QON Competition.

[Kharon]

February 5 is fast approaching, in theory, answers to all the nasty Questions on notice from Estimates should be in. Probably won't see them much before the 12 th. However: for a chocolate frog – you have to provide the closest approximation of an answer. When we see the written answer in Hansard or on the web; the closest predicative post wins the chocolate frog. Dot point format is best, avoids squabbles over comma's etc.

Favourite question number 1. Hansard:-

Senator FAWCETT: Mr McCormick, last estimates we spoke about the role CASA has in aviation safety. We talked about the heads of power that you have to influence safety at an ALOP aerodrome that is not directly controlled by the department. We talked about, for example, a body of water that could attract birds. You asked for a specific example and I gave you the example of Casino. What response can you give now in terms of your investigation into what actions have occurred?

Mr J McCormick: Are you referring to a question on notice? I do recall a discussion.

Senator FAWCETT: Yes, we had the discussion. Just looking at the transcript here, the flow got interrupted and I do not whether it was recorded as a formal question on notice. But there was an undertaking to look into it, so I am just wondering whether that has been looked into. In what way are you able to exercise that head of power where there is a safety issue at an aerodrome that is not a leased federal aerodrome?

Mr J McCormick: Sorry, I do not think we captured that as an actual question. Is it acceptable for me to take that on notice now and get back to you next time?

Senator FAWCETT: If you could take it on notice now, that would be great. Thank you.
Be in it to win it - handing over. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Sarcs]

Other than her piss poor display at the enquiry hearing 19/11/12, this will be Lady Stab’s first foray in front of the Senate RRAT committee, so I’ll be interested to see how these QON’s are handled:

145 AA 02 XENOPHON Loss of separation incidents

Earlier this month, there were reports about a Virgin Australia 737-800 being ‘lost’ by ATC along the Sydney-Brisbane route.
1. Can ASA please describe what happened in relation to this incident?
2. Can ASA elaborate on how an aircraft’s details can become ‘inhibited’ on the system and what this means in real terms?
3. There has also been commentary that ASA attempted to restrict the reporting of this incident to the ATSB. What is the ASA’s response to this? Are these allegations being investigated?
4. The ASA also responded that Australia’s aviation system has ‘multiple layers of safety mechanisms’ in place, and that these include automated safety alerts in ATC systems and in aircraft.
(a) Would the ‘inhibition’ of this flight prevent such warnings being triggered in the ATC system?
(b) Does ASA consider that aircraft should have to rely solely on their onboard safety warnings?
(c) What about aircraft that do not have such systems?
5. Can ASA provide information on how this incident was treated from a training and/or disciplinary angle?
6. There have been reports that the controller in question remained at his or her console after the incident.
(a) Is this usual practice?
(b) Is it consistent with ASA safety procedures?
(c) Were there other controllers available to take over the console if required?
7. Is ASA aware of the screenshots published on the Crikey blog ‘Plane Talking’ that allegedly showed ‘attempts made by management to pass the… error… as a ‘display error’. What is ASA’s response to this?
8. I note that Andrew Clark responded to this blog under the title ‘Airservices media’. This response stated that the aircraft was never ‘lost to Airservices air traffic controllers’ and that it ‘continued to be displayed on all air traffic control
displays managing the airspace and was not in the vicinity of any other aircraft’.
(a) Is this consistent with ASA’s position?
(b) Mr Clark made this statement in his role as Acting CEO. Did he consult with the board or any other executives or managers before making this response?
(c) Mr Clark was presumably briefed on this incident before he responded to the blog. Who briefed him and when?
(d) I note that, according to the screen grabs posted on the blog, ‘appropriate assessment of known traffic for potential conflicts with VOZ913 did not occur’. Is this consistent with Mr Clark’s statement that the aircraft ‘was not in the vicinity of any other aircraft’?

Written AA 02

Not sure whether I can approximate answers for any of the above but I’ll definitely be interested in whether Clarky’s position becomes vacant prior to the Estimates hearing or maybe Lady Stab may ‘stand by her man’!:E

Maybe Creamy or Leady can approximate answers to Senator Nash's very pertinent QONs??

149 CASA 03 NASH Aviation Maintenance

1. Can the department clarify whether the new regulations, and specially those contained in CASA Part 21, Subpart M, applies to the General Aviation industry?
2. Did the department adequately consult with all key stakeholders, including the AMROBA (Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association), as
to the scope of these changes and to which sectors of the industry they will apply before enacting the changes?
3. If so, can the department explain why there is so much confusion surrounding the impact of these new regulations?
4. Has the department sought to clarify, beyond the statement released by the Director of Aviation Safety, the effect of the new regulations on the industry since its implementation?
5. How advanced is the department in its steps to introduce new regulations relating to maintenance standards for the rest of the industry if the General Aviation industry is not covered by the changes recently implemented?

Written

Although I'm not sure a choccy frog will help Creamy's pimple problem!:ok: