The normally extremely efficient RRAT committee have finally linked the QONs for the 2014-15 Budget Estimates.
As we all know (from past experience & much to the Senators angst) the AQONs are never answered by the Dept & its agencies by the due date. Indeed we will be lucky to see the answers earlier than a week before the next Estimate hearings.
It is quite unusual for the Secretariat not to release the index till after the published due date for the actual answers (25 July). However in this case I think I can see where the delay has occurred. The QONs index, in comparison to last year, has grown exponentially from 49 pages to this year a 107 pages. Most of the additional 58 pages seem to have been gobbled up in a large number of written QONs, some of which would have taken the Senators considerable time to research & compose...interesting??
Anyhow for those interested here is the link -
QON Index
A couple of QONs of interest.
263
40
CASA
FAWCETT
AFM Data
Senator FAWCETT: The runway length required really then comes down to the AFM data factored appropriately—I think it is 1.2 for short grass runways and 1.25 for certain weights of aircraft, and there are a couple of factors go in there. But the bottom line is that it is a greater number than is in the AFM itself and that is the legal requirement for operators to operate to.
Mr Leeds: I could not quote those figures exactly. I do not have that information to hand but those other factors do exist.
Senator FAWCETT: With a situation like the master plan for Essendon, where they are proposing to shorten runways, the assurance to the aviation community is that it is a process that will be considered. When CASA provides its input to that process, is that the kind of process that your people will be going through to say that the minimum strip length, particularly for those non-transport category aircraft, is not just what the AFM has but it includes all those factors that an operator is required to consider to operate the aircraft safely?
Mr Leeds: Yes, we would be looking at those sorts of things consistent with the ICAO standards for aerodromes but the exact details I would have to take on notice.
Senator FAWCETT: What I am getting at is, if the proponent for a master plan said the AFM says, 'We need 1,000 metres,' that the aircraft operator would be quitelegitimately be able to say, 'What CASA requires is the AFM minimum plus the factors,' which might make it 1,200 metres, that that is actually the minimum strip length required or the accelerate stop distance available, as opposed to the 1,000 metres from the AFM.
Mr Leeds: Again, I am not familiar with the exact science. I would have to take that on notice.
264
41
CASA
FAWCETT
Archerfield Case
Senator FAWCETT: Could I take you to the Archerfield case, where there was a proposal to change the orientation of one of the grass runways and make it essentially north-south. My understanding is that CASA has endorsed the consultant's calculation of strip length based on the AFM data as opposed to the factored data. Are you able to shed any light on whether CASA did in fact apply the factors so that the end result is a clear indication of what the operator legally has to have to take off and land—with landing it is even greater—or was that advice purely on the AFM data?
Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice for Archerfield. We will get back to as soon as we can. I know where you are going with this.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, take it on notice, but as a principle the operator's requirement is to comply with his ops manual, which has to take into account engine failure situations in terms of the take-off and landing length available.
Mr McCormick: Certainly for the accelerate stop distance available when we are talking about balanced fields length, I should imagine. The grass case is one where I am not too sure what we have said about the grass orientation. I agree with you, and we will take that on notice and get it back to you as soon as possible. We do not have Archerfield in front of us, unfortunately.
Sen Fawcett in regards to CVD/O'Brien AAT hearing:
265
42
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Senator FAWCETT: …
Mr McCormick, may I move on to answers that you gave at estimates last year about the costs associated with an AAT case relating to colour vision deficient pilots. You indicated that, as of 1 December 2013, the costs were $43,500. Can you tell me, in terms of forecast costs, how many expert witnesses CASA plans to call for that inquiry or tribunal?
Mr McCormick: Are you talking about the upcoming O'Brien tribunal in July?
Senator FAWCETT: Yes.
Mr McCormick: I will ask the manager of the legal branch to give you that figure, Senator.
Mr Rule: There will obviously be a number of specialist witnesses called to give evidence.
Senator FAWCETT: Two? Ten? Fifteen?
Mr Rule: I am not across the precise number that would be—
Senator FAWCETT: Would I be wrong if I said 12?
Mr Rule: I could not say that that number is wrong. We are out of the ballpark, but I cannot give a confirmed number at this stage. The exchange of evidence between the parties only just finished at the end of last week, I believe, so there will be some to-ing and fro-ing as to which evidence and which witnesses are required. I can certainly take that on notice and provide a more settled estimate of that for you, if that would assist.
266
43
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Senator FAWCETT: …you must also have metrics from previous inquiries. Knowing what expert witnesses charge for their appearances, the travel and accommodation costs, the whole cost of conducting the inquiry in terms of transcript fees et cetera, have you made a provision in your budgeting for how much you anticipate this AAT case will cost?
Mr Rule: Obviously, we do do forward estimates of how much we think a case is likely to cost. Generally we do it across quarterly budget considerations, so total cost can get washed out as you conduct these cases piecemeal.
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to add the figures up, Mr Rule, if you could give me the figures across those quarterly milestones.
Mr Rule: We can certainly take that on notice and provide those figures.
267
44
CASA
FAWCETT
Mandate the CAD Test
Senator FAWCETT: I understand. You did also say in that period that you did not believe there was any intention to mandate the CAD test and that was not the direction CASA was going. But I have subsequently seen a couple of examples where CASA refused to renew the medical of people who previously had multiple renewables of their medical unless they sat the CAD test. Does that not contradict your comment that that is not CASA's intended direction?
Mr McCormick: I will go back and check what I actually said at the time, my recollection of the conversation was that we were talking about using the CAD test as the principal test rather than the Ishihara test or something like that. As I said, I will check that on notice.
What I found most interesting was this written QON from DF...
:
273
244
CASA
FAWCETT
Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;
Written
But my particular favourite was the Heff's extremely annoyed QON to Beaker after DF's questioning on UAVs...
:
Mr Dolan: I am happy to give you a response on notice.
…
CHAIR: Then will you come back to the committee—or through the secretary or through the department or through the minister—and explain to the Australian public and this committee what their protection is from the growing plethora of unmanned vehicles in the air?
The body language of which was priceless and can be relived at the tail end of this poohtube vid...
