VOCA

An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.

Categories

Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

Is CASA going to deal with it’s responsibilities?

Is  CASA going to undertake it’s true safety responsibilities??

Will this extend to parachuting?

Will this extend to warbirds??

Will this extend to Air Services???

Will this extend to RAus???

Or will it just be more of the same and just avoid the responsibilities???

Roll on New Zealand regulations and out with the rubbish

 

20th Oct 2013, 10:39   #4 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 998
ATSB regrowing some cohunes!!

Planetalking on this subject: ATSB, CASA differ on military ATC safety oversightIt is without doubt refreshing to see that the bureau is again issuing relevant Safety Recommendations, nine for the LOS recently released reports, some of which are even addressed to Fort Fumble… However perhaps within Ben’s article we can evidence why it was that the ATsB started shying away from sticking the boots into FF through the once obligatory SR..:

Quote:
In terms of CASA’s mental barrier to crossing the military demarcation line, the reports says:

As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted.

CASA disagrees.

The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced.

The tricky bit above is the ‘effective benefits’ CASA refers to. They don’t appear to effectively exist going on the public record of persistent military air traffic control failures in handling civilian airliners.

The standard rebuttal (in bold) from FF to any perceived criticism of their performance (or lack there of) has been standard fare ever since the LHR tragedy. What is refreshing is that there is finely signs that the bureau is no longer going to play the submissive puppy dog:

Quote:
This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted.

Small steps in the right direction perhaps??

Sarcs is online now Report Post Reply
Old 20th Oct 2013, 11:28   #5 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 133*50 23*50
Posts: 67
I was told many years ago, if you **** up in civil airspace, it’s likely your fault. In military airspace, their (atc’s) fault. The shortcomings of military atc are no state secret, it’s shameful CASA hasn’t done anything sooner to improve the situation.

 

20th Oct 2013, 10:39   #4 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 998
ATSB regrowing some cohunes!!

Planetalking on this subject: ATSB, CASA differ on military ATC safety oversight

It is without doubt refreshing to see that the bureau is again issuing relevant Safety Recommendations, nine for the LOS recently released reports, some of which are even addressed to Fort Fumble… However perhaps within Ben’s article we can evidence why it was that the ATsB started shying away from sticking the boots into FF through the once obligatory SR..:

Quote:
In terms of CASA’s mental barrier to crossing the military demarcation line, the reports says:

As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted.

CASA disagrees.

The Report appears to predicate on the assumption that CASA should have oversight authority in respect of military air traffic services when civil traffic is present. However, no evidence or arguments are presented to support this as the most appropriate option.
In the past, CASA has participated in Defence surveillance of military air traffic services. We have every intention of continuing to do so in the future. The Report fails to acknowledge that activity or the effective benefits it has produced.

The tricky bit above is the ‘effective benefits’ CASA refers to. They don’t appear to effectively exist going on the public record of persistent military air traffic control failures in handling civilian airliners.

The standard rebuttal (in bold) from FF to any perceived criticism of their performance (or lack there of) has been standard fare ever since the LHR tragedy. What is refreshing is that there is finely signs that the bureau is no longer going to play the submissive puppy dog:

Quote:
This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown in particular. As the function of CASA is that of maintaining, enhancing and promoting civil aviation safety in Australia, the results of this investigation suggest that CASA’s influence is not as effective as it could be when it comes to the safety of civilian aircraft, including passenger transport aircraft, in military controlled airspace and some level of independent assessment and assurance as to the safety of civil aircraft operations at DoD airports by CASA is warranted.

Small steps in the right direction perhaps??

Sarcs is online now Report Post Reply
Old 20th Oct 2013, 11:28   #5 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 133*50 23*50
Posts: 67
I was told many years ago, if you **** up in civil airspace, it’s likely your fault. In military airspace, their (atc’s) fault. The shortcomings of military atc are no state secret, it’s shameful CASA hasn’t done anything sooner to improve the situation.