CASA Estimates.
#1

Well last night was Additional Estimates and for some reason  CASA were rescheduled to the segment before dinner time (18:30).

{ Note: Apparently -according to Heff-  Farq-u-hard-son needed an early Chardy & would be inebriated by 8pm... Huh Ps Personally I wouldn't have counted that as any great loss for what the GWM Don added to the evening}.

Anyway here is the 1st part which started off with Senator Fawcett welcoming the new DAS Skidmore & then launching into questions on Part 61 & (non)-consultation issues with the Heli-mustering boys'n'gals... Wink :



MTF...you bet! Tongue  
Reply
#2

Last evening, the BRB sub-committee commandeered the pub's back room, set up a video feed, the deckchairs and munchies and settled down for the estimates session.  Finished late so there was not a lot of time for 'general' discussion and everyone wanted to 'review' the video again; and there is a cartload of it; so detailed analysis may have to wait a day or so.  However:-

There were a bakers dozen in attendance, no doubt when the e-mail loop kicks in later I'll get a better take, but 13 good men and true will suffice, for the moment.  We have a stack of golf score cards which we use to support a simple system of ticks and crosses – like and dislike – being the yardstick; some interesting 'stats' from those to start with.  

The committee score was close; Fawcett, Heffernan, Sterle and Xenophon made the gold star and chocolate frog awards, Edwards just squeaked a choc frog.  The (My Kitchen Rules) MKR award eventually went to Wong; the creature who sat and ran a little court from the centre of the witness table ran a close second  Decorative but highly unnecessary was the consensus; gas bagging to Merde'k and talking her way through the Q&A; bad manners did not impress.     In the end though Wong got the MKR award for pure spite, time wasting and political point scoring with malice and aforethought.  Can we please have Fiona Nash back.

For most of us the focus was on Skidmore; the ribald comments and one liners stopped when he appeared, everyone had a full glass, the volume went up, the ears tuned out background noise and eyes sharpened.  Ever watch a pack of fox hounds (Harriers) pick up the scent of fox: like that.  There were only two crosses consistent across his score card, but they were both from the same passage of play and will stand further discussion; but the 'like' ticks were impressive.  Consensus: he did well, very well considering it was his first rodeo.  Without being aggressive or arrogant, he managed to convey a sense of command and purpose without talking down to the Senators.  He was open, frank and had taken the trouble to be well briefed on what the Senators were likely to be interested in.  We felt his answers on CVD and Angel Flight were balanced and reasonable in that he left the committee in no doubt that he was in control of CASA and would make sane, balanced rulings on what are, for CASA, potentially vexed questions, in his own time.   Now re-christened 'Skim-more' for the time being, simply on account of the short time on the job and the sheer volume of reading he must do.  All up – a good egg and possibly a very good choice.  Well done Sir, good maiden innings. (No pressure though).

We all noted the body language between Fraq-u-hardson and Skim-more, have a watch; it speaks volumes, I've watched opposing prop forwards face off with less open animosity.  Speaking of body language; if you put the mouse arrow on the Merde'k nose when he talks, watch his head movements, when he's on thin ice listen to the change in delivery, speech patterns and the nodding motions.  We all would love to have him at one of our poker evenings.

I expect Peetwo will provide the video links in due course; lots to sift through and when the Hansard is published we shall, as usual have a discussion (or two).  Anyone hear Heff mention Pete? (the Nash cherished, winsome, lonesome pot-plant).

MTF – Oh yes.
Reply
#3

That will be interesting if Skates pushes the Just Culture barrow, and rightly so. It's exactly how things should work - error vs violation. However he needs to have that methodology implemented and accepted into Fort Fumble first if he wants induatry to report and even trust and work cohesively with CASA.
The 'Loyola Kid' is at best sceptical of Just Culture and prefers the 'pineapple approach';

http://regnet.anu.edu.au/events/just-cul...onary-tale

As has been said on any occasions, a CAsA enema is required, starting at the top. The Skull is gone yet the Boyds, Dr Voodoo, Farq'u'hard'son, Anustasi's and other select muppets etc still apply their long entrenched pony pooh.

Oink oink
Reply
#4

Top post Thorny - the following courtesy of Creamy kind of follows on from your very good observations...  Undecided

A message from Creampuff - TAKE HEED!


Quote:

Quote: Wrote:How can CASA continue to get away with wasting so much taxpayers money on prejudice and inequity on the basis of a spurious CVD testing methods being used to weed out those who can and cannot fly? There are decades of real experience that show the opposite?

Easy: Governments don't care if a few hundred careers and potential careers are destroyed. To do otherwise would, in the words of the erstwhile Director of Aviation Safety, Mr McCormick, be "dangerous".

All CASA has to do is say: "risk to the safety of air navigation", and governments run like seven year olds from a brown snake. The cognitive bias of punters, and therefore the majority of voters, dictates this behaviour.

Gone are the days of governments regulating on the basis of objective evidence - they and their advisors wouldn't know what that was, if it bit them on the arse. And, if objective evidence does bite them on the arse and it's politically 'inconvenient' and expedient to ignore it, it will be banned as dangerous. (Don't be fooled by the rhetorical fist waving by Laborial Senators on Committees. Judge them by what the governments of which they are a part do, not say. Mr McCormick was rewarded for his efforts.)

The 'industry' doesn't help itself. With the signal exception of the people who signed the petition and wrote to their various elected representatives, the support of the industry for John O'Brien was PATHETIC.

But the 'good' news is that along with picking off the dangerous CVD people, CASA Avmed is now coming after everyone else because everyone else is presumptively dangerous and Avmed's crusade is to save the world from everyone. I anticipate that Avmed's crusade against people who commit the heinous sin of being ordinary Australians may goad all the Jacks and Jills into realising they aren't alright.

Have you consumed more than 8 standard drinks at one party in the last year? You're next!

And for those who think, because they've the memory of a gold fish, that Mr Skidmore is the Messiah for GA, I note some extracts from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review executive summary and Mr Skidmore's comments during the recent Estimates hearings, on the subject of 'trust'.

The executive summary of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review says this:

Quote:

Quote: Wrote:The current relationship between industry and the regulator is cause for concern. In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel's view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
...

A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.

The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator. ...

Think about how much time and effort was put into that Review, by all concerned.

Fast forward to the Estimates hearing last week (24 Feb 15):
Quote:

Quote: Wrote:Senator XENOPHON: So you do concede that there have been, in the past, barriers between industry and CASA?

Mr Skidmore: I am aware the ASRR put that forward as a view.

Senator XENOPHON: So you are attempting to redress that view?

Mr Skidmore: I will attempt to redress a view of that perception. I cannot say, because I was not involved in that discussion, whether it was actually occurring or not.

You see: This lack of trust in the regulator is just a "perception". What would the ASSR panel members and the authors of submissions know?


No further comment required I reckon....P2 Undecided
Reply
#5

It's probably a little too early for any real changes under Skidmore to be apparent. However that doesn't help the Helo boys and girls who have been hit hard by some of the recent changes to regulations which impose an instant financial impediment, one that is hard for them to actually recover from financially, or in some instances to remain operational at all. Our Whirlybird brothers are not only a large force but they are a vocal mob, which we respect very much. They have made some excellent statements and provided some articulate and factual analysis of the impact the changes will and is having on them.

Will there be more to follow from the Helo representatives? You betcha....
Reply
#6

Chinese whispers & Bus stop wars.. Big Grin

Here are the CASA AQONs for last Budget Estimates...finally Dodgy  - 5CASA.pdf

From bump in the night thread:

(10-12-2015, 11:55 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Finally the Budget Estimates QON have been answered, here is the ASA AQON  - 7Airservices.pdf.

First one that relates to all three of the dodgy ass agencies was the Nx QON on the Melbourne v Essendon tower 'breakdown in air traffic control coordination'  incident. 

From the ATSB SMH thread:

(10-12-2015, 10:44 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  [quote pid='2364' dateline='1444606473']
Quote:Question no.: 102


Program: n/a

Division/Agency: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Topic: Breakdown in air traffic control coordination

Proof Hansard Page: 21 (28 May 2015)

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:



Senator XENOPHON: No. I am not trying to do circle work. This is important. Will the ATSB at least look at the publicly available information on WebTrak out of the two airports for that three-hour period to see whether there was a loss of separation assurance?

Mr Dolan: We thought it was more effective to ask Airservices to take a look at the tapes and to provide us with their view as to whether there had been a loss of separation assurance.

Senator WILLIAMS: How long would it take you to look at what Senator Xenophon is requesting? How long would it take you to look at that information? A couple of hours?

Mr Dolan: Possibly. It would need to be done by someone with air traffic control experience so that they could understand it, and we have a range of priorities that we have got our limited air traffic control expertise focused on. This is a matter of the management of limited resources.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you please, Chief Commissioner, take on notice whether the ATSB will be taking this matter any further, at the very least, to look at the WebTrak for that three-hour period out of the Essendon and Melbourne airports, and also whether it would look at radar tapes? Also, it appears, from what has been put to me, that there is a fundamental issue that Airservices did not give you the full story initially.

Mr Dolan: In terms of not being informed of a three-hour period, that is true.

Senator XENOPHON: Does that not worry you, Mr Dolan?

Mr Godley: Could I just clarify something, Senator? We did have one of our air traffic control investigators review the whole three hours. What happened was that after the repcon we got back to Airservices. They reviewed the tapes and said there was no loss of separation or loss of separation assurance. Our ATC investigator then reviewed the three hours. She determined that there was a potential loss of separation between two aircraft. But, due to the limitations of WebTrak, she could not be sure.



Answer:

The ATSB does not intend taking any further action on this matter, noting that an ATSB air traffic control specialist did review the WebTrak information for the entire period following receipt of the REPCON and that the ATSB is satisfied with the response provided by both Airservices Australia and CASA to the REPCON report (see http://www.atsb.gov.au/repcon/2013/ar201300090.aspx).
Quote:REPCON

Mode

Aviation
Reference No.
AR201300090
Date reported
18 November 2013

Concern title
Possible loss of separation due to a breakdown of coordination

Concern summary
The concern related to the potential of a loss of separation or loss of separation assurance as a result of a breakdown of coordination between Essendon tower and Melbourne tower.

Industry / Operation affected
Aviation: Airspace management
Concern subject type
Aviation: Air Traffic Control

Reporter's concern
The reporter expressed a concern that a breakdown in communication, which occurred in November between Essendon Tower and Melbourne Tower, may have resulted in a loss of separation assurance or potentially a loss of separation between aircraft operating at Melbourne and Essendon.

Operator's response (Operator 1)

Airservices Australia (Airservices) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the reported concern regarding a breakdown in communication between Essendon and Melbourne.
Airservices confirms that the breakdown of communication was reported via Airservices Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System (CIRRIS).

The reported occurrence involved Melbourne Terminal Area Control who received coordination from Essendon Tower advising that they could not separate overshoots with Melbourne traffic due to the cloud base. The breakdown of communication occurred as the Melbourne Terminal Area Control passed the information to the Melbourne Approach Controller but failed to receive acknowledgement of the coordination resulting in the Approach Controller being unaware of the need to identify Essendon arrivals to Melbourne Tower.

A preliminary investigation confirmed that the documented procedure was not correctly followed in that the controller concerned failed to confirm acknowledgement of the coordination.

The investigation determined that no systemic issues existed and the potential safety impact that may have resulted from the breakdown of coordination was understood by the controller. Nonetheless, the Check and Standardisation Supervisors of the involved ATC group have been tasked with reviewing the coordination requirements with the aim of identifying potential opportunities to minimise the likelihood of a similar breakdown of communication reoccurring.

In the interim a temporary console display has been created to highlight separation responsibility for Essendon traffic arriving from terminal control unit (TCU) airspace.
With reference to the reporter's concern that the occurrence may have resulted in a loss of separation (LOS) or a loss of separation assurance (LOSA), Airservices can confirm that there was no LOS or LOSA occurrences during the time of the breakdown of communication.

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)

We note that there was no loss of separation and CASA does not intend to take any direct safety action with regard to this matter; however CASA will use this information to complement other information that informs us of Airservices Australia safety risk profile.
 

[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 24 March 2014
Hmm...wonder what variety of wet lettuce the Senate Committee will choose to slap Dolan with this time...FCOL Dodgy  
True to form it would seem that Sir A & Harfwit (& maybe even Hoody?) have had no hesitation in throwing Dolan & the ATSB straight under the bus... Big Grin

Quote:Senator XENOPHON: As a result of the Cirrus, were the radar tapes kept longer?

Mr Hood: I would have to take that one on notice but, in relation to your previous conversations with the ATSB and with CASA in relation to, 'why didn't the Cirrus notify a three-hour breakdown in coordination?'; Cirruses are submitted as an immediately notifiable. So we try and notify incidents that have occurred in the air traffic management system as soon as practicable, which will not have all of the details in there. So when the Cirrus was submitted, we may not necessarily have known that coordination was null and void for the three-hour period.

…Mr Hood: What would normally happen, and where the human error was made, is that the terminal area controller would have instructed the approach controller, 'Make sure you stagger the aircraft arriving 16 with the aircraft arriving 26 at Essendon,' such that in the event of a missed approach there is separation applied. What I am saying is there was another level of defence in that set-up where, even when that human error was made, had there been a go-around—the aerodrome is 11.3 kilometres away—there would have been additional coordination.


Answer:

Radar data is recorded and maintained in accordance with the CASA Manual of Standards Part 172 which requires retention for a minimum of 30 days.

This incident was reported and reviewed in accordance with Airservices’ normal safety management processes.

The incident highlighted an opportunity for introducing improvements to documentation and procedures which were subsequently implemented.

The recording was kept for 30 days while the reviews were concluded, however other data, including some radar positions which allow the detail of the event to be reviewed, was retained.
 
It would seem that CASA also were standing by at the same bus stop:


Quote:Senator XENOPHON: How can your colleagues say that it is just about Essendon. That is completely disingenuous.

Mr Cromarty: I did not say that.

Senator XENOPHON: You said it is about Essendon. It also involves Melbourne, obviously.

Mr Cromarty: The REPCON was about communications between Essendon and Melbourne.

Senator XENOPHON: Right. And aircraft are taking off at the same time—

Mr Skidmore: I do not know the full details of it, but they might be taking off in different directions.

Senator XENOPHON: No, they were not. They were taking off where they could have intersected about five or eight kilometres out.

Mr Skidmore: I am prepared to take it on and have a look at it for you.

Senator XENOPHON: Will I know by tomorrow morning?

Mr Skidmore: Regarding?

Senator XENOPHON: These matters. Or will it take longer than that?

Mr Skidmore: I will do my best to find out for you.

Senator XENOPHON: I would be very grateful…

Answer:

Yes, CASA will be looking beyond what was looked at in the response to Question on Notice 174 from the Additional Estimates 2014-15, regarding Cirrus Report #ATS-0125061.
However that answer, & the ASA answer,  seems to contradict certain parts of the next AQON by CASA??


Quote:Senator XENOPHON: My understanding was this: there was an initial report—the Cirrus. It was not investigated, there was a frustration and there was a confidential report by an air traffic controller, or someone in the sector, who said that this is quite serious, and it was escalated at that level. Could you at least look at the sequence of events as to what occurred?

Mr Skidmore: Certainly. We can look at the sequence of events and provide you with the information.

Senator XENOPHON: CASA was reliant on Airservices assurances that nothing untoward had occurred. Can I ask that you look at these matters, because of the concerns that have been expressed to me directly by people who are worried about raising this publicly for their careers. They say that that three hour period was very problematic. ATSB relied on WebTrak, which is something that a journalist told me this morning they rely on to track the PM's plane. It is not exactly a forensic tool. It is not the same as a radar tape. Would CASA be looking at the radar tapes as to whether the information provided to CASA from Airservices was robust and adequate enough? If you could take that on notice as well.

Mr Skidmore: Certainly.

Answer:
CASA was satisfied with the information provided by Airservices at the time in relation to the REPCON on the incident, and as no Loss of Separation (LOS) or Loss of Separation Assurance (LOSA) was reported by Airservices or through the Cirris database, CASA did not require further explanation.

CASA’s Annual Reports provide the number of cancelled, suspended or varied pilots and air operator certificates.

CASA has not cancelled, suspended or varied Airservices’ operating certificate in relation to CASA requirements regarding the conduct of Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO). CASA’s oversight of LAHSO has revealed no breaches of the Part 172 regulations.

CASA has not cancelled, suspended or varied the licences of air traffic controllers and their managers regarding land and hold short operations beyond the published wind limits. While there was some ambiguity in the procedures relating to runway selection and wind criteria, this has now been rectified by Airservices.

It is not an offence to fail to report an unknown loss of separation.

CASA would be unable to review the radar tapes due to the time elapsed since the incident.


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#7

Supplementary Estimates 19/10/15 - CASA & the BSW.

(10-20-2015, 03:47 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(10-20-2015, 05:17 AM)kharon Wrote:  First impressions from rough notes.

An outbreak of domestic tyranny prevented careful study of the entire session, so we will be obliged to wait for Hansard and the ‘vision’ for details.  From some of the comments received and the parts I did manage to watch, there are some points of interest which will merit further attention.

Sir Gallacher continues to impress, you get the notion that he’s plugged in and switched on; works hard and terrier like, keeps worrying the prey.  I want to watch the ASA session again, I got the impression he was kicking the crap out of ‘em (big job – lots of it to kick) on money matters.   Doughty Joe Bullock was in the ruck and maul, quiet, assuming but no less lethal for that.  Choc frogs for effort.  MTF.

The best bits of the ASA session were towards the end; there’s one small piece which is a must see.  Heff seemed, for the most part to stay out of the scrums, ran the session with a rod of iron with only a few barbed comments made regarding cowardly bastards waiting for their turn and writing nasty notes; someone made a serious error and Heff ain’t forgiving or forgetting; I digress.  Heff pops up with a question about advertising the ASA ‘top job’. MM jumped in to protect the anointed Half-wit.  It was a small passage of play, but Heff left no doubt in my mind that the Merde’k selection was out of the running – when you see the recording – watch carefully – Heff makes his final comment – Merde’k looks down the table at Half-wit, that look says ‘you’re ducked mate’.  The smile on the Heff dial – priceless.   MTF.

CASA – Oliver Slymore Twist, not so laid back and cool this time, the happy-clappy façade slipped a couple of times.  The session is worth a revisit, from my notes, the Montreal excuse was trotted out again, McComic got thrown under the bus and a gaunt, tense Anastasi was very uncomfortable at a line of questions which asked – basically – “are you taking the Mickey out the Senate ?”  This related to Part 145 being turned away and CASA running around the back of it to continue with their version of reform.  NX kicked that one off; as said – need a replay.  Fawcett condescended to pull on a strip and boots; there was a passage of play where he locked horns with Slymore; only an impression and a scribbled note, but some of it seemed ‘rehearsed’ (for wont of better), the chime of probity just a little off beat – need a replay.  Bullock did well again precision kicking.  MTF.

Which only leaves ATSB and a hapless, re bearded Beaker – one texted comment cracked me up – it suggested the beard is used as cover for telling the really big Porkies ("talking through his hairy arse").  Foley did well on MH 370 – he seems to be across the brief and manages to give an impression of honesty.  The session is worth reviewing – Norfolk and Pel-Air were mentioned and the bearded one looked distinctly uncomfortable during that interlude.  MTF.

Only a half baked twiddle; impressions more than solid observations; more to follow I expect. But for the amount of difference it will all make, judging from the complete lack of tangible change so far; maybe MKR is a better program.  At least there you can at least see the result of effort.

Toot toot... Wink... Smile

Good summary Ferryman, it wasn't a long session but it was obvious there were many subtle inner sanctum allegiances & departmental issues that will no doubt feature in the coming months of the BSW (Bus Stop Wars)... Big Grin

The following is the committee secretariat summary of the day's proceedings:



Quote:
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2015 – 16
Monday, 19 October 2015
Daily summary
The committee met from 9.00am until 10.35pm.
The committee called:

• the department and agencies of the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio, commencing with the Corporate Services Division and moving on to the Infrastructure Investment Division, Infrastructure Australia, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, Airservices Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation and Airports Division, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Office of Transport Security, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Policy and Research Division, the Surface Transport Policy Division, the Local Government and Territories Division, the Western Sydney Unit, the National Capital Authority and the National Transport Commission.

Among other issues, the following matters were discussed:

• current and planned infrastructure projects in states and territories, with a particular focus on matters surrounding the WestConnex and the Perth Freight Link projects;

• the work of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on the search for MH370; and

• the distribution of ministerial responsibilities within the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio in light of the recent ministerial reshuffle.

The Committee set Friday 30 October 2015 as the deadline for senators to submit written Questions on Notice, and Friday 4 December 2015 as the due date for answers to Questions on Notice. 
    



{Psss..P9 I see what you mean about Wodger Week-as-piss, FCOL where do they find these Duckin' WOFTAMs... Dodgy }

Update: Hansard now released in full - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 19/10/2015 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Civil Aviation Safety Authority


MTF...P2 Tongue


Ps  Wink Good to see Senator Fawcett back on deck, his presence & formidable knowledge on all things of a regulatory nature certainly changes the dynamic with Oliver. At times OST simply looked like the raw NFI private pilot that he really is.. Confused

   
Reply
#8

 QON index finally published?

This time it had nothing to do with the Department, it was the Committee Secretariat where the hold up was. Passing strange for sure?? Anyway here is the QON index etc.
Quote:Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development


[b]Questions on notice index: (PDF 718KB)
[/b]
Answers are due 4 December 2015.

Tabled Documents

View File

1.) Document titled 'Tasmania funding comparison:: 14-15 May Budget vs 15-16 May Budget. Tabled by Mr Mike Mrdak, Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

(PDF 80KB)

2.) Document titled 'Major Container Shipping Ports and Container Ship Dimensions'. Tabled by Senator Alex Gallacher.

(PDF 976KB)
      
There are some real curly written QON for CASA, especially from Senator X, which the answers will be of particular interest to ALAEA, AMROBA & the LAME/AME/MRO fraternity:
Quote:98 - 103 CASA/XENOPHON - Specialist maintenance

CASA provided advice that they "take the view" that any approval for additional Specialist Maintenance will require a legislative instrument. Where is this view reflected? Is it contained in a written policy or is this "requirement" to create an instrument also discretionary?  



Are there companies operating with approvals in their Maintenance Organisations Expositions for Specialist Maintenance of the kind that was disallowed by the Senate in March 2015? How many? When were the approvals issued?


As there have been no actual changes to the Part 145 MOS in respect of the discretionary provisions for Specialist Maintenance approval since the creation of the MOS, how were the approvals for additional Specialist Maintenance for individual company’s Expositions made? Should they have been made under a legislative instrument? If so why weren’t they? What actions have CASA taken to ensure this doesn’t occur again?


In relation to the oversight of maintenance and differences between EASA and Australia – CASA indicated there were similarities and differences.


Does the European Aviation Safety Regulator require a licence qualified person to take an active role in all maintenance tasks and ensure they have been completed properly and signed off properly?

Is this the case in Australia, or is a non-licence qualified Specialist Maintainer permitted to sign off the maintenance?


In her speech to the Senate on 18 March 2015 in opposition to a motion to disallow the Amendments to Part 145 MOS Senator Cash, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development stated that CASA’s position in relation to specialist maintenance is consistent with that being applied in major overseas jurisdictions including Europe. Was the information being relied upon by the Minister accurate?


Can CASA supply a comparison of similarities and differences between the CASR system of certification and the EASR system, including any advice published by both EASA and CASA on their policy expectations?
  
I will also be interested to see the AQON for Senator Fawcett's Part 61 MOS amendment question, especially considering the Skidmore expected release date has sailed past:
Quote:Senator FAWCETT: That is probably a fair defence for a recent appointment. My understanding is that there was supposed to be a revised manual of standards issued in September for part 61 but that is not yet on the streets. Could somebody give me an update as to what is occurring there?


Mr Skidmore: I am not sure of the exact status of the time frame for the revised manual of standards. We would have to check that and get the information back to you.

Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is Mr Crosthwaite replied in May of this year that the amendment to MOS was planned by September this year.

Mr Skidmore: I can clarify that. The drafting structures were being written to address a number of issues and we are expecting an amendment to the part 61 MOS in December of 2015.

Senator FAWCETT: What is the corresponding time frame that you will be expecting industry to comply with the contents of the new manual of standards? My understanding is there have been some previous iterations where it was issued on Day X and Day X plus 1. Industry were being required to comply with it and we were seeing flying schools not able to conduct tests and other activities. I am interested to know what adjustment time you will be providing industry before they are expected to apply this?
Hmm..maybe he really meant December 2016 Huh
MTF...P2 Tongue   
Reply
#9

Skates wants more bang - 9 minutes a day - for the bucks??
 
Somewhat related to Estimates, it seems Skates wants better productivity out of his troops.. Dodgy
Quote:Australia expects public servants to work longer hours, agency boss claims


Date January 28, 2016 - 9:04AM Public servants at Australia's air safety agency have been told to work longer hours, in line with "community expectations", if they want more money.
Bosses at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority want their public servants at their desks for an extra 45 minutes each week in return for a 2 per cent pay rise.
CASA's chief executive says the offer is all the agency can afford right now but has assured his 830-strong workforce that their conditions and entitlements are safe.
Advertisement

The new proposal at CASA comes as the massive Defence Department moves closer to a vote of its 20,000 public servants on a new wage deal and the Australian Taxation Office prepare for fresh negotiations in the wake of the crushing defeat of a proposed enterprise agreement

CASA's Chief Executive Mark Skidmore told the authority's staff last month that the authority is so short of money, it had to approach the wage talks with an eye to its future financial viability.

"You are also aware that CASA is operating in an extremely challenging budgetary situation and we have been required to address this in the context of the EA remuneration affordability so that CASA has a sustainable future," Mr Skidmore wrote to his workers

"...to make this work, this new offer does include a small increase in working hours.

"It is proposed that we increase our working hours by 9 minutes a day from 7 hours and 21 minutes to 7 hours 30 minutes daily."

Mr Skidmore said the proposed new hours, which would begin in 2018, the last year of the three-year agreement, would bring CASA into line with the rest of the public service and with "community expectations".

Are you putting in the hours? Tell us ps@canberratimes.com.au

The chief executive said the extra work was the only change to entitlements in the proposed EA and that the offer did not come at the price of job cuts, as had been proposed to fund offers to other departments and agencies.

But technical union Professionals Australia says its members at CASA, where workers have not had a pay rise since mid-2013, are unimpressed with the proposed deal, saying the agency was trying to "get blood out of a stone".

"Members don't think this is anywhere near a fair pay offer with no comprehension of government-caused delays and a clear move to sever the link between the agreement and relevant employment policies making such conditions close to unenforceable and easier to change," union official Dave Smith said.

"If CASA's capacity to have a sustainable workforce is threatened then the Australian community should be concerned and the Government should ensure they are funded appropriately.

"They shouldn't have to rely on getting 9 minutes a day more blood out of the stone."

Meantime, the Defence Department looks set to go to a vote in February or March on its new enterprise agreement with workplace unions reporting little progress in trying to tweak key aspects of the proposed agreement.

The tax office will sit down again with unions on Monday to try to pick up the pieces after the 85 to 15 per cent defeat of its wage proposal.

Initial progress is expected to be slow with the ATO understood to want a survey of its employees carried out, to determine the reasons behind December's crushing no vote, before it puts together a fresh proposal.  
Easy fixed Skates & Boyd, just axe all those GWM WOFTAM executives from the trough, that should be more than adequate to cover the shortfall - go on you know you want to Big Grin
MTF..P2 Tongue     
Reply
#10

Given the level of competence of most of them one could ask "why are they being paid so much"?
Reply
#11

CASA AQONs 

Going through the QON is so far very interesting, kicking it off is the answers to
Senator Fawcett's QON 90 - 92.. Confused

 
Quote:Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Mr Skidmore: The Aviation Safety Regulation Review report included 37 recommendations from memory, with 32 of those relating to CASA. In regards to the implementation of those, we are continuing to work on the recommendations. The implementation plan is incorporated in our corporate plan, and we are addressing the KPIs and the performance in regards to those and reporting back through the department to the minister on those. The overarching status of the recommendations is probably best covered by the department in regards to a departmental response, but I think CASA is still on line in regards to addressing those. I cannot say exactly which ones have already been implemented, but there are a number—HSB, MOU—we are working on the regulation development reform, as you have stated. There are 12 regulations still to be implemented or outstanding at this stage, if you want to specifically go down those. On the ASRR, I think we are tracking along in regards to meeting our recommendations.

Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if you could take on notice with respect to the ones that are outstanding your time frame that you see to actually finish incorporating those, that would be useful?

Mr Skidmore: For the ASRR recommendations?

Senator FAWCETT: Yes. A broad comment, particularly around the statement of your regulatory philosophy, that has been broadly welcomed by most of the stakeholders I have engaged with the industry, so thank you for that. I look forward to seeing that pursued with some vigour. I will go to some detailed issues. With respect to CAO 48.1, my understanding is that several industry sectors have been engaging with CASA and particularly the EMS sector, looking to have a specific appendix drafted for them. My understanding is that most stakeholders had agreed on a form, but that seems to have been delayed in being issued. In terms of certainty, and particularly I am aware there are some who are looking to bid for contracts with state governments, the uncertainty around that is causing issues. Do you have an update on 48.1, and particularly for the EMS and air ambulance sectors?

Answer:

Outstanding CASR Parts

Most draft CASR Parts have already been through or are going through industry consultation, with only Parts 103, 105 and 149 yet to begin that process. CASA is aiming to have CASR Part 129 made in 2015 with Parts 119, 133, 135, 121, 138, 132 and 91 expected to be made in 2016. CASA is committed to finalising the Regulatory Reform Programme as soon as possible, but will focus on ensuring the remaining CASR Parts are progressed in accordance with effective consultation with industry and the Government.

Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR)

Of the remaining ASRR recommendations CASA expects to complete 8a, 8b, 17, 28, 33/34 and 35 in 2015 and 8c, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21/22, 23, 24/25/26, 29 and 32 in 2016.

CAO 48.1

Consultation will continue with industry on the draft CAO 48.1 to address feedback until CASA is confident that unnecessary impacts on the sector are minimised and the effectiveness of the risk controls within the rule-set are maximised. Once the Fatigue Risk Management System Working Group finalises their feedback on the draft CAO 48.1 amendment, CASA will consult more broadly with industry. This is expected to occur by February 2016.

Representatives of the medical transport sector will continue to be involved in preparing the draft appendix.


Senator Fawcett, David asked:


Mr Weeks: We have arranged an industry workshop that will be held in Melbourne in early November. With that workshop invitations have gone out to all operators that have expressed an interest in undertaking the trial for the fatigue risk management system. That workshop is designed to take them through the process, so it is very much what the trial is aimed to do and the information that they would need to provide during that trial. The purpose of the workshop in Melbourne is to take industry and provide industry with exactly that detail.

Senator FAWCETT: So, provide the detail or have industry help develop the detail? I am just wondering if an operator, for example, is based in Darwin, whether that is reasonable for the regulator to expect them to travel to Melbourne just to receive information, or is the workshop indeed a workshop for them to have input into the conduct?

Mr Weeks: I have not seen the final agenda yet so I do not know the exact detail that will be covered. That would be something I would need to take on notice and come back with what the agenda entails.

Senator FAWCETT: At a broad position though, if you are in charge of this process, then I would assume that you would know whether this was an information session where you are just telling operators what is required or whether your intent is that this is a co-regulatory approach where they help develop the requirements. Do you know, in a binary sense; is it information giving or is it a collaborative effort?

Mr Weeks: My understanding is that it will be collaborative because we have a number of speakers that are there. We have an expert coming out from New Zealand who will be presenting at the workshop as well. I do not have the detail. I would need to get that for you.

Answer:

The primary goal of the CASA Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) Forum which was held in Melbourne on 11 November 2015 was to build a shared understanding between industry and CASA regarding achieving approval for an FRMS trial. The Forum brought industry and CASA representatives together to discuss the important issues relating to establishing a fatigue risk management system.

The Forum was arranged into four discrete sessions with each session involving short presentations from independent experts, industry and CASA representatives, followed by a panel discussion with a question and answer session involving operators.

By providing periods for questions and answers and involving industry based experts, CASA took a collaborative approach to build shared understanding of the FRMS trial process. Additionally, the forum was preceded by a questionnaire to discover concerns and areas where more information is required and followed by a post-forum questionnaire to check whether questions were answered effectually. This approach will help identify if additional guidance material is required to support industry to effectively and efficiently engage in the FRMS trial process.


Senator Fawcett, David asked:


Senator FAWCETT: That is probably a fair defence for a recent appointment. My understanding is that there was supposed to be a revised manual of standards issued in September for part 61 but that is not yet on the streets. Could somebody give me an update as to what is occurring there?

Mr Skidmore: I am not sure of the exact status of the time frame for the revised manual of standards. We would have to check that and get the information back to you.

Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is Mr Crosthwaite replied in May of this year that the amendment to MOS was planned by September this year.

Mr Skidmore: I can clarify that. The drafting structures were being written to address a number of issues and we are expecting an amendment to the part 61 MOS in December of 2015.

Senator FAWCETT: What is the corresponding time frame that you will be expecting industry to comply with the contents of the new manual of standards? My understanding is there have been some previous iterations where it was issued on Day X and Day X plus 1. Industry were being required to comply with it and we were seeing flying schools not able to conduct tests and other activities. I am interested to know what adjustment time you will be providing industry before they are expected to apply this?

Answer:

The legislative instrument that will amend the Part 61 Manual of Standards (MOS) has not yet been finalised but CASA will include transition provisions that ensure applicants who have embarked on a course of training would not be penalised by a change to the MOS.

The target date for making the MOS amendment was December 2015 but it is now expected by the end of March 2016. CASA has established a Part 61 Solutions Taskforce, informed by an industry advisory panel, as an initiative to address feedback received from the aviation community, including in relation to the Part 61 MOS.
MTF...P2 Tongue Tongue
Reply
#12

(02-04-2016, 08:09 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  CASA AQONs 

Going through the QON is so far very interesting, kicking it off is the answers to
Senator Fawcett's QON 90 - 92.. Confused

 



Quote:Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Mr Skidmore: The Aviation Safety Regulation Review report included 37 recommendations from memory, with 32 of those relating to CASA. In regards to the implementation of those, we are continuing to work on the recommendations. The implementation plan is incorporated in our corporate plan, and we are addressing the KPIs and the performance in regards to those and reporting back through the department to the minister on those. The overarching status of the recommendations is probably best covered by the department in regards to a departmental response, but I think CASA is still on line in regards to addressing those. I cannot say exactly which ones have already been implemented, but there are a number—HSB, MOU—we are working on the regulation development reform, as you have stated. There are 12 regulations still to be implemented or outstanding at this stage, if you want to specifically go down those. On the ASRR, I think we are tracking along in regards to meeting our recommendations.

Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if you could take on notice with respect to the ones that are outstanding your time frame that you see to actually finish incorporating those, that would be useful?

Mr Skidmore: For the ASRR recommendations?

Senator FAWCETT: Yes. A broad comment, particularly around the statement of your regulatory philosophy, that has been broadly welcomed by most of the stakeholders I have engaged with the industry, so thank you for that. I look forward to seeing that pursued with some vigour. I will go to some detailed issues. With respect to CAO 48.1, my understanding is that several industry sectors have been engaging with CASA and particularly the EMS sector, looking to have a specific appendix drafted for them. My understanding is that most stakeholders had agreed on a form, but that seems to have been delayed in being issued. In terms of certainty, and particularly I am aware there are some who are looking to bid for contracts with state governments, the uncertainty around that is causing issues. Do you have an update on 48.1, and particularly for the EMS and air ambulance sectors?

Answer:

Outstanding CASR Parts

Most draft CASR Parts have already been through or are going through industry consultation, with only Parts 103, 105 and 149 yet to begin that process. CASA is aiming to have CASR Part 129 made in 2015 with Parts 119, 133, 135, 121, 138, 132 and 91 expected to be made in 2016. CASA is committed to finalising the Regulatory Reform Programme as soon as possible, but will focus on ensuring the remaining CASR Parts are progressed in accordance with effective consultation with industry and the Government.

Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR)

Of the remaining ASRR recommendations CASA expects to complete 8a, 8b, 17, 28, 33/34 and 35 in 2015 and 8c, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21/22, 23, 24/25/26, 29 and 32 in 2016.

CAO 48.1

Consultation will continue with industry on the draft CAO 48.1 to address feedback until CASA is confident that unnecessary impacts on the sector are minimised and the effectiveness of the risk controls within the rule-set are maximised. Once the Fatigue Risk Management System Working Group finalises their feedback on the draft CAO 48.1 amendment, CASA will consult more broadly with industry. This is expected to occur by February 2016.

Representatives of the medical transport sector will continue to be involved in preparing the draft appendix.


Senator Fawcett, David asked:


Mr Weeks: We have arranged an industry workshop that will be held in Melbourne in early November. With that workshop invitations have gone out to all operators that have expressed an interest in undertaking the trial for the fatigue risk management system. That workshop is designed to take them through the process, so it is very much what the trial is aimed to do and the information that they would need to provide during that trial. The purpose of the workshop in Melbourne is to take industry and provide industry with exactly that detail.

Senator FAWCETT: So, provide the detail or have industry help develop the detail? I am just wondering if an operator, for example, is based in Darwin, whether that is reasonable for the regulator to expect them to travel to Melbourne just to receive information, or is the workshop indeed a workshop for them to have input into the conduct?

Mr Weeks: I have not seen the final agenda yet so I do not know the exact detail that will be covered. That would be something I would need to take on notice and come back with what the agenda entails.

Senator FAWCETT: At a broad position though, if you are in charge of this process, then I would assume that you would know whether this was an information session where you are just telling operators what is required or whether your intent is that this is a co-regulatory approach where they help develop the requirements. Do you know, in a binary sense; is it information giving or is it a collaborative effort?

Mr Weeks: My understanding is that it will be collaborative because we have a number of speakers that are there. We have an expert coming out from New Zealand who will be presenting at the workshop as well. I do not have the detail. I would need to get that for you.

Answer:

The primary goal of the CASA Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) Forum which was held in Melbourne on 11 November 2015 was to build a shared understanding between industry and CASA regarding achieving approval for an FRMS trial. The Forum brought industry and CASA representatives together to discuss the important issues relating to establishing a fatigue risk management system.

The Forum was arranged into four discrete sessions with each session involving short presentations from independent experts, industry and CASA representatives, followed by a panel discussion with a question and answer session involving operators.

By providing periods for questions and answers and involving industry based experts, CASA took a collaborative approach to build shared understanding of the FRMS trial process. Additionally, the forum was preceded by a questionnaire to discover concerns and areas where more information is required and followed by a post-forum questionnaire to check whether questions were answered effectually. This approach will help identify if additional guidance material is required to support industry to effectively and efficiently engage in the FRMS trial process.

So Wodger WAP had yet another talk-fest, wonder if the Alphabets & co were well represented with cardboard cut-outs? All Captain Booth & the AFAP had to do was hang a sign over their cardboard cut-out saying please refer here - AFAP - Strange dichotomy on CAO48.1??  Big Grin


Quote:“We have recently been advised that CASA, for reasons unexplained, has now delayed the implementation for a further 12 months, ’’ Captain Gardiner said.i


“This was done without any consultation with either of the pilots groups, who are the individuals who are required to work with the new rules and it raises questions about how serious they are about the whole issue of fatigue generally.

“Industry had three years to comply with these new requirements and it is the job of CASA as the regulator to ensure they do and not be complicit in bending the rules to suit.’’


Senator Fawcett, David asked:


Senator FAWCETT: That is probably a fair defence for a recent appointment. My understanding is that there was supposed to be a revised manual of standards issued in September for part 61 but that is not yet on the streets. Could somebody give me an update as to what is occurring there?

Mr Skidmore: I am not sure of the exact status of the time frame for the revised manual of standards. We would have to check that and get the information back to you.

Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is Mr Crosthwaite replied in May of this year that the amendment to MOS was planned by September this year.

Mr Skidmore: I can clarify that. The drafting structures were being written to address a number of issues and we are expecting an amendment to the part 61 MOS in December of 2015.

Senator FAWCETT: What is the corresponding time frame that you will be expecting industry to comply with the contents of the new manual of standards? My understanding is there have been some previous iterations where it was issued on Day X and Day X plus 1. Industry were being required to comply with it and we were seeing flying schools not able to conduct tests and other activities. I am interested to know what adjustment time you will be providing industry before they are expected to apply this?

Answer:

The legislative instrument that will amend the Part 61 Manual of Standards (MOS) has not yet been finalised but CASA will include transition provisions that ensure applicants who have embarked on a course of training would not be penalised by a change to the MOS.

The target date for making the MOS amendment was December 2015 but it is now expected by the end of March 2016. CASA has established a Part 61 Solutions Taskforce, informed by an industry advisory panel, as an initiative to address feedback received from the aviation community, including in relation to the Part 61 MOS.

The loaded QON - OK so Skates has conceded that the amended Part61 MOS has drifted past the December 2015 target date, with the next projected date being end of March, therefore my projection for December is still in the running. However I note the way Skidmore has deliberately side-stepped the other element of Senator Fawcett's QON:


Quote:What is the corresponding time frame that you will be expecting industry to comply with the contents of the new manual of standards? My understanding is there have been some previous iterations where it was issued on Day X and Day X plus 1. Industry were being required to comply with it and we were seeing flying schools not able to conduct tests and other activities. I am interested to know what adjustment time you will be providing industry before they are expected to apply this?

In the interest of the 'trust' factor & 'just culture' - to which Skidmore has supposedly laid down the law to his troops and put to CASA policy through a directive etc. - I would of thought this is one question that OST should not duck. Perhaps OST could put in place an 'Eleventh Commandment', stating a standard timeframe for compliance by industry for all new & amended regulations, MOS etc. And in a goodwill gesture there could be an appeal process for those industry members struggling to meet the standard timeframe for compliance - Rolleyes 

Instead what do we get?? Just another example of why Skidmore is little more than a bench warmer and 'glove puppet' to Murky Mandarin & the Iron Ring. 

      
Reply
#13

OST bullshit factor is mounting - Dodgy

Have gone through the CASA Estimates appearance last night and IMO the Oliver Skidmore-Twist performance was totally underwhelming, mixed with incompetent (NFI), arrogant and at times completely disrespectful of the Senators and their questioning. Dodgy

Here is the first two Senators representing the concerns of their constituents, that have now got a wake up call on how CASA is all spin, plenty of bullshit & a law unto themselves.

First from QLD Senator Barry O'Sullivan on Jabiru aircraft:



Next from Senator 'Wacka' Williams, on Cessna SIDS:



MTF?- Definitely..P2 Big Grin  
Reply
#14

(02-09-2016, 06:07 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  OST bullshit factor is mounting - Dodgy

Have gone through the CASA Estimates appearance last night and IMO the Oliver Skidmore-Twist performance was totally underwhelming, mixed with incompetent (NFI), arrogant and at times completely disrespectful of the Senators and their questioning. Dodgy

Here is the first two Senators representing the concerns of their constituents, that have now got a wake up call on how CASA is all spin, plenty of bullshit & a law unto themselves.

First from QLD Senator Barry O'Sullivan on Jabiru aircraft:



From Oz Flying today on the Senator O'Sullivan inquisition & rant:


Quote:[Image: Jabiru_J230_83181840-8979-11E4-9AA902F426829E60.jpg]
Jabiru J230



Queensland Senator questions CASA over Jabiru Engine
11 Feb 2016

Queensland Liberal National Party senator, Barry O'Sullivan, has questioned the way the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has handled the restrictions placed on aircraft with Jabiru engines.

After what it says is an unacceptable rate of engine failures compared with other manufacturers, CASA banned aircraft with Jabiru engines from flying over built-up areas as "precautionary limitations."

In Senate Estimate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in Canberra on Monday, Senator O'Sullivan questioned CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore and Associate Director Jonathon Aleck over the performance of the Jabiru engine since modifications were made, and suggested the issue had dragged on too long.

"During a meeting on 14 November were you advised that there had been design developments that had been made to the Jabiru engine over recent years?" O'Sullivan asked Aleck. "You were made aware of that?"

"That there had been design developments to the engine over the years—yes, certainly. We were aware ..." Aleck replied.

O'Sullivan continued: "And they submitted to you that they felt they had resolved some of these critical issues that you had used to place these limitations on them? Did they make that submission to you?"

Aleck: "They suggested that was so."

O'Sullivan then expressed some frustration and finished with the suggestion that a Senate Inquiry might be needed to sort it out if CASA was not forthcoming.

"What evaluation have you now done on the enhanced engines to see whether their performance is better, and up to an acceptable standard, versus the old engines?" he asked.

"Gentlemen, this company [Jabiru] is on the verge of tipping over and this has been a long-running saga ... If any of the facts that are being presented to me are correct in relation to how CASA has dealt with this company—how long it has taken and the manner in which the consultations occurred—then there is a problem: a serious problem.

"I will not have time to deal with it today, but maybe we can have a quiet audience for me to go through some of these issues with you; otherwise I will be asking my colleagues to join me to have an inquiry to have a look at how you have dealt with this."

Aleck replied that CASA would be happy to talk the senator through the issues outside of the committee room.

Earlier, both Skidmore and Aleck confirmed that a tear-down test of a Jabiru engine with three modifications showed the engine could endure 900 hours, when the standard called for only 200 hours.

"This [engine] had 900 hours," Aleck said, "so that was quite impressive."
According to CASA, Jabiru engines had 2-3 failures every 10,000 hours, when the US National Transport Safety Board had established an acceptable level of one every 10,000 hours.


Next from Senator 'Wacka' Williams, on Cessna SIDS:



MTF?- Definitely..P2 Big Grin  

And for those interested here is the Hansard for the CASA session - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 08/02/2016 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Civil Aviation Safety Authority


MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply
#15

Quote:P2 – “Here is the first two Senators representing the concerns of their constituents, that have now got a wake up call on how CASA is”. etc


O’Sullivan and Williams have added their names and ‘personal’ experience to the ever growing list of those disenchanted with CASA and the department.  A little dose of CASA goes a long way and the benefits of actually talking to the local Senator can, eventually have an effect.

The thing concerns me is the lack of action; after Pel-Air and the Norfolk inquiry there was enough steam in the boiler to decimate both ATSB and CASA; what happened?  Not much is what.  Then the good Rev Forsyth did his bit, the Canadians did what they could within the narrow confines of their brief; what happened ? Not much is what.

We did get Oliver, who, despite high hopes has proven to be exactly as predicted by his old boss, plenty of hat and no cattle.

The Senators have earned my respect and good will, the hard way and I mean no disrespect when I say that despite their best, collective efforts there has been little achieved.  It ain’t their fault, but someone, somewhere, somehow has got to bring the watchdogs to heel.  Maybe the new DPM will take more than a passing glance at a dying industry and take the advice of the Senators and make real, meaningful reform happen.

I’ve probably more chance of winning the lottery.

Toot toot.
Reply
#16

Dear Heff?? - Correcting the record..on behalf of Dr A..L&K Skates Big Grin


[Image: Dear-Heff.jpg]

Love to be a fly on the wall.. Rolleyes  Perhaps Senator O'Sullivan (legend) would be kind enough to give us a summary via presser on the CASA briefing... Wink


MTF..P2 Tongue  
Reply
#17

 

Additional Estimates - 
CASA QON 158-173 (pg60-66) 

A sampling of QON, first from Senator Sterle:
Quote:QON 161 - Senator STERLE: Can you outline what happens throughout the exemption process? [/b]Who makes the ultimate decision over whether an exemption is granted or not?

Mr Skidmore: The applicant would put forward the information regarding the exemption. The requirement for an exemption is listed. I am not sure whether I am the best person to go through this process. I will find the best person to go through the process for you.

Senator STERLE: For the purposes of timing, I am happy for you to take it on notice if that can be provided.

Mr Skidmore: Certainly. We can do that
 
Hmm..that's strange because if you refer to the VARA exemption you can see that in fact it was OST who made the ultimate decision Confused
Quote:Instrument number CASA 08/16


I, MARK ALAN SKIDMORE, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subparagraph 9B.12 (a) of Civil Aviation Order 20.18 (CAO 20.18) and regulation 11.160 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

[Signed M. Skidmore]
Mark Skidmore AM
Director of Aviation Safety
20 January 2016
  
Quote:QON 164 - Senator STERLE: Okay, but the ones that we cover—what Virgin are doing out of Perth: Perth-Albany, Perth-Esperance, Ravensthorpe and then some chartered flights to Geraldton, Carnarvon and Paraburdoo—are obviously for a certain type of aircraft at a certain height or whatever. So when were they all put on notice? When do you reckon the ones that are doing this work now were put on notice?

Mr Cromarty: I will have to take that one on notice for you.

Mr Skidmore: It is something we would have to ask VARA. We would have put the legislation out, but it is Virgin who interpret that and make a determination.

Senator STERLE: No, but you are the boss.

[b]Mr Skidmore: I am not the boss of Virgin.

Senator STERLE: I wish I could get away with that with the coppers when they were hassling the shit out of me as a truck driver. I wish I could use that excuse: 'You didn't ask me. Come and ask me first. I will tell you what speed I was doing.' You are the regulator. That is all I am asking.

Mr Skidmore: We put the legislation out and then we try and educate people and get them to follow the legislation and the regulations.

[b]Senator STERLE: Right. So all I want to know is, when they knew that they had to come to 4 February—

Mr Skidmore: I can only assume that it was when the legislation was put in power and the dates were identified.

Senator STERLE: It is dangerous to assume here, Mr Skidmore, because people remember what you assume in further estimates down the track. Would you like to take it on notice and come back?

Mr Skidmore: We can come back and tell you when the regulation was put into power.

Senator Xenophon QON:

Quote:QON 166 -[b] Senator XENOPHON: The restriction of the last operations in the evenings obviously has restricted the flow, but presumably that was as a result of a compelling safety case.

Mr Skidmore: It was as a result of our discussions with Airservices to say we were concerned with regard to the incident. They said they were taking steps to mitigate those concerns. Part of that was the suspension of LAHSO until we can get to a stage where we have a system in place that can manage it better.

Senator XENOPHON: I want to touch on another issue which I think is quite important. Could you, on notice, provide us with details of the correspondence, the process involved between CASA and Airservices Australia in relation to this? You know that I have a longstanding interest in Airservices.

Mr Skidmore: Certainly, Senator.  

QON 169 -  Senator XENOPHON: The question I am putting to you on notice is: does the pilot not need to add to their flight and duty limits if there are INTER and TEMPO conditions?


Mr Skidmore: It might not happen.


Senator XENOPHON: So, essentially, you will take on notice whether you consider that TEMPO and INTER fuel advisories should be applied to duty time. That is the nub of the question, isn't it? That is the question I am asking.

Mr Skidmore: I will take it on notice to investigate that question for you, yes.
I am not sure why but I find the implications/assertions that Greens Senator Rice makes in her written QON 171 quite disturbing Sad :
Quote:3. With regard to CASA’s Enforcement Manual Version 4.3 (Jan 2013), what has been the result of making an Airspace Infringement Notice inappropriate "where the offense was intentional and formed a pattern of breaches" and making an investigation contingent on proof beyond reasonable doubt that a pilot was "engaging in conduct, or showing an intention to engage in conduct, that constitutes dangerous flying"? Does this represent a change from the previous version of the Enforcement Manual? If so, has this regime led to more or fewer infringements, with regard to VFR pilots operating over metropolitan Melbourne?

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#18

(02-11-2016, 05:55 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-09-2016, 06:07 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  

From Oz Flying today on the Senator O'Sullivan inquisition & rant:



Quote:[Image: Jabiru_J230_83181840-8979-11E4-9AA902F426829E60.jpg]
Jabiru J230



Queensland Senator questions CASA over Jabiru Engine
11 Feb 2016

Queensland Liberal National Party senator, Barry O'Sullivan, has questioned the way the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has handled the restrictions placed on aircraft with Jabiru engines.

After what it says is an unacceptable rate of engine failures compared with other manufacturers, CASA banned aircraft with Jabiru engines from flying over built-up areas as "precautionary limitations."

In Senate Estimate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in Canberra on Monday, Senator O'Sullivan questioned CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore and Associate Director Jonathon Aleck over the performance of the Jabiru engine since modifications were made, and suggested the issue had dragged on too long.

"During a meeting on 14 November were you advised that there had been design developments that had been made to the Jabiru engine over recent years?" O'Sullivan asked Aleck. "You were made aware of that?"

"That there had been design developments to the engine over the years—yes, certainly. We were aware ..." Aleck replied.

O'Sullivan continued: "And they submitted to you that they felt they had resolved some of these critical issues that you had used to place these limitations on them? Did they make that submission to you?"

Aleck: "They suggested that was so."

O'Sullivan then expressed some frustration and finished with the suggestion that a Senate Inquiry might be needed to sort it out if CASA was not forthcoming.

"What evaluation have you now done on the enhanced engines to see whether their performance is better, and up to an acceptable standard, versus the old engines?" he asked.

"Gentlemen, this company [Jabiru] is on the verge of tipping over and this has been a long-running saga ... If any of the facts that are being presented to me are correct in relation to how CASA has dealt with this company—how long it has taken and the manner in which the consultations occurred—then there is a problem: a serious problem.

"I will not have time to deal with it today, but maybe we can have a quiet audience for me to go through some of these issues with you; otherwise I will be asking my colleagues to join me to have an inquiry to have a look at how you have dealt with this."

Aleck replied that CASA would be happy to talk the senator through the issues outside of the committee room.

Earlier, both Skidmore and Aleck confirmed that a tear-down test of a Jabiru engine with three modifications showed the engine could endure 900 hours, when the standard called for only 200 hours.

"This [engine] had 900 hours," Aleck said, "so that was quite impressive."
According to CASA, Jabiru engines had 2-3 failures every 10,000 hours, when the US National Transport Safety Board had established an acceptable level of one every 10,000 hours.

Going, going gone - ATSB buries Jabiru Sad 

The ATSB released investigation research report AR-2013-107 today, the following is the safety issues & actions section of that report:
Quote:Safety issues and actions

The safety issues identified during this investigation are listed in the Findings and Safety issues and actions sections of this report. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) expects that all safety issues identified by the investigation should be addressed by the relevant organisation(s). In addressing those issues, the ATSB prefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action, rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices.

All of the directly involved parties were provided with a draft report and invited to provide submissions. As part of that process, each organisation was asked to communicate what safety actions, if any, they had carried out or were planning to carry out in relation to each safety issue relevant to their organisation.

The initial public version of these safety issues and actions are repeated separately on the ATSB website to facilitate monitoring by interested parties. Where relevant the safety issues and actions will be updated on the ATSB website as information comes to hand.

Through-bolt failures in Jabiru engines
Thicker 7/16 inch diameter through-bolts, fitted to newer Jabiru engines and some retro-fitted engines, have had limited service to date to confirm early indications that they reduce this risk. Retro-fitting engines with thicker through-bolts has only been recommended for aircraft involved in flight training by JSB031 issue 3. Most light aircraft in service with Jabiru engines continue to use 3/8 inch diameter engine through-bolts which, even after upgrades in accordance with Jabiru service bulletins JSB031 issues 1 and 2, remain at an elevated risk of fracturing within the service life of the bolt, leading to an engine failure or malfunction in flight.

Aviation safety issue: AR-2013-107-SI-01

ATSB safety recommendation: AR-2013-107-SR-055

ATSB safety recommendation: AR-2013-107-SR-056
 

"...the ATSB prefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action, rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices..."

Hmm...guess the bureau has a sense of mistrust when it comes to Jabiru aircraft- why??

Here is a summary of the ATSB findings & implications to Jabiru courtesy Hitch:
Quote:[Image: Jabiru-J230D_sc1.gif]
The Jabiru J230.


ATSB Engine Report zeroes in on Jabiru Failures
09 Mar 2016

An ATSB report released today compares the rate of engine failures in light general aviation and recreational aircraft, focusing specifically on Jabiru engines.

Aircraft powered by Jabiru engines have been on limited operations since December 2014 over what the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) deemed a "high and increasing" rate of failures.

The report covers all engine failures in aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 800 kg or less that occured between 2009 and 2014, and indicated that 40.4% – or 130 out of 322 – involved Jabiru engines.

Although the report covers all engine manufacturers, it focuses specifically on four that account for 94% of the failures over the six-year period: Jabiru, Rotax (27% - 87 failures), Lycoming (18% - 58 failures) and Teledyne Continental (8.7% - 28 failures).

According to the ATSB, no single component accounted for more than two incidents in the report period for Lycoming, Rotax and Continental, whereas 47% of Jabiru engine failures were attributed to the 3/8" through-bolts fracturing.

There were also 13 reported fractures in Jabiru engine valves.

The report notes that Jabiru Aircraft released two service bulletins to deal with the through-bolts, the second of which was an increase in diameter from 3/8" to 7/16", which required the engine to be sent back to Bundaberg.

In-house studies targeted the solid lifters as a root cause of the valve issues, prompting a change to hydraulic lifters.

Jabiru responded to the ATSB in February 2015, stating that "Production records show that 272 production engines have been released in to service with the 7/16" diameter through bolts. There have been no reported through bolt failures with these engines. [However] failures continued to occur in engines that are in service with the hydraulic lifters and 3/8" diameter bolts."

That performance seems to have not impressed the ATSB, which remarks in the report, "the lack of reported failures in 7/16 inch through-bolts may be related to the small proportion of the fleet that have thicker through-bolts and that most of these engines have relatively low time-in-service."

The ATSB has recommended that Jabiru takes further safety action to encourage all owners of Jabiru-engined aeroplanes that have not adopted the 7/16" through-bolts, or any alternative to the 3/8" parts, do so immediately, and that CASA continues to monitor the failure rate until they are satisfied of the engine's reliability.


MTF...P2 Confused   
    
Reply
#19

(03-09-2016, 07:58 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-11-2016, 05:55 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(02-09-2016, 06:07 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  

From Oz Flying today on the Senator O'Sullivan inquisition & rant:




Quote:[Image: Jabiru_J230_83181840-8979-11E4-9AA902F426829E60.jpg]
Jabiru J230



Queensland Senator questions CASA over Jabiru Engine
11 Feb 2016

Queensland Liberal National Party senator, Barry O'Sullivan, has questioned the way the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has handled the restrictions placed on aircraft with Jabiru engines.

After what it says is an unacceptable rate of engine failures compared with other manufacturers, CASA banned aircraft with Jabiru engines from flying over built-up areas as "precautionary limitations."

In Senate Estimate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in Canberra on Monday, Senator O'Sullivan questioned CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore and Associate Director Jonathon Aleck over the performance of the Jabiru engine since modifications were made, and suggested the issue had dragged on too long.

"During a meeting on 14 November were you advised that there had been design developments that had been made to the Jabiru engine over recent years?" O'Sullivan asked Aleck. "You were made aware of that?"

"That there had been design developments to the engine over the years—yes, certainly. We were aware ..." Aleck replied.

O'Sullivan continued: "And they submitted to you that they felt they had resolved some of these critical issues that you had used to place these limitations on them? Did they make that submission to you?"

Aleck: "They suggested that was so."

O'Sullivan then expressed some frustration and finished with the suggestion that a Senate Inquiry might be needed to sort it out if CASA was not forthcoming.

"What evaluation have you now done on the enhanced engines to see whether their performance is better, and up to an acceptable standard, versus the old engines?" he asked.

"Gentlemen, this company [Jabiru] is on the verge of tipping over and this has been a long-running saga ... If any of the facts that are being presented to me are correct in relation to how CASA has dealt with this company—how long it has taken and the manner in which the consultations occurred—then there is a problem: a serious problem.

"I will not have time to deal with it today, but maybe we can have a quiet audience for me to go through some of these issues with you; otherwise I will be asking my colleagues to join me to have an inquiry to have a look at how you have dealt with this."

Aleck replied that CASA would be happy to talk the senator through the issues outside of the committee room.

Earlier, both Skidmore and Aleck confirmed that a tear-down test of a Jabiru engine with three modifications showed the engine could endure 900 hours, when the standard called for only 200 hours.

"This [engine] had 900 hours," Aleck said, "so that was quite impressive."
According to CASA, Jabiru engines had 2-3 failures every 10,000 hours, when the US National Transport Safety Board had established an acceptable level of one every 10,000 hours.

Going, going gone - ATSB buries Jabiru Sad 

The ATSB released investigation research report AR-2013-107 today, the following is the safety issues & actions section of that report:

Quote:Safety issues and actions

The safety issues identified during this investigation are listed in the Findings and Safety issues and actions sections of this report. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) expects that all safety issues identified by the investigation should be addressed by the relevant organisation(s). In addressing those issues, the ATSB prefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action, rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices.

All of the directly involved parties were provided with a draft report and invited to provide submissions. As part of that process, each organisation was asked to communicate what safety actions, if any, they had carried out or were planning to carry out in relation to each safety issue relevant to their organisation.

The initial public version of these safety issues and actions are repeated separately on the ATSB website to facilitate monitoring by interested parties. Where relevant the safety issues and actions will be updated on the ATSB website as information comes to hand.

Through-bolt failures in Jabiru engines
Thicker 7/16 inch diameter through-bolts, fitted to newer Jabiru engines and some retro-fitted engines, have had limited service to date to confirm early indications that they reduce this risk. Retro-fitting engines with thicker through-bolts has only been recommended for aircraft involved in flight training by JSB031 issue 3. Most light aircraft in service with Jabiru engines continue to use 3/8 inch diameter engine through-bolts which, even after upgrades in accordance with Jabiru service bulletins JSB031 issues 1 and 2, remain at an elevated risk of fracturing within the service life of the bolt, leading to an engine failure or malfunction in flight.

Aviation safety issue: AR-2013-107-SI-01

ATSB safety recommendation: AR-2013-107-SR-055

ATSB safety recommendation: AR-2013-107-SR-056
 

"...the ATSB prefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action, rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices..."

Hmm...guess the bureau has a sense of mistrust when it comes to Jabiru aircraft- why??

Here is a summary of the ATSB findings & implications to Jabiru courtesy Hitch:

Quote:[Image: Jabiru-J230D_sc1.gif]
The Jabiru J230.


ATSB Engine Report zeroes in on Jabiru Failures
09 Mar 2016

An ATSB report released today compares the rate of engine failures in light general aviation and recreational aircraft, focusing specifically on Jabiru engines.

Aircraft powered by Jabiru engines have been on limited operations since December 2014 over what the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) deemed a "high and increasing" rate of failures.

The report covers all engine failures in aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of 800 kg or less that occured between 2009 and 2014, and indicated that 40.4% – or 130 out of 322 – involved Jabiru engines.

Although the report covers all engine manufacturers, it focuses specifically on four that account for 94% of the failures over the six-year period: Jabiru, Rotax (27% - 87 failures), Lycoming (18% - 58 failures) and Teledyne Continental (8.7% - 28 failures).

According to the ATSB, no single component accounted for more than two incidents in the report period for Lycoming, Rotax and Continental, whereas 47% of Jabiru engine failures were attributed to the 3/8" through-bolts fracturing.

There were also 13 reported fractures in Jabiru engine valves.

The report notes that Jabiru Aircraft released two service bulletins to deal with the through-bolts, the second of which was an increase in diameter from 3/8" to 7/16", which required the engine to be sent back to Bundaberg.

In-house studies targeted the solid lifters as a root cause of the valve issues, prompting a change to hydraulic lifters.

Jabiru responded to the ATSB in February 2015, stating that "Production records show that 272 production engines have been released in to service with the 7/16" diameter through bolts. There have been no reported through bolt failures with these engines. [However] failures continued to occur in engines that are in service with the hydraulic lifters and 3/8" diameter bolts."

That performance seems to have not impressed the ATSB, which remarks in the report, "the lack of reported failures in 7/16 inch through-bolts may be related to the small proportion of the fleet that have thicker through-bolts and that most of these engines have relatively low time-in-service."

The ATSB has recommended that Jabiru takes further safety action to encourage all owners of Jabiru-engined aeroplanes that have not adopted the 7/16" through-bolts, or any alternative to the 3/8" parts, do so immediately, and that CASA continues to monitor the failure rate until they are satisfied of the engine's reliability.
  

Update - The other side of the story
Quote:Queensland firm Jabiru defends record following Australian Transport Safety Bureau report

March 10, 2016 1:00am
DARYL PASSMORE The Courier-Mail

[Image: Ut_HKthATH4eww8X4xMDoxOjBrO-I4W8_648x365...6-hero.jpg]
Two young pilots at the controls of a Jabiru J-170 aircraft are forced to put emergency landing procedures into play. Courtesy: ABC
  • September 3rd 2013
  • 3 years ago
  • /video/video.news.com.au/News/
LIGHT aircraft manufactured by a Queensland company were involved in four out of 10 engine failures reported to safety officials over a six-year period.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau revealed that of 322 single-engine aircraft failures or malfunctions investigated from 2009-14, 130 involved planes or engines produced by Bundaberg-based Jabiru Aircraft.

“This represents about one in 10 aircraft powered by Jabiru engines in the study set having reported an engine failure or malfunction,” the report said.

The company produces complete aircraft and kits for recreational use and pilot training, as well as engines for domestic and export markets.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has imposed restrictions on the use of Jabiru aircraft since 2014. But Jabiru business manager Sue Woods said it had sold about 6500 aircraft worldwide and no other country had imposed restrictions.

The report said almost half the problems in the Jabiru engine were caused by fractured components.
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v1/?category=/section/couriermail.com.au/collection/popular-content/all/24hours/&t_product=most-popular-mobile&td_standfirst=false&td_kicker=false&td_byline=false&td_resultSize=6&maxRelated=20&display:footer=true&origin=omniture&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/readnext/templates/index&domain=couriermail.com.au&widget=otherstories[/img]
[Image: c7c4698345a0e1ce96843e06ee386503?width=650]Rodd Stiff and with daughter and Jabiru business manager Sue Woods. Ms Woods says the way aircraft are used at flying schools put particular strain on parts. Picture: Adam Armstrong
The company said that ­although its planes were involved in three fatal crashes in 12 years, their safety record is better than other light aircraft in Australia. None of the fatalities were linked to engine failure.

Ms Woods said the way aircraft were used at flying schools put particular strain on parts.

She said many of the 130 cases studied by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau were not related to manufacture and included issues such as fuel contamination, insects in carburettors and maintenance factors.

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#20

(03-10-2016, 06:27 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Going, going gone - ATSB buries Jabiru Sad 

The ATSB released investigation research report AR-2013-107 today, the following is the safety issues & actions section of that report:

Quote:Safety issues and actions

The safety issues identified during this investigation are listed in the Findings and Safety issues and actions sections of this report. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) expects that all safety issues identified by the investigation should be addressed by the relevant organisation(s). In addressing those issues, the ATSB prefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action, rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices.

All of the directly involved parties were provided with a draft report and invited to provide submissions. As part of that process, each organisation was asked to communicate what safety actions, if any, they had carried out or were planning to carry out in relation to each safety issue relevant to their organisation.

The initial public version of these safety issues and actions are repeated separately on the ATSB website to facilitate monitoring by interested parties. Where relevant the safety issues and actions will be updated on the ATSB website as information comes to hand.

Through-bolt failures in Jabiru engines
Thicker 7/16 inch diameter through-bolts, fitted to newer Jabiru engines and some retro-fitted engines, have had limited service to date to confirm early indications that they reduce this risk. Retro-fitting engines with thicker through-bolts has only been recommended for aircraft involved in flight training by JSB031 issue 3. Most light aircraft in service with Jabiru engines continue to use 3/8 inch diameter engine through-bolts which, even after upgrades in accordance with Jabiru service bulletins JSB031 issues 1 and 2, remain at an elevated risk of fracturing within the service life of the bolt, leading to an engine failure or malfunction in flight.

Aviation safety issue: AR-2013-107-SI-01

ATSB safety recommendation: AR-2013-107-SR-055

ATSB safety recommendation: AR-2013-107-SR-056
 

"...the ATSB prefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action, rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices..."

Hmm...guess the bureau has a sense of mistrust when it comes to Jabiru aircraft- why??

Here is a summary of the ATSB findings & implications to Jabiru courtesy Hitch:




Quote:[Image: Jabiru-J230D_sc1.gif]
The Jabiru J230.


ATSB Engine Report zeroes in on Jabiru Failures
09 Mar 2016
  
Update - The other side of the story

Quote:Queensland firm Jabiru defends record following Australian Transport Safety Bureau report

March 10, 2016 1:00am
DARYL PASSMORE The Courier-Mail

[Image: Ut_HKthATH4eww8X4xMDoxOjBrO-I4W8_648x365...6-hero.jpg]
Two young pilots at the controls of a Jabiru J-170 aircraft are forced to put emergency landing procedures into play. Courtesy: ABC


  • September 3rd 2013
  • 3 years ago
  • /video/video.news.com.au/News/
LIGHT aircraft manufactured by a Queensland company were involved in four out of 10 engine failures reported to safety officials over a six-year period.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau revealed that of 322 single-engine aircraft failures or malfunctions investigated from 2009-14, 130 involved planes or engines produced by Bundaberg-based Jabiru Aircraft.

“This represents about one in 10 aircraft powered by Jabiru engines in the study set having reported an engine failure or malfunction,” the report said.

The company produces complete aircraft and kits for recreational use and pilot training, as well as engines for domestic and export markets.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has imposed restrictions on the use of Jabiru aircraft since 2014. But Jabiru business manager Sue Woods said it had sold about 6500 aircraft worldwide and no other country had imposed restrictions.

The report said almost half the problems in the Jabiru engine were caused by fractured components.
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v1/?category=/section/couriermail.com.au/collection/popular-content/all/24hours/&t_product=most-popular-mobile&td_standfirst=false&td_kicker=false&td_byline=false&td_resultSize=6&maxRelated=20&display:footer=true&origin=omniture&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/readnext/templates/index&domain=couriermail.com.au&widget=otherstories[/img]
[Image: c7c4698345a0e1ce96843e06ee386503?width=650]Rodd Stiff and with daughter and Jabiru business manager Sue Woods. Ms Woods says the way aircraft are used at flying schools put particular strain on parts. Picture: Adam Armstrong
The company said that ­although its planes were involved in three fatal crashes in 12 years, their safety record is better than other light aircraft in Australia. None of the fatalities were linked to engine failure.

Ms Woods said the way aircraft were used at flying schools put particular strain on parts.

She said many of the 130 cases studied by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau were not related to manufacture and included issues such as fuel contamination, insects in carburettors and maintenance factors.

Further update today 10/03/16:

Courtesy Oz Flying:
Quote:[Image: Jabiru_2200_engine_500185A0-E674-11E5-AB...AD441F.jpg]
A Jabiru 2200 engine. (Jabiru)


Jabiru slams ATSB over Engine Failure Report
10 Mar 2016

Jabiru Aircraft has lashed out at the ATSB over an investigation report released this week into engine failures in GA aeroplanes.

The report analysed 332 failures, but focused on the 130 incidents involving Jabiru-engined aeroplanes. According to Jabiru's Sue Woods, the ATSB report and conclusions have several failings.

"Interrogation of the data behind the statistics in this ATSB report is lacking to a great extent," Woods told Australian Flying.

"Many of the incidents have less to do with engine failures and more to do with things like fuel exhaustion, contaminated fuel, carburettor icing, modified engines, maintenance operation and many other contributing factors.

"The ATSB has based the report on the data given in reports, which is often no more than a one-line description. To my knowledge, the ATSB has never investigated a report involving a Jabiru engine failure!

"They could have written the report without trying to scare people away from Jabiru They could have given the information with a more balanced approach.

"Their motivation in writing it the way they did has to be questioned."

Jabiru engines have been the subject of CASA-imposed limitations since December 2014, which has been disastrous for the company as many customers have been reluctant to buy aeroplanes that could be limited in operations. According to Woods, CASA put the limitations on despite Jabiru-powered aircraft having a better fatality record that some other comparable types.

"CASA seems to have forgotten the LSA rules they set up when they created the category. Allowing only two people and having a stall speed of 45 knots are all mitigating safety factors.

"When you take into account the rate of fatal accidents per number of aircraft registered, Jabiru comes at 0.3, compared with 1.6 for Tecnam, 2.8 for the Cessna 172 and 2.2 for the Vans RV series. But, it seems that CASA doesn't want to know about that."

In the meantime, CASA has responded to the report by stating they will not remove the limitations on Jabiru engines despite the company diagnosing and correcting issues, stating that they still need more information before deciding their next move.

"CASA is analysing data provided by Jabiru and from individual engine tear-down analyses conducted by Jabiru and independently under ATSB oversight.

"We are waiting for further data from Recreational Aviation Australia, and maintenance data on a number of individual engines, which will also need to be assessed.

"The ATSB’s final investigation report on Engine Failures and Malfunctions in Light Aeroplanes, which bears directly on key aspects of CASA’s concerns with Jabiru-powered aircraft, will also be taken into account before any decisions are made.

"CASA will review all the information available as quickly as possible.

"CASA expects to be in a position to decide whether the operational limitations can be withdrawn or relaxed before the current direction imposing the limitations expires at the end of June 2016. 

"Only after CASA can be satisfied that steps to effectively mitigate the safety risks with which we are concerned have been identified, however, will those limiting conditions be adjusted accordingly."
 
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)