

Reference from above:

(02-21-2019, 10:06 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-20-2019, 11:21 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  A hopeful Hansard -  Rolleyes

While trolling through pages and pages of Senate hearing transcripts sometimes I come across a section of Hansard that truly gives me hope that the shiny bum Senators may actually give a toss about the parlous state of affairs inside of the Australian aviation industry. The following Hansard, from last Friday's Senate air routes inquiry, is one such occasion... Wink  

Quote:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
15/02/2019
Operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities

Addendum to last:  Answer to QON addressed to Norton White at 15/02/19 Senate Spring Hill public hearing (see: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...d54d50078a )

And via Shame or Fame for McDo'Naught:


(03-04-2019, 07:40 PM)Kharon Wrote:  Quite the Caper indeed.

Now, I know what the court ruled – a legal breach. I know the operation was shut down. I also know that the ‘rules’ which caused this to happen have been a sore point, particularly when used to the extent of actually closing down an operator. Although Carmody’s ‘new’ regulations may prevent this sort of head banging; not much will change – not in a ‘safety’ sense; but, the operation which was closed down would, under the new rules have been quite legally safe.

It all seems like a lot of time, trouble, jobs, business and money could have been saved by asking Caper to desist for a while – as the rule applied was about to become ‘nugatory’ under the latest changes, (classification of operations) which have not only been coming for a long while, but will change little at operational level.

Reading the FAA and NZCAA versions of Parts 125, 135 and 121 reveals little difference  in the way Australian ‘charter’ flying is conducted now– barring a few twiddles and ‘paper-work’. Of course the Australian version is the heavyweight champion – on the scales; pound for pound, it takes much longer in a more complicated way than the mature ‘authorities’ promulgate in their tried and tested Part 135.

CASA are not – and I reiterate – NOT providing rules to ensure and increased ‘operational safety’. They are producing instead reams of pages which prevent their responsibility for anything; and, to avoid itigation. For this we have waited 25 years and spent a half billion; to end up with an indecipherable pile of dribble, like the Roger Weeks wet dream, expounded in Part 61 and the incredible nonsense the MoS produces.

I’ve no idea what the minister or his government think they are buying; but it’s time to stop and think about getting a rope on CASA and restraining the ‘legal’ to focus on the very real operational safety matters which are NOT being addressed. At least not by CASA anyway. We must give thanks to the boys and girls who, despite CASA interface and loopy logic, run operators Safety Management Systems and despite having to ‘deal’ with CASA legal, still manage to keep our skies safe. Quite a trick – in the circumstances.

What heinous breach of basic ‘operational safety’ did Polar, Barrier or Caper commit? I shall leave that up to you to decide – while you consider RAAoz getting a weight increase – gods help us; AF in kit built aircraft, flown on a drivers medical – terrifying.

Perhaps, the minuscule, 'well advised' minister could take ten minutes to read through an articulate, considered, legally grounded opinion or two before he looses all credibility and (hopefully) his seat - Start  - HERE.      (Numb nuts)

Toot toot.

And from an anonymous source, via Facebook... Rolleyes : https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s...9027532696


Quote:Dear Senators

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

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

[Image: casr-v-far-2.jpg]

There is also the question of all the many manuals and expositions the industry must produce to satisfy CAsA policies and directives.
The photo below illustrates just some of the manuals an AOC holder must produce and have accepted or approved by the regulator. This AOC only covers small piston aircraft.

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

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

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

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

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

These manuals largely regurgitate information already available in the manufacturer-supplied manuals, but with a unique Australian slant as well as directions from CAsA FOI’s.

Unfortunately many of these FOI’s have very little in the way of operational experience, which can lead to directions that are patently unsafe.

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

[Image: casr-v-far-3.jpg]

The small binder at the bottom of the picture is a Part 135 fixed wing operating manual for an FAA Part 135 operator.

When they employed me they operated:

Six Boeing 737/800 aircraft
One Boeing 767 Aircraft
Eight Bombadier Dash 8 aircraft
Two Gulfstream G5 aircraft
Two Hawker 1000 aircraft
Two Citation 550 aircraft
Four Air Tractor oil dispersal Aircraft
Two Twin Otter STOL aircraft
Thirty eight multi engine helicopters

Exactly what is CAsA and what is its purpose?

Is it a Safety regulator?

Is it a police force?

Being both, I consider, is an anathema to everything Australia stands for.

Why was the regulation of aviation placed under the criminal code, reversing the onus of proof with strict liability?

Very few first world countries have aviation laws in the criminal code.

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

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

My understanding that strict liability was introduced by a cadre of eastern European lawyers employed by CAsA some years ago. Some of these lawyers were actually ex Stasi lawyers and was implemented to make it easier to achieve convictions.

CAsA will say as a citizen of Australia you can always appeal to AAT or the high court.

I will say the law is for everyone; justice however, is for those that can afford it.

Some have tried but you need very deep pockets. CAsA has the public purse to draw on.

A quote from one AOC holder who ran afoul of CAsA over a safety dispute with an FOI.

Quote:“It cost me a million dollars for lawyers to find out CAsA can do whatever it wants”

In the past twenty years just how much money has CAsA spent on legal representation?

Has CAsA proved itself to be a “Model Litigant” in the legal arena?

There is ample evidence of CAsA and its minions falsifying evidence, swearing false statements and committing perjury. Even when they lose or cannot convince a DPP to prosecute they can still act administratively or destroy who they believe are miscreants by rumour and innuendo or direct threats to people who might employ them.

There is a complete lack of trust and fear within the industry for CAsA and what they are capable of.
CAsA’s spin is it is first and foremost a “Safety Regulator” that is its sole function.

But what does that mean?  Huh
 

MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Excellent letter, 10/10. I gave an extra point for the use of the CAsA acronym with a small ‘s’. That took it from a 9/10 to a 10/10.

Although I make jest, the letter is extremely accurate. It highlights the ludicrous situation we are in today. CAsA should be called one of the following;

- Civil Aviation Enforcement Authority (CAEA)
- Civil Aviation Punitive Authority (CAPA)
- Civil Aviation Stasi Authority (CASA)
- Civil Aviation Embuggerance Authority (CAeA)

‘Unsafe overegulated skies for all’
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)