View Single Post
Old 12th Apr 2014, 00:02
  #582 (permalink)  
Sarcs
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil Murdoch MSM catching up..well sort of?

Not sure where Creedy has been lately but the fill in bloke is actually starting to (occasionally) jump the fence to provide a slightly more balanced view than the usual QASA diatribe..

Last week in Friday's Australian the MMSM reported on parts of the AFAP (& ALAEA) WLR submissions with the headline: Pilots call for less ‘arbitrary’ screening
THE Australian Federation of Air Pilots has labelled screening processes for passengers at many of the nation’s non-major airports as “illogical or unnecessary” and claims they are conducted with no regard for the costs involved.

In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety review — which is expected to report later this month — it also describes screening processes for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”, saying: “Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit seat beggars belief.”

In November, Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss announced the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to examine the effectiveness of aviation agencies, look for overlap, and to determine the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety regulations compared to those abroad.

The inquiry, chaired by aviation veteran David Forsyth, has not made its 150-odd submissions public, claiming many authors wished for them to remain confidential. However, it will draw on them in filing its report.
Mr Forsyth was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The AFAP says the federal government’s Office of Transport Security “appears to operate without any regard” to the costs it imposes on the industry through screening requirements.

“While there may be a clear need for such screening at major airports, the rationale for (it) at smaller regional airports is questionable at best,” it says.

“The operations of the Office of Transport Security are an excessive cost burden on the industry ... many security screening processes are illogical or unnecessary”. The federation — the largest pilots’ association in Australia, with over 3500 members — also says many of the screening and security measures “appear to be driven by political and public relations concerns”.

The Office of Transport Security had not responded to the claims by deadline yesterday.

In a separate submission the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association raises a number of concerns with the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and calls for the introduction of a US-style whistleblower protection program to protect employees raising safety concerns.

The ALAEA claims CASA is not properly policing maintenance operations and takes disproportionate action against “soft targets”, such as when it “very strongly pursued minor operator Tiger Airways over safety breaches and poor systems”. CASA has denied both allegations.

The AFAP has also raised concerns over CASA. “The perception of CASA by our members is one of constant change, characterised by high staff turnover and low morale from within,” it says in its submission.

It says a Senate inquiry into aviation accident investigations handed down a report more than two years ago into the effectiveness of CASA and the Air Traffic Safety Bureau. “(That report) made 26 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the relationship between CASA and the ATSB. To date it appears that few, if any, of these recommendations have been carried out.”

It requests that the review “revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend (their) implementation” as a priority.

It also wants aviation regulations to be “rewritten in plain English”, and “targeted at and comprehensible to the industry”.
Normally the miniscule's dept doesn't partake in any trivial aviation media matters. So it is somewhat surprising that this particular article has actually provoked a response from Kingcrat & crew, where we see (ironically) that the ICAO compliance card has been played..:
Government rejects screening complaint

THE federal government has hit back at claims from the nation’s pilots’ association that many secu*rity checks are “illogical and unnecessary”, claiming they are in line with the risks.

The Australian revealed last week that the Australian Federation of Air Pilots viewed screening processes for passengers at many regional airports as unnecessary and screening pro*cess*es for pilots as “arbitrary and unnecessary”.

A spokeswoman for the *Department of Infrastructure said the level and type of screening was appropriate.

“The Australian government is aware of the social and economic importance of a vibrant and competitive regional aviation sector,” the spokeswoman told The Australian.

“Screening measures at Australia’s security-controlled airports are commensurate with risk and threat levels, as determined through information provided by Australia’s security agencies.”

In a submission to the federal government’s aviation safety *review — which is expected to report later this month — AFAP, which has said security measures appeared to be implemented “without any regard” to the costs imposed on industry through screening requirements.

“Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected *before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit beggars belief,” AFAP said in the statement.

The Department of Infrastructure said the national prohibited items list (which guides screening at airports) reflected standards developed by the International Civil Aviation Org*anisation and was accepted internationally by other foreign aviation security regulators.

“The screening processes are *neither arbitrary nor unneces*sary,” the spokeswoman said. “All people entering the sterile area of an airport and boarding an aircraft are subject to the same levels of screening.”

She said screening reduced the risk of a person knowingly or unknowingly bringing a prohibited item into the “sterile area”.
Hmm..pity those same ICAO standards weren't applied when it came to the VH-NGA ditching investigation..

Moving on remember this??


“Do not be dismayed by our vocal but largely uninformed minority of critics; they are symptomatic of other ills in society. I prefer ‘facts’ when engaged in discussions; not hearsay and tautological rubbish that some others seem to regard as promising material.”

Well it would seem that the " vocal minority" is starting to become a majority and they're camped in the miniscule's office waiting room with some hard 'facts':
Airport fee rises ‘choking growth’


THE nation’s airline lobby group has called for Australia’s major international airports to slow the aggressive ramping-up of fees, which it claims risks “choking” future growth.

The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, which represents 29 international *airlines operating in the country, said prices charged by the *nation’s major international *airports had doubled in real terms over the past 12 years, from about $10 to $20 a passenger.

In a report into infrastructure of the nation’s major airports, to be released today, BARA says charges at Sydney and Brisbane airports are now “well above” the Asia-Pacific and European averages. “If the industry is to maintain airfare affordability, it is not possible to sustain the trend of rising investment levels funded through continued increase in airport prices,” the BARA report says. It says the industry needs to ensure the cost of meeting growth does not end up chocking the very growth it is intended to foster.

The report highlights the very high investment returns being delivered to the nation’s airports, with pre-tax returns soaring from below 6 per cent annually in 2003 to above 12 per cent at present and averaging 11 per cent over the past five years.

A key to the growth in that revenue was the government’s 2002 moves to *remove price controls set by the Australian *Competition & Consumer Commission and *replace them with “light-*handed” economic regulation, placing more control in the hands of operators.

The result of this *light-*handed regulation has led to *unnecessary “protracted negotiation processes between international airlines and airport operators”, BARA says.

The report comes after the ACCC findings last week that the nation’s four *biggest *airports were continuing to ramp up fees despite most *delivering no real increase in *service quality.

The ACCC, which delivers an annual report on the performance of the Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney airports, found all but Brisbane had delivered only “satisfactory” performance over the year to June 2013.

Brisbane’s average quality of service was lifted from satisfactory to “good”. Sydney delivered the worst quality of service, *despite charging the highest “aeronautic *revenue” per *passenger at $15.53.

The lobby group for the Australian Airports Association challenged the ACCC’s findings and said they presented a *“historical snapshot” as they *related to data that was already nine months old. “The ACCC’s findings provide an historical snapshot of the state of our major airports, given the extremely dynamic nature of the aviation industry and the ongoing investment being made in better airport infrastructure,” said AAA chief executive *Caroline Wilkie.

BARA notes the ACCC’s *service quality monitoring has been criticised by the AAA.

“It is notable, however, that the industry has not developed more sophisticated service quality measures and included them in agreements with airlines,” the BARA report says.

The airline body calls for the government to commission research into the productivity of the nation’s aviation industry and the “rate of return across *infrastructure providers”.
If only the miniscule could see behind the 2000 pound elephant (called Fort Fumblenese..) constantly parked in his office...

Last edited by Sarcs; 12th Apr 2014 at 01:52.
Sarcs is offline