Those of you waiting for this week’s edition of the SBG to come out on the blog will sadly be disappointed, as due to editorial crew members being stuck in airport transit lounges etc.. we have missed our SBG editorial deadline… 🙄
In the meantime however there is a bit going on over on the AP forum, so without further ado… 😉
From about here off our ever useless, NFI miniscule’s thread:
Ironside – “A Senate committee for rural and regional affairs and transport heard stations at Rockhampton, Gladstone and the Sunshine Coast must share a fire truck despite being 543km apart.
To a crown minister, living within a slow moving, well protected parliamentary bubble the pace of life is slow. To passengers and pilots alike, the sheer speed and unrealised violence of a crash is incredible.
Don’t know how many have ever driven a loaded truck 543 Kms on Australian roads; but I can assure you, six hours would represent some kind of a record – seven would be closer. Not worth it – the aircraft burned out in about three minutes.
Meanwhile, ASA is desperately saving pennies to pay KPI bonus and support their lunatic, almost out of date One Sky project. Consultants at a million bucks a pop, Rockhampton passenger must wait seven hours for a fire crew to rescue them from an inferno.
Do wake up minister; there’s a good chap; smell the fumes, count the bodies and you can even get a dewy eyed 10 second grab on the local news; for being such a deeply caring, concerned minister at the funerals.
&..fm the ATSB Aberrations Forum:
Refer to the PNG AIC Air Nuigini Flight 73 report and reference from page 15, plus recommendation 9 page 71: https://auntypru.com/wp-admin/upload.php?item=4254
One of the worst things that can happen, in almost any field of endeavour is falling behind. The further behind one gets, the harder it is to catch up, much more energy and will power is required and, having expended that energy, getting ahead becomes a very real challenge. It takes a while and some thinking to fully grasp the implications for the Australian ‘catchup’ emanating from the excellent report into the Air Nuigini ‘accident’. (?)
In less than a twelve month, the PNG AIC managed to produce not only a first class analysis, but recommendations which not only have merit, but will stick. Flying operations in PNG are not without risk; almost everyone concerned there has an elevated awareness of ‘real’ risk in ‘real’ time and have a vested interest in finding out what happened, why and how best to fix it to prevent a reoccurrence. There are no faery tales of ‘safety’ told in PNG, no spin to mislead the public into believing that the local CAA is a god like being which, through a myriad of complex rules can sit back and say you are safe. Not in PNG, they understand that terrain, weather, aircraft and pilot can combine in an accident – any tick of the clock – and they do what they may to prevent reality happening, with limited resources and going the extra mile, without fear or influence. They shame Australia.
Despite the spin, bullshit, resources, unlimited power; and, not to mention the minister on a string, Australia has an impressive list of unfinished fatal reports, an even longer list of unpublished recommendations, and a marked reluctance to complete any of the above within a reasonable time frame. If an emerging nation like PNG with limited everything can do a complex, world class report within ten months, why are we in Australia still waiting for results? It also begs the question why did we waste so much time and effort to hold not only a Senate inquiry, but an independent report and an international examination; which, combined produced almost 100 recommendations, to no effective change whatsoever?
P2 –It is also disturbing that despite there being a 2nd inquiry and report by the ATSB into the PelAir VH-NGA ditching that there was no observations/findings in regards to Pacific Island air services agreements etc. like the PNG AIC has been able to do, without fear nor favour, inside of 10 months to an excellent full report…
A good question for the opposition to ask the incumbent Muppet, masquerading as minister methinks.
Perhaps ask why there is such a delay on the final report into the Ross Air fatal for example; another ‘training’ based event which proved lethal. Many would like to hear the ‘official’ ministerial response to that event; or, of any of the serious events which are neatly stacked up in the waiting room, awaiting their final, properly edited turn to be of no practical value.
How’s this for a response to an enquiry – two years (and counting) down the track of the Ross Air investigation (another sim v aircraft training accident).
ATSB –“The investigation is progressing well, however, the analysis phase is proving to be a complex process due in part to the lack of recorded data from the flight. As a result we now expect to provide you with a copy of the draft report in the 4th quarter of this year. Sincere apologies for the delay however this investigation remains a high priority for the ATSB and the team are working tirelessly to complete the investigation as soon as possible.”
Here is one response:-
Anon – “but not too busy to try making ATSB keep up with their promise of monthly updates. What utter tosh! Here is a copy of the latest ‘update’. As you can see he insults my intelligence by telling me the investigation is progressing well and they are working tirelessly!!! Can you believe the audacity???”
I, for one can, so can many others. Australian aviation ‘safety’ is rapidly becoming little more than a PR exercise for government ministers who just don’t want to address the rapidly growing elephant in the room. Perhaps someone could whisper into the ministerial ear the real opinion of his international peers regarding the pitiful, deceitful state Australian aviation governance has descended into. Volunteers? No. I wonder why not.
Toot – toot.
Next fm the AOPA Oz thread:
Via the LMH:
It’s very hard to look at Oshkosh every year and yearn for something of this nature in Australia. Sadly, over here an event of these proportions would be totally impossible to stage; our industry is fractured and getting more fractured every year. Oshkosh’s greatest display is its unity and community spirit. What we have over here is an us-verses-them attitude that is sadly perpetual by both us and them. To be blatant, whilst AOPA Australia and RAAus are standing and flinging mud pies at each other the situation will continue. Of course, both sides are keen to promote unity within GA as long as it is done on their grounds, when the reality is that any form of healing is going to need concessions on behalf of both sides of the wound. We even have two national fly-ins held within 30 days and of each other and only 103 km apart. Many fliers, including me, will be forced to choose one or the other, which only adds to the divide. There will be some that go to both events, but I believe they will be very rare beasts indeed. In the meantime, Oshkosh rolls on taunting us with what could be if the rift in Australian GA ever healed.
the premises it is founded on are shaky at best.
Whilst aviation’s political wind vane has been pointing towards the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, the Air Services Amendment Bill has snuck back onto the Senate agenda. Like all legislation, it lapsed with the end of the last parliament and had to be re-listed. This is the bill that will require Airservices to review any flight path into any airport at the request of any single person and contains a special clause to prevent flights over Melbourne CBD below 6000 feet and within 2.7 nm of the city centre. First touted by Greens MP Adam Bandt in 2016 and introduced to the Senate by Greens Senator Janet Rice, proponents of the bill are saying that it is necessary because of “acute circumstance of high intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled air space.” In December 2016, I wrote that I expected this “mutt” legislation was likely to be killed dead in the Senate, but it doesn’t seem to want to die. It’s a mutt because the premises it is founded on are shaky at best and nefarious at worst. Aircraft noise in Melbourne CBD? I guess they don’t want to have it cut across their enjoyment of the sound of road traffic.
Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l…hyDE3ad.99
IMO Mike Borgelt nails his chocfrog comment in reply to the red bold –
Mike Borgelt•4 days ago
Steve, you have the wrong target about “AOPA and RAAus flinging mud pies at each other”.
It is CASA that is the problem. RAAus, GFA, ASRA etc only exist because CASA is too bone idle to do its job properly. Write some simple regs to allow under 600Kg aircraft (can make it some higher number without impacting safety) and gliders to operate on owner maintenance and a private driver’s licence medical standard and the need for private organisations having the powers of the state, go away. See Ben Morgan’s excellent article of July 11, 2019 here:
The idea of multiple “self administering” general aviation organisations may have had some merit when the GFA was formed 70 years ago when gliding was a few eccentrics flying around the circuit (on a good day)but it has long outlived its usefulness and to cement this in place with Part 149 is one of the more demented, brain dead ideas, ever, from a regulator renowned for them.
It is time that ALL recreational GA activities joined the mainstream. We have an RPL, lets use it with different ratings for the different aspects of GA with no compulsion to pay protection money to rapacious employees of private businesses with no accountability. This would encourage cross flow between the various activities with consequent benefits to the activities including safety (spin training for ultralights, anyone?) and the ability for maintenance people to work on various types of aircraft by getting the appropriate CASA rating instead of being forced to join multiple organisations to do so, which amounts to compulsory unionism of MULTIPLE unions.
Next CASA knocks back support for Illawarra gas plume danger area:
CASA Safety Assessment blocks Illawarra Gas Plume
6 August 2019
CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) has said it will not support a Danger Area over an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) proposed for the circuit area at Illawarra Regional Airport because it did not sufficiently mitigate the risks to aviation safety.
The move comes after a meeting of the NSW Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee (RAPAC) in May voted to reject an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) that would place a Danger Area over the Tallawarra B power station, and to oppose the establishment of the power station itself.
Approval for the Energy Australia project was dependent on the power station not having an impact on aviation safety, which was thought to be accounted for by placing a Danger Area over the gas plume.
The task of assessing the impact on aviation fell to the OAR, which ultimately found the Danger Area was not sufficient.
“CASA has concluded that the proposed Danger Area may not fully mitigate the risk to aviation, and that the establishment of a Danger Area at this site would nevertheless generate additional risks to aviation safety,” CASA Manager Industry Relations Matthew Bouttell told NSW RAPAC.
“On the basis that the risk to aviation resulting from the location of the Danger Area cannot be mitigated to achieve an acceptable level of safety for all airspace users the OAR has determined that the ACP is not supported.”
Without CASA’s approval, the project appears not to meet the safety condition, but the regulator told Australian Flying that their assessment is not about the power station, just the impact on safety of the proposed Danger Area.
“CASA is not the approving authority for the power station,” a spokesperson said, “that is NSW Planning, who has requested CASA assess whether it poses a risk to aviation. Now that CASA/OAR has provided it’s advice the decision whether to proceed or not remains with NSW Planning.”
When the original approval for Tallawarra B was issued in 2010, it was dependent on CASA agreeing that there was no risk to aviation safety.
“Nothing in this approval permits the construction and operation of an open cycle gas turbine plant, unless the Proponent has submitted a report to the Secretary which demonstrates that operation of an open cycle gas turbine plant will not have an adverse impact on aviation safety,” the approval states.
“This report must be prepared in consultation with Shellharbour City Council, and its conclusions and recommendations must have been agreed to by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.”
Without CASA’s blessing, the gas plume appears to have been stopped for the time being.
The Illawarra aviation community, supported by AOPA Australia, presented the RAPAC meeting with several objections to the proposal, including:
- moderate turbulence expected from the power station equated to severe turbulence for RAAus aircraft and LSAs
- traffic in the Wollongong circuit was significantly different to that used in the proponent’s modeling
- an EFATO incident in one of the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society’s large twins would place it in the gas plume
- student pilots would often need to hold over Lake Illawarra close to the gas plume
- examples of other airports with nearby gas plumes were not relevant to the Wollongong situation
Shellharbour Council also noted that a Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) would meet existing approvals.
Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates…PtpbWmJ.99
And from the Noble Art Embuggerance:
It takes a little time and some effort to follow the Glen Buckley tale of woe on Pprune – HERE -. The careful observer would see a familiar pattern emerging and note the road blocks being carefully placed to avoid any ministerial or departmental involvement; the endless changing of road signs directing to dead ends and; more importantly, the circling of wagons. Faced with this type of barricade and dealing with insurmountable odds, it’s a small wonder that Glen_B would consider taking the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) option. On the surface and as a legitimate requirement for mounting a challenge, it has to be done. Even if only to plug a legal escape path. I doubt he is holding his breath expecting any sort of ‘real value’ response. Time will trickle by until eventually a ‘milk and water’ response will be provided, a carefully crafted heart breaker which will serve to leave him no further along, treading water.
Glen_B. –“I intend to file formal complaints against 5 X personnel within CASA including the Head of the Aviation Group, Mr Crawford. in order to lodge a legitimate complaints, the starting point for that must be the incumbents Position Description. Something that should be freely available, but it wasn’t. It necessitated a Freedom of Information request, which arrived some time later.
Since the new chap took the ICC seat, AP has followed and measured the performance of this supposedly ‘independent’ agent. Close examination of results reveals only one statistic of any value; filing a complaint means that a box has been ticked on your ‘to do’ list; after that simply file the response and tick the box. All part of the endless grind needed to take a case to court, should your coffers still have enough spare cash to support such an action.
McKenzie –“I’m the last person to discourage you (or Glen Buckley) from fighting CASA decisions and actions with which you disagree. However, don’t hold your breath expecting CASA or its employed ‘Complaints Commissioner’ to change anything without the threat of real external scrutiny and embarrassment. And there is, sadly, much truth in what 1a posted at #153.
Even if the ICC was not on the ‘Kool-Aid’ drip feed, any independent study of ‘powers’ and access to the CASA board would show that the placebo is very effective for the CASA hierarchy, protecting the minister. Glen Buckley has enough ‘complaint’ to goose the minister into an open, honest inquiry; that may even happen, who knows. But even if an ‘inquiry’ is mounted, one along the lines of David Forsyth’s effort – what boys and girls do you think the outcome will be? What was in that, some 60 odd recommendations from a Senate Committee and Forsyth – which changed SDA.
Until we have a minister who is prepared to step up, acknowledge the problem and actually ring the changes, Australia will continue to be not only the butt of international hilarity, but the recipient of much sympathy.
Toot – toot.
ICC preliminary review of Glen Buckley’s 28 complaints: see HERE.
Was the letter a change in CASA’s approach to APTA?
Reviewing available records, I agree the letter of 23 October marked a significant divergence in CASA’s attitude towards APTA, both in tone and regulatory approach.
Whereas CASA had worked collaboratively with APTA at the time it sought to transition to Parts 141 and 142, the correspondence of 23 October was direct and unequivocal. With the fresh eyes that came about as a result of new oversight arrangements and legal advice, it presented a new interpretation as to the nature of APTA’s arrangements with Alliance members. The letter imposed a short deadline, and as far as I’m aware nobody within APTA had been given an indication prior to dispatch its significant change applications were likely to be considered differently. In terms of the ICC’s mandate to consider whether CASA’s actions were wrong, unjust, unlawful or unfair, I don’t at this stage propose to find the actions were wrong or unlawful. It’s any decision maker’s prerogative (and obligation) to consider an application on its merits. Just because a different interpretation was reached to a previous decision maker on substantively the same question, it doesn’t mean it was unlawful.
In terms of the other assessments the ICC can make, I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
I’ve reached the conclusion CASA didn’t treat you fairly collectively, rather than it being an outcome ‘against’ Mr Jones or Mr Nuttall’s CMT. One reason for the broad conclusion is your specific request that I not review the actions or decisions of the CMT APTA was previously oversighted by, who you commended for their professionalism. Respecting that request means it’s impossible for me to draw any conclusions about which approach to the APTA business model is more likely to be legally correct.
At this stage, I also propose to conclude that as well as being unfair, having two opposing regulatory interpretations about the APTA business model meant CASA didn’t meet the principles it aspires to meet in its Regulatory Philosophy. In addition to APTA’s complaint the different approaches meant
CASA didn’t maintain its trust and respect (Principle 1), I also agree the divergence in the positions CASA took is also unlikely to conform with Principle 7.
Principle 7 provides ‘CASA will consistently employ the same processes criteria and have regard to the same criteria for the purposes of determining whether, and if so how, a regulatory requirement should be interpreted or applied in any given situation.’ There’s limited available information to conclude the Aviation Ruling’s applicability was considered when first assessing APTA’s business model; nor was there consistency about whether the model met regulatory requirements…
And ICC preliminary review outcome: see HERE.
In the outcome of my preliminary review dated 12 April 2019, I set out my proposed conclusions in response to APTA’s complaint about CASA’s regulatory oversight since a change in CMT in 2018.
Having reviewed APTA’s submissions in response, I believe I have insufficient information to change my provisional view. I therefore conclude didn’t act CASA unlawfully, or unreasonably fail to provide information.
But the timing of CASA’s change in regulatory approach, and the manner it was communicated to APTA were likely to have been unfair. Up until that point, APTA was likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
You’re able to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review the ICC’s consideration of your concerns, or CASA’s actions. Information about how to make a complaint can be found at www.ombudsman.gov.au. Alternatively, you can contact the Ombudsman on 1300 362 072.
And finally GB email to CASA Board secretary:
Good Morning Colin,
May I request that you forward this email to Mr Mathews.
Dear Mr Mathews,
I have held off sending this email a couple of days acknowledging the fact that you will have returned from Oshkosh to a significant workload. I had hoped to hear of CASA’s final position after our meeting as this entire matter has consumed almost every waking moment of the last 9 months, and I want it brought to a close.
Accordingly, I am now following up on our meeting in Melbourne a little over 2 weeks ago. I had hoped to receive advice from either you or Mr Mc Heyzer on your behalf by last Friday the 2 August ’19 on whether CASA was:
- Prepared to meet with me, in a well-intentioned manner to agree a ( x requesting x) fair and reasonable compensation or,
- CASA had a preference for the matter to proceed directly to a “determination” via due legal process.
This matter has been dragging on unnecessarily for over 9 months now, and I need to have clarity on the process moving forward.
Finally from about HERE off the BITN thread:
ARFFS Senate Inquiry report tabled.
ANAO confirm ASA and Dept take the piss on Govt oversight –
It’s now official that the aviation safety bureaucracy, in particular Harfwit’s ASA, totally ignore and/or obfuscate all accountability through Government (ANAO)/Parliamentary inquiry and audit findings/recommendations. Today the ANAO (office of the proverbial wet lettuce) released their “Implementation of ANAO and Parliamentary Committee Recommendations” audit report in which Airservices Australia and the Department of Infrastructure etc. were included audited entities: ref – https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance…tions-2019
Harfwit oversees a toxic culture at ASA –
Via the SMH:
Sydney Morning Herald·13 hours ago
Sydney Morning Herald·1 day ago
And from Oz Aviation :
written by Australianaviation.Com.AuAugust 6, 2019
Airservices Australia says it will set up an independent review of its workplace culture after a survey of its air traffic controllers found claims of bullying and sexual harassment.
The country’s air traffic manager said former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick would conduct the “broad and independent review” of its workforce culture.
“We will share the findings of this review and any recommendations will be adopted to ensure that Airservices offers a safe, diverse and inclusive workplace for all of our employees,” Airservices said in a statement on Tuesday.
Airservices was responding to the publication of a report prepared by former Federal Court judge Anthony North, which included responses from a survey of about 500 Airservices employees in January.
The survey, conducted by YouGov Galaxy and commissioned by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for air traffic controllers’ union Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association, found half of all respondents – and three quarters of female respondents – said that they had experienced bullying, discrimination or sexual harassment while working at Airservices.
“It is evident that bullying, discrimination, and sexual harassment are features of the experience of many employees of Airservices and that they are not confident that management condemns the behaviour and acts effectively to prevent or stop it,” North said in the report, according to a joint statement from Civil Air and Maurice Blackburn on Tuesday.
“The fact that such behaviour has been documented as occurring over many years and at various Airservices worksites allows for the conclusion that bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment is part of the way things are done at Airservices, that they are part of its culture, and that they are not isolated or aberrant occurrences.”
“Of particular concern in the air navigation control environment, in which Airservices operates, is the potential for the poor workplace culture to have effects which compromise the safety of aircraft and passengers.”
Airservices said it rejected the suggestion in the report that its workplace culture was negatively affecting safety.
Instead, the government-owned corporation said its safety performance was “demonstrably among the best in the world and always improving”.
“There is no factual basis for these false and alarmist claims. When our safety performance is compared against our peers, we compare exceptionally well,” Airservices said.
Airservices said its annual employee engagement surveys had found “some areas of our workforce are concerned about workplace behaviours and how effectively they are managed when they arise”.
“We have been working with our people to address this, and have initiated some key improvement actions; most importantly enhancing essential people leadership skills in our highly specialised operational workforce,” Airservices said.
Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association executive secretary Peter McGuane called on federal government to “urgently step up” commence a full and independent enquiry.
“Employees lives are being ruined by the culture of bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment that Airservices have allowed, and the government must intervene stop this,” McGuane said.
“This employer has known about this culture for many years but it still refuses to change.”