VOCA

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

Categories

Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

If you would like to post, we would be happy to allow the post. The first post will be moderated before display.

July 2017 #ca$a missive

Not a word on GA [General Aviation] in the summary, just the big end of town. This shows the backroom boys, such as Crawford are more interested in non-GA.

No mention of the disastrous Colmar Brunton survey, or the latest internal #casa attempt to rectify the numbers.

But there was a hack at sport aviation!!

And as a response to the Part 61 debacle, there is to be a new flight examiner rating or flight examiner endorsement course. Will be interesting to see how many are interested in continuing and what the pass rate is on conclusion.

Then there are notes on the #ASRR, where #casa says:

“………..ten principles in the regulatory philosophy that underpin the way CASA will perform its functions, exercise its powers and engage with the aviation community.

The updated regulatory philosophy was developed in response to a recommendation in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review……………”

The last time I looked at these, there was a resounding “FAIL”.

ca$a’s 10-steps of philosophy June 2015

12-months later – Progress??

and: “………..We fine the drone operators….”


CASA Briefing
July 2017

From acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Graeme Crawford

CASA has taken an important step in gaining access to additional safety information about foreign airlines. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the International Air Transport Association – IATA – to access their safety audit reports. The IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) program is an internationally recognised and accepted evaluation system designed to assess the operational management and control systems of an airline. All IATA members are IOSA registered and must remain registered to maintain IATA membership. CASA will use the IOSA information to complement the existing oversight and surveillance of foreign airlines. It will also be used as part of the assessment process for new foreign carriers seeking authorisation to operate to Australia. In the future we expect to have access to IOSA information in relation to Australian carriers, which will be used to support our existing audit and surveillance work. CASA worked closely with IATA to understand their audit processes, quality assurance arrangements and management of approved auditors. Australia is the first nation in the Asia-Pacific region to use IOSA as part of the safety oversight of airlines. The use of the information will benefit airlines as it will make CASA’s surveillance and audits even more efficient and effective. IATA senior vice president safety and flight operation, Gilberto Lopez-Meyer, has said sharing IOSA information with regulators reduces the burden and costs of safety oversight. Agreements to share IOSA information are already in place with the US Federal Aviation Administration, the European Aviation Safety Agency and China.

Find out more about IOSA.

Regards
Graeme Crawford

(CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, is on leave)


Learn from sport close calls

No pilot wants to have a close call in the air. But they do happen and while they can be frightening or even embarrassing at the time, they can also be a valuable part of aviation safety education. To help pilots involved in sport aviation learn from the close calls of their colleagues CASA has published a new booklet containing 17 real life stories. They have been grouped under decision making, distractions, and errors, slips and omissions. In the introduction to the booklet it is pointed out that between 75 and 80 per cent of aviation accidents result from some type of human error. Skill based errors are the most common, followed by decision making and violations. While not all errors lead to tragic outcomes, there were 11 fatal accidents in sports aviation in 2016. The message from the close call stories is that diligence, proper planning and sound airmanship can avert disastrous outcomes. The close call stories cover ballooning, gyroplanes, recreational aircraft, hang gliding, gliding, paragliding and parachuting.

Order a copy of sport aviation close calls.

Horizontal situation indicator belt failure

A warning has been issued about the premature failure of drive belts in a horizontal situation indicator. Belts are reported to have failed in the Century Flight Systems horizontal situation indicator model number NSD360. The criticality of these belts failing in service is considered major if the instrument is the primary source of directional information. Failure of this instrument is considered hazardous if there is an undetected accuracy error of more than 10°. The failures are not associated with a failure flag. The drive belts, with part number 30B437, are currently lasting between 3 to 12 months in service before failing. After approximately 60-100 hours the belts are starting to fray and weaken, resulting in failure soon after. The belt is comprised of a number of load carrying tensile cords and the construction of the belt has changed. CASA has been in correspondence with the US Federal Aviation Administration office which oversights Century Flight Systems and will provide more information as it is available.

Go to the horizontal situation indicator drive belt airworthiness bulletin.

Revamped training course for flight examiners

A revamped training course has been released for people who want to gain a flight examiner rating or flight examiner endorsement. The flight examiner rating course now provides better support for flight examiner applicants by combining eLearning, a classroom workshop, industry mentoring, an interview and a flight test conducted by CASA. The course is competency based and prepares flight examiner applicants to conduct flight tests and proficiency checks under Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 – the flight crew licensing suite. It provides training and assessment for the 11 flight examiner rating endorsements, covering both aeroplane and helicopter categories. The course recognises existing flight examiner qualifications. In conjunction with the new course the flight examiner handbook and all flight test and proficiency check forms have been updated. The revised handbook has been designed so that each flight test and proficiency check chapter stands alone and can be used as a practical guide. The chapters are presented according to a chronological template on how to plan, conduct and complete a flight test and proficiency check. The flight test and proficiency check forms have been redesigned into a plain English checklist style.

Get more on the new flight examiner rating course.

Training module for performance-based navigation

Satellite based navigation is now the corner stone of instrument flight rules aircraft operations across Australia. This means it is important for many pilots to have an understanding of the requirements and benefits of this technology, known as performance based navigation or PBN. All instrument flight rules aircraft operating in Australian airspace must be fitted with global navigation satellite system receivers for performance based navigation. To help pilots better understand performance based navigation CASA has released a new on-line eLearning tool which covers key elements of the technology and regulatory requirements. The tool has information on aircraft equipment, pilot licensing, operational requirements and continuing airworthiness. It also covers navigation specification requirements, deeming provisions and CASA approvals. There are links to the relevant regulations. The eLearning does not replace the formal training pilots must undertake to use performance based navigation but it provides an overview of the requirements of on-board navigation equipment and the navigation specifications that must be included in flight plans.

Go to the performance based navigation eLearning now.

Regulatory philosophy explained

There’s an easy and quick way to get a solid understanding of CASA’s regulatory philosophy. The key elements of the regulatory philosophy have been captured in a short video on CASA’s YouTube channel.

There are ten principles in the regulatory philosophy that underpin the way CASA will perform its functions, exercise its powers and engage with the aviation community. The updated regulatory philosophy was developed in response to a recommendation in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The regulatory philosophy covers issues such as trust and respect, risk-based action and decision making, consultation and collaboration, consistency and flexibility and regulatory costs.

CASA’s general manager Legal Affairs, Regulatory Policy and International Strategy presents the video on the regulatory philosophy. He says CASA must set an example to the aviation community by demonstrating what it means to be a responsible regulator. The video also looks at what is meant by just culture and how the regulatory philosophy dovetails with safety management.

Watch the regulatory philosophy video now.

Perth, Pilbara, Wellcamp airspace reviews

Three airspace reviews have been completed – at Perth, Pilbara and Brisbane West Wellcamp. The reviews found the airspace arrangements at the three locations were suitable and safe, although improvements could be made to enhance efficiency and awareness. The Perth review found there had been a reduction in airspace incidents over the last five years and most issues were not safety related but about airspace access and clearance delays. A need for more targeted education of pilots was identified following training incidents at Jandakot and failures to comply with air traffic control instructions. There should also be more consultation to determine the cause of airspace infringements and possible mitigation options. The Pilbara review looked at airspace 125 nautical miles around the Paraburdoo radar. While aircraft movements in the area have been decreasing after a period of rapid growth, traffic could increase if mining activity changes. Very high frequency radio coverage at lower levels remains an issue, with communication with the Melbourne air traffic services centre a concern. It was recommended that Airservices should investigate the introduction of a chart to cover the major mining aerodromes in the Pilbara region. The Brisbane West Wellcamp and Oakey airspace review found the airspace is fit for purpose and can accommodate forecast future growth. Ten recommendations were made, including a further detailed review to be conducted no later than 2020.

Read the airspace reviews:

Seminars on now for pilots

Twelve of the popular AvSafety seminars for pilots are being held in August 2017. They are at: Bendigo, Parkes, Katherine, Orange, Taree, Ballina, Gove, Port Lincoln, Port Augusta, Yarrawonga, Aldinga and Albury. The seminars will get pilots talking about key safety issues by looking at previous accidents and incidents where the outcomes were both good and bad. They will focus on pilot decision making and look at flying within your limits, making the right decisions in-flight and hazards on arrival. Case studies of accidents and incidents covering each phase of flight will be set out, with a mix of fixed wing and helicopter events to be examined. CASA’s safety advisers will ensure the seminars are interactive and open, with pilots encouraged to talk about their own experiences and offer lessons learned. The seminars have been developed with the support of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Airservices Australia, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Bureau of Meteorology.

Book your place at an AvSafety seminar for pilots now.

Engineers – seminars for you

Five engineering safety seminars are being held in August 2017. Seminars will be held at: Darwin, Launceston, Hobart, Moorabbin and Gove. These seminars are aimed at people in airworthiness roles such as engineers, the head of aircraft airworthiness and maintenance, continuing airworthiness management, air operators and training organisations. CASA aims to support the professional development of people in these safety critical roles by providing access to the latest best practice, information and resources. Importantly the seminars will also provide the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues with CASA. Topics to be covered will include the maintenance responsibilities of the registered operator, registration holder, responsible manager, aircraft owner and licensed aircraft maintenance engineer; defect reporting; tool control; and the maintenance licence examples.

Book your place at an engineering seminar.

Drone flyers fined for safety breaches

Three people flying recreational drones in breach of the safety regulations have been fined a total of $3240. Penalties were issued for operating a drone over an Easter egg hunt, a wedding and for flying in Sydney Harbour restricted airspace. The operator of the drone at Sydney Harbour was also fined for flying within 30 metres of people not involved in the operation. The fines are the latest in penalties imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for breaching the drone safety rules. A group of children at a Canberra Easter egg hunt were put at risk by a drone flown at a height from which if the drone malfunctioned it would not have been able to clear the area. The drone pilot was fined $900. A $900 fine was also issued for hazardous flying at and near guests at a wedding in regional NSW. All three drone pilots paid the penalties issued by CASA. CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said fines will continue to be issued where people break the drone safety rules. “The rules protect people, property and aircraft from drones,” Mr Carmody said. “If you fly a drone it is your responsibility to fly by the rules and stay safe at all times. “Every drone pilot should download CASA’s drone safety app, which will help them fly safely.”

Get the CASA drone safety app.


Feedback

We want your comments and questions.

Please send feedback to CASA Briefing now.

Judicial Inquiry into CA$A called for by LNP Queensland Conference

On the floor of the 2017 LNP [Liberal National Party] Queensland on Sunday 16th July 2016, the following motion was placed and carried “……on the show of hands….”.

That this Convention of the LNP:

Calls upon the Federal Coalition to review recent air crash incidents and other matters, particularly in rural areas, with a view to developing and implementing changes to the Civil Aviation Act to:

1. Better manage aviation in Australia and
2. Implement a judicial inquiry to investigate existing problems of the Regulator.

This becomes a direction to the LNP of Queensland as to the wishes of it’s members.

Support came from the FNQ [Far North Queensland] branches represented at the Conference.

Two written submissions were made by:

  1. Shane Urquhart, who lost his daughter in 2005 at Lockhart River 

    Shane Urquhart statement 18/06/17

    On behalf of my family, thank you for taking an interest in our long-running fight for justice and the truth concerning the death of my daughter Sally in the Lockhart River plane crash on May 7 2005.

    We are no nearer now, 12 years later, to finding out the full and unadorned truth of why and how Sally died, and we are certainly no nearer to achieving justice for her and closure for us.

    You cannot understand what that is like – 12 years of anger and frustration on top of the initial disbelief and agony.

    We had not seen Sally for six months prior to May 7, but we knew of the wonderful future that she was working towards, most importantly her future married life with the man she loved, Trad Thornton, and also her future career with the job she loved with the Queensland Police Service.

    Sally and Trad were engaged to be married. All arrangements had been made for the biggest day of their lives, that coming September; the venue, the wedding dress, the bridesmaids’ dresses, the cake … then nothing.

    Constable Sally Urquhart was destined for greater things, having just completed an Honours degree in Law and Science and receiving public recognition from the police hierarchy. She volunteered to work in the Cape communities, and I know first-hand the enormous impact her work had. She was flying to Townsville on May 7 to complete her course for promotion to Senior Constable, and many others on that plane were fellow members of the Cape community who knew Sally and her work.

    The loss of Sally had a devastating effect on our family. My wife had a stroke soon afterwards, and my son developed severe depression, which had a significant impact on his young family. Of course for all of us there was the angst of knowing we would never see children or grandchildren from Sally, or cousins or nephews and nieces.

    We received hundreds and hundreds of cards and letters of condolence from all round Australia (which we set against the lack of compassion from successive governments, from CASA and from the aircraft owners and operators).

    I doubt that the Urquhart family will ever achieve closure – in fact having experienced what we have, I doubt that there is any such thing!

    Closure is impossible without knowing the full truth, and knowing that CASA and successive governments have done all they can to hide it. There have been three Senate inquiries, which achieved nothing for us and nothing for aviation safety.

    There has been a Coronial Inquest, which was a farce and a stitch-up from the start – counsel assisting was CASA’s pre-eminent defence barrister. Documents went missing or were not supplied. Witnesses demonstrably perjured themselves. Some vital witnesses were not called at all.

    At the heart of it all was CASA, an organisation that put its own interests ahead of the public interest by abusing its power and position, abusing the truth, and abusing the duty it had to our daughter Sally and us, and countless other families like us over a prolonged period of time.

    For these reasons, the Urquhart family’s faith in government and the legal system has been destroyed. We never stood a chance and neither did the families of the other 14 people on board.

    Thank you for hearing me out.

    The Urquhart family

    Metro operated by AeroTropics [owned by TransAir]

  2. Karen Casey – PelAir Nurse – November 2009

I kissed my three children goodnight and went to work as an Intensive Care Aero-Medical Nurse.

Job: Retrieve an Australian women from Samoa that needed to go to Melbourne Intensive Care.

If I knew that in November 2009, I was NOT protected by our lawmakers as I flew around the South Pacific many times in a Jet, I would have stayed on the ground.
In Australia, international air ambulance aviation has no direct, specific risk analysed regulations. This continues today.

The regulator leave that responsibility, dodging accountability, up to the operator. Therefore, no oversight of high risk Ambulance Policy being adhered to as there are none.

A glimpse of that night.

Close your eyes & imagine.
You’re in a private jet at night, in a storm over the ocean. Life-Vest on, ready to BRACE at any moment.
Silence.
Watching your patient in a stretcher, helpless, holding her husband’s hands and saying goodbye to each other.
There is a calm chaos of emotion. You think of your family, your life. The reality of death is so raw. All odds are against you. You hope to die on impact.
BRACE is yelled.
You hit the water at 200km/h. The jet fractures under your seat on impact. Senses collect as instinct and training kicks in. The struggle to get out the sinking jet is second by second as water rushes in and the plane starts splitting.
In a rough ocean 1 ½ hrs with a ½ inflated life-vest, holding your patient who has no vest.
This really did happen.
I came home, heads turned the other way when I asked for truths, our mouths gagged, no support as a single mother. The truth about it all is still obscure.

No final report has been published.

8 years in November.

An inconvenient aviation accident at an inconvenient time.

Is this Safe Aviation Practice?
Pushed aside, not speak the factual truths.
My name is: Discarded Citizen 2009

Westwind – of PelAir in front of owner – REX

There it is, a totally unsatisfactory situation which needs immediate action by the Government, with a Minister who admits to Fran Kelly on ABC Radio in October 2016, that he does not understand aviation.

ACTION NOW

Lockhart River Reports

PelAir Reports


Motion for LNP Annual Conference

That this Convention of the LNP:

Calls upon the Federal Coalition to review recent air crash incidents and other matters, particularly in rural areas, with a view to developing and implementing changes to the Civil Aviation Act to:

1. Better manage aviation in Australia and
2. Implement a judicial inquiry to investigate existing problems of the Regulator.

Supporting statements and Identified issues:

 Section 9A of the Civil Aviation Act does not properly direct CASA to interact with the aviation industry;
 CASA routinely seek to avoid scrutiny eg. Senate committee’s;
 CASA failed to provide pivotal material for ATSB investigations eg. PelAir;
 CASA do not have the confidence of the aviation industry [In a wide ranging survey, Colmar Brunton found less than 38% were satisfied with CASA delivery]

Other aviation related organisations:

  1. AMSA have a direct mission to continuous improvement in provision of its safety and environment protection services and maintaining constructive relations with our stakeholders in government, industry and the community.
  2. AirServices has a direct action, which uses words such as “…foster…”.

Effect on aviation generally and rural communities in particular:

 By 2001, fourteen NSW country centres lost air services in an eighteen month period. CASA has played a major role in causing the withdrawal of these services.

It is understood that CASA “White Board” policy is to eliminate the use of piston engine aircraft from Regular Public Transport;

 Loss of training and maintenance facilities from rural areas;
 Loss of GA pilots [denied by CASA] of over 38%;
 Failure by CASA to 100% implement David Forsyth’s ASRR [Aviation Safety Regulatory Review] recommendations;
 With the amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to remove the word “commercial” from the Act, the statement is now commonly made by CASA to justify it’s actions:

“CASA is not concerned with the commercial or economic consequences of its actions, CASA’s only concern is air safety”

 This shows the incompetence of CASA, to suggest that any level of damage to the Australian economy is acceptable on the basis of a declaration by CASA that any action is for “air safety”.

Air Safety is an amorphous term and legislation should incorporate “risk management”.

Overseas jurisdictions:

The US has produced outstanding and steadily improving air safety outcomes, but not Australia. Little real (as opposed to erroneously claimed) improvements in the last twenty five years:

 Recent CASA propaganda to the contrary is completely misleading;
 The US experience is achieving better air safety outcomes;

The Solution:

The real power of CASA versus the industry, is very clearly an adversarial role and so over whelming that CASA is, for all practical purposed, law maker, investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. Few in the industry have the power, financially, to resist a typical CASA onslaught.

Is this a matter of: “Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely?

In fact, CASA clearly fails the test of a structure to meet accepted and current standards of public administration, and as a direct result, the CASA system fails because it cannot succeed.

Policing roles are never popular or easy, that is why it is so fundamentally important that (subordinate) law making, administration, and policing of the laws be separate, and be seen to be separate.

The immediate introduction of the US-FAR’s would achieve this aim after the loss of an estimated $400m [$150m since 2010] in a crumbling and rambling, excessively bureaucratic regulatory set produced by CASA over a 25-year period.

Unnecessary ASIC becomes a further impost on rural and remote users

The thoroughly unnecessary ASIC becomes a further impost on rural users on 1st August with major changes to how it operates, with a requirement to present with documents in person, for which there may be a charge made on the applicant.

RAus has withdrawn from the market on the basis of onerous conditions and the direction of responsibility to the person taking the application and “…proving…” the documents.

That leaves Aviation ID Australia at Merimbula, Veritas in Western Australia and casa who process these Australia wide.

  • Veritas use AusPost as their agents;
  • The Merimbula group would not answer questions as to who would view the documents and
  • casa say you must have a current medical and no indication of who will view documents.

On top of this, there is a slew of airports that locally issue ASIC’s and usually for their airport.

It must result in further pressure on active participants and pilots. Further pressure will show through the attached graph.

casa could have dealt with this issue with some nice pro-active decisions, but it lets the citycentric  Departmental people in Canberra have another win, particularly at the expense of regional and rural Australians or those that live remote in city fringes.

It will be interesting what the Senators will have to say at the next estimates. By then the damage will be done and likely irrecoverable.


A series of comments have been made on the need for an ASIC, which is not regarded as a proof of identity anyway says a pilot in Australia:

Almost anywhere you go where sufficient ‘proof’ of IDis required you can use:

  • Passport;
  • Drivers licence;
  • Medicare card;
  • Centrelink card

Each of these are recognised validity – ASIC is not.

Pilots say: “………….It is farcical that I have to undergo a check to enter the airside ‘sterile’ passenger areas of the terminal to travel as a passenger – but do not have to prove identity to get my boarding pass………”

The amount of data CASA hold on an individual, from operational applications alone is huge. Add to that your medical history and any criminal history and there is not much private.

The ASIC ID check information is available to CASA; so why is a pilots licence not/ cannot be considered sufficient ID for airside activity?

Another pilot, with considerable experience says:

General Aviation is in a nose dive, the $240 biennial ASIC (spec pilot ID) applications now must be in person, latest news from CASA.

Impractical and too costly for thousands of pilots. 

The ASIC requirement  is not directly from CASA as acknowledged but a strong representation from CASA would surely have had weight and might have persuaded the Minister to adopt a common sense policy.

There could easily have been alleviating policies, say cost and duration of the ASIC which is $240 only lasts 2 years.

Another very large nail in the coffin of GA.

It would not be difficult to issue some different ASIC validity periods which would put some positive incentives into the system.

Why not extended periods for aircraft owners, commercial pilots and those with longer term licence holding?

Retired commercial pilots over the age of sixty?

CASA could have invoked it’s standby safety trump card by showing that by virtually inducing the pilot population not to have access to all available airports (too difficult and expensive to keep on with an ASIC) then this reduces safety of flight.

#casa points a finger at the aviation industry

For example a ‘no ASIC’ pilot low on fuel might by-pass a security controlled airport (a weekly regular small plane service =’security controlled airport’) for one at greater distance where his AVID (a 5 yr card of limited use) is sufficient, or no ID will be asked for. It is always more risky to fly with fewer landing ground options, technical problems and inclement weather as other examples when more landing options will give safer flight outcomes.

A really good question would be how many pilots now have a current ASIC or AVID?

Then compare this with the last few years. I’ll bet fewer and fewer and a yawning gap between pilots numbers (those with current medicals) and IDs issued. MPs please note.

Questions that should be asked:

  • Would CASA divulge those numbers?
  • Could we know what interdepartmental advice was given or other pertinent details?

Doubtful, there’s little transparency. Our government ministries and their independent regulators are becoming self serving and thus less democratic.

We should keep on banging the drum anywhere to anyone but we will surely get the best value by informing our Parliamentary representatives because CASA is opposed to GA.

This is now so obvious, the fight has to be taken to the political arena, the gloves are off.

Causing CASA bad publicity might reveal to politicians the parlous state of General Aviation and the massive loss of jobs Australia wide.

Strict liability criminal code provisions and draconian penalties apply to any ID transgressions, like most of the flying rules these days.


RAus in June 2017 said:

The new system carries with it complex, and what RAAus believes to be, onerous changes. As an example, face to face processing requirements will inconvenience our members and place pressure on our CFIs. The processes are both burdensome and administratively heavy with no obvious safety or security improvement. Implementing the new changes would add unnecessary cost to RAAus meaning the delivery of this service has essentially become unsustainable.

Furthermore, the risk placed onto our CFIs, staff and the Board has been assessed as too great for RAAus to accept. As an example, as an issuing body, anyone processing an ASIC application will be required to identify fraudulently prepared and forged documents and there are penalties for failure to take all the steps necessary to identify such documents. RAAus does not believe this is the role of our organisation.

Therefore, from 1 August 2017, RAAus will no longer accept applications for an ASIC or renewals for an ASIC, including applications from RAAus members.

Any application lodged before this date will be processed in accordance with the current arrangements.

To assist members after 1 August 2017, RAAus will provide a list of ASIC providers on our website.  Please click here for your closest Issuing Bodies.

I’m really unhappy about this decision, what can I do?

  • You can write to the department at clientservice@infrastructure.gov.auRAAus worked hard to try and keep the ASIC system simple, but the government has decided to introduce these changes.  
  • RAAus will continue to lobby on our member’s behalf to try and make ASIC simple.

 

Minister Chester fails to engage with aviation participant

In December 2016, an aviation participant [I hold the original copy supplied to me by the person] requested a meeting with Minister Chester.

The letter is attached immediately below and follows an earlier letter seeking to clarify details in a request.

The earlier letter from the Minister refused to clarify those requests as seen below.


Dear Mr. Chester;
PO Box 486, Sale, VIC 3853
P. (03) 5144 6744 F. (03) 5144 3945

RE: Reply to me on 28th November 2016, received 7th December 2016

I have read your reply and say:

1. I have no answer as to items a, b, c and d below and would appreciate them being answered individually and in full;

2. That your proposed study only repeats what has been in the ASRR report of Mr. David Forsyth, completed in 2014.

I believe that it would be more efficient to again brief Mr. Forsyth including the extensions you see fit and achieve an industry wide acceptance of the results. This would see a rapid answer, which the aviation industry requires to re-group and move forward in a positive manner.

The current situation does not allow for this to happen;

3. The industry has given a clear indication that all, in fact, is not well. The Colmar Brunton survey gives a very clear indication of that status. CASA in their annuall report dismiss the report saying “…another survey will be done in two years….things will have improved by then….”. In fact it is highly likely that aviation, outside the RPT sector will be so damaged that it will not return. This needs action now and you have the ASRR report to drive the proper reform, not the empty promises of a recalcitrant CASA.

4. A DAP (Director’s Advisory Panel) leaves the changes internal in CASA and I and others can produce reams of evidence to show that this process does not work. In fact, simply, that is why aviation is in the sate that it is in 2016.

5. In fact, at page 101 of the ASRR report, it also says:

The Panel is also conscious that, although a number of industry participants argued for the adoption of the US Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) because they are seen as shorter and simpler, the comparison seems to be based only on the FARs themselves. When the added complexity of the multiple levels of exemptions, authorisations and circulars are added to the FARs, the US framework becomes quite complicated and difficult to follow, and not as simple (at least in structure) as completed CASRs should be.

The issue, Mr. Chester, is that since the ASRR report and the implementation of Part 61 for example, there is a 3000+ page document total, which at best is poorly written and very difficult to understand. Not even very experienced ATO’s understand the document.

Hence now the industry is calling for the US-FAR’s or a subset to be introduced and let the industry get on with it’s job and lets get Australia flying.

I would appreciate a complete answer to my inquiry and suggestions.

Further, in February 2016, I had a chance meeting with Mr. Barnaby Joyce in George Street Sydney. He promised to meet with yourself, Senator Nash and himself.

Could you please have your staff make those arrangements please for February 2016 as I will be in the ACT between 18th February and the 3rd March 2017.

Yours sincerely,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Reply from Minister Chester 7th December 2016:

Inbox > Message Detail
Print Previous Next
Subject: Correspondence to Minister Chester [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
From:
“Minister Chester” <Minister.Chester@infrastructure.gov.au> (Add as Preferred Sender)
Date: Wed, Dec 07, 2016 9:51 am
To: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Dear ****,

Thank you for your email and phone call to the office to follow up on your correspondence.

As you discussed with Alex this morning, there is currently a letter in the post in its way to you.

I have attached an electronic copy of the letter for your convenience.

If you have any further issues and would like to contact the office again via email, please do so by using the ministerial email address provided below.

Kind regards
Jacqueline Lange
Office of the Hon Darren Chester MP
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
Deputy Leader of the House
T 02 6277 7680 | F 02 6273 4163 | M 0455 213 033
Suite M1 26 Parliament House | CANBERRA ACT 2600
For Diary or portfolio related emails please contact: Minister.Chester@infrastructure.gov.au

From: ***** $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Sent: Sunday, 27 November 2016 7:08 PM

Letter to aviation participant $$$$$$$$ from Minister Chester:


To: Chester, Darren (MP)
Cc: Nash, Fiona (Senator); Joyce, Barnaby (MP)
Subject: [FWD: Request to Minister]

Hi, I do not have an answer to this letter. Could you please deal with it for me.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Request to Minister
From: ***** $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Date: Sun, October 30, 2016 9:25 am
To: darren.chester.mp@aph.gov.au
Cc: “Barnaby Joyce” <Barnaby.Joyce.MP@aph.gov.au>, “Fiona Nash”
<senator.nash@aph.gov.au>

Dear Darren,

I attach a letter for your urgent attention.

I have been seeking to meet you since your appointment in February 2016 following an undertaking by Barnaby Joyce in George Street in Sydney to meet me and work through serious problems in aviation with yourself and Fiona Nash.

I seek that meeting as a matter of urgency.

Sincerely ***** $$$$$$$$$$$$$
_________________________________________________________
1. Please declare your phone number on calling, otherwise my phone will automatically reject the call. I reserve the right, without further notice to record all phone-calls.
2. Please delete details of all previous senders (including mine) before forwarding again to reduce spam, viruses & identity theft.
3. Its best to use the BCC field while forwarding emails. Thanks!
______________________________________________________
##############

This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. As the intended recipient you should read, but not copy or distribute, disclose or otherwise use any of the information in this e-mail or it’s attachments, without written authorisation. If received in error and you are not the intended recipient, you should not read, copy or distribute, disclose or otherwise use the information in this e-mail. Please contact us at once by return e-mail and then immediately delete both messages.
——————————————————————–
Disclaimer
This message has been issued by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material.
Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the Department on (02) 6274-7111
and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
———————————————————————

Letter of 31st October 2017 in answer to the Minister’s press release:

I believe that this release is only a diversion of attention from the real problem, which can only be solved by the immediate introduction of the US-FAR’s and changes to CAAct 9A to reflect “aviation effects of decisions”.
Given that your Department is such a large organisation and has a very wide range of responsibilities, of which aviation forms an important part. There being over 75 million single journeys on the majors, supported by a wide ranging industry scattered through most small and intermediate size towns:
a. When will you appoint a responsible Junior Minister to oversee this area??
b. How are you going to re-gain the confidence of the aviation industry as shown by the dismal performance of CASA in the recent Colmar Brunton review??
c. When will you be up-dating the Civil Aviation Act and regulations to meet the requirements of the Abbott government to reduce red-tape and regulatory impact on industry?
d. What are you doing to rein in the excesses of the regulator – CASA [Civil Aviation Safety Authority]?;

Sincerely,

XXXXXX

1. I have submitted to the Forsyth ASRR, and join 31% of submitters who were marked confidential as I am concerned about retribution by CASA on the basis of my submission;
2. I have given substantial back-up information [over 200 pages of documents] to the ASRR;
3. I have no confidence in the regulator;
4. As you are aware, I have raised substantial matters of concern with my local member, Minister Susan Ley.


Reading List:

AOPA Australia position

AOPA excluded a chair in #casa monthly talk-fest released today

AOPA was excluded a chair in the new #casa ASAP, according to the monthly talk-fest released today.

AOPA, founded in 1948 can speak for itself, without the protection of the TAAAF – The Australian Aviation Association Forum. AOPA speaks for a range of people similar to RAAus [Recreational Aviation Australia], who own and fly GA [General Aviation] aircraft and are GA pilots at least.

Carmody says: “……..A new consultation body, known as the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, is being established from 1 July 2017. It is to be made up of senior representatives from Qantas Airways, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association, The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and Recreational Aviation Australia. The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel will provide CASA with objective, high-level advice from the aviation community on issues with significant implications for aviation safety and the way CASA performs its functions. CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel will become the avenue through which CASA seeks aviation community input on regulatory and policy approaches…”

AOPA must have a seat at this table, not relegated to the background in the TAAAF group.

Perhaps this is punishment for the May 2016, Tamworth fly-in, where over 400 people attended a meeting called by AOPA. Lots of questions were asked of the Minister [Chester] and the DPM [Deputy Prime Minister] Barnaby Joyce.

This was a pivotal meeting demonstrating that the Minister was not over his portfolio.

Fran Kelly put in further nails, then there was the further report on the Minister in October 2016.

Question here is, simply:

Who is trying to nobble proper representation?

Is it Carmody or the Minister?

If it is the Minister, he is out of control and needs replacing.

If it is Carmody, a much more serious and sinister situation, #aviation is doomed.


The monthly #casa talk fest [see below], says:

“………I am especially keen to improve our service delivery. People coming to CASA for approvals, licences or certificates have every right to expect efficient, streamlined and timely service…..”

Got news for Carmody, he is the worst offender –

A letter to him in early February 2017, still not answered some 4 1/2 months later.

And of course:

“…..My vision is for CASA to be an open and transparent regulator…”

FOI’s under Shane’s watch not answered and hiding the truth.

Good work Shane!!


June 2017  From CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody

By now most people are probably aware that I have been permanently appointed as CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety for a five year term. I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to lead CASA through a time of challenges and changes.

My vision is for CASA to be an open and transparent regulator and one the aviation industry finds it easy to do business with. I am especially keen to improve our service delivery. People coming to CASA for approvals, licences or certificates have every right to expect efficient, streamlined and timely service. To do this we will continue to improve our systems and processes. Streamlining our systems and centralising data will also make us more effective in continuing to improve aviation safety. The correct analysis of data provides an opportunity to create a new proactive model of risk management. We want to be able to take a risk-based, rather than a knee-jerk approach to safety management. A key element to this approach will be to keep the aviation community ‘in the loop’ about the issues we see emerging from the data and from our broader sectoral analysis.

A current challenge for CASA is the growth of unmanned aircraft, or drones. Drones have enormous potential for making aviation and society safer, by doing many of the repetitive and dangerous aerial jobs without risking human lives. However, this emerging industry poses challenges to us as the regulator because we now have to deal with both emerging technology and a new group of people who have had little or no exposure to aviation. One of my priorities will be bringing this new group into the broader aviation community, so that together we maintain and improve Australia’s aviation safety performance.

I must emphasise that I understand CASA needs to do things differently. In particular, I know many people are frustrated by delays in some of our regulation reform processes. These have been too slow and too long and not sufficiently focused on practical, common-sense outcomes. However, I am confident that by working co-operatively with the aviation community we can make positive progress and deliver effective change that achieves safe skies for all.

Best wishes
Shane Carmody

The image here shows the #casa stand at Avalon in Febrary 2017.

All I can say is – it is a mighty finger up at the industry that continues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


A photograph of Shane Carmody, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation SafetyConsultation reboot for better results

A substantial overhaul of the way CASA consults with the aviation community has been announced. Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody has set up a new body to ‘reboot’ consultation processes. The changes will streamline consultation and ensure the aviation community is directly involved in the early setting of safety and regulatory objectives and policies. CASA will now get timely advice on current and emerging issues from a cross section of aviation organisations.

A new consultation body, known as the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel, is being established from 1 July 2017. It is to be made up of senior representatives from Qantas Airways, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association, The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia and Recreational Aviation Australia. The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel will provide CASA with objective, high-level advice from the aviation community on issues with significant implications for aviation safety and the way CASA performs its functions. CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel will become the avenue through which CASA seeks aviation community input on regulatory and policy approaches.

He said: “Most importantly, it will be the forum through which we seek to agree on the objectives and policy outcomes – before we then call our technical experts to do the detailed work. CASA’s overriding responsibility for aviation safety leadership, however, means that there will always be limits.

We cannot appease everyone, nor meet every request as regulatory activities are inherently challenging and CASA ultimately has to make the call on major safety questions. My intention is that once we have settled on a position we will stick to it and deliver on what we have said we will deliver.

If we can do this, we will maintain the trust and respect of the aviation community as a whole. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has served on consultation panels in the past.”

Take part in our service survey now

CASA is committed to improving the delivery of regulatory services to the aviation community. To achieve this goal we need the help now of everyone who uses CASA’s services. A short survey is underway to give CASA a better understanding of the service needs and preferences of people in the aviation community. The results of the survey will be used to make practical changes to CASA’s service delivery systems and processes. Questions in the survey include how easy it is to obtain CASA services, the level of satisfaction with service delivery, how services should be delivered, how CASA should contact people and how applications for services should be submitted. The survey is multiple choice, with the option to provide written comments as well. All results from the survey will be anonymous, unless people choose to provide contact details. The survey is open until 5 July 2017. Anyone who would prefer a paper version of the survey can request a copy by sending an email to: industryofficer@casa.gov.au.

Take part in the service survey now.

Phone service improvements

From July 2017 CASA is making changes to improve the way phone calls are managed. Calls to all CASA 13 and 1300 numbers will now be diverted through to 131 757. The separate 1300 numbers for aviation medicine and licensing and registration will be redirected to a central telephone menu. This means 131 757 will become CASA’s primary contact number and should be used by all callers. People who call will be able to choose from a range of options, so that enquiries can quickly be directed to the most appropriate place in CASA. Options will include services relating to licensing, aircraft registration, aviation medicine, regional offices and unmanned aircraft. Callers to CASA will not need to do anything differently but they will notice a difference in the way calls are managed.

Pilots to play key role in new safety seminars

A new series of the popular AvSafety seminars for pilots starts from July 2017. The new series will get pilots talking about key safety issues by looking at previous accidents and incidents where the outcomes were both good and bad. This season of seminars will concentrate on pilot decision making during pre-flight, in-flight and approach and landing. Discussions will look at flying within your limits, making the right decisions in-flight and hazards on arrival. Case studies of accidents and incidents covering each phase of flight will be set out, with a mix of fixed wing and helicopter events to be examined. The aim of the seminars will be to get pilots thinking about their flying behaviour and decision making and to offer ideas and resources to support safe operations. CASA’s team of safety advisers will ensure the seminars are interactive and open, with pilots encouraged to talk about their own experiences and offer lessons learned. The seminars have been developed with the support of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Airservices Australia, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Bureau of Meteorology. A representative from Bureau of Meteorology will attend some seminars to provide information on the new area forecasts format.

In July there are seven AvSafety seminars at: Port Pirie, Griffith, Wagga, Ballarat, Gawler, Moruya and Lilydale. The Port Pirie seminar will be based on the previous lessons for life format.

Book your place at an AvSafety seminar for pilots now.

Flight test system changes

Changes are being made to the flight test notification system. The new system, called Flight Test Management, replaces the current Flight Test Notification System from 3 July 2017. The new system will be accessed through the CASA on-line self-service portal. It means all flight examiner records and flight test data will be managed in one system and accessed through the self-service portal. Some paper-based processes will be replaced, eligibility validation will be provided and hard copy paper requirements will be reduced. The major steps for conducting flight tests and proficiency checks will remain the same. All flight examiners should ensure they have checked their qualifications are up to date in the CASA self-service portal as the new system starts. There are also changes to the flight examiner rating course and professional development program, flight test and proficiency check standards, and updates to guidance documentation. The training course for people who want to gain a flight examiner rating or flight examiner endorsement has been re-developed and is now made up of five phases. It provides for recognition of existing flight examiner qualifications.

Go to the CASA self-service portal.

Support for helicopter mustering safety

Everyone involved in helicopter mustering needs a new specialised safety information card. The card provides information on safety around mustering helicopters on the ground and in the air, passenger safety, emergencies and hiring a helicopter for mustering. The card folds down to pocket size to make it easy to carry and hand out to non-aviation people involved in helicopter mustering. Simple illustrations are used to delivery safety messages about 11 key issues relating to safety around mustering helicopters. These include approaching and leaving the helicopter, riding a horse or motorbike near a helicopter, awareness of helicopter blades, sloping ground and avgas drums. Passenger safety focuses on entry and exit, seat belts and seating, doors, headsets and dangerous goods. Four good reasons are set out for hiring a helicopter musting operator that meets all the civil aviation legal and regulatory requirements. People hiring helicopters are advised to ask the operator for a copy of their air operator certificate.

Order a copy of the helicopter mustering card now.

Switch now to new limited category certificates

Owners and operators of ex-military aircraft have until late July 2017 to transition to a limited category certificate under Part 132 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. Part 132 commenced on 28 January 2017, with transition to the new regulation required by 28 July 2017. Warbirds currently operating on an experimental certificate must transition to a limited category certificate. Under a limited category certificate operations and airworthiness authorisations will be managed by a self-administering organisation in cooperation with CASA. The rules enable other types of standard category aircraft, such as historic and replica aircraft, to operate on a limited category certificate. This type of certificate offers flexibility for personal flights and recreational purposes. As a result a number of people have already made the switch to the new rules. The new rules apply to the owners, operators and pilots of ex-military (warbirds), certain historic and replica aircraft, the owners of any other aircraft certified in the limited category and individuals and organisations that conduct or sell adventure flights in warbirds.

Find out more about the rules for limited category aircraft.

Spotlight on aircraft weighing

Twelve key points to remember when weighing aircraft have been set out in new advice from CASA. There have been recent reports of some general aviation aircraft being prepared for weighing using improper practices. Reports also indicate the preparation of aircraft and the weighing are not being documented properly. This makes it difficult to determine the configuration of the aircraft in which it was last weighed and throws doubts over the validity of the load data sheet. The purpose of aircraft weighing is to determine the baseline empty weight and empty weight centre of gravity of aircraft, with the information published in a load data sheet to provide for the accurate loading of aircraft before flight. Aircraft manufacturer instructions for weighing should be followed if available, with the airworthiness bulletin from CASA providing recommended practices. The recommendations include the state of the aircraft at weighing, configuration, equipment lists, fuel, oil and other liquids and levelling. Weighing documentation should be clear on what was and what was not included in the empty weight of the aircraft. This is important for the future comparison of weighing information.

Find out more about aircraft weighing.

Carmody and #casa talks about a defective regulator

In today’s Australian, Shane Carmody, the re-cycled former employee of #casa, talks about what has been labelled by the #aviation industry as a defective regulator.

The full content is below.

The same has already been attempted in the well known and respected YAFFA produced “Australian Flying”.

 


Let’s have a careful look at what Carmody said and see where the “spin” starts and the “spin” finishes.

“………..My vision is for CASA to be an open and transparent regulator, one the aviation industry finds it easy to do business with. My conclusion after eight months as acting director of aviation safety is that achieving this goal is more a matter of reforming CASA’s systems than its people. I’m impressed by the dedication and expertise of CASA’s staff, their commitment to fairness, and where appropriate, firmness in overseeing aviation safety…..”

Truth is quite different. The Board will not talk to industry and neither will Carmody return phone calls. He hates criticism unless he can control both sides of the argument. Reform of systems will not occur without will not occur without taking the “staff” with you in the process. A major issue identified in the Colmar Brunton report was “…commitment to fairness…”, does not exist.

It is common to be threatened, refused access, avoid answers, and be lied to. This occurs through the entire staff levels to the ceo.

  • Observer at Avalon talk by Carmody and how he avoided answers

Further, the Senate Committee responsible for aviation says that Carmody is “…rude and arrogant…”.

“……By streamlining our systems, and centralising data, we can focus more effectively on using this data to continue to improve aviation safety…..”

There are about 15 different databases maintained by #casa, so obtaining information, storing and recovering it cannot be achieved as these do not cross link. Carmody again invokes CAAct 9A here and retreats beyond the spectre of a non-measurable parameter.

The matter is that of “Risk Management” and the sooner we get to that the better.

“…..ASAP will provide CASA with objective, high-level advice from the aviation community on current and emerging issues with significant implications for aviation safety and the way CASA performs its functions. It will consolidate several existing forums, and become the avenue through which CASA seeks industry input on regulatory and policy approaches……”

But no mention of GA – General Aviation here or pilots and owners. In the past both #casa and the Minister have tried and succeeded to bury the GA aspects.

Remember the Part 61 debacle.

“………My intention is that once we settle on a position we will stick to it and deliver on what we have said we will deliver. If we can do this, we will maintain the trust and respect of the industry as a whole….”

Here is in quite explicit terms, the stand-over tactics of a recalcitrant regulator and I suspect, nothing is about to change at Aviation House.

“…….CASA’s overriding responsibility for aviation safety leadership, however, means that there will always be limits. We cannot appease everyone, nor meet every request. Regulatory activities are inherently challenging and CASA ultimately has to make the call on major safety questions………..”

We are not seeing change and proper interaction with the aviation community, rather a continuation of the “dog eat dog” that has prevailed over recent years.

“……….I’m amazed how Australian aviation has evolved compared to 2009 when I was last at CASA……………..”

BUT:

There has been a substantial loss of pilots:

And look at the post 2009 numbers, if Carmody is correct and this is the evolution he claims as his own, there is no future for #aviation.

The Colmar Brunton survey of 2015-2016 shows how big a gulf there is and there is no improvement since 2009 under Carmody or since:

In the Australian of 23rd June 2017, Jetstar CEO says more regulation will damage Jetstar.

The prevalence of the “iron ring” at #casa certainly is well entrenched and remember Carmody has form.


 CASA chief Shane Carmody: reforms will help deliver safe skies for all

Drones are a new issue for CASA.
  • The Australian

While Australia remains a global leader in aviation safety, I’m very aware that we face challenges brought about by continued growth and technological change.

My vision is for CASA to be an open and transparent regulator, one the aviation industry finds it easy to do business with. My conclusion after eight months as acting director of aviation safety is that achieving this goal is more a matter of reforming CASA’s systems than its people. I’m impressed by the dedication and expertise of CASA’s staff, their commitment to fairness, and where appropriate, firmness in overseeing aviation safety.

I’m keen to improve our service delivery. People coming to CASA for approvals, licences or certificates have every right to expect efficient, streamlined and timely service. We are making a concerted effort to make doing business with us simpler, by improving our systems and centralising data, such as online forms and payment, as well as reviewing licensing and certification policy.

And we’re seeing improvement. We have received valuable feedback, for example, on aviation medicals, which will inform changes to the system. We have delivered improvements in flight-crew licensing with more than 99 per cent of applications being processed within service delivery time frames and more than 85 per cent of aviation medical applications processed on time.

By streamlining our systems, and centralising data, we can focus more effectively on using this data to continue to improve aviation safety.

Aviation is moving into the world of big data, with thousands of gigabytes generated every day. Analysed correctly, this provides an opportunity to create a new proactive model of risk management. It’s a world in which otherwise latent hazards can be discovered hiding in the data of thousands of uneventful flights.

We will know even more about what is going on by looking at data, and we will engage openly and honestly with industry. We should strive to keep industry “in the loop” about the issues we see emerging from the data and from our broader sectoral analysis. We want to be able to take a risk-based rather than a kneejerk approach to safety management.

One important objective for me has been to reboot how we consult with the aviation community.

From July 1, I will establish a new consultation body — the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel — and I am pleased to welcome some of Australia’s most senior aviation leaders to the group.

Senior representatives from Qantas, Virgin Australia, the Australian Airports Association and the Australian Aviation Associations Forum have agreed to work together on aviation safety.

ASAP will provide CASA with objective, high-level advice from the aviation community on current and emerging issues with significant implications for aviation safety and the way CASA performs its functions. It will consolidate several existing forums, and become the avenue through which CASA seeks industry input on regulatory and policy approaches.

Most importantly, through the forum we will seek to agree on the objectives and policy outcomes — before we then call our technical experts to do the detailed work.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has served on such panels in the past. Our work together will continue.

CASA’s overriding responsibility for aviation safety leadership, however, means that there will always be limits. We cannot appease everyone, nor meet every request. Regulatory activities are inherently challenging and CASA ultimately has to make the call on major safety questions.

My intention is that once we settle on a position we will stick to it and deliver on what we have said we will deliver. If we can do this, we will maintain the trust and respect of the industry as a whole.

A key recent challenge for CASA has been the growth of unmanned aircraft, popularly and irresistibly known as drones.

Drones have enormous potential for making aviation and society safer, by doing many of the repetitive and dangerous aerial jobs without risking human lives.

The economic benefits of this flourishing industry are considerable. However, this emerging industry poses challenges to us as the regulator because we now have to communicate with a new public — people who have had little or no exposure to aviation, and for whom concepts such as aviation safety for all users, restricted and controlled airspace and the safety of the Australian travelling public, are not front of mind. One of my priorities will be bringing this new group into the broader aviation community, so that together we maintain and improve Australia’s aviation safety performance.

Clearly we need to do things differently.

I know that many in the industry are fatigued by delays in some of our regulation reforms; our process has been too slow and too long, and not sufficiently focused on practical, commonsense applications. But I am confident that by working co-operatively with the aviation community we can make positive progress and deliver effective change that delivers “safe skies for all”.

Shane Carmody is the chief executive and director of aviation safety at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

I’m pleased and honoured to have been appointed as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s new chief executive and director of aviation safety, and I’m amazed how Australian aviation has evolved compared to 2009 when I was last at CASA.

#casa Another useless advisory group

What a crock #casa.

The introduction of another panel.

#casa you have:

  • the #casa Board;
  • GAAG group of the Minister [Chester];
  • The #ASRR
  • Colmar Brunton

and yet #casa, who won’t listen to these groups want yet more.

Come on Mr. Chester, just punt #casa over the fence and introduce the #USFARS.

Talk to David Forsyth, Mr. Chester and do his bidding. The #aviation industry spoke clearly in 2014, yet no action by you. Just get on with it and oust the defective QUANGO – CAsA.

Just to remind you:

 


CASA establishes New Advisory Panel

Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will introduce a new advisory panel next month as part of a review of the regulator’s consultation regime.

The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will replace the functions of several other consultative committees and panels, after review findings concluded that CASA was limited in effectiveness by duplication and complexity.

“The ASAP will be the primary advisory body through which CASA will direct its engagement with industry and seek input on current and future regulatory and associated policy approaches,” CASA Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody said.

“In addition to engagement on rulemaking, the ASAP has the latitude to engage on any issues which may impact on aviation safety or the way CASA operates.

“Agreement on the policy approach and actions to address identified issues will be achieved before work and effort are put into implementing solutions. ”

Initially the sub-committees of the Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) will support ASAP with the secretariat managed by CASA’s Stakeholder Engagement Group.

Currently, CASA has several panels providing feedback, including the SCC, Director’s Advisory Panel, Airspace and Aerodrome Consultative Forum (AACF) and Regional Aviation Safety Forum (RASF).

Read more at:

http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-establishes-new-advisory-panel?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20-%2023617&utm_content=Newsletter%20-%2023617+CID_cffcb993a038b7cce73587154690106e&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=CASA%20establishes%20New%20Advisory%20Panel#Sdwcbj8jXukJrMoV.99

 

#casa put more blocks to #aviation in place

The training industry is almost done for in the amount of paperwork required by the regulator to operate.

  • No more small operators in #aviation will be the result;
  • Lose more operators from the “bush” [see the #casa release today – below]

As Senator Nash said in the Senate this week, Bill Shorten when giving his speech in reply to the budget did not once mention “…the bush..”, “…country…”, or “the sticks…”. Obviously had no idea of the importance and centrality of the larger proportion of Australia to the economy.

Is the coalition any better??

Minister Nash does not get any support from the #aviation minister. Mr. Chester does not “…get it…” when it comes to aviation.

Mr. Chester’s talk on ABC Radio last year, with Fran Kelly, when he famously admitted that he did not understand #aviation.

“……The Minister’s professed lack of knowledge about the earlier radar issues at Sydney Airport (not to mention ATC issues between the adjacent Melbourne and Essendon airports) is horrifying. His two immediate predecessors were criticised for many things, but they were acutely aware of a number of issues concerning the competency of frontline Airservices staff because of training and fatigue related issues, which were highlighted by the ATSB in scathing reports into lapses in aircraft separation in Australian skies..”

This now includes Minister Fletcher who do not understand the importance of #aviation.

This situation continues when you read the #aopa release yesterday, which in part says:

“………..The protagonists are all the aviation businesses running out of Bankstown and Camden airports whose future is threatened by the plans for an airport at Badgerys Creek.

Our antagonists are both the Infrastructure and Urban Infrastructure Minister who have locked out those stakeholders from important deliberations over the future of aviation in Sydney.

Stunningly, the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) was not given a seat on the Forum On Western Sydney Airport – or as I like to call it, the Friends of Western Sydney Airport, populated largely with cheerleaders and only a few people who actually treat this process seriously, including my friend and colleague the Member for Werriwa.

You cannot lock out an association like that – you only lock out an association with 3,000 members if you don’t want to hear what they have to say.

Any new airport will greatly impact the livelihoods of many general aviation businesses operating out of both Bankstown and Camden……….”

More below:


THE HON ED HUSIC MP GOES INTO BAT FOR GA

June 21, 2017 By Benjamin Morgan

The Australian Labor Party’s, Ed Husic MP, delivered a speech to government today, calling out the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Darren Chester MP and Urban Infrastructure Minister, Paul Fletcher MP, for denying the general aviation industry a clear seat at the table on the Forum for Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA).

Mr Ed Husic MP, Speech: Aviation Businesses Locked Out of Badgerys Talks

The Turnbull Government continues with its con-job consultation around Badgery’s Creek airport.

Here’s the latest installment of this fake consultation, with the added twist that it might actually kill off general aviation in the Sydney Basin.

The protagonists are all the aviation businesses running out of Bankstown and Camden airports whose future is threatened by the plans for an airport at Badgery’s Creek.

Our antagonists are both the Infrastructure and Urban Infrastructure Minister who have locked out those stakeholders from important deliberations over the future of aviation in Sydney.

Stunningly, the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) was not given a seat on the Forum On Western Sydney Airport – or as I like to call it, the Friends of Western Sydney Airport (FOWSA), populated largely with cheerleaders and only a few people who actually treat this process seriously, including my friend and colleague the Member for Werriwa.

You cannot lock out an association like that – you only lock out an association with 3,000 members if you don’t want to hear what they have to say.

Any new airport will greatly impact the livelihoods of many general aviation businesses operating out of both Bankstown and Camden.

Of the three flight models provided in the EIS for Badgery’s Creek airport, AOPA believes two of them would effectively end all instrument flights from Bankstown airport.

Finished. Over.

That would also almost certainly spell the end of pilot training out of Bankstown airport.

Yet this association isn’t given a spot on FOWSA.

The government is engaging in fake consultation over this airport. They want to push it through without public debate.

They don’t even care about aviation businesses affected because those businesses dare to do something other than tow the government line.

The Infrastructure Minister won’t even meet with AOPA and this is a joke.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is supposed to work with Airservices Australia to develop flight paths, air space management and configurations for the new airport.

But when AOPA ask Airservices Australia for information about these plans they are told to speak with the department.

When they ask the department for information about airspace planning they aren’t given any information there either.

The Coalition is only pro-business when those businesses are pro-Coalition.

In order for those businesses to plan for their future they have to be included in any planning. It’s that simple. Without inclusion they face, perhaps, closure.

The reason the department contracted out flight path development and didn’t contract Airservices Australia is to ensure that meaningful consultation was not provided for with affected communities.

The government and the department are knowingly excluding Airservices Australia because they want to build this airport to such a point it’s impossible to accommodate community concern.

They are deliberately and knowingly misleading communities – keeping them in the dark – and it will be too late to correct this when western Sydney communities realise what is actually happening.

End.


Flying training regulations update

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing and Other Measures) Regulations 2017, number F2017L00697, was registered on the Federal Register of Legislation on 20 June 2017 and came into effect on 21 June 2017.

This amendment legally formalises the policy commitments previously announced by CASA in November 2015. It does not change the transition process and the need for flying training operators to comply with the new rules by 31 August 2018. If you have not already arranged your transition date with CASA we encourage you to do so with your oversighting office.

Further information is available in the Explanatory Statement.

CASA is committed to assisting the aviation community to transition to the new rules. A number of documents and tools are available to support operators with their transition including a Part 141 Sample Operations Manual, Part 142 Sample Exposition, a range of sample syllabuses and also access to the Manual Authoring and Assessment Tool (MAAT). These tools are available on the CASA website.

We will continue working with flying training operators to help facilitate a smooth transition before 31 August 2018. Please be aware that only those operators who have completed transition will be able to continue with flight training operations after 31 August 2018.

We are working hard to support operators throughout this process, however please note our ability to ensure a smooth transition for your organisation depends on:

  • you meeting the agreed timeframes for submitting your documentation
  • whether you make any changes to your documentation after it has been submitted
  • any training activities you ask to be added to your existing operations
  • how quickly you respond to requests for amendments or further information to support your application.

Should you have any queries in regards to your transition please contact your oversight office for assistance.

To find out more about the rules, to access guidance material or to learn more about what to expect during the assessment and transition process, visit the CASA website.

Economic growth legislated for #aviation in the US #OZ falls behind again

US Aviation moves forwards in leaps and bounds, while we are dying in Australia. The attached article from Flying Mag bears a read.

Look at the direction here.

This is not “safety limited” by #casa. One area directed is:

“…Establishes a pilot program for Public Private Partnerships at GA Airports to attract private sector investment for the construction of private hangars, business hangars or investments in other facilities so general aviation airports can grow as hubs of economic activity and job growth….”

 


Senate Introduces Flight Act of 2017

Sen. James Inhofe spearheads the GA-friendly bill as experts point to $100 billion in needed airport infrastructure improvements in the next five years.

Jim Inhofe

Sen. Jim Inhofe (pictured in 2016) spearheaded the Flight Act of 2017 in support of general aviation airports and other aviation factors.

James Inhofe/Facebook

Infrastructure investments at U.S. general aviation airports may become a lot more flexible thanks to a bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

S.1320, the Forward Looking Investment in General Aviation, Hangars, and Tarmacs (Flight) Act of 2017, among other things, moves to reform Non-Primary Entitlement (NPE) funding, cut red tape for environmental reviews for GA airport projects, and designates certain airports across the country as “Disaster Relief Airports.”

Inhofe, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and a certified pilot with over 11,000 hours, boasted many positive reasons for the legislation.

“Our general aviation airports are vital to aviation safety and positively impact the efficiency of large commercial airports, emergency medical operations, law enforcement activities and agriculture and small businesses activities throughout the United States,” Inhofe said in an announcement on his website. “These airports also manage military-related air operations, which directly supports the readiness of our armed services. To enjoy these benefits, it is vital that our GA airports are equipped to handle their day-to-day demands.

“Oklahoma is home to 96 GA airports, which will need $303 million in critical infrastructure updates over the next five years. As a pilot myself, I know first-hand the needs of the GA community and the Flight Act makes a number of needed reforms to facilitate GA airport infrastructure investment.

The Flight Act allows GA airports more FAA funding flexibility, expedites the environmental review process and incentivizes public private partnerships. This legislation builds upon past Congressional efforts to support GA airports and will ultimately grow the positive impact GA airports have on the larger airport ecosystem.”

Duckworth, who is also a pilot, said he also understands why small airports are a benefit.

“As a general aviation pilot, I know how important small and rural airports are to communities across the state of Illinois,” said Duckworth. “That’s why I’m proud to help introduce this bipartisan legislation with Sen. Inhofe to ensure these airports have the resources they need to support local job growth and economic development.”

Most see it as a step in the right direction because of how crucial infrastructure improvement is at GA airports.

“With U.S. airports in need of $100 billion in infrastructure improvements in the next five years, the Flight Act is a positive step forward in helping general aviation airports better serve their communities,” said Kevin Burke, president and CEO of Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA).

The bill also received positive feedback from AOPA President and CEO Mark Baker and others.

“The Flight Act addresses the growing needs of our nation’s system of airports by providing the FAA with long overdue flexibility it needs to fund important projects,” said Baker. “Maintaining and upgrading runways, taxiways, and aprons and meeting the need for new hangars, helps keep airports and communities vibrant and competitive. This bill also takes a critically important step in recognizing the vital role that reliever airports play in natural disaster relief efforts.”

“We commend Sen. Inhofe’s unwavering commitment to general aviation as the Flight Act — among other things — will reinvest much-needed funding into non-primary airports across the country,” said Mark Kimberling, president and CEO of National Association of State Aviation Officials. “We look forward to continuing our work with the Senator and his colleagues throughout the legislative process and beyond to ensure that our national network of general aviation airports remains the envy of the world.”

Details of S. 1320, the Flight Act:

  • Reforms Non-Primary Entitlement (NPE) funding by giving GA airports more time to accumulate FAA funding for projects and ensures available discretionary funding originally set aside for GA airports remains available for projects at GA airports through a nationally competitive process.
  • Improves Project Delivery by extending to GA airport projects the same expedited and coordinated environmental review process used for projects at large congested airports. These reforms would empower GA airports with flexibility to devote needed resources to improving their infrastructure.
  • Establishes a pilot program for Public Private Partnerships at GA Airports to attract private sector investment for the construction of private hangars, business hangars or investments in other facilities so general aviation airports can grow as hubs of economic activity and job growth.
  • Designates certain airports across the country as “Disaster Relief Airports” and provides access to funding set aside for airports to use for required emergency planning activities, equipment, or facilities. This provision would help designated airports that lack the resources and personnel to adequately prepare for responding to disasters.
  • Clarifies Aeronautical Activity at Airports by ensuring that the construction of recreational aircraft is an aeronautical activity at airports.

#pelAir stink pervades #aviation in #OZ with FOI refusal by Minister Chester

I have to hand a refusal of a Freedom of Information request [FOI] by Minister Chester’s Department of Infrastructure.

This requests the costings of the:

  1. Initial #atsb report;
  2. #casa report, not released to the #atsb;
  3. Senate Inquiry;
  4. Subsequent #asrr report by David Forsyth;
  5. Canadian ATSB report;
  6. Implementation cost by #casa;
  7. Implementation cost by #atsb

The refusal is shown below, which says: “…it can’t be found…”

It is rather amazing that the Minister’s office cannot find an active file, that over the past seven years and seven month’s, there are no records that show the total cost of the exercise.

I wonder if the same answer would also occur for #MH370?


Refusal by Minister Chester:

And the redacted full letter:


A comment by a long term #aviation participant says:

“……..Rex does have a very good record but not quite as good as Mr Sharp makes out.
In 2009 a Medivac flight operated by a subsidiary of Rex, #Pelair, had to ditch in the sea off Norfolk Island at night in bad weather. Luckily owing to the skill of the pilot all survived but there were injuries. Rex seemed happy enough to go along with the first Transport Safety Bureau report, engineered in cahoots with Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which neatly scapegoated the pilot. CASA, true to form, came on the unfortunate pilot (hero) like a ton of bricks.
Pelair’s arguably deficient operating procedures had been approved by CASA.
A Senate Committee, smelling a rat, ordered a second investigation two years ago, we are still waiting.
Rex has at times made very substantial donations to political parties.
It is acknowledged by a Government report that CASA, the architect of the severe decline in General Aviation, resulting in thousands of job losses, is not trusted by the GA industry.
Turning to John Sharp’s defense of old aircraft, well that is rich.
During his term as Minister CASA was in the habit of causing all sorts of grief to GA in regards to “aging” aircraft.
With Ministerial approval CASA instituted a plethora of extreme maintenance requirements that are still killing General Aviation while airlines are left, in the main, to follow manufacturer’s procedures…”
Alex in the Rises

A finger in the air to reasonable requests??


On the eve of the release of the #pelair report, now 7 years and 7 months since the ditching, I attach the report by Ben Sandilands in late 2012 [some five [5] years ago], which drew into doubt the standard of the report at the time.

Ben makes the following observation, which is as true today as at that point in time:

“…………Pel-Air has yet to be called to public account, either for its responsibilities to those it damaged, or for its inability to meet the regulated standards in its operations at the time of the incident.

If there is anything positive to say about this investigation, it is that it involved a small jet and six people, all of whom survived, rather than an accident involving a large airliner and the deaths of hundreds of people.

The starting point for avoiding air disasters in Australia is effective and un-compromised public administration of the laws and obligations that apply its airlines and air operators………….”

And in an article in The Australian – April 2017, John Sharp said in part:

“……….The other important contributor to flight safety is crew flying standards. The two events demonstrate the high quality of training of Rex crew such that normal landings are achieved even under rare and challenging circumstances. Rex has received universal praise from the aviation world for the calm, professional and effective actions of the crew after the separation of the propeller……..”

But this was not the case in the #pelAir ditching where the non-released #casa report was severely critical of the training and operations of the #pelair AOC and Chief Pilot. Interestingly, #casa employed the CP [John Wickham], yet #casa hid the report from #atsb.

The comments by John Sharp do not gel with the Senate investigation.


air safety

Sep 26, 2012

ATSB and Minister rebuffed objections to Pel-Air report errors before publication

An expert reviewer who found errors in the Pel-Air report says he was rebuffed by ATSB, Minister, before rushed publication.

A pilot who was lawfully permitted to review the final draft report by the ATSB into the 18 November 2009 ditching near Norfolk Island of a Pel-Air medical evacuation flight says he was fobbed off by the safety investigator and the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, when he objected in advance to its publication because of errors and omissions contained in the draft.
Plane Talking has seen the correspondence and some relevant matters which will be examined by in Senate committee hearings into the ATSB’s handling of the investigation and related matters.These are serious matters that need to be raised under parliamentary privilege.

 They suggest that the public administration of air safety in Australia is variously incompetent and compromised.

In an email directed to the attention of the Minister, the pilot, who has a long career in defence and civilian air transport in Australia and abroad, says:

“Tomorrow, the ATSB will release a Final report into an aviation accident at Norfolk Island.

The Final report in it’s current form contains factual errors. These have been brought to the attention of the (name and position withheld), and also the (name and position withheld).

Despite these many areas under dispute having been brought to the attention of both of these men on numerous occasions and requests that the Final report be delayed pending dialogue to resolve the inaccuracies, (name withheld) has determined that this report will be released tomorrow.

(Name withheld) has also let it be known that he is expecting a lot of media attention. I ask what is the point of media attention to a factually incorrect report?

Obviously a report with facts in dispute should not be released. Having spoken to both pilots concerned and as a professional aviator myself, I am left dismayed at the attitude of the ATSB and their willingness to issue such a questionable report. As Minister, I would ask you to stop the release to give all parties involved the opportunity for continued dialogue before it’s release.

At the moment, I am extremely disappointed in the attitude of the ATSB and have been left with great doubts about their investigations. At this point, I would most certainly be advising my colleagues in the airlines that they cannot rely on the ATSB to report the facts nor give them a fair hearing if they are ever involved in an incident.

This is obviously not the reputation that the ATSB should be making for themselves.”

These are the last two paragraphs of a three paragraph reply to the pilot from the Minister:

While the Minister is undoubtedly correct, or rather, whomever wrote the letter for his signature was correct, he is also responsible for the integrity and competency of the ATSB in the discharge of its duties.

And that is what seems set to be destroyed by the evidence that will be put to the Senate committee hearings, raising in this writer’s mind the capacity of ministerial advisers to avoid departmental capture and identify the core failings of the ATSB in this matter.

Australian governments of any political persuasion seem to be ill advised when it comes to administrative failure in the departments reporting to them.

As previously reported here the ATSB report leaves out references to the equipment level installed on the small corporate jet involved and the training of the pilot to enable a legal diversion to Noumea while en route from Apia to its intended technical stop at Norfolk Island that are inherently in conflict with the requirements of company fueling policy for the jet’s operations as described in the final report.

Contrary to the published policy of CASA, the regulator, that the delivery of safety standards flow from the responsibilities and performances of the management of an airline or air operator, the ATSB report, and a televised interview with CASA’s director of safety, John McCormick, placed the complete blame for the accident on a pilot who had been rostered in a manner which meant he hadn’t even slept properly for two nights before taking off on the Apia-Norfolk Island leg of a flight that was supposed to end in Melbourne.

Together with the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, arguing on a 4 Corners program that the failure of Pel-Air to pass a CASA safety audit immediately after the accident was immaterial, the ATSB report, and  the apparent determination to publish it with  incomplete or untrue claims, leaves a big question hanging in the air. Why did the safety regulator and safety investigator go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid public disclosure of the state of operations at Pel-Air at the time of the crash?

This accident has inflicted serious damage on some of the six people who were onboard the Pel-Air jet.

Pel-Air has yet to be called to public account, either for its responsibilities to those it damaged, or for its inability to meet the regulated standards in its operations at the time of the incident.

If there is anything positive to say about this investigation, it is that it involved a small jet and six people, all of whom survived, rather than an accident involving a large airliner and the deaths of hundreds of people.

The starting point for avoiding air disasters in Australia is effective and uncompromised public administration of the laws and obligations that apply its airlines and air operators.

Can #casa count?? The Annual reports say – No

Here is an e-mail I received in answer to the recent post.

Why, did CASA have the purpose built property at MB airport only to then ditch it for a City address that is totally removed from all aviation activity and has increased the travel costs and time wasted in traffic by factors of  (X+Y)*n.

The full letter is reproduced below

8.3% yield, what about the deficit ?

#casa has been in loss mode for the past few years and one must ask the question as to how #casa are spending our/their money.

The article below shows the expenditure on “Aviation House” and the Brisbane headquarters.

Carmody reigns over a defective #casa, along with the #casa Board


Why is CASA trying to make money?

The concept of splitting the Department of Transport into ASA and CASA was and is a failed model. There are many more just like it.

ASIC is another.

Through our taxes, we all pay for the infrastructure and the operating costs and then we pay again when we need something.

It’s a flawed concept.

As an exception example, we don’t give emergency call centre 000 our Credit Card when we need one of the services provided. We certainly don’t  get the Credit card out when police arrive on the doorstep or pull you over in the car to “book” you for an offence, or when the fire brigade turn up to put out the fire in the house!!

#casa Financial Statements:

I have absolutely no faith in any financial statement that has ever been produced by CASA.

How, for example, does CASA justify sitting on $m’s of taxpayer’s funds when those funds are not required.

Why are those funds not sitting in Federal Government Consolidated revenue being used to keep the national debt down and so the interest we pay on it, until the draw down is actually needed?

Why is it that the annual reports are littered with closing balances from a prior year which do not accord with an opening balance in the current year report??

As an aside, #aviation participants are charged an hourly rate for work done by CASA employees. In the financial and legal world, charges are an hourly rate for work and labour done, as do most businesses  in the professional service industries.

I produce time sheets to justify the work done.

At a forum, some 5+ years ago,  at the Dingley International Hotel/Motel, a question was asked as to what time sheets were produced by each and every employee of CASA.  After some huffing and puffing and two way dialog, #casa said that time sheets are not used.

It was then asked – How are any charges determined.

No rational answer was provided. They don’t even have a set of scale charges as do Lawyers, doctors & dentists, for example.

In the opinion of an experienced person in the financial field, each and every invoice issued by CASA could be challenged on the basis that CASA has no records from which it formed the invoice and  it cannot explain why an invoice issued by one office is not the same as an invoice issued by another office for the same work.

A good example is for inspecting an exhaust pipe weld repair or reviewing a AOC manual.

Because there is no business sense within the CASA frame work, financial records and a P & L and Balance Sheet is anathema and so nobody in the organisation gives a  “rat’s whisker” how much is spent on buildings.

Why, did CASA have the purpose built property at MB airport only to then ditch it for a City address that is totally removed from all aviation activity and has increased the travel costs and time wasted in traffic by factors of  (X+Y)*n.

Enough.

#pelair update and an estimated date for review by DIP’s

Manning says that the ATSB’s processes were OK, but with #pelair #atsb did not follow the processes.

 

Is Carmody on the “nose” – Senator O’Sullivan is of that view

Great work Hitch, showing where GA can be headed in the future. However, we must all be vigilant the the new DAS/ #casa CEO is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

There is serious history when Carmody was in #casa before and the Senate estimates show a disparate person.

If you listen carefully to Senator O’Sullivan and his view of Carmody and #casa, you will come to a view that #casa is on the nose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ0oM5IsIP8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLMCrLt6V5c


And if you want an example of the standard of some of the work coming from CASA, I present to you Airworthiness Directive AD/GENERAL/87. To put it in the simplest terms, this AD told aircraft owners to throw out any control cables older than 15 years. So that means any aircraft built after 2002 was in the gun.

In a GA perspective 15 years is still a new aeroplane! Someone in CASA has revised the requirement to “inspect and throw out if damaged”, which is probably what the original AD should have said. Of course, many aircraft owners would have already complied and junked perfectly good cables in the process, and now AOPA Australia wants to measure exactly how many were replaced and what condition they were in.

The idea is to gauge the depth of the impact crater this AD had on GA, and compile a report. If the report shows a smoking hole in the operating costs of aircraft owners, you can bet it will be used as waddy to beat CASA with.

Speaking of AOPA, they’re also spreading their wings further and seeking people to represent them on the various Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committees (RAPAC) around Australia.

RAPACs convene on a regular basis to discuss regional issues concerning the way we use the airspace and provide recommendations and feedback to CASA. RAPACs mostly work under the radar, but occasionally will get involved with more high-profile issues such as the low-level frequency debate that has been going on for over a year. It’s voluntary work, but you’ll get involved with some very important work. If you’re up for it, contact Ben Morgan at AOPA ben.morgan@aopa.com.au

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-last-minute-hitch/the-last-minute-hitch-9-june-2017?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20-%209617&utm_content=Newsletter%20-%209617+CID_ea9f13c714d665a9221976439b6213b1&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=The%20Last%20Minute%20Hitch%209%20June%202017#AeHWcRzWBZSAp28H.99

Carmody reigns over a defective #casa, along with the #casa Board

Can you believe this?

8.3% yield, what about the deficit ?

#casa has been in loss mode for the past few years and one must ask the question as to how #casa are spending our/their money.

The article below shows the expenditure on “Aviation House” and the Brisbane headquarters.

#casa losses reported and predicted since 2009

But, if there is a comparison made between the rentals from the properties listed below at the yields mentioned, the total from the two properties is: $9,382,600 ie “Aviation House” and the Brisbane premises.

This leaves some $1,141,400 for Townsville, Cairns, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and Melbourne.

The real number, not reported in the 2016 Annual report is the rent paid by #casa is 5.69% of it’s “income” stream.

 

Annual report #casa 2016

Where is the $157m?

Budget estimates show Carmody failure

And along the way, #casa got an extra $157m for it’s troubles, yet still made a loss.


6th June 2017 |

Patella

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) national operations headquarters was purchased by The Patella Group for $23 million.

The 4,675 square metre PCA A-Grade building at 12-14 The Circuit Brisbane Airport is fully leased to CASA for another 2.5 years, with a further five year option.

It was developed in 2007, and comprises four levels of office accommodation, ground level foyer, and one level of basement parking.

The base building currently has a 5.0 star NABERS Energy rating and is situated within the Skygate precinct – a vibrant retail, commercial and lifestyle precinct brimming with fashion, food and leisure at the heart of Brisbane Airport.

It is home to more than 160 retail, café and dining options including DFO, Queensland’s first 24-hour Woolworths, Golf Central BNE, Dan Murphy’s, a 4.5 star hotel, medical centre and childcare.

Brisbane Airport Corporation purchased Brisbane Airport from the Federal Government in 1997 under a 50 year lease with an option to renew for a further 49 years.

Under the leasehold tenure, BAC retains ownership and control of the airport in its entirety for the duration of the lease term up to 2096.

BAC will invest $3.8 billion in projects over the next decade including the New Parallel Runway, new car parks and access facilities, terminal expansions, road upgrades, and new aprons and aeronautical facilities.

Colliers International negotiated the off-market sale on behalf of Garda Diversified Property Fund.

“We received strong interest in the property from emerging institutions, privates, and syndicators at levels in line with expectation given the leasehold nature,” Colliers National Director of Capital Markets Tom Barr said.

“Buyers were attracted to high tenant retention probability due to the “stickiness” of the tenant to the location and building.

“The rapid growth of the Brisbane Airport precinct underpinned by nearly $4 billion of planned infrastructure investment over the next decade, was also very appealing to buyers,” he said.

The price reflects a capital value of $4,920 per square metre and market yield of approximately 8.3%.

The group also acquired Aviation House in Canberra, which is also occupied by CASA, from Mirvac mid last year for $68.1 million.

 

The Carmody caper continues – appointed DAS today

This is one of the worst appointments that could be made to a Government Quango.

Here is the fiddler, while Rome [#aviation] burns. A person who has shown in an acting role that he is not fit for purpose.

When in #casa, prior to his movement via a series of Government departments, then the Minister’s special “baby” under Mike Mrdak, gets a gig after the sudden departure of Mark Skidmore, the short-term replacement for the totally #aviation industry despised John McCormick [now back working in Hong Kong for previous employer, Cathay Pacific] some questions need asking.

Is there a history for Carmody??

Yes there is and one that imitates Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame, where criminal proceedings are turned into a simple, non-hanging offence of “a code of conduct violation”.

Recently you have his improper treatment of the Senate Estimates committee in May 2017. Indeed, it would have been interesting to have the Senators on the selection committee.

A few questions to be asked here and it shows the degree to which we in Australia have little or no Rule-of-Law, rather rule by regulation.

Of course there is #pelair

Then Lockhart River

The Wilga tail and Richard Rudd

And the Code-of-conduct matter

Criminality vs. Code-of-Conduct

And of course, under Carmody’s acting reign – Missing money

Carmody is king of this process.

We don’t need a new DAS, we need a Judicial Inquiry Mr. Chester.


New Appointment to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Media Release

DC161/2017

07 June 2017

  • Shane Carmody appointed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board as the new Director of Aviation Safety for a five year term
  • Appointment brings strong leadership and governance skills to CASA

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester today welcomed the appointment of Mr Shane Carmody as the new Director of Aviation Safety.

“This appointment will support critical reforms underway at the aviation safety regulator and ensure the organisation retains strong leadership into the future,” Mr Chester said.

“Mr Carmody has been acting Director since October 2016 and brings a wealth of governance and aviation experience to the role.

“Mr Carmody previously held the role of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Strategy and Support at CASA, and has had an extensive career in senior management positions in the public service.

“Under Mr Carmody CASA has already commenced the examination of a number of priority issues raised by industry including fatigue rules, aviation medical, and targeted regulatory reform.

“I look forward to continuing to work with Mr Carmody and the CASA Board to ensure that CASA implements the Government’s recently announced Statement of Expectations which will focus on regulatory activity that is pragmatic, practical and proportionate, and continues to maintain Australia’s strong aviation safety record.”


New CASA appointment set to deliver on crucial reforms

Media Release

DC141/2016

12 October 2016

 Shane Carmody has commenced as Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and will progress critical reforms, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said.

“Mr Carmody will act as CEO and Director of Aviation Safety for up to 12 months or until a new CEO is appointed by the CASA Board,” Mr Chester said.

“A domestic and international search for a new CEO is currently underway.

“Mr Carmody’s appointment will ensure the aviation safety regulator retains strong leadership as the reforms are finalised.

“As committed during the election, I have reiterated to Mr Carmody the need to complete the implementation of CASA’s parts of the Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review by the end of this year, except where CASA and industry have agreed that implementation should be deferred.

“As Deputy Secretary at the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mr Carmody oversaw several key aviation portfolio areas including the Aviation and Airports Division, the Office of Transport Security and the Western Sydney Unit, and has been working towards delivering the Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.

“Mr Carmody has also held the role of Deputy CEO Strategy and Support at CASA, between October 2006 and May 2009.

“Implementation of the important reforms will require CASA to work closely with all sectors of the aviation industry, a role where Mr Carmody’s previous experience should prove invaluable,” Mr Chester said.

Another training exercise goes wrong

RIP, the three airmen in South Australia.

A timely reminder of the need for proper procedures, which I am sure the highly competent CP of RossAir would use.

A look at the Western Australian example where the local CFI and CP refused to accede #casa FOI’s demands and the lengthy AAT and subsequent Court cases should be made in thinking about the impact of a #casa FOI vs. candidate and CP.

I made a list of a series of fatal training accidents, some years ago, where the common thread was interdiction by #casa.

There are very specific rules made through the Aircraft Flight Manual [AFM], which specify what can and cannot be done.

A #casa FOI stepping outside this specific regime to suit the regulator or the FOI makes the tested pilot a “test pilot” for a new procedure.

Byron Bailey in The Australian 9th June 2017

Is this what happened at Renmark??


Adelaide Advertiser on Renmark training mission

Over-regulation killing aviation

Robyn Ironside News Corp Australia Network

Adelaide’s Lunchtime Newsbyte – 1.6.17

OVER-regulation of Australia’s aviation industry has created a situation whereby pilots spend more time ticking boxes and filling out paperwork than flying planes, operators say.

Chief Executive of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Benjamin Morgan, spoke out about an “industry in decline” following another fatal crash in Australia.

Rossair chief pilot Martin Scott and pilot inductee Paul Daw were killed, along with Civil Aviation Safety Authority officer Stephen Guerin, when a Cessna Conquest crashed shortly after takeoff from Renmark Airport in South Australia on Tuesday.

The crash of a Rossair Cessna Conquest near Renmark claimed the lives of pilots Martin Scott, 65, and Paul Daw, 48, and CASA officer Stephen Guerin, 56. Picture: Dylan Coker.

The crash of a Rossair Cessna Conquest near Renmark claimed the lives of pilots Martin Scott, 65, and Paul Daw, 48, and CASA officer Stephen Guerin, 56. Picture: Dylan Coker.Source:News Corp Australia

The crash was the worst in the state this century, and came just a few months after the Essendon crash in Victoria in which five lives were lost.

Both incidents are now under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

BUREAUCRATIC BURDEN

Mr Morgan said it was difficult to draw a connection between the tragic crashes and the regulatory burdens on general aviation.

But he said there was growing concern about the demands on aviation business owners, many of whom were also pilots.

“What we’re seeing take place is that business owners and operators of flying schools and charter operations are spending more and more time out of the cockpit ticking boxes and filling out forms,” Mr Morgan said.

“If you shift the focus from hands-on proficiency then that will have a toll long-term on aviation safety.”

He said that was not to suggest recent crashes were due to a lack of training or competency.

“More and more flight operations are complaining they’re spending more time on paperwork, and it’s not just AOPA saying that — the entire industry is saying it,” said Mr Morgan.

“It’s highly logical that pilots and business owners, the more time they spend around aircraft the better they’re going to be.

“It’s fair to argue the current system is not working, it’s failing.”

Dashcam footage of Essendon DFO crash scene that claimed five lives. Picture: Supplied

Dashcam footage of Essendon DFO crash scene that claimed five lives. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied

EYES ON THE SKY

AvLaw International chairman Ron Bartsch echoed Mr Morgan’s concerns about the regulatory burden on aviation businesses.

“It’s the old cost benefit analysis of what’s a reasonably acceptable level of safety,” said Mr Bartsch.

“CASA has recognised world standards in terms of safety and oversight but a lot of the increased measures have adversely affected the general aviation community.”

CASA spokeswoman Amanda Palmer said the authority worked across industry to identify and address areas of concern, actively promote safety and educate the aviation community.

“The vast majority of pilots and operators comply with aviation regulations,” said Ms Palmer.

“It is this attitude, combined with a just culture approach and independent accident investigation, that ensures we have some of the safest skies in the world.”

She described this week’s accident at Renmark as a “tragedy”.

“We are working with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to provide information of relevance to their investigation.”

#casa misrepresent the numbers again

 

This is an issue that affects every pilot in Australia. Although it is a perpetual licence, without a valid medical – A pilot is not a pilot.

That #casa went to a discussion paper is a bit of a change, but as is the normative #casa way, the numbers became misrepresented by #casa as to the number of submissions.

A lot of AOPA-Aus pilots went to the trouble of signing a petition, others a short note from themselves and as direct support for the AOPA submission.

Robert Walker, who is in charge of the carriage of this matter, along with Acting CEO Carmody say there were only 160 submissions.

In fact:

160 + 127 = 287 direct submissions or:

160 + 127 + 1717 = 2004 total supporters of a particular change.

Remember the #ASRR investigation of David Forsyth, where 269 submissions were received and even short ones, similar to the 127 above were published.

The actual submissions received by Forsyth and the #ASRR are worth a reminder and a read.

Let’s stop messing around with #aviation and immediately introduce the US-FAR’s


The following is the @aopaaustralia letter to #casa on the Avmed Discussion Paper in part:

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia – Avmed Discussion Paper Submission

Please accept the following as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s submission to the discussion paper process to bring about changes as to how medical certification is performed and what standard of medical fitness is required to operate a private aircraft.  This submission is supported by 127 signed letters and 1,717 petitioned signatures, which were obtained across a 5 week period during last quarter of 2016.

Under the current Avmed system, Australia’s general aviation industry has experienced a 34% decline in general aviation pilot numbers (loss of approx. 8,000 persons), whilst during the same period the number of RAAus pilots operating under ‘simplified’ medicals has grown by some 8,000 persons.

#pelair report still not due until late 2017

Captain Chris Manning, who is in charge of the new #pelair inquiry – #pelair 2, in tonight’s senate #estimates says that the report is due to go to the DIP’s [Directly Involved Parties] in next 5 weeks.

This is expected to take at least 60 days, rather than the usual 28 days allowed, given the length at over 400 pages. Interestingly, Manning was questioned on the previous report and the Canadian TSB review, which blasted the #pelair 1 report.

Manning said that the old report [#pelair 1], did not follow correct procedures.

Is this the smoking gun in the #pelair matter??


The sign given by #casa to the #aviation industry at Avalon. 

Remember the failure by #casa to give #atsb the chambers report and Martin Dolan denying that the Chambers report as unimportant  [which described #pelair as a poor performer].


Reading:

#mh370 and #pelair insurance issues surface

Positive #aviation medical changes in the US

The following article is from AOPA Pilot – US Volume 60 of April 2017 and shows the real progress made by a positive approach to medical reform, with thanks to AOPA -US of which I am a member.

Will we have the same in Australian #aviation ?


aopa-us medical changes 2017

Senate #estimates May 2017

Senate estimates are on for a full week, with more time given to #casa, #atsb to get to the bottom of the question bucket.

#pelair should be well aired and Hood of #atsb questioned.

#casa should be asked questions of the missing $89.9m

The wastage of money, identified by the 2017 budget, where #casa have shown losses must be at the top of the list

#casa and it’s Board must be brought to account for it’s failure to bring #casa expenditure under control

What we need is a new policy in Australia – One new regulation and loss of two old regulations


For access times and viewing via the aph.gov.au site, the times are as follows for #casa, #atsb, #airservices

 

Full RRAT schedule

Improper actions by #casa affect individuals

That Karen Casey has waited for so long is a disgrace – 7 years and 7 months.

That the insurance company tried to stop payments and

Limit a payout to the Chicago convention is a disgrace.

That #casa hid a crucial report from #atsb – the Roger Chambers report

That #atsb failed to properly investigate the ditching – Damning Senate inquiry

and

Are there similar events?

Of course there is more.


Former nurse awarded $5m in damages after Norfolk Island plane crash

A former nurse who was seriously injured in a plane crash near Norfolk Island in 2009 has been awarded more than $5 million in damages.

In March, the operator of the medical evacuation flight, Pel-Air Aviation, successfully appealed against an earlier ruling that Karen Casey’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) should be included in the payout.

Despite PTSD being excluded, the new payout of $5.2 million exceeds the previous order by more than $300,000.

Ms Casey has been ordered to pay half the costs of Pel-Air’s appeal.

The plane ditched into the sea with low fuel and Pel-Air accepted the crash was caused by the negligence of the plane’s pilots.

The company agreed it was liable for Ms Casey’s physical injuries, which were significant, but fought against the inclusion of PTSD.

In its March ruling, the NSW Court of Appeal said even though there had been “biochemical changes” in Ms Casey’s brain caused by her PTSD, there was no evidence her brain had physically changed.

The PTSD therefore did not meet the definition of “bodily injury” in the Montreal Convention, which governs aircraft accident compensation internationally.

“Unfortunately, the word ‘bodily injury’ doesn’t describe PTSD, the evidence isn’t there, but we all know that it’s real,” Ms Casey said outside court.

“It’s been a very long process and I’m really happy that it’s done.”

Ms Casey’s lawyer Ros Everett said it was a challenge taking on a case about aviation, which she had no prior experience in.

“I saw Karen was so deeply affected by this, physically and emotionally, and I thought she deserved justice,” she said.

She said even though they had a loss on the PTSD issue, it might not be the end of the matter.

“I fully believe that this issue will be ventilated again in court very soon,” Ms Everett said.

“I think we’ve opened the doors and paved the way for further cases in this area of aviation law.”

New policy for Australian Aviation required

#aviation in Australia requires a major re-boot to retain any semblance of ability to retain a viable industry, particularly in the regional areas.

Regardless of what you think of President Trump, he has a brilliant idea to re-vitalise the US aviation industry and general over regulation in the States.

And the direction from the White House would only take minor rewording to make the same happen here in Australia.

A full comment was made on a US web site recently.

This is a method for us in Australia to make some very quick movements forward and #saveGA.

 

 

#casa budget estimates 2009 – 2017 show failure to manage

Attached below is [in reverse order] the budget of #casa from 2009 to 2018.


 Aviation Fuel Excise:

Old rate: 2.854 c/litre [Funds #casa]

New rate: 3.556 c/litre [4-year increase to specifically fund #casa requirements of an increase for 4-years of 0.702 c/litre]

Excise cpi adjustments on a bi-annual basis from 2014/2015.

Basis of increase:


In looking at the appended data, shows that #casa is running in such a way that it is essentially bankrupt.

Question is, can #casa manage it’s finances at all??


Table 3.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2017)

2016–17
Estimated
actual
$’000
2017–18
Budget
$’000
2018–19
Forward
estimate
$’000
2019–20
Forward
estimate
$’000
2020–21
Forward
estimate
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 139,504 141,344 143,090 145,228 147,206
Suppliers 119,406 139,352 64,853 64,643 53,555
Depreciation and amortisation 9,530 10,049 9,716 9,165 8,514
Finance costs 174 20 12 5
Total expenses 268,614 290,765 217,671 219,041 209,275
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 3,596 3,243 3,269 3,002 3,029
Other revenue 976 730 730 730 730
Total own-source revenue 4,572 3,973 3,999 3,732 3,759
Gains
Other gains 1,055 243 182 186 186
Total gains 1,055 243 182 186 186
Total own-source income 5,627 4,216 4,181 3,918 3,945
Net (cost of)/contribution by services (262,987) (286,549) (213,490) (215,123) (205,330)
Revenue from Government 253,457 276,500 203,774 205,958 196,816
Surplus/(deficit) attributable to the Australian Government (9,530) (10,049) (9,716) (9,165) (8,514)
Total comprehensive income/(loss) attributable to the Australian Government (9,530) (10,049) (9,716) (9,165) (8,514)
Note: Impact of net cash appropriation arrangements
  2016–17
$’000
2017–18
$’000
2018–19
$’000
2019–20
$’000
2020–21
$’000
Total comprehensive income/(loss) less depreciation/amortisation expenses previously funded through revenue appropriations
plus depreciation/amortisation expenses previously funded through revenue appropriations (a) 9,530 10,049 9,716 9,165 8,514
Total comprehensive income/(loss)—as per Statement of Comprehensive Income (9,530) (10,049) (9,716) (9,165) (8,514)

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.

Notes:

  1. From 2010–11, the Government introduced net cash appropriation arrangements where Bill 1 revenue appropriations for the depreciation/amortisation expenses of non-corporate Commonwealth entities (and select corporate Commonwealth entities) were replaced with a separate capital budget (the Departmental Capital Budget, or DCB) provided through Bill 1 equity appropriations. For information regarding DCBs, please refer to Table 3.5 Departmental Capital Budget Statement.

Table 3.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2016)

2015–16
Estimated
actual
$’000
2016–17
Budget$’000
2017–18
Forward
estimate
$’000
2018–19
Forward
estimate
$’000
2019–20
Forward
estimate
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 119,803 119,978 123,145 125,589 128,081
Suppliers 54,777 49,922 50,653 50,185 51,803
Depreciation and amortisation 12,587 13,328 13,196 15,224 15,103
Total expenses 187,167 183,228 186,994 190,998 194,987
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 15,647 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500
Interest 1,582 1,600 1,600 1,700 1,750
Other 1,464 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Total own-source revenue 18,693 19,100 19,100 19,200 19,250
Total own-source income 18,693 19,100 19,100 19,200 19,250
Net (cost of) / contribution by services (168,474) (164,128) (167,894) (171,798) (175,737)
Revenue from Government 159,661 164,150 167,911 171,811 175,747
Surplus / (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government (8,813) 22 17 13 10
Total comprehensive income / (loss) attributable to the Australian Government (8,813) 22 17 13 10

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.


Table 3.2.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2015)

Estimated
actual
2014–15
$’000
Budget
estimate
2015–16
$’000
Forward
estimate
2016–17
$’000
Forward
estimate
2017–18
$’000
Forward
estimate
2018–19
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 115,946 123,511 126,270 129,092 131,976
Suppliers 53,893 53,241 44,354 45,659 46,833
Depreciation and amortisation 12,900 13,907 14,086 14,350 14,891
Write-down and impairment of assets 788
Total expenses 183,527 190,659 184,710 189,101 193,700
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 14,696 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500
Interest 1,946 1,531 1,618 1,819 1,862
Other 910 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,567
Total own-source revenue 17,552 19,598 19,685 19,886 19,929
Total own-source income 17,552 19,598 19,685 19,886 19,929
Net cost of (contribution by) services 165,975 171,061 165,025 169,215 173,771
Revenue from Government 157,803 161,061 165,051 169,274 173,795
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government (8,172) (10,000) 26 59 24
Total comprehensive income (loss) attributable to the Australian Government (8,172) (10,000) 26 59 24

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.


Table 3.2.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2014)

Estimated
actual
2013–14
$’000
Budget
estimate
2014–15
$’000
Forward
estimate
2015–16
$’000
Forward
estimate
2016–17
$’000
Forward
estimate
2017–18
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 126,183 120,690 124,610 130,036 135,876
Suppliers 51,309 53,524 55,133 56,528 59,243
Depreciation and amortisation 12,600 13,244 14,357 13,451 11,588
Finance costs 440
Write-down and impairment of assets 1,797
Total expenses 192,329 187,458 194,100 200,015 206,707
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 14,289 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500
Interest 2,272 1,334 1,410 1,411 1,386
Other 1,761 1,567 1,567 1,567 1,567
Total own-source revenue 18,322 19,401 19,477 19,478 19,453
Gains
Sale of assets 440
Total gains 440
Total own-source income 18,762 19,401 19,477 19,478 19,453
Net cost of (contribution by) services 173,567 168,057 174,623 180,537 187,254
Revenue from Government 163,960 168,080 174,670 181,564 188,891
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government (9,607) 23 47 1,027 1,637
Total comprehensive income (loss) attributable to the Australian Government (9,607) 23 47 1,027 1,637

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.

 


 Table 3.2.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2013)

Estimated
actual
2012–13
$’000
Budget
estimate
2013–14
$’000
Forward
estimate
2014–15
$’000
Forward
estimate
2015–16
$’000
Forward
estimate
2016–17
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 109,391 118,814 122,884 127,087 130,900
Suppliers 51,065 53,104 53,606 54,413 54,724
Depreciation and amortisation 11,076 11,565 8,406 7,108 7,442
Total expenses 171,532 183,483 184,896 188,608 193,066
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 14,160 13,500 13,500 13,500 14,040
Interest 2,643 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Other 1,001 800 800 800 800
Total own-source revenue 17,804 17,300 17,300 17,300 17,840
Total own-source income 17,804 17,300 17,300 17,300 17,840
Net cost of (contribution by) services 153,728 166,183 167,596 171,308 175,226
Revenue from Government 160,721 166,416 167,808 171,570 175,444
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government 6,993 233 212 262 218
Total comprehensive income (loss) attributable to the Australian Government 6,993 233 212 262 218

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.


 Table 3.2.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2012)

Estimated
actual
2011–12
$’000
Budget
estimate
2012–13
$’000
Forward
estimate
2013–14
$’000
Forward
estimate
2014–15
$’000
Forward
estimate
2015–16
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 105,583 112,977 117,063 120,575 124,192
Suppliers 60,970 49,485 50,051 52,592 54,734
Depreciation and amortisation 11,569 11,780 13,186 9,411 8,225
Finance costs 57 132 102 107 113
Total expenses 178,179 174,374 180,402 182,685 187,264
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 15,513 17,300 17,750 18,214 18,691
Interest 2,732 1,725 1,750 1,687 1,409
Other 800 800 800 800 800
Total own-source revenue 19,045 19,825 20,300 20,701 20,900
Total own-source income 19,045 19,825 20,300 20,701 20,900
Net cost of (contribution by) services 159,134 158,357 160,102 161,984 166,364
Revenue from Government 154,598 154,549 160,567 162,476 166,856
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government (4,536) 465 492 492
Total comprehensive income (loss) attributable to the Australian Government (4,536) 465 492 492

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.

 


 Table 3.2.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2011)

Estimated
actual
2010-11
$’000
Budget
estimate
2011-12
$’000
Forward
estimate
2012-13
$’000
Forward
estimate
2013-14
$’000
Forward
estimate
2014-15
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 92 772 105 583 114 695 119 813 125 162
Supplier expenses 61 997 63 037 52 567 57 758 59 233
Depreciation and amortisation 10 107 11 569 12 325 10 627 10 672
Finance costs 60 57 59 63 63
Write-down and impairment of assets 1 900 0 0 0 0
Total expenses 166 836 180 246 179 646 188 261 195 130
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Own-source revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 15 524 18 326 17 636 18 348 18 360
Interest 3 263 1 986 2 418 2 531 2 654
Other 900 800 800 800 800
Total own-source revenue 19 687 21 112 20 854 21 679 21 814
Total own-source income 19 687 21 112 20 854 21 679 21 814
Net cost of (contribution by) services  147 149  159 134  158 792  166 582  173 316
Revenue from Government 147 708 154 598 159 584 167 047 173 808
Surplus (Deficit) 559 ( 4 536) 792 465 492
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government 559 ( 4 536) 792 465 492
Total comprehensive income attributable to the Australian Government 559 ( 4 536) 792 465 492

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.


Table 3.2.1: Comprehensive income statement (showing net cost of services) (for the period ended 30 June 2010)

Estimated
actual
2009-10
$’000
Budget
estimate
2010-11
$’000
Forward
estimate
2011-12
$’000
Forward
estimate
2012-13
$’000
Forward
estimate
2013-14
$’000
EXPENSES
Employee benefits 85 081 96 802 101 461 105 950 110 728
Suppliers 59 299 63 105 60 288 59 572 62 441
Depreciation and amortisation 9 507 10 159 12 893 12 825 12 613
Total expenses 153 887 170 066 174 642 178 347 185 782
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Revenue
Sale of goods and rendering of services 19 231 17 537 18 084 17 383 18 084
Interest 2 225 1 871 1 986 2 100 2 100
Other 955 800 800 800 800
Total revenue 22 411 20 208 20 870 20 283 20 984
Total own-source income 22 411 20 208 20 870 20 283 20 984
Net cost of (contribution by) services ( 131 476) ( 149 858) ( 153 772) ( 158 064) ( 164 798)
Revenue from Government 129 893 147 425 152 948 158 856 167 263
Surplus (Deficit) ( 1 583) ( 2 433) ( 824) 792 2 465
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the Australian Government ( 1 583) ( 2 433) ( 824) 792 2 465
Total comprehensive income attributable to the Australian Government ( 1 583) ( 2 433) ( 824) 792 2 465

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.


Table 3.2.1: Budgeted departmental comprehensive income statement (for the period ended 30 June 2009)

Estimated
actual
2008-09
$’000
Budget
estimate
2009-10
$’000
Forward
estimate
2010-11
$’000
Forward
estimate
2011-12
$’000
Forward
estimate
2012-13
$’000
EXPENSE
Employees  79 282  83 284  83 668  87 199  90 635
Suppliers  58 457  58 868  57 954  59 367  60 817
Depreciation and amortisation  7 658  10 622  10 609  11 093  11 584
Total operating expenses  145 397  152 774  152 231  157 659  163 036
Borrowing Costs   246   0   0   0   0
Total expenses  145 643  152 774  152 231  157 659  163 036
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Revenue
Goods and services  19 967  22 502  21 038  21 739  22 090
Interest  2 974  1 757  1 871  1 986  2 100
Other  1 060   800   800   800   800
Total revenue  24 001  25 059  23 709  24 525  24 990
Total own-source income  24 001  25 059  23 709  24 525  24 990
Net cost of (contribution by) services  121 642  127 715  128 522  133 134  138 046
Revenue from Government  123 993  127 715  128 522  133 134  138 046
Surplus (Deficit)  2 351   0   0   0   0
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the
Australian Government
 2 351   0   0   0   0
Total comprehensive income   0   0   0   0   0
Total comprehensive income attributable
to the Australian Government
 2 351   0   0   0   0

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.


2.1: Budgeted departmental comprehensive income statement (for the period ended 30 June 2009)

Estimated
actual
2008-09
$’000
Budget
estimate
2009-10
$’000
Forward
estimate
2010-11
$’000
Forward
estimate
2011-12
$’000
Forward
estimate
2012-13
$’000
EXPENSE
Employees  79 282  83 284  83 668  87 199  90 635
Suppliers  58 457  58 868  57 954  59 367  60 817
Depreciation and amortisation  7 658  10 622  10 609  11 093  11 584
Total operating expenses  145 397  152 774  152 231  157 659  163 036
Borrowing Costs   246   0   0   0   0
Total expenses  145 643  152 774  152 231  157 659  163 036
LESS:
OWN-SOURCE INCOME
Revenue
Goods and services  19 967  22 502  21 038  21 739  22 090
Interest  2 974  1 757  1 871  1 986  2 100
Other  1 060   800   800   800   800
Total revenue  24 001  25 059  23 709  24 525  24 990
Total own-source income  24 001  25 059  23 709  24 525  24 990
Net cost of (contribution by) services  121 642  127 715  128 522  133 134  138 046
Revenue from Government  123 993  127 715  128 522  133 134  138 046
Surplus (Deficit)  2 351   0   0   0   0
Surplus (Deficit) attributable to the
Australian Government
 2 351   0   0   0   0
Total comprehensive income   0   0   0   0   0
Total comprehensive income attributable
to the Australian Government
 2 351   0   0   0   0

Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.


Table 3.2.2: Budgeted departmental balance sheet (as at 30 June 2009)

Estimated
actual
2008-09
$’000
Budget
estimate
2009-10
$’000
Forward
estimate
2010-11
$’000
Forward
estimate
2011-12
$’000
Forward
estimate
2012-13
$’000
ASSETS
Financial assets
Cash  3 521  3 521  3 521  3 521  3 521
Receivables  1 594  1 594  1 594  1 594  1 594
Investments  48 701  56 496  62 750  65 946  73 247
Accrued revenues   533   533   533   533   533
Total financial assets  54 349  62 144  68 398  71 594  78 895
Non-financial assets
Land & buildings  1 653  1 551  1 449  1 347  1 245
Infrastructure, plant and equipment  17 132  15 412  13 975  11 330  10 089
Intangibles  26 438  22 419  18 642  19 420  14 873
Inventories   331   331   331   331   331
Other  1 164  1 186  1 209  1 232  1 257
Total non-financial assets  46 718  40 899  35 606  33 660  27 795
Total assets  101 067  103 043  104 004  105 254  106 690
LIABILITIES
Provisions and payables
Employee  21 603  23 623  24 653  25 974  27 360
Suppliers  11 550  12 012  12 492  12 992  13 512
Other  5 903  5 297  4 748  4 177  3 707
Total provisions and payables  39 056  40 932  41 893  43 143  44 579
Total liabilities  39 056  40 932  41 893  43 143  44 579
EQUITY
Retained surpluses  54 948  54 948  54 948  54 948  54 948
Reserves  3 868  3 868  3 868  3 868  3 868
Contributed equity  3 195  3 295  3 295  3 295  3 295
Total equity  62 011  62 111  62 111  62 111  62 111
Total Liability and Equity  101 067  103 043  104 004  105 254  106 690
Current assets  55 844  63 661  69 938  73 157  80 483
Non-current assets  45 223  39 382  34 066  32 097  26 207
Current liabilities  29 373  30 784  31 507  32 447  33 527
Non-current liabilities  9 683  10 148  10 386  10 696  11 052

‘Equity’ is the residual interest in assets after deduction of liabilities.
Prepared on Australian Accounting Standards basis.

#casa 2017 Budget – Missing Money??

The 2017 budget reveals money missing from earlier years, identified on this site in 2010.

Parliament has a sunset clause on this levy, which has now disappeared into consolidated revenue.

#casa refuse to reveal where the money has gone under a FOI request, despite the allocation [Part of FOI reply from RTK site] being for specific purposes, but identify the general areas that the funds were applied and that after 4-years, the extra excise would go into recurrent expenditure.

No reasonable action by #casa here at all.

The $89.9m story:

  1. avgas/ avtur raises $89.9m;
  2. 2014 Budget;
  3. #casa waste in regulatory disaster
  4. #casa and regulatory accuracy

#casa is not supported by the #aviation industry.

And remember, the head mandarin in this is Mike Mrdak of Department of Infrastructure. a master of the “vanishing dollar”

Below is this years 2017 Budget figures supplied this week on the back of Scott Morrison’s budget announcements:

Budget Papers 1

BP2_consolidated

BP3_consolidated

Budget2016-17_BP4


The Avalon display which chewed up vast amounts of scarce #aviation dollars.


Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Table 1.1: Civil Aviation Safety Authority resource statement—Budget estimates for 2017–18 as at Budget May 2017
2016–17
Estimated
actual
$’000
2017–18
Budget$’000
Opening balance/cash reserves at 1 July 63,708 65,831
Funds from Government
Annual appropriations—ordinary annual services (a)
Outcome 1 41,892 41,313
Total annual appropriations 41,892 41,313
Special appropriations (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development)
Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988 121,479 123,084
Total special appropriations 121,479 123,084
Total funds from Government 163,371 164,397
Funds from industry sources
Regulatory service fees 12,917 15,000
Total funds from industry sources 12,917 15,000
Funds from other sources
Interest 1,574 1,600
Sale of goods and services (b) 1,630 1,500
Other 1,740 1,253
Total funds from other sources 4,944 4,353
Total net resourcing 244,940 249,581
2016–17 2017–18
Average staffing level (number) 765 805

Prepared on a resourcing (i.e. appropriations available) basis. All figures shown are GST exclusive—these may not match figures in the cash flow statement.

CASA is not directly appropriated as it is a corporate Commonwealth entity. Appropriations are made to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, which are then paid to CASA and are considered ‘departmental’ for all purposes.

Notes:

  1. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017–18.
  2. Includes revenue from the issuance of ASIC and AVID cards.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Table 1.1: Civil Aviation Safety Authority resource statement—Budget estimates for 2016–17 as at Budget May 2016

2015–16
Estimated
actual
$’000
2016–17
Estimate$’000
Opening balance/cash reserves at 1 July 65,569 51,012
Funds from Government
Annual appropriations—ordinary annual services (a)
Outcome 1 42,461 42,350
Total annual appropriations 42,461 42,350
Special appropriations (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development)
Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988 116,577 121,412
Total special appropriations 116,577 121,412
Total funds from Government 159,038 163,762
Funds from industry sources
Regulatory service fees 14,147 15,000
Total funds from industry sources 14,147 15,000
Funds from other sources
Interest 1,582 1,600
Sale of goods and services (b) 1,500 1,500
Other 1,306 1,178
Total funds from other sources 4,388 4,278
Total net resourcing 243,142 234,052
2015–16 2016–17
Average staffing level (number) 795 805

Prepared on a resourcing (i.e. appropriations available) basis.  All figures shown are GST exclusive—these may not match figures in the cash flow statement.

CASA is not directly appropriated as it is a corporate Commonwealth entity.  Appropriations are made to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, which are then paid to CASA and are considered ‘departmental’ for all purposes.

Notes:

  1. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016–17.
  2. Includes revenue from the issuance of ASIC and AVID cards.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Table 1.1: Entity resource statement—Budget estimates for 2015–16 as at Budget May 2015

Actual
available
appropriation2014–15
$’000
Estimate of
prior year
amount
available in
2015–16
$’000
+ Proposed
at Budget2015–16
$’000
= Total
estimate2015–16
$’000
Opening balance/reserves at bank 66,244 60,243 60,243
REVENUE FROM GOVERNMENT
Ordinary annual services (a)
Outcome 1 42,480 42,461 42,461
Total ordinary annual services  42,480 42,461 42,461
Special appropriations (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development)
Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988—s4 115,048 117,931 117,931
Total special appropriations 115,048 117,931 117,931
Total funds from Government 223,772 60,243 160,392 220,635
FUNDS FROM INDUSTRY SOURCES
Regulatory service fees 14,195 15,285 15,285
Total 14,195 15,285 15,285
FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES
Interest 1,988 1,581 1,581
Sale of goods and services (b) 1,535 1,500 1,500
Other 364 1,376 1,376
Total 3,887 4,457 4,457
Total net resourcing 241,854 60,243 180,134 240,377

All figures are GST exclusive.

CASA is not directly appropriated as it is a corporate Commonwealth entity. Appropriations are made to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, which are then paid to CASA and are considered ‘departmental’ for all purposes.

Notes:

  1. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015–16.
  2. Includes revenue from the issuance of Aviation Security Identification Cards (ASIC) and Aviation Verification of Identity (AVID) cards.

 Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Table 1.1: Agency resource statement – Budget estimates for 2010-11 as at Budget May 2010

Estimate of
prior year
amounts
available in
2010-11
$’000
+ Proposed at
Budget2010-11
$’000
= Total
estimate2010-11
$’000
Actual
available
appropriation2009-10
$’000
Opening Balance/Reserves at Bank  49 346   0  49 346  48 026
REVENUE FROM GOVERNMENT
Ordinary Annual Services(a)
Outcome 1  42 779  42 779  50 125
Total ordinary annual services   42 779  42 779  50 125
Other services(b)
Non-Operating   0   0   100
Total other services    0   0   100
Total Annual Appropriations  42 779  42 779  50 225
Special Appropriations
Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special
Appropriation) Act 1988 – s4
 104 646  104 646  79 768
Total Special Appropriations  104 646  104 646  79 768
Payments from related entities
Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Local
Government
  740   740  1 700
Total   740   740  1 700
Funds from industry sources
Regulatory service fees  15 000  15 000  12 000
Total  15 000  15 000  12 000
Funds from other sources
Interest  1 871  1 871  2 225
Sale of goods and services(c)  1 797  1 797  5 531
Other   800   800   955
Total  4 468  4 468  8 711
Total net resourcing  49 346  167 633  216 979  200 430

All figures are GST exclusive.

CASA is not directly appropriated as it is a CAC Act body.  Appropriations are made to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government which are then paid to CASA and are considered departmental for all purposes.

Notes:

  1. Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2010-11.
  2. Appropriation Bill (No.2) 2010-11.
  3. Includes revenue from cost recovery arrangements (Airservices Australia) in 2009-10 and ongoing revenue from the issuance ASICs/AVIDs cards.

 CASA budget maintained due to ‘complexity’ of drones

The government has cited the growth of low-cost carriers and drones in keeping the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s funding arrangements in place despite a major review.

Tuesday’s budget papers are likely to reignite debate about the funding strategy for CASA, which has been in place for years, as there has been talk of a different model but nothing yet has come of that.

“CASA funding arrangements have been recently reviewed and government has agreed for the current funding arrangements to remain in place for 2017-18, noting that there is increasing pressure on CASA’s budget with the demands arising from the growth of new international and low-cost carriers, together with the continued rapid growth and complexity of drones,” the budget papers say.

“These pressures will need to be monitored.”

The aviation safety watchdog is funded through a 3.556c per litre excise on aviation fuel consumed by domestic aircraft (but not international flights), a yearly allocation from the government and fees for regulator services.

But a key issue for the CASA board has been the volatility of the aviation fuel excise as a major source of money.

CASA chairman Jeff Boyd has previously said he would like to see international flights contribute via the fuel excise.

Last year an alliance of major aviation associations called for a new funding model for the watchdog. CASA received a big funding boost in 2010 through a rise in fuel excise rates after the 2009 aviation white paper backed concerns about the pace of reform at the body.

The budget papers show that CASA expects to recruit to return to its average staffing level of 805 in 2017-18, up from 765 in 2016-17. The watchdog will continue to run an operating surplus. CASA has had to budget for pay rises because of its enterprise agreement and expects its employee expenses to rise from $114.7 million in 2016-17 to $122.3m in 2017-18.

The budget papers also show a funding boost of $11.9m over five years from 2016-17 for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.


16th June 2010:  

Comment from a blog site

Albanese to introduce a new AVGAS TAX

Just heard from question time in The House Of representatives, Albanese justifies a proposed .285c to .324c increase in Avgas excise to fund CASA.

Cites GA is growing?
PVT aircraft ownership is growing?
Helicopter operations are growing?

As an aside he said “GA represents a “huge” risk to aviation safety/ security.

Can we read that as GA is to future fund CASA and not the bums on seats of Kero burning RPT?

Has anybody asked what planet this “Minister” comes from?

It’s just another nail in the coffin.


 

12-years on from Lockhart River

We must never lose sight of the matters surrounding Lockhart River.

  • A complacent and defective regulator – #casa;
  • A poor and incompetent investigator – #atsb;
  • Uncovered facts from the crash;
  • Refusal by the regulator to provide information in a fair and unfettered manner;
  • An aircraft [VH-TFU] that was not suitable to be used as a low capacity RPT aircraft, two pilot;
  • An organisation [AeroTropics] who did not have a proper licence to operate;
  • Government quango’s prepared to give false, or at very least misleading evidence [Senate Inquiry];

  • An airservice provider who had at very least, a poor GPS design process;
  • Dodgy GPS information likely derived by the pilot both before the fateful day and before;
  • Unreported deficiencies in the aircraft over a period of time that were ignored by #casa.

Lockhart River 10-years on

New research and findings

Are #atsb doing their job?

Deficient reports into Lockhart River and other accidents by #atsb

Abysmal performance supported by successive Ministers – Truss, Albanese, Chester

And to all those families and individuals affected on 7th May 2005, we offer our sincere thoughts.


We must not forget:

#Pelair in November

#Mildura in July

#MH370

 

 

Department does not hold logs of #casa communications

It really surprises me that a recent FOI on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development showed [see below] that there is no oversight and cross checking as to communications between #casa and DIRD.

To go to the history of FOI’s and #casa, there is an interesting post made in 2012, which says, in part, #casa do not take FOI’s seriously, more determining that a FOI is for avoidance rather than showing any sort of transparency.

And of course, the FOI log that must be kept by #casa

On the #casa website, it says:

“…..CASA is required by the Freedom of Information Act 1982 s11C to publish a disclosure log on its website.  The disclosure log lists information which has been released in response to an FOI access request.  This requirement has applied since 1 May 2011…..”

Yet there is only one entry for 2016 and 2017 in the log


Freedom of Information request:

“……..Communications between DIRD and CASA in 2015…”

“………… made this Freedom of Information request to Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

I would appreciate a list of:

1. Documents and communications sent to DIRD from CASA;

2. Documents and communications sent from DIRD to CASA

between January 2015 and December 2015

In reply, DIRD refused saying:

“…………The two most pertinent aspects of this practical refusal reason were:

1) The Department does not keep “logs” of email communications.
2) In order to create such a document we would need to search the email of every employee and every section to identify documents that may be relevant, which is an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources………….”

 

#casa noise and the March missive

Reading the attached March missive shows just how disengaged #casa are from the #aviation industry.

The issues that really concern us are not even canvassed eg. the #ASRR implementation.

Mo monthly updates, just consign the #ASRR to the waste paper bucket, as in the #casa annual report, where no KPI’s were used to justify how this is being pushed to the edge of the “flat earth” version according to the dysfunctional regulator – #casa.

For Carmody to make statements such as:

We are committed to expanding opportunities for the Australian aviation industry by keeping regulatory burdens as light as possible while maintaining our enviable safety record. 

is an absolute nonsense.

AND the #avmed saga continues with justifications as below:

“…..The project is consistent with updated International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended Practices which provide a role for safety regulators in aviation health promotion and preventative health care. 

Other health areas that may be examined in the future include obesity, sleep apnoea and pterygia – growths on the eye which have been linked to exposure to ultraviolet light…..”

A clear #avmed process is what is required, not more of the same rubbish that we saw under Navarthe, where proper protocols were abandoned. Remember, Drane is in the same mould as Navarthe.

AND the GAAG:

Minister Chester is reported as saying: “….He reiterated that the aviation sector should develop strategies to attract young people, including more women, into the industry….”

Without good and proper regulations, #aviation cannot do this. This was the finding of David Forsyth and the #ASRR report.


CASA Briefing

From acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody

An important milestone in Australian aviation was reached this month.  Australia and the United States signed off on amendments to our bilateral aviation safety agreement which make Australian access to the lucrative American aviation market cheaper and easier.  The changes will benefit Australian aviation parts and products designers and manufacturers, as well as people and companies that export aircraft and aircraft products to the United States.  In a range of circumstances these amendments allow for easier acceptance by the US Federal Aviation Administration of CASA supplemental type certificates and associated Australian authorised release certificates. The changes will deliver a significant financial boost for a number of sectors of the Australian aviation industry, including small design organisations, parts suppliers and large airlines.  New opportunities will be created to sell existing designs and products and to grow business.  Importantly, costs are reduced without compromising safety.

CASA will continue to work with other like-minded safety regulators around the world to develop and improve arrangements that can benefit Australian aviation.  We are committed to expanding opportunities for the Australian aviation industry by keeping regulatory burdens as light as possible while maintaining our enviable safety record.  Developing and improving these kinds of arrangements is a process of negotiation and co-operation between regulatory partners that takes time and patience, but the results can yield big rewards.  I would like to thank everyone who worked on the changes to the bilateral agreement with the United States, including a number of people from the aviation industry.

Best wishes
Shane Carmody

A photograph of Shane Carmody Acting Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety

Spectacular new safety video for VFR pilots

A spectacular new aviation safety video mini-series for visual flight rules and recreational pilots has been released.  The ten part series covers a 3350 nautical mile trip from western NSW, through outback Queensland to Cape York, down the Queensland coast and back across country to Bathurst.  The journey provides a hands-on explanation of nearly 30 safety topics critical to all stages of flight.  These include knowing your aircraft, weight and balance, fuel management, remote flying, fatigue management, radio calls, ageing aircraft, bird strikes, remotely piloted aircraft, emergency procedures and electronic flight bags.  The safety information is delivered during interviews with local aviation people with expertise in each topic.  Those interviewed include people with experience in outback flying, remote aerodrome refuellers, a Royal Flying Doctor Service representative, an air traffic controller, local pilots, a helicopter mustering pilot and a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer.  There are also several interviews with CASA personnel covering CASA activities in regional areas.  The ten online videos feature stunning footage taken from cameras mounted on a Cessna 172 flown by chief flying instructor Catherine Fitzsimons.  Out-n-Back series two are must see videos for all pilots who appreciate the spectacle and enjoyment of flight across Australia.

Watch Out-n-Back series two now.

Work to find risks to pilot health

An important initiative aimed at improving the understanding of the health of pilots has been launched.  The Queensland Institute of Medical Research approached CASA about a collaborative project with air operators to identify medical risk areas in the pilot population.  CASA’s principal medical officer, Dr Michael Drane, says data will be drawn from within CASA’s medical records system, which contains a “treasure trove” of longitudinal medical data dating back to the 1990’s.  Dr Drane says: “This data, which does not identify individuals, can be used to pinpoint medical problems and how they have developed in the pilot population by applying a scientific method to this unique occupational group.  We can then be ahead of the game in identifying risk areas, looking to reduce risks and in prevention.  A number of projects are being considered, with one of the first areas to be studied being the skin cancer melanoma and the increased incidence in pilots.  The aviation environment may be contributing to melanoma risks and we are looking to understand the nature of this illness in aviation.”  The project is consistent with updated International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended Practices which provide a role for safety regulators in aviation health promotion and preventative health care.  Other health areas that may be examined in the future include obesity, sleep apnoea and pterygia – growths on the eye which have been linked to exposure to ultraviolet light.

Comment now on class G frequencies

All pilots are being urged to have their say on the most appropriate radio frequency to use at low levels in uncontrolled airspace.  A discussion paper has been issued setting out two options for radio broadcasts in the vicinity of aerodromes in class G airspace that are not marked on aeronautical charts.  The options are to use the appropriate area frequency or the MULTICOM frequency 126.7.  This issue impacts all pilots that fly in uncontrolled airspace and CASA is calling for a wide response to the discussion paper.  The discussion paper sets out detailed arguments and safety assessments for both options, as well as looking at overseas practice.  CASA’s acting CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said there were various views on the issue and it is time to determine the best outcome in the interests of aviation safety.  Mr Carmody said: “To do that we need all pilots to send us their comments now.  We want to hear from recreational pilots, private pilots, commercial pilots, aerial work operators and airline flight crew.  CASA will not make a final decision on the class G frequency issue until we carefully review all feedback and publish a summary of the results of the consultation.”

Go to the class G radio frequency discussion paper and comment before 28 April 2017.

Drones on the up and up

The number of drones in the Australian sky is growing rapidly.  Tens of thousands of people now fly drones for fun and thousands more are in commercial and aerial work operations.  There are now more than 950 holders of remotely piloted aircraft operator’s certificates and nearly 4000 people have notified CASA of their intention to operate in the new under two kilogram commercial category.  There are more than 4600 people who hold a remote pilot licence, which authorises them to fly for certified remotely piloted aircraft operators.  In 2013 there were 60 certified remotely piloted aircraft operators and 166 remote pilot licence holders.  With all this growth in drone operations there inevitably comes a level of complaints or reports of potentially unsafe operations.  To streamline the reporting of complaints and incidents CASA has set up an online form to capture the essential information required for a potential investigation.  The form asks for available evidence such as images or videos, the date, time and location of the incident, identification details of the drone and the identity of the drone pilot.  It is made clear that for an investigation to take place CASA must have sufficient evidence of a potential breach of the drone safety regulations, as well as evidence of the person controlling the drone at the time.

Always report unsafe drone operations using the complaint form.

Government GA advisory group meets

The federal government’s new General Aviation Advisory Group met for the first time in March 2017.  There was discussion about a range of key issues including the classification of operations, levels of flying activity, skills and training, and regulatory reform.  The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester attended the meeting in Canberra and said direct engagement between the industry and the government was key to achieving the common goal of a safe, growing and sustainable aviation industry.  “The General Aviation Advisory Group will ensure the industry has a voice at the heart of Government by providing advice directly to me on matters affecting the general aviation sector,” Mr Chester said.  He reiterated that the aviation sector should develop strategies to attract young people, including more women, into the industry.  The Group received a briefing from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics on the progress of the General Aviation Study and members provided initial comments to inform the study going forward.  The Group also agreed on its terms of reference and operating protocols.  “I look forward to working with the General Aviation Advisory Group to address the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead for the sector in Australia,” Mr Chester said

Find out more about the General Aviation Study.

Safety seminars for pilots on now

CASA is holding seven safety seminars for pilots around the nation during April 2017. Lessons for life seminars are scheduled at Derby, Broome, Dubbo, Mudgee, Bathurst, Geraldton and Maitland – York Peninsula.  These seminars will focus on fuel management and handling partial power loss in a single engine aircraft.  Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation reports nominate these issues as the cause of a high number of accidents.  Lessons will be learnt from accidents, with everyone asked to consider how the accident could have been avoided.  Other issues may be discussed such as electronic flight bags, regulatory changes, correct procedures to follow at non-controlled aerodromes and the requirements for automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast.  The seminars also provide an important opportunity for pilots to give feedback and suggestions to CASA.

Book your place for an AvSafety Seminar now.

Seminar in Broome for engineers

An engineering safety seminar is being held in Broome on 4 April 2017.  The seminar is aimed at people in airworthiness roles such as engineers, the head of aircraft airworthiness and maintenance, continuing airworthiness management, air operators and training organisations.  CASA aims to support the professional development of people in these safety critical roles by providing access to the latest best practice, information and resources.  Importantly the seminar will also provide the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues with CASA.  Topics covered will include the maintenance responsibilities of the registered operator, registration holder, responsible manager, aircraft owner and licensed aircraft maintenance engineer; defect reporting; tool control; and the Part 64 review.  Part 64 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations covers the requirements needed for an authorisation to operate an aeronautical radio or the authority to taxi an aeroplane.

Book a place at Broome engineering seminar.

Time to comment on maintenance engineer licence regs

Everyone in the aircraft maintenance sector is being urged to have their say on issues relating to maintenance engineer licences and ratings.  CASA is seeking comments to inform a review of Part 66 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, the Part 66 Manual of Standards and associated advisory material.  Part 66 covers aircraft maintenance engineer licensing.  The review is seeking to reduce the complexity of the maintenance licensing regulations and standards, fix anomalies and unintended consequences, remove ambiguities and provide a more progressive licensing system that includes a small aircraft licence.  It will also ensure the regulations are optimised to support the required competency outcomes and improve the way privileges are stated on licences to provide clarity. The introduction of a proposed new small aircraft maintenance licensing structure, which was to have started on 4 July 2016, has been postponed while the review is underway.  This follows requests from maintenance training organisations and aviation representative groups.  While the review is being conducted people can still gain an aircraft engineer licence for the maintenance of small aircraft using the CASA basics examinations and schedule of experience system.

Comment on the maintenance licensing review by 26 May 2017.

#atsb preliminary report into B200 Essendon crash released

#atsb preliminary report into B200 Essendon crash released today.

SMH report below.

A lot of work yet to determine the causal links in this accident.

Earlier reprot on Essendon accident


No engine failure on Essendon crash plane before impact: investigators

 Tom Cowie

  • Tom Cowie
    Both engines on a light plane that crashed into an Essendon shopping centre killing all five people on board appeared to have been working before impact, a crash report has found.

Investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau have been sifting through the wreckage of the Beechcraft King Air B200, which crashed shortly after take-off at Essendon Airport on February 21.

 

Investigators at the site of the Essendon plane crash. Photo: Joe Armao

Pilot Max Quartermain, 63, made seven mayday calls before the crash, according to air traffic control records. The doomed flight lasted just nine seconds.

The plane was bound for King Island for a golf trip when it smashed into the roof of the DFO shopping centre next to the Tullamarine Freeway. Four American passengers on board were also killed.

 

Aircraft track from Airservices Australia data.Aircraft track from Airservices Australia data. Photo: ATSB

A preliminary report released on Wednesday found that the cores of both the plane’s engines had been rotating before the crash and that there was no evidence of pre-impact failure of their internal components.

“On-site examination of the wreckage did not identify any pre-existing faults with the aircraft that could have contributed to the accident,” the report said.

The engines were also removed from the scene where they were disassembled and examined at a secure facility with the assistance of the engine manufacturer.

At the time of the crash, police suspected that “catastrophic engine failure” was the cause of the disaster. Mr Quartermain was being investigated over a “near collision” with another plane on Mount Hotham in September 2015.

 

 

The plane’s propellers were also inspected and showed evidence of rotation, the safety bureau said.

The components have been retained for further testing.

 

 

The plane’s cockpit voice recorder, which could have held vital clues to the crash, was recovered, but it had not recorded the flight.

The safety bureau said it was investigating the reasons for the recording failure.

 

 

Investigation of air traffic control radio traffic revealed Mr Quartermain’s multiple mayday calls but no other information about the nature of the emergency was broadcast.

In trying to piece together the circumstances of the crash, investigators also detailed the plane’s last movements moments before impact.

Witnesses familiar with the aircraft told investigators that the plane’s take-off along the runway was longer than normal. When it became airborne it was observed to twist left.

Data indicated the aircraft reached approximately 160 ft (49 metres) above the ground as it tracked left before hitting the shopping centre.

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood said that while investigators were diligently assessing the physical and digital evidence, the considerable damage to the aircraft was presenting challenges.

“The extensive damage caused by the collision and post-impact fire has meant investigators are yet to determine a clear picture of the causal factors behind the accident and loss of life,” he said.

“I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of those on board the aircraft. Every effort is being made to determine the cause of this tragic accident.”

The investigation will continue, focusing on a number of factors, including the pilot’s medical and flight history, a review of the building’s approval process, and the aircraft’s maintenance and operational records.

The final report is due in February 2018.

Do other #aviation Investigators direct the regulator?

Do other #aviation Investigators direct the regulator? is a reasonable question.

This is particularly after the REX loss of propeller incident last week and the #Mildura incident – almost four years ago [when two 737 aircraft ended up at Mildura due to incorrect data being fed to the weather provider and the lack of information from #airservices].

Answer is: NO

Other images from propeller recovery

Of course, there is the #pelair and Lockhart River accidents, which did not go to specific SR’s by #atsb.

I found a specific report by #NTSB in 1991 which is relevant, where the #FAA is named in the causal links of the accident.


NTSB admonishes the FAA:

…. The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the loss of control in flight as a result of a malfunction of the left engine propeller control unit which allowed the propeller blade angles to go below the flight idle position. Contributing to the accident was the deficient design of the propeller control unit by Hamilton Standard and the approval of the design by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The design did not correctly evaluate the failure mode that occurred during this flight, which resulted in an uncommanded and uncorrectable movement of the blades of the airplane’s left propeller below the flight idle position……

From: Embraer loss of control in 1991

 


#casa expectations by Minister Chester demonstrates his lack of #aviation knowledge

The Ministers “direction to the #casa Board is a joke and demonstrates his complete lack of understanding for #aviation.

The Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019 is attached below.

This statement has:

  • Has no KPIs;
  • No deadlines;
  • No specifics such as medical reform;
  • No aim point for fixing Part 61 or
  • Other defective Parts;
  • Does not flag changes to CAAct especially s9A;
  • Does not fix the Code of Conduct to mirror Public Service penal requirements;
  • #ASRR not directed to follow exactly the Forsyth review;

AND the #aviation industry needs:

  • Full use of  the FAR’s;
  • Immediate return to “Rule of Law” not Rule by regulation

In the words of a long term industry participant, the present structure is a joke, hugely expensive [over $400m for a defective set of regulations] and continues with it’s outrageous set of micro control strict liability criminal sanction regulations that are sinking GA .

The Minister must be held responsible, in palming off the governance to an independent body that has practically no accountability and whose main preoccupation is make work and higher salaries.

This can never work in this form and the industry will continue in the doldrums.


#casa at #avalon shows the contempt for industry in building an edifice to themselves


  • F2017L00288
  • In force – Latest Version

Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019

I, Darren Chester, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, make the following instrument.

Dated   21   March 2017

Darren Chester

Minister for Infrastructure

and Transport

Overview

This instrument is known as the Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the Period 27 March 2017 to 30 June 2019.

This instrument commences on 27 March 2017 and expires at the end of 30 June 2019 as if it had been repealed by another instrument.

This instrument repeals the previous Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015 and the Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 16 April 2015 to 30 June 2017.

This instrument puts in place a new Statement of Expectations (SOE) which serves as a notice to the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act).

This new SOE outlines in a formal and public way, the Government’s expectations concerning the operations and performance of CASA.

CASA should perform its functions in accordance with the Act, the Airspace Act 2007 and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as well as other relevant legislation.

CASA should maintain high standards of professionalism, service, probity, reporting, accountability and transparency, consistent with the provisions of the PGPA Act and have a code of conduct and values consistent with those used by the Australian Public Service. I expect CASA to operate as a world leading aviation safety regulator, backed by a workforce with the requisite skills and capabilities.

Governance

I expect that the Board and the Director of Aviation Safety (DAS) will work together to enable the effective operation of CASA as the national aviation safety regulator.

The Board is responsible for the matters set out in the Act, including in particular CASA’s strategic direction, risk management and corporate planning.

In addition, I expect the Board to ensure that CASA makes progress on strategic priorities, in particular the categorisation of operations, emerging risks in aviation such as remotely piloted aircraft systems, and amendments to regulations and other statutory instruments.

I also expect the Board to facilitate effective interaction between CASA and the industry.

Subject to the Act, I expect the DAS, as the Chief Executive Officer of CASA, to be responsible for managing the operations of CASA, its organisational capacity (including recruitment and training) and the exercise of its statutory functions, such as the development and implementation of regulation, executive-decision making, and all day-to-day operational, financial, personnel and administrative activities.

 Regulatory Approach

In terms of its regulatory approach, my expectation is that CASA will:

(a)   continue to focus on aviation safety as the highest priority;

(b)   consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes;

(c)   take a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies to different industry sectors having regard to risk; and

(d)  implement its regulatory philosophy, with the philosophy being reflected in relevant policies, procedures, manuals, and when CASA personnel are carrying out their day-to-day operations.

Key Aviation Initiatives

I expect CASA, in conducting its responsibilities as the aviation safety regulator, to have regard to the following key aviation initiatives:

(a)   changes taking place in relation to air traffic services, including Airservices Australia’s (Airservices) new operating model and the transition to a new air traffic management system under the OneSKY Project;

(b)   workforce planning, including ensuring CASA’s training and recruitment strategies provide the organisation with the skills and expertise to meet the current and emerging challenges in aviation safety regulation;

(c)   the appropriate sharing and use of safety information by CASA consistent with the Safety Information Policy Statement agreed with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and informed by ‘just culture’ principles;

(d)  completing implementation of the remaining parts of the Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, including actively progressing regulatory reform in consultation with industry and supported by appropriate safety cases;

(e)   implementation of the recommendations of the review of the operations and functions of the Office of Airspace Regulation;

(f)   working with Airservices and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Department) on enhancing the level of controlled airspace in Australian airspace including at major regional airports; and

(g)   strengthening international and Asia-Pacific regional aviation safety engagement through:

  • ­    establishment of appropriate mutual recognition arrangements;
  • ­    support of the Government’s aviation safety initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region; and
  • ­    commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding between CASA, the Department and Airservices, regarding the management of Australia’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) responsibilities.

Stakeholder Engagement

  • I expect that in performing its functions CASA will:

(a)   undertake effective and ongoing engagement with the aviation industry to create a collaborative relationship between CASA and industry based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect;

(b)   consider recommendations by the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) about systemic issues arising from the ICC’s investigations;

(c)   communicate regularly with relevant Government agencies, industry and other key stakeholders regarding CASA’s activities and functions;

(d)  keep the Secretary of the Department and me fully informed of CASA’s actions in relation to the requirements stated in this SOE, and promptly advise about any events or issues that may impact on the operations of CASA, including through the provision of timely quarterly progress reports from the Board against the Corporate Plan; and

(e)   work closely with the Department and other Government agencies, including the ATSB, Airservices and the Department of Defence, to deliver integrated and comprehensive safety advice to the Government, the aviation industry and the community.