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.

Ministerial challenge – Revitalise #aviation by cutting red-tape

Is there another way?

Not long after Trump became US President, he made an instruction to the FAA for every new regulation, to remove two regulations.

On 25th April 2015, this publication said:

Red Tape reduction by CASA

What an amazing article by CASA [in full below]

We have spoken [the aviation industry], using an independent umpire in the David Forsyth and the ASRR.

CASA need to listen to the Aviation Industry and act now, without attempts to divert the umpire’s decision.

The industry doesn’t need to give CASA further time.

The answer is quite simple, dump all the “junk regulations” that you [CASA] have made up, such as part 61, part 141 [and on] which will not and do not work.

No matter what you do to “…fix it…”, the industry complaints will continue.

There is a perfectly good set of workable regulations either across the ditch [in New Zealand] or further afield with the US-FAR’s. This usage was the preferred option in the ASRR review by industry.

Would save a lot of angst and time and cost.

So far, no change in the past two and a half years

What of the situation in the US??


Australia Needs A One In Two Out Rule


Australia Needs A One In Two Out Rule

Share:              Print this pageEmail to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on Pinterest

Today the Institute of Public Affairs released a new research report, Reducing Red Tape in Australia: ‘One in, Two Out’ Rule. The research found Australia would have 107,885 fewer pages of regulation and 6,990 fewer rules today if a one-in-two-out rule was implemented when the Coalition formed Government in September 2013.

This comes after United States President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January requiring every agency that introduces a new regulation to find two existing regulations to cut.

“Red tape is one of the primary factors holding back prosperity in Australia. A structured approach to reducing red tape is needed and a one-in-two-out approach is the best way to do this,” said Daniel Wild, research fellow with the free market think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs.

“Countries around the world have dedicated regulatory reform programs. But it is noticeably absent in Australia. This makes us less competitive and hinders our ability to attract international investment.”

“My main concern is the cumulative effect regulation has on our economy. It is just far too easy for government agencies to implement new rules without thinking about how this adds to the total stock of regulation. We need to a process that forces government agencies to think twice before they regulation.”

“Research by the Institute of Public Affairs found red tape costs Australian individuals, families and businesses $176 billion in forgone economic output each year. A dedicated and revitalised red-tape reduction agenda is needed to reduce this imposition on our economy.”
“Reducing red tape will reduce barriers to business entry, lower prices for consumers, increase competition and improve economic growth. This is extra growth will result in the Federal Government collecting more revenue, which will improve the Budget position,” said Mr Wild.

Drones and Queensland aviation

The Qld government seeks input on drones

Here is an opportunity to put a submission in from the #aviation view point.

A short viewpoint on sub-2kg drones, which seem to be the aim point of this review.

As you are all aware there is a current Senate inquiry into drone due to report shortly. I believe this QLD report is premature.

 

 

 

 


Written submissions

You can have your say by making a written submission via:

Email
drones@premiers.qld.gov.au

Post
Queensland Drones Strategy Consultation
Strategic Policy
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
PO Box 15185
City East QLD 4002

Consultation on the strategy closes 6 October 2017.


Policy Document for comment by 6th October 2017

Qld govt seeks input on drones

Big picture: Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk wants a whole-of-government drone strategy

The Queensland government is inviting industry, researchers and communities to make submissions about how the state can grow its local drone industry through the release of the Queensland Drones Strategy Consultation Paper.

The paper – the first of its kind in Australia – is part of the state’s plan to implement a whole-of-government strategy to address opportunities and regulatory challenges faced by the drone industry.

The move has been welcomed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the department that has been responsible for regulating the country’s aerial drone safety laws to date, and which says Queensland is home to approximately 25 per cent of the total certified operators across Australia.

“We are supportive of the drone industry, so welcome any developments. Of course, safety must come first,” a CASA spokesperson said.

The Queensland government assured safety and security around protecting privacy rights will be a critical priority that it will address as part of the process.

The paper outlined five key objectives that the government wants to achieve for the local drone industry:

  • Increase industry, research and workforce capabilities
  • Improve government service delivery capabilities including developing a drone policy and enhance emergency services for remote communities
  • Increase research and development
  • Attract new national and international investment
  • Develop and support community-friendly drones policies

“Our whole-of-government Drones Strategy will be the first of its kind in Australia, and will help to ensure we have the right policies and programs in place to back future technologies and create jobs,” Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said in a statement.

“To ensure we get it right, we need everyone to have their say – business, industry, research and the community.

“We need to ensure industry can thrive, our research and development opportunities are maximised, our rights are protected and investment continues to flow into Queensland.”

The paper also lists the way in which a variety of departments are already using or testing drones, including the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES), which has already provided input into the Drones Strategy.

“Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) is trialling the use of drone technology to further enhance emergency response capabilities and improve personnel safety and situational awareness during emergency incidents, post natural disasters and in preparation for significant events,” a QFES spokesperson said.

“This trial commenced in July 2017, and will run until December 2018, and is taking place in multiple locations across Queensland.

“The trial is intended to inform QFES’ decision making around potential applications for drones and robotics within emergency response and guide the department’s future investment in this technology.”

Consultation closes on 6 October 2017.

Connect with InnovationAus.com

Drone

The following is from the #casa web site and submissions required by 22nd September 2017:

Discussion paper

As part of CASA’s review of drone regulations, we have produced a discussion paper to engage the community and aviation industry on the issues and concerns that have been raised either directly with CASA or indirectly through a number of forums.

This discussion paper presents a range of safety related issues in a way that examines CASA’s approach, associated risks and information about actions by other jurisdictions. It then poses a question to which you are asked to respond and assists by presenting additional information to consider when forming your response.

You can read the discussion paper and provide your responses through our consultation hub. The discussion paper is available for public comment until Friday 22 September 2017.

More information about Part 101 and flying drones in Australia can be found on the our website.


Source of information on drone operation 

MrDak abandons #aviation industry

MrDak abandons #aviation industry and there were a few whimpers going on:

Judicial Inquiry for #casa becomes LNP Queensland policy

MrDak blasts away in the press – maybe in light of the press statement by the Minister below there is a reason for the vitriol

History shows the way – with previous Minister Truss failures

Of course the incumbent CEO’s are in the mix – Carmody of #casa

And the incumbent Mr. Chester cannot be missed in the very public outing as MrDak leaves Infrastructure.


From Steve Hitchen today:

Mike Mrdak’s departure from Infrastructure was announced this week in one of the most curious ways I have ever seen. Minister Darren Chester issued a statement that started out heaping praise on Mrdak and outlining his achievements, without actually saying at anytime that he’s leaving the department. It leaves the industry to assume that from references to “his future role”.

It’s not until the fourth paragraph that we start to understand that he will be the new Secretary for the Department of Communications and the Arts. It’s almost like this was a supplementary to a major announcement that never made it out. Similarly, the statement also never says that Dr Steven Kennedy is to be the new secretary in infrastructure, only that Minister Chester is looking forward to working with him. Let’s hope I have read between the lines properly; I have been thinking of getting better reading glasses.

And now from the jungle drums: it would appear the BITRE GA Study is turning out to be a bit of a hand grenade for the government, although I am sure they would be loathe to characterise it that way. If what I am told is true, it vindicates what the aviation community has been trumpting for years: we have a lot of potential, but we need help to convert that into something kinetic.

How the government chooses to deal with the report is still a mystery, but there is some talk around the traps that real reform could be on the way. Have I said that before … maybe just after the Forsyth Report came out?

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-last-minute-hitch/the-last-minute-hitch-8-september-2017#ZAKCcYWiiIAdpOqR.99


Chester’s statement:

Statement

MEDIA RELEASE

DC257/2017

07 September 2017

Mike Mrdak has been an outstanding Secretary for my Department for more than eight years and I wish him every success in his future role.

Under Mike’s professional leadership, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has helped this government deliver infrastructure projects and programs throughout Australia, which have made a difference in people’s lives.

A feature of his time in office has been the major improvements to the national land transport network and he was instrumental in developing the government’s future infrastructure investment plans for projects such as the Melbourne–Brisbane Inland Rail and Western Sydney Airport.

He has a passion for regional issues and I’m confident his experience with major infrastructure projects will serve him well as the new Secretary for the Department of Communications and the Arts.

I look forward to working with Dr Steven Kennedy, who also has an outstanding record in the public service, as we continue to deliver the government’s record $75 billion infrastructure investment.

#casa KPI’s have no means of measurement

I followed through onto the #casa web site to look at the recently [July, 2017] released corporate plan.

In reading the document, with it’s key section, the measurement of performance, come to the distinct conclusion that #casa must not continue as there is no measurable metric that is given.

From KlipFolio, a metric, in measurement is:

Business Metric is a quantifiable measure that is used to track and assess the status of a specific business process. It’s important to note that business metrics should be employed to address key audiences surrounding a business, such as investors, customers, and different types of employees, such as executives and middle managers.

Every area of business has specific performance metrics that should be monitored – marketers track marketing and social media metrics, such as campaign and program statistics, sales teams monitor sales performance metrics such as new opportunities and leads, and executives look at big picture financial metrics.

Business Metric or Key Performance Indicator? What’s the Difference?

To be effective, business metrics should be compared to established benchmarks or business objectives. This provides valuable context for the values used in the metric and allows business users to better act on the information they are viewing. For instance, $20M sales in Q4 sounds like an impressive figure; however, if you’re Boeing Aircraft, this figure would have you contemplating filing for bankruptcy.

Context allows business metrics to make an impact. In fact, this is where the line between key performance indicators and performance metrics becomes blurry. The difference between the two ultimately comes down this:

  • Business metrics are used to track all areas of business
  • KPIs target critical areas of performance

For example, a metric may monitor website traffic compared to a goal, whereas a KPI would monitor how website traffic contributed to incremental sales.

In the Governments programme, it is specified that:

“there is (sic)………..an appropriate benchmark for regulator performance……………….”

In the KPI’s that #casa specify below, there is no specified metric and the KPA’s and KPI’s cannot be measured. This is a serious deficiency in a pivotal requirement in spending taxpayer funds, or funds drawn fromthe public, in #casa’s case, via excise on AVTUR and AVGAS.

In fact the Colmar Brunton survey, [Part 2 – action plan] which is the first and an independent survey into #casa gave a very desultory view of the regulator.

 

Main results from Colmar Brunton survey

Reading:

  1. #casa Corporate Plan 2015;
  2. #casa 2017 released corporate plan;
  3. Colmar Brunton report on #casa “Health”;
  4. Main Colmar Brunton Action Plan

In the 2017 Corporate Plan #casa say:

CASA will be reporting against five Key Performance Areas (KPAs) in this plan using performance indicators and measures in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Regulator Performance Framework and the PGPA Rule.

These KPAs are:

Aviation safety regulation and service delivery

  1. Industry oversight
  2. Stakeholder engagement
  3. Governance and organisational effectiveness
  4. CASA’s capability and capacity

CASA will measure its success against these KPAs utilising the following 10 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

1. CASA is an effective aviation safety regulator by international standards
2. CASA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of regulated entities *
3. CASA actively contributes to the continuous improvement of the aviation safety regulatory framework *
4. Actions undertaken by CASA are proportionate to the risk being managed *
5. Compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated *
6. CASA is open and transparent in its dealings with regulated entities and all of its stakeholders *
7. Communication with regulated entities and all of CASA’s stakeholders is clear, targeted and effective*
8. Education and promotion deliverables are relevant, timely, effective and appropriately targeted
9. CASA’s governance structures, finance and risk management align with Commonwealth better practice
10. CASA maintains the capability and capacity to effectively deliver aviation safety regulation.

* KPIs required under the Regulator Performance Framework.


Regulator Performance Framework requirements

USING THE KPIs – BETTER PRACTICE

The descriptions accompanying each KPI are intended to demonstrate ways that a regulator may be successfully achieving the KPI, to assist reviewers in formulating an appropriate benchmark for regulator performance. The description of the better practice principles will also help regulators as a guide to future better practice.

MEASURES

The measures of good regulatory performance used in the Framework outline the principles that all regulators should be using to guide the collection of evidence and for review to assess achievement of the KPIs. Whilst not necessarily an exhaustive list, the suggested measures are considered sufficient to enable assessment against the KPIs. It is expected that tailored measures of good regulatory performance, based on these high-level measures, would be adopted to enable comprehensive review of individual regulators and their specific tasks and role.

EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE

The suggested examples of output/activity-based evidence are a starting point for reviewers to determine the evidence that will be used in assessing performance of a regulator. Reviewers should ensure that: all areas considered relevant by the stakeholders are included in the review (to prevent regulators adapting practices to meet indicators whilst neglecting areas that are more difficult to observe) and multiple sources of evidence are used to assess each measure on performance and areas for improvement.


From the document directing how #casa should measure these issues:

Measures of good regulatory performance:

1. Regulators provide guidance and information that is up to date, clear, accessible and concise through media appropriate to the target audience.
2. Regulators consider the impact on regulated entities and engage with industry groups and representatives of the affected stakeholders before changing policies, practices or service standards.
3. Regulators’ decisions and advice are provided in a timely manner, clearly articulating expectations and the underlying reasons for decisions.
4. Regulators’ advice is consistent and supports predictable outcomes.

#casa’s score on this basis:

Item 1: 2/10

Item 2: 1/10

Item 3: 0/10

Item 4: 0/10

Yes I don’t have much faith in #casa as readers know, but to release a “….Corporate Plan…” with no KPI’s just leads to a low score.

AND

Examples given to guide the #casa Board and #casa “Corporate”

Examples of output / activity-based evidence

  1. Percentage of guidance materials that complies with government accessibility guidelines.
  2. Maximum, minimum and average time for decision.
  3. Published timeframes for decision making.
  4. Percentage of decisions accompanied by statement of reasons and advice about relevant review or appeal mechanisms, where appropriate.
  5. Number of policy/standards changes which are preceded by comprehensive engagement with stakeholders.
  6. Approved procedures for communications (including issue-specific scripts if relevant) are available for staff use when interacting with regulated entities.
  7. Advice provided to regulated entities is consistent with communication policies
  8. Demonstrated feedback is sought from stakeholders on guidance and advice provided by the regulator via a wide range of mechanisms, including stakeholder surveys.
  9. Demonstrated mechanisms for responding to stakeholder engagement/complaint

Nothing from #casa like this in their listed KPI’s.

 

Is there a structural problem of support as MrDak hits issues of maybe frustration??

s the public servant, who I have seen “bail out” #casa, #atsb and #airservices starting to crack?

At numerous senate estimates hearings, MrDak has defended the indefensible with #casa in particular being the beneficiary. When McCormick was in the CEO role, a lot of the happenings were in front of the senators and batted away by the ultimate Sir Appleby.

Perhaps it is time for MrDak to go.

Attached are the two articles, see what you think.


Infrastructure boss Mike Mrdak lashes Prime Minister and Cabinet and prime ministers’ offices

Tom McIlroy

  • Tom McIlroy

The boss of the Department of Infrastructure has delivered a blunt assessment of some of Canberra’s most powerful public servants and political staffers, calling out central agencies as dollar-driven policy killers.

In a speech to the Institute of Public Administration in Canberra this week, Mike Mrdak said sending reform proposals to Parliament House or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet early was a sure way to have good policy ideas killed off, arguing line agencies were better placed to deliver development through constructive relationships and cooperation

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development boss Mike Mrdak

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development boss Mike Mrdak Photo: Supplied

The comments have echoed through Canberra’s public service circles, leaving some surprised by the at times undiplomatic tone.

A former PM&C deputy secretary and Commonwealth coordinator-general, Mr Mrdak said more long-term planning and evidence-based decision making was needed to overcome the short focus of governments.

He said “forward-leaning steps” were often needed on infrastructure planning, including sometimes ahead of public opinion.

Mr Mrdak warned reform proposals born in central agencies or prime ministers’ offices often did not serve the public or the states and territories well.

“If you want to see a reform agenda killed early, hand it over to the PMO, PM&C or premier’s departments, and you’ll not see it ever come to fruition,” he said to laugher from the room.

“The only way that you get long-term change and reform is when it’s driven by line agencies and the coordination is done at the centre, but the hard work is done in the line area.

Citing heightened discussion about the Australian constitution during Parliament’s citizenship fiasco, Mr Mrdak said fast electoral cycles and limited political agendas hampered good processes and the public service needed to provide a buffer.

“Electoral cycles are very short, the focus of government tends to be very short.

“We are the continuity and the people who have to understand what the future needs are to provide that long-term advice to government. We must have a view on the right outcome.

“Often governments don’t want to hear our view – and a view is not an opinion. I have lots of opinions, they’re not worth a lot, but my agency and my portfolio has a view about the right outcome for the future. It’s informed by evidence, it’s informed by good long-term research and it is all about what is the right outcome for the challenges facing the country.”

He used the speech to call for line agencies to lead engagement with state governments and experts, because the approach of central agencies including PM&C and Treasury did not facilitate agreement on policy solutions.

“It too quickly moves away from identifying the need for reform and valuing the state contribution, into a discussion around dollars. When you get to the dollars, it is often combative and not cooperative.

“That’s why we need to do much better in how we manage our reform agenda across the public service, both federally and with the states.”

“That’s why line agencies must have a view, because only they have the relationships that make this work,” he said.

And in this morning’s Australian:

 ‘Economic reform a hopeless cause’
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development secretary Mike Mrdak

One of the nation’s most senior public servants has made an ­extraordinary outburst lamenting the inability of state and federal governments to deliver on economic reform, claiming the current public appetite for change is the worst he has seen in three decades in public life.

“I have not known a time in my 30-odd years in public policy when the authority of government, both at the federal and state level, to even raise a reform agenda is so cynically attacked,’’ Michael Mrdak, secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, said, adding that the current environment had made any discussion of reform almost impossible.

He told a forum convened by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia that such an environment made it “very hard as a nation to take hard decisions on the way forward’’.

A day later, in a speech to the Institute of Public Administration in Canberra, the former PM&C deputy secretary and commonwealth co-ordinator-general also criticised the centralisation of decision-making at the state and federal level. “If you want to see a reform agenda killed early, hand it over to the PMO, PM&C or premiers’ departments, and you’ll not see it ever come to fruition,’’ he said, noting it was the responsibility of the bureaucracy to focus on long-term planning and evidence-based decision-making to overcome the short focus of governments.

His comments echo those of Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe, who recently lamented the lack of economic reform in areas including tax, competition, education and the provision and pricing of infrastructure.

Business leaders have also questioned the federal government’s decision to abandon meaningful reform of the tax system after its company tax cuts for big corporations were opposed by Labor and the minor parties.

Mr Mrdak was commenting specifically at the IPA forum on the issue of road funding and whether fuel excise and registration fees should be scrapped and replaced with a system that charges drivers for how much they use the roads.

Transurban, the Australian Automobile Association and the IPA have been pushing road-user pricing as an alternative to the current system of funding new highways with petrol excise.

Dynamic road pricing has been implemented in some of the world’s major cities to ease congestion and improve the efficiency of road networks.

“The people will not get the information they need on an issue as complex as this through a tabloid headline or talkback radio,’’ Mr Mrdak said, before criticising the way “the tabloids’’ consistently portrayed discussions around tolls and road pricing as simply “new taxes’’.

The federal government has committed to hold an independent inquiry on the potential benefits and impacts of road market reform as an opportunity to build consensus within governments, industry and the community.

Mr Mrdak said the debate on road pricing was finally heading in the right direction after too often being “put in the hard basket’’. “This is no longer a theoretical concept, there is practical work happening across the country to provide the baseline information. Things are changing … this is a reform that can have great social and economic benefit,’’ he said.

“We need to recognise for the community that the way we are operating is unsustainable.’’

He applauded Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher, who has announced the government will investigate moves towards road-user pricing to manage congestion. He said Mr Fletcher had been prepared to argue to his colleagues that this micro-economic reform needed to be progressed.

At the same forum, Adrian Dwyer, executive director of policy and research at the federal government’s infrastructure advisory body, Infrastructure Australia, urged the government to introduce a road-pricing mechanism on electric cars before their uptake increased.

Stressing his comments did not represent official IA policy, he said the move was not about imposing a new tax on electric vehicles. Rather it was about moving to a fairer and more sustainable system of funding.

Retiring Infrastructure Australia chairman Mark Birrell echoed Mr Dwyer’s concerns about electric cars, telling the forum “the owner of a Tesla electric car pays no fuel excise at all, yet he or she shares the road with motorists paying hundreds of dollars a year in a tax that is meant to fund road maintenance’’.

Carmody called out in failing to understand Aviation.

The latest Australian Flying has a Letter-to-the-Editor which calls into doubt the way Shane Carmody is “…doing business…” It seems that “….nothing to see here…” reigns supreme and he still does not “get aviation”.

 

Questions being asked Shane Carmody

 


The Editor,
Australian Flying,

Dear Sir,

I have this month’s copy of Australian Flying, which I enjoy greatly, however, the article at page 77 by new CASA CEO Shane Carmody demonstrates just how out of touch CASA is with the industry.

I have been a keen observer of the relationship of the aviation industry and been to “Safety Seminars” around Australia over the past 20 years, since commencing my aviation licence training.

At each of these seminars and in seeking information from CASA by FOI, letter, phone call or personal representation, I have found an organisation unwilling to engage with industry.

A regulator who cannot even make out a safety case for a particular proposal such as the “cable issue”.

A regulator who relies on the Act at section 9 to justify an action or inaction rather than providing risk management protocols.

The industry is in a parlous situation and it needs proper action and industry involvement, not micro management and poor regulations such as the infamous Part 61.

A bunch of expensive videos don’t cut the mustard.

Name withheld


Is #casa testing the water over private pilots??

One of the most active areas of #aviation, with no comment from CEO Carmody, but a lot of noise from Peter Gibson, who routinely gets it wrong.

The Australian this morning has a report on the matter.

It seems though, it is a “….water testing….” moment by the regulator.

As Margaret Pagani says “……the charity already sought stronger-than-­required CASA standards for its volunteer pilots, including at least 250 hours in command experience. ……….”

AND:  “We have 3200 registered pilots; five to six times more than CASA requires for private pilots in a private flight, all documents are checked including current insurance and $10m public liability.

We cant do anything but rely on CASA’s standards.’’


CASA to re-examine charity flight standard

Investigators examine the site of the plane crash at Mount Gambier this year. Picture: Tom Huntley.
Investigators examine the site of the plane crash at Mount Gambier this year. Picture: Tom Huntley.
  • The Australian

Two fatal Angel Flights in six years have prompted Australia’s civil aviation safety regulator to re-examine standards for community service flight providers.

The review was prompted by the June 28 crash of an Angel Flight near Mount Gambier airport that killed private pilot Grant Gilbert, 78 and his passengers Emily Redding, 16, and her mother Tracy Redding, 43 who were on their way to a medical appointment in Adelaide.

It was the second doomed Angel Flight, after experienced volunteer pilot Don Kernot and passengers Julie and Jacinda Twigg, died in August 2011 when their plane crashed in country Victoria on a return flight from Melbourne to Nhill.

Jacinda, 15, was being treated for juvenile arthritis in Melbourne and was returning to her home near Nhill, when the plane came down in poor weather.

Angel Flight Australia is a charity that co-ordinates non-emergency flights to help rural Australians to access city medical services, providing almost 22,000 flights since 2003.

Prompted by the 2011 crash, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority toughened regulations for the sector in 2014, saying the status quo, where any aircraft could be used by any privately licensed pilot, was not “sound safety regulation”. Although it pushed for the charity to self-regulate — including overseeing pilot training, regular pilot checks and aircraft approvals — strong resistance from Angel Flight and its regional supporters prompted any proposed changes to be shelved.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the discussion was now being revisited. “CASA is looking at the safety issues relating to community service flights in the wake of the tragic accident at Mount Gambier,” he said. “However, given the (Air Transport Safety Bureau’s) full analysis will not be available for some months, it is too early to comment on the accident itself or any factors that may have caused the accident.

“As a prudent regulator, CASA always reviews safety issues following serious accidents.”

Angel Flight chief executive Marjorie Pagani said the charity already sought stronger-than-­required CASA standards for its volunteer pilots, including at least 250 hours in command experience. Any changes to regulations on community service flights was the responsibility of CASA.

“We’re happy to co-operate with CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau,” Ms ­Pagani said. “We have 3200 registered pilots; five to six times more than CASA requires for private pilots in a private flight, all documents are checked including current insurance and $10m public liability. We cant do anything but rely on CASA’s standards.’’

The Nhill pilot, Mr Kernot, had 6000 hours in command and Mr Gilbert had “well in excess” of 250 hours.

Ms Pagani said the Mr Gambier crash had not damaged Angel Flight’s reputation. “The support that we had from people in the community, from the passengers from pilots has been nothing short of amazing. The general tenor is this is a tragedy, but please don’t stop,’’ she said.

ATSB’s full report on the Mount Gambier crash is expected by the middle of next year.

#casa spends $165,000 on the Avalon airshow

Browsing the RTK [Right-to-Know] website this afternoon I found the attached reply to a FOI request.

The total cost of CASA’s attendance at the Avalon Airshow in 2017 was 
$165,000.

I am incredulous that this could happen. Remember, Shane Carmody gets around $600,000 a year.

So in just 7-days, casa spends the equivalent of 30% of his annual payment!!!!


Just to remind you, here is the “…finger-up….” display at Avalon.

Finger up at Avalon

casa stand in the tent

 

 


 


And is this just a “…money-sink….”??

 

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 2016 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.”