CVD AQONs released??
Question no.: 265
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Proof Hansard Page: 145 (26 May 2014)
Senator Fawcett, David asked:
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.
Answer:
Fourteen persons (five being current or former CASA officers, four with current or past experience as aviation regulators and five medical specialists with expertise in relation to colour vision) have provided expert reports or statements at the request of CASA for the purpose of the Tribunal proceedings.
With the exception of Dr Navathe, it is unclear at this stage which of the medical or other expert witnesses will be required to give evidence in person to the Tribunal. A directions hearing was held on 24 June 2014 and CASA has, in accordance with current directions made by the Tribunal, initiated discussions with the applicant’s legal representatives in an effort to identify and potentially narrow the scope of the evidence at the hearing. The hearing has now been rescheduled to commence on 21 October 2014.
Question no.: 266
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Proof Hansard Pages: 145-146 (26 May 2014)
Senator Fawcett, David asked:
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.
Answer:
To date (18 June 2014), CASA has incurred the following expenses:
Barrister fees $8,566
Medical/ expert reports $34,550
TOTAL $43,116
Based on an expected five day hearing, CASA estimates it will incur the following additional expenses:
Barrister fees $20,000
Expert witness attendance fees $15,000
Expert witness travel/accommodation $4,000
Transcript fees $3,000
TOTAL $42,000
Question no.: 267
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Mandate the CAD Test
Proof Hansard Pages: 146-147 (26 May 2014)
Senator Fawcett, David asked:
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.
Answer:
As discussed during the Estimates Hearings on 24 February 2014, it is not CASA’s present intention to mandate the use of the CAD test in the regulations. Consistent with the applicable provisions of Subpart 67.C of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, CASA has used the CAD test as its third-level test in recent times, on a case-by-case basis. CASA will continue to utilise the CAD test as one of the testing options for the third-level test, on a case-by-case basis.