PNM:
All this enthusiasm for Annex 19 as some form of panacea for the ills of Australian aviation is a little bemusing.
Ah Princester good to see your still paying attention
…hmm nup can’t remember anyone saying that Annex 19 was the great panacea for anything in particular??? No PNM it is the compliance issue of Annex 19 that is of interest here?
Hmm…I also find it interesting that whenever 'your Highness' decides to sneak back on here, like a ‘Prince of Thieves’, it is always at a time when some matter of particular potential sensitivity is bought up.
Last time it was Airtex/Canleyvale and how that was not a good match to compare with Pel-Air, the time before it was the flight recorder recovery and how that was a non-issue. This time is Annex 19 and how it is supposedly irrelevant in context….err there is a pattern here but I just can’t put my finger on it?? 
PNM:
My understanding of Annex 19 is that it is a collection of existing provisions, edited only for document continuity. As I further understand it, there will be no new provisions for a number of years.
And Princester in that statement you show your ignorance and contempt for Annex 19 and its supporting SMM. All the links for those documents are here on this site for you to examine and yet you don’t? Is that the blueblood coming out perhaps?
It might actually help if you devoted some time to researching what the future implications of Annex 19 could actually mean to not only us ‘ills of society’ but to those ‘who cannot be touched’, defamed or criticised and continue to operate with impunity while reeking their autocratic mayhem on a dispirited, disillusioned and damaged industry.
Ok back to Annex 19 for a bit…
Kharon:
No idea what that little effort cost – but I would like to see a plan, some guidelines and protocols. Is it only six short months (or so - Sarcs??) until it's in. Lots of work for the boys and girls to do, dreaming up excuse me 's and words that will meet the legal requirements, but firmly apply the Strictly no liability policy; you know, the norm for any form ICAO compliance.
Yes “K” it was stated by PAIN at
#1696 that ICAO are, optimistically perhaps, looking fwd to November for full application of Annex 19.
Oleo:
It's a miracle that Fort Fumble has pulled off a SSP in the first place. They put in charge of the program a person that was walking the halls with little to do at the time. A source told me she spent the first 6 months picking everybody's brains, as she had no understanding of what a SSP was or what Australia's requirements would even be!
I must correct you Oleo it is not the Fort’s duty to set up an SSP it is Sith Mrdak’s boys‘n’gals that have the unenviable task of doing that. Although it would appear that even the chief-crat hasn’t come to terms with that concept yet.
From Chapter 3 Section 3.2 ‘SSP Framework’ of the SMM it states:
STATE SAFETY POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
The State safety policy and objectives component defines how the State will manage safety throughout its aviation system. This includes the determination of responsibilities and accountabilities of the different State organizations related to the SSP, as well as of the broad safety objectives to be achieved by the SSP.
The State safety policy and objectives provide management and personnel explicit policies, directions, procedures, management controls, documentation and corrective action processes that keep the safety management efforts of the State‘s civil aviation authority, and other State organizations on track. This enables the State to provide safety leadership in an increasingly complex and continuously changing air transportation system.
What I think this means is that it is DoIT’s responsibility to, independently from its agencies, put in place an oversight framework of the SSP. This is further explained here (my bold):
1-2 State safety responsibilities and accountabilities
· SSP Element 1.2 State safety responsibilities and accountabilities - the State has identified, defined and documented the requirements, responsibilities and accountabilities regarding the establishment and maintenance of the SSP. This includes the directives to plan, organize, develop, maintain, control and continuously improve the SSP in a manner that meets the State’s safety objectives. It also includes a clear statement about the provision of the necessary resources for the implementation of the SSP.
The State‘s initial SSP implementation responsibility is to identify the SSP Accountable Executive as well as the State organization that will administrate and coordinate the implementation and operation of the SSP. This entity is also referred to as the SSP placeholder organization in this document.
For States where multiple regulatory and administrative organizations are involved, it may also be necessary to identify an appropriate national committee with representation by these organizations, to serve as the State‘s on-going SSP coordination platform.
The appointed SSP Accountable Executive and placeholder organization will initiate the SSP implementation process by appointing an SSP implementation team. This implementation team will be responsible to work with the Accountable Executive and the various organizations to initiate the SSP planning and implementation processes.
Implementation and subsequent continuing operation of the SSP will need to be defined and documented. This SSP documentation system includes a top level SSP document that defines/ describes the SSP, together with other records, forms, SOPs, etc associated with the implementation and operation of the SSP.
Concurrent with the definition of safety management responsibilities and accountabilities is the coordinated development of a State Safety Policy (statement) that is applicable across the State‘s regulatory and administrative framework. Likewise, broad State safety objectives are part of the overall mission statements for all relevant State organizations. High level safety objectives may then be supported by relevant safety indicators to facilitate their assessment or measurement as appropriate.
Clear as mud? Ok does this gel with what Sith Mrdak is proposing to do or has already put in place?
From the Sith’s SSP:
Aviation Policy Group
Inter-agency cooperation is essential to implementing and achieving consistent policy objectives across government agencies. The Aviation Policy Group (APG) was established to ensure effective working relationships across the four agencies involved in aviation policy, regulation and service provision. The APG brings together the agency heads of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Airservices, CASA and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) on behalf of Defence.
The Chief Commissioner of the ATSB attends APG meetings as an observer as required, but is not a full member due to ATSB's status as the independent aviation safety investigator.
The APG, although not a decision-making body, provides a high-level forum for effective inter-agency policy coordination and for working through air traffic management and other strategic aviation cross-agency issues.
The APG plays a key coordinating role in overseeing Australia's SSP, the development and maintenance of this document and the associated implementation plan. APG also coordinates as necessary with other agencies, particularly the ATSB, in overseeing implementation of Australia's SSP to ensure proper consideration of any underlying risks to the effectiveness of the safety system.
Aviation Implementation Group
The Aviation Implementation Group (AIG) is a working group of senior officials comprising representatives from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, CASA, Airservices and Defence. The AIG supports the APG in the implementation of cross-agency strategies. This group is chaired by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport.
The AIG also acts as a steering group in relation to ICAO matters bearing on the SSP. The AIG provides regular advice to the APG on developments within the SSP and provides guidance to the SSP Cross-Agency Team.
SSP Cross-Agency Team
The SSP Cross-Agency Team is chaired by the Department and is made up of representatives from CASA, Airservices, ATSB, AMSA and BOM. The Team is responsible for the development and continuing maintenance of the SSP document and for monitoring and reporting on SSP implementation and the indicators relating to levels of safety in the Australian aviation system.
Reads like a ‘going through the motions’
, I also can see some real ‘conflict of interest’ issues in there , that possibly lose the original intent of the ICAO proposed Annex 19?? However I’ll let others be the judge of that....
At least Sith Mrdak appears to be taking it seriously even if it is just the bones and tendons at this stage…hmm wonder who is going to help him with the meat and veg? 