The upcoming event I am intrigued with is the Information Commissioner being called on Wednesday, has 'I'm a star, see' been treading a bit close to the ragged edges of the FoI Act, again ?, we shall see.
Unfortunately AA aka Flyingfiend
isn't the subject of attention by the IC, apparently the Senate Committee submitted an FOI request to the ATSB part of which they declined to produce citing the privacy provisions of the TSI Act. Why the IC has to front up and spell out his submission who knows??
Onwards and down the page to Q3 which is a doozy and draws attention yet again to the inadequacies of CAR 206. Again there is a fair amount of the usual spin and obfuscation, however
'stop the press' apparently the classification of operations has been sorted back in 2003:
CASA03: ATSB recommendation on aeromedical flights
Hansard: p.44
Mr McCormick: The actual classification of aeromedical flights as aerial work is contained in CAR 206.
Senator XENOPHON: Is that the same as it was 11 years ago, or has it been— Mr McCormick: It goes back significantly further than 2001.
Senator XENOPHON: No, but there was a recommendation made back in 2001 raising issues about having aeromedical flights being in the same category as aerial work, which includes crop dusting—that is correct, isn't it?
Mr McCormick: Aerial work does include crop dusting.
Senator XENOPHON: So there were issues raised by ATSB back in 2001 about the classifications and that something needed to be done about them. That was a recommendation made to CASA; are they still under the same category 11 years later?
Mr McCormick: They are still classified as aerial work of a CAR 206, that is right.
Senator XENOPHON: So it has not been rectified?
Mr McCormick: No—well, I do not know the recommendation out in front of you, but if that is the case—
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps you could take this on notice: it is ATSB investigation BO/200100348. You could take that on notice.
Answer:
An ATSB Investigation in 2001 (BO/ 200100348) makes a number of references to the classification of operations (pp.75, 80). While the reference on page 80 advises that CASA in a recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM 0102OS, August 2001) had summarised
the situation with regard to classification of aircraft operations, the reference on page 75 of the same report refers to safety recommendation R20010195, which is also quoted in another ATSB report. This ATSB report is Investigation Number 200003130 into the accident involving Bell helicopter 206L3, registration VH-FFI, on 23 July 2000 northwest of
Rockhampton. This flight was a helicopter patient transfer carried out as aerial work.
The recommendation in question R20010195 stated:
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority consider proposing an increase in the operations' classification, and/or the minimum safety standards required, for organisations that transport their own employees and similar personnel (for example contractors, personnel from related organisations, or prisoners, but not fare-paying passengers) on a regular basis. This recommendation applies to all such operations, regardless of the take-off weight of
the aircraft involved.
CASA responded in part:-
As you are aware, CASA is presently reviewing the standards contained within the existing Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) with regard to the Classification of Aircraft Operations. The input and recommendations contained within Air Safety Recommendation R20010195 will be taken into consideration and addressed as part of this project.
The outcome of the review will determine which category employees (and similar personnel such as contractors) are placed and the standards that will apply to their transportation in aircraft. I trust that this review will satisfactorily address the issues raised in this Air Safety Recommendation. … CASA has prepared a draft amendment to the Classification of Operations Policy that increases the requirements for operators who carry employees and similar types of passengers. The proposal is currently with the Standards Consultative Committee, and will be presented to the Aviation Safety Forum on 6 December 2002. It is anticipated that an NPRM to amend CAR 206 will then be issued for public comment in early 2003.
In March 2003 CASA issued NPRM0304OS, which canvassed possible amendments to the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) covering aerial work (CAR 206).
Consistent with the endorsement of the CASA Board in 2001, the NPRM made no recommendation to reclassify what had been (and remains) aerial ambulance operations.
I wonder how many of you would beg to differ that it has been sorted??
