We hear your concern Sunny, just at the moment trying to get my head around the MH17 tragedy...
MH17 down near Donetsk...which appears to have been shot down by a SAM. Tragically there was 20 odd Australians on-board very disturbing & condolences to their families. PT covering here:
MH17: Malaysia Airlines 777 ‘shot down’ over Ukraine 295 dead
Okay back to the thread...
Apparently the miniscule will not be responding to the Forsyth report till the Spring parliament sittings which, according to the parliamentary timetable, means the earliest we can possibly get a Government MAP will be 26th of August..
However indications are that industry stalwarts will not ease up the pressure on the miniscule for strong, effective regulatory reform and adoption, with some tweaking, of nearly all 37 ASRR panel recommendations.
During the breaking news of flight MH17 the Oz released their Friday aviation articles and I'm afraid there is more bad press for Fort Fumble and (by association) the miniscule..
Starting with:
CASA shortage left aerodrome unchecked
A SHORTAGE of Civil Aviation Safety Authority aerodrome staff meant at least one regional airport did not receive an in-person inspection for eight years, according to a new submission to the federal government’s safety review.
The issue is one of several raised by the Australian Airports Association in response to the recommendations released last month by the panel conducting the review into safety regulation.
The AAA said it understood that inspector staffing was down by as much as 30 per cent due to a combination of resignations, long service leave and retirements.
While these would normally be handled through the course of business, it said this had not happened due to budget restrictions and the federal government’s efficiency dividend.
The shortage and its impact became evident during recent consultations, according AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie.
“Given the size of the airport and the size of aircraft that service that airport, this is a very concerning outcome,’’ Ms Wilkie said in a letter to review chairman David Forsyth.
“Whilst the AAA is confident that the internal processes at that particular airport are sound and that inspections are regularly under*taken by an accredited third party inspector, it does raise questions about the scope and validity of the CASA inspection regime.
“To avoid potentially compromising safety in the future, it would be prudent to introduce a maximum allowable timeframe between aerodrome inspections, with any aerodrome inspections falling outside that timeframe to be reviewed as an urgent priority.’’
CASA said it had 17 aerodrome inspectors or associated roles and denied that “several vacancies’’ were adversely impacting on regulators’ functions.
It said a risk-based approach meant airports used by the majority of air travellers were “audited frequently’’. “For example, CASA aerodrome inspectors visit Sydney airport multiple times a year,’’ it said. “In most cases airports serviced by regular public transport operations are visited by CASA at least once a year.’’
The AAA also called for a person with airport experience to be appointed to the CASA board and reiterated its view that the Manual Operations of Standards Part 139 , which specifies the requirements of aerodrome and fire fighting services and defines a safety framework, needs to be quickly reviewed.
The association said a post implementation review of the standard had not been undertaken since its inception in 2008 despite the fact it was supposed to happen two years after implementation.
“By any standard, the review of MOS Part 139 is in incredibly overdue,” Ms Wilkie said, noting that plans to conduct the review announced last October had been further delayed. “The apparent ongoing lack of concern displayed by CASA, given the important need to undertake a review of MOS Part 139 is alarming.
“The industry has identified more than 100 issues that need to be urgently addressed in the document, through our paper titled ‘AAA Review of Manual of Standards 139’.
“This was provided to CASA in May 2014.’’
The association said it was comfortable with the report’s 37 key recommendations and strongly supported recommendation 18, allowing the use of discretion in inspections.
“The AAA believes that this would allow for a much more collaborative approach between CASA and aerodrome operators, allowing for a practical and *efficient outcome to be achieved in remedying any perceived breaches,’’ it said.
The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia supports or strongly supports 21 of the recommendations and another 13 with reservations or conditions.
It opposes a recommendation that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and CASA use the bilateral memorandum of understanding to accredit CASA observers to air crash investigations.
The association cited “significant ongoing concerns with CASA and its lack of understanding of a ‘just culture’ ’’ in its response to the report. It said its concerns about the importance of maintaining and enhancing the de-identification of safety information provided to CASA would remain until this changed.
Here is a link for the AAA letter to Forsyth:
AAA response to ASRR report
"...
The AAA has reviewed the ASRR report and is comfortable with the 37 key recommendations that have been proposed. Safety is of paramount importance for airport operators and the aviation industry as a whole, and it is pleasing to see that this issue has been identified as a priority.
In particular, the AAA strongly supports recommendation 18 of the report, which provides for CASA to reintroduce the ‘use of discretion’ procedure in its inspection processes. The AAA believes that this would allow for a much more collaborative approach between CASA and aerodrome operators, allowing for a practical and efficient outcome to be achieved in remedying any perceived breaches.
While many of the recommendations arising from the review are wide-ranging, they fundamentally highlight the importance of a more productive and collaborative relationship between the regulator and the aviation industry in the interests of improving the aviation safety regime for Australia. This is timely given that the industry has recently voiced its distress in relation to the current resourcing and operation of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)..."
Which is (unsurprisingly) pretty much mirrored by the REX response, which can be clicked on HERE; or summary viewed HERE
{Comment: Maybe the miniscule could task RED (PH), much like the submissions, to publish the industry response submissions for ease of IOS reference...
}
Agree with Sunny...don't get complacent now when we're rapidly approaching the vinegar stroke, the miniscule has a long history of slipping out the back door when the spotlight gets flicked to the next actor on the stage...
Much more to follow for the Sarcs weekly wrap...
