The QONs from last Senate RRAT Estimates were due to be answered by the 17th April, no surprises that date passed without any AQONs being listed...
What was surprising was the release of the QONs index only came out yesterday...
However after reading some of the QONs perhaps there is a reason for the, usually efficient, committee Secretariat delaying the index...
RRAT QoNs index 24/02/14
So a sampling of QONs of interest in what is going to be a pivotal month in the life & times of an ailing Oz aviation industry...
On John O'Brien CVD AAT matter (my bold):
Senator FAWCETT: I can give you the letter afterwards. I have it sitting right here in front of me from your organisation dated 24 January doing exactly that. I will put it to you that with due respect this is not moving forward, despite the evidence that you gave here at estimates in November that CASA had no agenda or no plans to wind back the gains of the Denison case. This is, in fact, a very deliberate effort to adopt a standard which might medically ascertain that somebody does have a colour vision deficiency, but clearly as evidenced by multiple pilots that have flown for over two decades, it is not an accurate or effective measure of their ability to safely operate an aircraft. This is going backwards and not, in fact, forwards.
Mr McCormick: As I said, what has happened between November when I was here and that letter, this is the first that I know of it. We were, of course, expecting to be in the AAT to respond to a Mr O'Brien in February 2012, however, those proceedings are currently not listed for hearing as the previous hearing to commence on 31 March was vacated at the applicant's request. So we have not had the opportunity to test these things. As I said, that is news to me. I will take it on notice and find out what we have been doing.
…
Senator FAWCETT: If you want to come back to experts, your organisation's previous experts, Ladel, Brock, Wilkins and others, were very proactive in recognising that practical tests were a viable alternative and, in fact, that many people with a CVD were able to fly. Their judgment has proven correct by virtue of the incident-free 20 years of flying. Is it the case that a personality has changed, not the science and not the safety? A personality has changed and now CASA's approach to this issue is changing?
Mr McCormick: I am not aware of any changes around our approach to this. As I said, that letter is news to me. I am not across everything that leaves the building, particularly medical matters where I normally do not involve myself. We will take it on notice and I will get you an answer about what has transpired.
References:
CASR Part 67.150 (6):
(6) A person must demonstrate that he or she meets the criterion in item 1.39 of table 67.150 by: (a) in daylight, or artificial light of similar luminosity, readily identifying a series of pseudo-isochromatic plates of the Ishihara 24-plate type, making no more than 2 errors; or
(b) for somebody who makes more than 2 errors in a test mentioned in paragraph (a), readily identifying aviation coloured lights displayed by means of a Farnsworth colour-perception lantern, making:
(i) no errors on 1 run of 9 pairs of lights; or
(ii) no more than 2 errors on a sequence of 2 runs of 9 pairs of lights; or
(c) for somebody who does not satisfy paragraph (a) or (b), correctly identifying all relevant coloured lights in a test, determined by CASA, that simulates an operational situation.
Crtierion table:
Colour perception
1.39
Can readily distinguish the colours that need to be distinguished for the safe exercise of privileges, or performance of duties, under the relevant
licence
Note: For how to demonstrate this, see subregulation 67.150 (6).
On A380 type ratings & training buckets:
Senator FAWCETT: How many people do you have endorsed on the A380?
Mr McCormick: We have at least one, but stand by. It may only be two. We will take that on notice, if we could.
Senator FAWCETT: Sure, if you could give us a list of their names that would be great.
Mr McCormick: We will.
Love this bit..
(my bold):
Mr Jordan: In response to your question, for our flight training budget for the previous financial year, we actually spent $2.3 million.
Senator XENOPHON: How many personnel within CASA was that spent for?
Mr Jordan: I do not have that information with me. I would have to take that on notice. But overall, the bucket of money we spent was $2.3 million, purely for our technical staff.
Senator XENOPHON: Does that mean that Mr Jordan's answer, that $2.3 million bucket of money for flight training for CASA, there might be some other funds available for flight training of CASA personnel?
Mr Jordan: Not necessarily flying training; there are other training monies available; for example, myself, as an accountant, to attend a training course. So there is more money than the $2.3 million.
Senator XENOPHON: I am more—
Mr McCormick: You are talking more about the flying side of things.
Senator XENOPHON: Yes.
Mr Jordan: So the $2.3 million is purely for flying.
Senator XENOPHON: So, it is not a requirement of your job to have an endorsement on an A380 or anything like that to be CFO?
Mr Jordan: No.
Senator XENOPHON: No.
Mr McCormick: We will give you a detailed breakdown on notice because I am not sure of all the facts.
Senator XENOPHON: That is fine.
Hmm...well that would be 2.3 million that presumably came out of the 89.9 million bucket...maybe come the next estimates we will have traced some more bucket money...
Much more to follow Sarcs...
Addendum to CVD matter
From the ICAO annex 1...
6.2.4.4 An applicant obtaining a satisfactory result as prescribed by the Licensing Authority shall be assessed as fit. An applicant failing to obtain a satisfactory result in such a test shall be assessed as unfit unless able to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights. Applicants who fail to meet these criteria shall be assessed as unfit except for Class 2 assessment with the following restriction: valid daytime only.
Note.— Guidance on suitable methods of assessing colour vision is contained in the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984).
...it can be seen that Part 67.150 (above) pretty well matches the ICAO medical requirements for CVD, however as we all know we have actually been operating with a difference to 6.2.4.4 for twenty odd years. So it would be natural to assume that this '
difference' should have been part of the, recently amended, mammoth list of notified differences to ICAO SARPs (i.e. AIP GEN 1.7) However if we refer to the AIP
H18/14 reference for paragraph 6.2.4.4...
"...Para 6.2.4.4 Candidates for an air traffic controller licence who fail an Ishihara 24-plate test are, in practice, not employed by Australia’s ATS provider..."
...we can see that nothing has changed from the
H12/11 version of the GEN 1.7...
To quote a much maligned former independent pollie
..."Please explain!"
ps There is a DJ link in all this too (i.e. Wodger's wodgering)...MTF!