Merged: Senate Inquiry
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAsA 2012/13 annual report;
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...228/ar1213.pdf
Page 52, CAsA signed an MOU with China. Good work
Must be something about the way the Chinese do business that CAsA likes.
'Billy the Texan Longley for DAS'
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...228/ar1213.pdf
Page 52, CAsA signed an MOU with China. Good work
Must be something about the way the Chinese do business that CAsA likes.
'Billy the Texan Longley for DAS'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perfidious Australis.
004 #2170 -"[Although] the report is now locked away safely in a much stronger CHUBB safe than the ASSR submissions were locked in, it is still being debated how and if to release its content publicly"
If the report was a 'glowing' testament, brimming with good cheer and better news, it would be released; Beaker crowing and sneering at the Senate. Clearly this is not the case; and IF the minuscule is sitting on the report he is not only denying the public access to critical safety information, but (IMO) further increasing that risk and defrauding the public at the same time. It may be legal, but it's a dishonourable act.
Beaker always claimed that 'they' would get first whack and right of reply (comment) however, no matter how many myths are perpetuated or clever edits made to ease the passage, the facts and the truth will always be there, waiting.
The perfidious nature of the mythical Australian air safety brag will, one day, be savagely exposed; by burnt bodies, smoking metal, shattered families and ruined lives if this dark comedy is allowed to continue. But hey, no matter – pilot error is so very easy to prove and has never let us down yet. Just so long as the budget is in order and it can be proven that our safety agencies had no hand in the tragedy; all will be well. Arse covering checklist – complete to the line.
Release the F<->king report, before it gets Willy leaked. I'm sure one of the attendees at the Las Vegas 'Black Hat' conference could oblige, if asked nicely.
"[will] force itself back into the spotlight this week at the - Black Hat - hacking conference in Las Vegas".
The perfidious nature of the mythical Australian air safety brag will, one day, be savagely exposed; by burnt bodies, smoking metal, shattered families and ruined lives if this dark comedy is allowed to continue.
If the report has been presented to government and not released in a fanfare of "safety on our time" then it does represent a dilemma for the government. The reason the Opposition wouldn't be too keen on exposing it is they are just as culpable.
The big concern would be that a peer review by an overseas agency, that is critical of the national equivalent, cannot be fobbed off as mere sour grapes. International humiliation is a lot harder to cover up than domestic criticism. Now an FAA audit might not be so favourable and if a downgrade was to occur then there might be some movement on getting rid of the deadwood in CASA.
The only Plan B with a glimmer of hope is this:
Convince the non-major party aligned Senators that the right thing to do is to implement the recommendations of the Senate's own AAI Report and ASRR Panel report commissioned by the government. Convince the non-major party aligned Senators to make their agreement to government legislation contingent on substantial action having been taken to implement the recommendations. Not hot air: Action.
A number of the non-major party aligned Senators continue to believe that their job is to further the public interest, or at least the interests of the part of the public that is each Senator's constituency. Those Senators may see the obvious public interest in implementing the recommendations arising out of the Senate's own Committee report and another report commissioned by government. Those Senators might ask themselves: "What is the downside in implementing the recommendations of both reports?", the answer to which is: "For the public, no downside and all upside."
Plan B requires people to confront and deal with a potentially painful reality: The Laborials are very happy with ATSB and CASA, and the Laborials have zero interest in doing anything for which the Laborials, rather than ATSB and CASA, could be exposed to flack. The Laborials govern in their own interests, using the Orwellian logic that whatever is in their interests is the public interest, because the public elected them.
The recommendations of both reports would be implemented, in a trice, if the non-major party aligned Senators made the passage of government legisation contingent on implementation of the AAI and ASSR report recommendations. In a trice.
If you're waiting for the Laborials to do 'the right thing', when it's not politically expedient and advantageous to them to do 'the right thing', please don't hold your breath.
Two or three sentences: Dear Senator, there is all upside and no downside for the public in implementing the recommendations of the Aviation Accident Investigation Report made by the Senate's own Committee, and the Aviation Safety Regulation Panel report commissioned by the government. It is pointless going to the time and expense of conducting these inquiries and reviews, if the recommendations are merely paid lip service. Please press for these recommendations to be implemented, in the interests of aviation safety in Australia.
Convince the non-major party aligned Senators that the right thing to do is to implement the recommendations of the Senate's own AAI Report and ASRR Panel report commissioned by the government. Convince the non-major party aligned Senators to make their agreement to government legislation contingent on substantial action having been taken to implement the recommendations. Not hot air: Action.
A number of the non-major party aligned Senators continue to believe that their job is to further the public interest, or at least the interests of the part of the public that is each Senator's constituency. Those Senators may see the obvious public interest in implementing the recommendations arising out of the Senate's own Committee report and another report commissioned by government. Those Senators might ask themselves: "What is the downside in implementing the recommendations of both reports?", the answer to which is: "For the public, no downside and all upside."
Plan B requires people to confront and deal with a potentially painful reality: The Laborials are very happy with ATSB and CASA, and the Laborials have zero interest in doing anything for which the Laborials, rather than ATSB and CASA, could be exposed to flack. The Laborials govern in their own interests, using the Orwellian logic that whatever is in their interests is the public interest, because the public elected them.
The recommendations of both reports would be implemented, in a trice, if the non-major party aligned Senators made the passage of government legisation contingent on implementation of the AAI and ASSR report recommendations. In a trice.
If you're waiting for the Laborials to do 'the right thing', when it's not politically expedient and advantageous to them to do 'the right thing', please don't hold your breath.
Two or three sentences: Dear Senator, there is all upside and no downside for the public in implementing the recommendations of the Aviation Accident Investigation Report made by the Senate's own Committee, and the Aviation Safety Regulation Panel report commissioned by the government. It is pointless going to the time and expense of conducting these inquiries and reviews, if the recommendations are merely paid lip service. Please press for these recommendations to be implemented, in the interests of aviation safety in Australia.
The good, the bad and the damn right ugly!
Jinglie:
Is it fact or fiction?? 
{Request: 004, Jinglie & co please send me a link for the presso for this disgusting rumour}.
If it is fact then personally I can handle that..
..cause it sets the guidelines for the next IOS strategic attack...
And I would suggest that the miniscule and his support crew will have a bigger conundrum than trying to keep a lid on his obvious long term/short term memory loss problem...
For example do you think Senator X is also going to have an attack of the forgetteries...
:
Moving on, I equally agree with the "K" summation 
...
"...If the report was a 'glowing' testament, brimming with good cheer and better news, it would be released; Beaker crowing and sneering at the Senate. Clearly this is not the case; and IF the minuscule is sitting on the report he is not only denying the public access to critical safety information, but (IMO) further increasing that risk and defrauding the public at the same time. It may be legal, but it's a dishonourable act..."
...it should also be remembered that Beaker said this in regards to the release of the TSBC peer review report:
I can kind of understand the delay with the TSBC report allowing a certain amount of reshuffling of the deck (& deckchairs, ailing miniscule etc) before final release... However, in this particular case, allowing an indefinite period of time for this bureaucratic due process to happen (in the vain hope that the heat on the issue will somehow dissipate - Crat rule 101) is not an option as there is a 3rd independent party who also have their credibility to uphold...
LL:
Well said Lefty..
Therefore miniscule (or rather his minions), warts and all...
MTF...
White flag! The re-appointment of BEAKER says it all.
{Request: 004, Jinglie & co please send me a link for the presso for this disgusting rumour}.If it is fact then personally I can handle that..
..cause it sets the guidelines for the next IOS strategic attack... And I would suggest that the miniscule and his support crew will have a bigger conundrum than trying to keep a lid on his obvious long term/short term memory loss problem...For example do you think Senator X is also going to have an attack of the forgetteries...
:
Government soft on Pel-Air findings
20th March 2014
The Commonwealth Government has let down the travelling public by failing to fully implement the findings of a highly critical Senate inquiry into aviation safety, Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, said today.
The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s report into aviation accident investigations (the Pel-Air Report) found serious failures on the part of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regarding the investigation of the ditching of Pel-Air VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009.
“There are very serious matters raised in this report, including how effectively aviation operators are regulated,” Nick said. “CASA and the ATSB seem more interested in protecting themselves than protecting the Australian public.”
Senator Xenophon said the Government had failed to look at the bigger picture in the report, which shows serious systemic failures in both the ATSB and CASA.
“For the most part, the Government seems to accept that the current processes and systems are enough to make sure the ATSB and CASA are working properly,” Nick said. “But the evidence in this report clearly shows that’s not happening.”
“The Government shouldn’t take assurances from the ATSB or CASA at face value.”
Senator Xenophon said he hoped the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, established by Transport Minister Warren Truss, would back up the findings of the committee. The ATSB’s investigative processes, including its report into the Pel-Air ditching, are also being reviewed by the Canadian Transport Safety Board (TSB). However, Senator Xenophon fears the TSB review could be a whitewash because of its limited terms of reference.
“I hope the committee’s report has opened the door for serious change,” Nick said. “I believe the independent review will vindicate its findings, and I hope the Government will have the courage to act on them.”
20th March 2014
The Commonwealth Government has let down the travelling public by failing to fully implement the findings of a highly critical Senate inquiry into aviation safety, Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, said today.
The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s report into aviation accident investigations (the Pel-Air Report) found serious failures on the part of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regarding the investigation of the ditching of Pel-Air VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009.
“There are very serious matters raised in this report, including how effectively aviation operators are regulated,” Nick said. “CASA and the ATSB seem more interested in protecting themselves than protecting the Australian public.”
Senator Xenophon said the Government had failed to look at the bigger picture in the report, which shows serious systemic failures in both the ATSB and CASA.
“For the most part, the Government seems to accept that the current processes and systems are enough to make sure the ATSB and CASA are working properly,” Nick said. “But the evidence in this report clearly shows that’s not happening.”
“The Government shouldn’t take assurances from the ATSB or CASA at face value.”
Senator Xenophon said he hoped the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, established by Transport Minister Warren Truss, would back up the findings of the committee. The ATSB’s investigative processes, including its report into the Pel-Air ditching, are also being reviewed by the Canadian Transport Safety Board (TSB). However, Senator Xenophon fears the TSB review could be a whitewash because of its limited terms of reference.
“I hope the committee’s report has opened the door for serious change,” Nick said. “I believe the independent review will vindicate its findings, and I hope the Government will have the courage to act on them.”
..."...If the report was a 'glowing' testament, brimming with good cheer and better news, it would be released; Beaker crowing and sneering at the Senate. Clearly this is not the case; and IF the minuscule is sitting on the report he is not only denying the public access to critical safety information, but (IMO) further increasing that risk and defrauding the public at the same time. It may be legal, but it's a dishonourable act..."
...it should also be remembered that Beaker said this in regards to the release of the TSBC peer review report:
Senator FAWCETT: Will that final report be going to you or the secretary or to the minister?
Mr Dolan : It will be published as a TSB report in the normal report investigation processes of the TSB. So, it will be made available on the website. They will forward a copy to me, because it was done at the request of the ATSB, but the main method of publication is on the TSB website.
Mr Dolan : It will be published as a TSB report in the normal report investigation processes of the TSB. So, it will be made available on the website. They will forward a copy to me, because it was done at the request of the ATSB, but the main method of publication is on the TSB website.
I can kind of understand the delay with the TSBC report allowing a certain amount of reshuffling of the deck (& deckchairs, ailing miniscule etc) before final release...
However, in this particular case, allowing an indefinite period of time for this bureaucratic due process to happen (in the vain hope that the heat on the issue will somehow dissipate - Crat rule 101) is not an option as there is a 3rd independent party who also have their credibility to uphold...LL:
The big concern would be that a peer review by an overseas agency, that is critical of the national equivalent, cannot be fobbed off as mere sour grapes. International humiliation is a lot harder to cover up than domestic criticism.
Therefore miniscule (or rather his minions), warts and all...
Release the F<->king report, before it gets Willy leaked.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All heil Caesar!
Creampuff #2175. Bingo!! That post receives a scorecard of 11/10 plus a years supply of chocolate frogs. Folks, Creamy has succinctly laid out for all to see the only way in which true change will come about. We need to remove the current politicians (the rich kids) train set and give it to the poor kids (senators, independents, old mother Hubbard) to play with! There is no other way.
You won't find that in any press release, yet. He has re-signed for 2 more years. It's better than 5 more years, but still 2 years too many! Sarcs, although you are eager like a schoolboy on prom night, I think you will find a number of announcements (slickly packaged together in the guise of 'sweeping changes') will soon be unveiled. So sit tight my little buttercup, the unveiling of Australia's sweeping reform to government aviation oversight is nigh. But be warned, it may just be delivered in Chairman Hawke style - lots of words, lots of sexy pictures and 200 pages of glossy coloured paper, to produce, in reality ............nothing. A toffee coated turd. In fact the release of all this good news is so close that Lookyloo has been despatched on one of Blackhands postie bikes to deliver the memorandum to News Limited!!
But no real changes except a name or two here and there, a few minor restructures and perhaps even an authority name change! Oh goodie it's Xmas! Oh ****, just another present wrapped up nicely in a huge box containing........hmmmm, nothing, just last years ****e in a different wrapping!
You've been warned. Prepare for the 'anti climax'.
Tick Tock
Is it fact or fiction?? {Request: 004, Jinglie & co please send me a link for the presso for this disgusting rumour}.
You won't find that in any press release, yet. He has re-signed for 2 more years. It's better than 5 more years, but still 2 years too many! Sarcs, although you are eager like a schoolboy on prom night, I think you will find a number of announcements (slickly packaged together in the guise of 'sweeping changes') will soon be unveiled. So sit tight my little buttercup, the unveiling of Australia's sweeping reform to government aviation oversight is nigh. But be warned, it may just be delivered in Chairman Hawke style - lots of words, lots of sexy pictures and 200 pages of glossy coloured paper, to produce, in reality ............nothing. A toffee coated turd. In fact the release of all this good news is so close that Lookyloo has been despatched on one of Blackhands postie bikes to deliver the memorandum to News Limited!!But no real changes except a name or two here and there, a few minor restructures and perhaps even an authority name change! Oh goodie it's Xmas! Oh ****, just another present wrapped up nicely in a huge box containing........hmmmm, nothing, just last years ****e in a different wrapping!
You've been warned. Prepare for the 'anti climax'.
Tick Tock
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pagans prayer.
004 " [But] be warned, it may just be delivered in Chairman Hawke style - lots of words, lots of sexy pictures and 200 pages of glossy coloured paper, to produce, in reality ............nothing."
It's not unreasonable to speculate that Boyd and Danos (a clever, dark horse) have formed a working relationship and that Hawke will listen to them; both men know that 'change' must be real. It would be politically embarrassing not to and as CP says, it's win-win. The Rev. Forsyth has an active interest and the Senators cannot be discounted or written out of the script. Indeed, with an experts like Fawcett and Forsyth available to take the flack for a duck up; or to aid the minuscule to grab the kudos if it's a brilliant success, even the most jaundiced cynic could expect a good cut of the roast, even if the whole thing is out of reach.
An 'informed', plugged in board allowed to work with the DAS can achieve much, in short order, there is already a pile of good advice not heeded waiting for the new boy. Only a mug with an oversized ego would waste the collective wisdom and guidance available from Boyd, Danos and Hawke. I'd bet a beer that the DAS selection panel were very careful to avoid another 'one man band'. There are those who would lay more blame than is perhaps merited at the boards feet for the debacle of the past five years and the resultant embarrassment. But clever folk won't waste time or wind on a lost cause; they can wait. And wait they have; now if you'll allow that the board are men of good will, it's no great stretch to have hope that by working with the right DAS, change will come. Otherwise, abandon hope, for the rule of the Golden West Mafia club will be enforced by the McComic catamite wabbits and other, hideous, mythical beasts of nightmare.
It's all still in the balance, but I get a good vibe from the whispers I hear. But to show good faith and garner industry support a simple thing like deffering (abandon is better) part 61 would go a long way. This they can do with a twitch of an eyebrow, same-same with LAME tickets.
It's no skin off to make the changes happen, except to the embedded bottom dwellers who will be called to account; or leave the building quietly. With the right kind of DAS the 'decent chaps' (sigh, and Chapattis) who were forced to hide behind the pot plants lest one of the swaggering, incompetent bullies spotted them and used them hard to gather DAS credits; (see Chambers Report) can emerge and shine. With support from the top the troops can and will ensure pay-back; with interest.
Aye well, it's all to play for, but balanced so precariously that a puff of wind could tip it either way. So no farting: Pooh/fart separator checks must be complete pre boarding.
Toot toot.
Last edited by Kharon; 7th Aug 2014 at 20:40.
Creampuff- if the non- aligned Senators were of the caliber of Senator X and Fawcett I would agree with you but Senator Muir is already proving to be a loose cannon and Senator Lambie......
let's wait and see what the Canadians come up with, hopefully a reality check for the Minister.
let's wait and see what the Canadians come up with, hopefully a reality check for the Minister.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Beaker conundrum- retrospective.
Sarcs # 2176 "[If} it is fact then personally, I can handle that"
But clearly, he must be an embarrassment to his own qualified, competent troops and quite possibly 'the department'. So what's to be done? Well, perhaps, had it not been for the MH 370 tragedy, things may have panned out differently. I note 'they' didn't muck about sending in Beaker to 'deal', 'they' sent in the top pro from AMSA and– Houston, it had to be done right and with the Beaker credibility stinking to the high heavens, he was never an option. It was only after the 'hoop-la' that Beaker slowly and cautiously was brought into the picture, but after the public heavy lifting was done; which may indicate the hatching of a cunning murky Machiavellian plan.
Rather than the embarrassing, public flaying of a 'high ranking' member of the PS tribe, why not keep him on, let him 'manage' the administrative and financial end (nuts, bolts and paper-work) of the MH 370 search. That gets him out of 'the office' without loosing face, keeps him away from 'real' investigations and out of the CASA sphere of influence. This all gives the Forsyth recommendation a chance to flourish; and Bob's your fathers brother, job done with no skin off and Beaker has a nice back door to slither out of.
Good riddance I'd say.
Toot toot – well I'm bored waiting about ain't I and the devil makes work for idle hands, so they say..
Last edited by Kharon; 7th Aug 2014 at 21:17. Reason: De du, de dum, de diddly dum te dum...(Elevator symphony)..
The man is a consummate bureaucrat! Survived the Senate questioning like a James Bond martini and if the Dutch find MH370 he will probably become head of the Department.
Being an embarrassment to the troops is irrelevant in the big scheme as they are well and truly tied up in maintaining your silence clauses when they signed on. If they want to keep their well paid and secure jobs they will just have to grin and bear it. Of course a moderating influence might be the second Commissioner but when is he/she supposed to be appointed?
Being an embarrassment to the troops is irrelevant in the big scheme as they are well and truly tied up in maintaining your silence clauses when they signed on. If they want to keep their well paid and secure jobs they will just have to grin and bear it. Of course a moderating influence might be the second Commissioner but when is he/she supposed to be appointed?
"Another turning point a fork stuck in the road...
Green Day - Good Riddance (Time of Your Life) cont/-
...Time grabs you by the wrist directs you where to go
So make the best of this test and don't ask why
It's not a question but a lesson learned in time
[Chorus]
It's something unpredictable but in the end
Is right I hope you've had the time of your life
So take the photographs and still frames in your mind
Hang it on a shelf in good health and good time
Tattoos and memories and dead skin on trial
For what it's worth it was worth all the while..."
The Beaker conundrum aside...
There is (IMHO) no doubt that the PelAir inquiry, & subsequent report, was the main driver for Truss to instigate the ASRR. Although perhaps he (like many others) couldn't foresee the huge industry uptake that was to follow, simply expecting the Forsyth report (along with a token Govt gesture to adopt some of the recommendations) would placate the industry until the next big event horizon. After all that particular ploy has worked many times before quite successfully...
Besides the damning findings of the Senate AAI inquiry, being a precursor to where we are now, upon reflection I believe there was another defining moment..."turning point a fork stuck in the road"...that took place in the (now infamous) Senate Estimates 29 May 2013 (less than a week after the AAI report had been released).
The setting was in a quiet moment after all the previous hub bub (e.g. 'The battle of the two Big Macks') & the rest of the main players had left the stage.
For those interested in the body language indicators (some of which is quite unmistakeable), here is the video footage of that byplay...
There is no mistaking that Senator Fawcett was effectively putting M&M and his Department on notice, IMO a definite precursor to where we are now...
Sarcs QON: This bit of the Hansard is quite topical at the moment...
"...but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that..."
...wondering if this 'person' is the same individual who the STBR DAS refers to in his MMSM article rebuking the AHIA??: CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark
MTF..
...Time grabs you by the wrist directs you where to go
So make the best of this test and don't ask why
It's not a question but a lesson learned in time
[Chorus]
It's something unpredictable but in the end
Is right I hope you've had the time of your life
So take the photographs and still frames in your mind
Hang it on a shelf in good health and good time
Tattoos and memories and dead skin on trial
For what it's worth it was worth all the while..."
The Beaker conundrum aside...
There is (IMHO) no doubt that the PelAir inquiry, & subsequent report, was the main driver for Truss to instigate the ASRR. Although perhaps he (like many others) couldn't foresee the huge industry uptake that was to follow, simply expecting the Forsyth report (along with a token Govt gesture to adopt some of the recommendations) would placate the industry until the next big event horizon. After all that particular ploy has worked many times before quite successfully...
Besides the damning findings of the Senate AAI inquiry, being a precursor to where we are now, upon reflection I believe there was another defining moment..."turning point a fork stuck in the road"...that took place in the (now infamous) Senate Estimates 29 May 2013 (less than a week after the AAI report had been released).
The setting was in a quiet moment after all the previous hub bub (e.g. 'The battle of the two Big Macks') & the rest of the main players had left the stage.
Senator FAWCETT: In broad terms, dealing with the regulation that CASA oversights specifically, particularly in the context of a regulatory process that has now stretched over a decade, and with changes of CEOs or directors of aviation safety there has been quite a change in approach to that, not just the current but previous. I am looking to understand what strategic guidance, as in long-term vision, comes from the policy area of your department, Mr Mrdak, that guides the people who are involved in regulatory reform in how the government wishes that go forward? Which stakeholders are involved? Can you talk me through how you set the policy directions for that?
Mr Mrdak : The first priority of the aviation white paper is to bring a lot of that regulatory reform process to a conclusion. You are absolutely right, it is a process which started almost a decade and a half ago with various guises. It has been through various iterations. The white paper actually set out an intention to bring some of the key suites of regulatory documents to a close. What we have been involved with is trying to do that.
The stakeholders involved are diverse depending the regulatory package involved be it maintenance, pilot licensing or whatever. There has been a diversity of industry interest. The big elements like the maintenance suite for the heavy end of the industry will come into play on 1 July with the changes. There are other suites which will come together.
The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. We threw additional resources to pay for drafters and the legal processes to expedite that. I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. They have been through various consultative processes.
You are right, what we have tried to do is get a suite of modern regulations that get the right balance for CASA in terms of industry behaviour and the like. We try to be prescriptive where we need to be but less prescriptive wherever we can. We certainly involve ourselves in that element. Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.
Senator FAWCETT: One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?
Mr Mrdak : To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite. They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.
Senator FAWCETT: The concern, though, is what I am hearing from certain sections of the industry—and EMS is one, on the rotary side. I did not get time to confirm this with Mr McCormick today, but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that. So my question comes back: why has there been this change to basically have CASA dictating what is going to occur as opposed to constructively engaging with industry? Is that a policy that has come from government or is it something that has just evolved with changes of personality?
Mr Mrdak : I do not know the specifics of that particular regulatory regime. I am just not familiar with that level of detail. I would have to seek advice from Mr McCormick in relation to that matter. I would say it is problem in more likely to be the latter. It probably has evolved as the circumstances of the consultation, industry views and CASA views have formed. But I cannot comment on that specific example, I am sorry.
Senator FAWCETT: What role do you see for the board of CASA between yourself and the policy level of the department and the actions of CASA? Do you see that they should be setting strategic direction and guidance for the CEO?
Mr Mrdak : Very much, and that is their role. The board is there to provide advice to the director of aviation safety to complement his skill set and to provide strategic direction for the organisation. That is the role of the chair and the board members.
Senator FAWCETT: Have they had an active role in this issue of the emphasis and direction of regulatory reform?
Mr Mrdak : I could not comment. I certainly believe that they have been a very active board, but I do not have a level of detail in relation to specific regulatory measures to give you a comprehensive answer on that.
Senator FAWCETT: What level of oversight do you then exercise over the board of CASA in terms of the appointment and the performance of that group of people as a board?
Mr Mrdak : We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the key documents the minister deals with: corporate plan, statement of expectation, statement of intent—we provide advice to the minister in those matters. We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the composition of the skills of the board, and the minister will make decisions on appointments. We certainly do provide advice to the minister on how we think the organisation is travelling in terms of meeting its performance indicators. But, at the end of the day, it is a independent statutory body that reports directly to the minister through the board in relation to the discharge of their responsibilities. We provide advice to the minister on what we believe are some of the directions that are being followed by the organisation.
Senator FAWCETT: When can the parliament expect to see some of the updates that you have been saying the minister has been getting about the various implementation of the white paper?
Mr Mrdak : We can certainly provide you some advice on the status of the measures. They range, as I said. We have been implementing many measures, such as our approach to bilateral negotiations, right through to the suite of regulatory measures and NASAG. There is a lot. I think today legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives concerning particular elements of protection of assets and the like. A range of legislation has been introduced. We are well progressed in most elements of the white paper. Also, the real achievement of the white paper was to bring together for the first time the comprehensive policy positions around the full suite of industry measures covering aviation and provide a range of objectives going forward. That is where the white paper has served a very good purpose.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly, either individually or as a committee member, I would welcome a more detailed update or briefing.
Mr Mrdak : We would be happy to do that for you.
Mr Mrdak : The first priority of the aviation white paper is to bring a lot of that regulatory reform process to a conclusion. You are absolutely right, it is a process which started almost a decade and a half ago with various guises. It has been through various iterations. The white paper actually set out an intention to bring some of the key suites of regulatory documents to a close. What we have been involved with is trying to do that.
The stakeholders involved are diverse depending the regulatory package involved be it maintenance, pilot licensing or whatever. There has been a diversity of industry interest. The big elements like the maintenance suite for the heavy end of the industry will come into play on 1 July with the changes. There are other suites which will come together.
The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. We threw additional resources to pay for drafters and the legal processes to expedite that. I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. They have been through various consultative processes.
You are right, what we have tried to do is get a suite of modern regulations that get the right balance for CASA in terms of industry behaviour and the like. We try to be prescriptive where we need to be but less prescriptive wherever we can. We certainly involve ourselves in that element. Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.
Senator FAWCETT: One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?
Mr Mrdak : To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite. They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.
Senator FAWCETT: The concern, though, is what I am hearing from certain sections of the industry—and EMS is one, on the rotary side. I did not get time to confirm this with Mr McCormick today, but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that. So my question comes back: why has there been this change to basically have CASA dictating what is going to occur as opposed to constructively engaging with industry? Is that a policy that has come from government or is it something that has just evolved with changes of personality?
Mr Mrdak : I do not know the specifics of that particular regulatory regime. I am just not familiar with that level of detail. I would have to seek advice from Mr McCormick in relation to that matter. I would say it is problem in more likely to be the latter. It probably has evolved as the circumstances of the consultation, industry views and CASA views have formed. But I cannot comment on that specific example, I am sorry.
Senator FAWCETT: What role do you see for the board of CASA between yourself and the policy level of the department and the actions of CASA? Do you see that they should be setting strategic direction and guidance for the CEO?
Mr Mrdak : Very much, and that is their role. The board is there to provide advice to the director of aviation safety to complement his skill set and to provide strategic direction for the organisation. That is the role of the chair and the board members.
Senator FAWCETT: Have they had an active role in this issue of the emphasis and direction of regulatory reform?
Mr Mrdak : I could not comment. I certainly believe that they have been a very active board, but I do not have a level of detail in relation to specific regulatory measures to give you a comprehensive answer on that.
Senator FAWCETT: What level of oversight do you then exercise over the board of CASA in terms of the appointment and the performance of that group of people as a board?
Mr Mrdak : We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the key documents the minister deals with: corporate plan, statement of expectation, statement of intent—we provide advice to the minister in those matters. We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the composition of the skills of the board, and the minister will make decisions on appointments. We certainly do provide advice to the minister on how we think the organisation is travelling in terms of meeting its performance indicators. But, at the end of the day, it is a independent statutory body that reports directly to the minister through the board in relation to the discharge of their responsibilities. We provide advice to the minister on what we believe are some of the directions that are being followed by the organisation.
Senator FAWCETT: When can the parliament expect to see some of the updates that you have been saying the minister has been getting about the various implementation of the white paper?
Mr Mrdak : We can certainly provide you some advice on the status of the measures. They range, as I said. We have been implementing many measures, such as our approach to bilateral negotiations, right through to the suite of regulatory measures and NASAG. There is a lot. I think today legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives concerning particular elements of protection of assets and the like. A range of legislation has been introduced. We are well progressed in most elements of the white paper. Also, the real achievement of the white paper was to bring together for the first time the comprehensive policy positions around the full suite of industry measures covering aviation and provide a range of objectives going forward. That is where the white paper has served a very good purpose.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly, either individually or as a committee member, I would welcome a more detailed update or briefing.
Mr Mrdak : We would be happy to do that for you.
There is no mistaking that Senator Fawcett was effectively putting M&M and his Department on notice
, IMO a definite precursor to where we are now... Sarcs QON: This bit of the Hansard is quite topical at the moment...
"...but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that..."
...wondering if this 'person' is the same individual who the STBR DAS refers to in his MMSM article rebuking the AHIA??
: CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark
A high level of consultation was undertaken in developing the manual, including workshops, consultation on drafts and amendments to drafts. A CASA officer with helicopter expertise was made available to liaise with the Australian Helicopter Industry Association on the development of both the regulations and the manual.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I demand an apology.
Sarcs, sorry too much mate; you've got it all wrong, completely ass about.. The boss of the dirty wash made a statement in the Australian, which is much closer to the 'reality' of the situation. You see it's all our fault; quite apart from being terminally thick and unable to translate some 1200 pages of the one simple part (61 to wit) into instant, black letter compliance; we are also recalcitrant, incorrigible and the dregs of society. So, pull your head in and applaud the Emperor when he publicly struts his stuff, in his brand new clothes.
Honestly facts, evidence and plain old bulls<>t detection cannot, possibly compete. If you still harbour any doubts, read the 'Magnificent Self Obsession', drafted by Proffessional PonyPohh-Shambollick (ABC, DEF, GHI, JKL. etc) and for even more persuasive evidence, study 'Just As I Like It 'penned by Wodger (the dodger) Wabbit (NFI, SFA, NABC, etc).
"K" – VD and scar. (Actually, that's CP 's gag, I just 'borrowed' it).
Toot toot
Honestly facts, evidence and plain old bulls<>t detection cannot, possibly compete. If you still harbour any doubts, read the 'Magnificent Self Obsession', drafted by Proffessional PonyPohh-Shambollick (ABC, DEF, GHI, JKL. etc) and for even more persuasive evidence, study 'Just As I Like It 'penned by Wodger (the dodger) Wabbit (NFI, SFA, NABC, etc).
"K" – VD and scar. (Actually, that's CP 's gag, I just 'borrowed' it).
Toot toot
Last edited by Kharon; 16th Aug 2014 at 02:02.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Split the industry!
The article on Friday was a clear attempt to divide the industry, which is one of the ploys that CASA use when on the back foot. This is a time when the industry need to stand together and push back.......
"United we stand, divided we fall"
triadic:
And a no more perfect example is the call by the AHIA to defer Part 61, started with: AHIA Calls for Further Delay in New Flight Crew Licensing Regulations
Which was followed by the, apparently unsanctioned, diatribe from the DAS (STBR): CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark
Then the AHIA stand was backed by some other industry heavy weights: Aviation Bodies Call for New Rules to be Deferred
And then today we get this (also from Oz Flying):
..
What next?? Maybe the 'powers to be' may adopt the AMROBA idea to use Part 61 to..
MTF...
The article on Friday was a clear attempt to divide the industry, which is one of the ploys that CASA use when on the back foot. This is a time when the industry need to stand together and push back.......
Which was followed by the, apparently unsanctioned, diatribe from the DAS (STBR): CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark
Then the AHIA stand was backed by some other industry heavy weights: Aviation Bodies Call for New Rules to be Deferred
And then today we get this (also from Oz Flying):
Two-year Reprieve for ATOs
11 Aug 2014
CASA has deferred the end to Authorised Testing Officers (ATO) until June 2016.
Under the CASR Part 61 rules coming in on 1 September, ATOs would no longer exist and qualified instructors would instead be given a Flight Examiner Rating on the licence.
CASA released an statement today stating "Under the new licensing suite of regulations approved testing officers will transition to a flight examiner rating on 30 June 2016.
"The flight examiner rating is a personal qualification under the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 pilot licencing regulations. It is not a delegation from CASA.
"The 2016 transition date will make it easier for both current approved testing officers and CASA to manage the transition to the new rules. Approved testing officers who want to transition before June 2016 may do so."
Industry bodies have been vocal with criticism of the new system because Flight Examiners will not be covered by the Federal Government's insurance, and it is thought there would not have been enough examiners ready to go on 1 September to cope with the demand for flight tests.
11 Aug 2014
CASA has deferred the end to Authorised Testing Officers (ATO) until June 2016.
Under the CASR Part 61 rules coming in on 1 September, ATOs would no longer exist and qualified instructors would instead be given a Flight Examiner Rating on the licence.
CASA released an statement today stating "Under the new licensing suite of regulations approved testing officers will transition to a flight examiner rating on 30 June 2016.
"The flight examiner rating is a personal qualification under the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 pilot licencing regulations. It is not a delegation from CASA.
"The 2016 transition date will make it easier for both current approved testing officers and CASA to manage the transition to the new rules. Approved testing officers who want to transition before June 2016 may do so."
Industry bodies have been vocal with criticism of the new system because Flight Examiners will not be covered by the Federal Government's insurance, and it is thought there would not have been enough examiners ready to go on 1 September to cope with the demand for flight tests.
What next?? Maybe the 'powers to be' may adopt the AMROBA idea to use Part 61 to..
To understand what is meant by a 3 tier regulatory system there needs to be an understanding of the Civil Aviation Act. The Civil Aviation Act enables CASA to promulgate, (9(1)(c) Aviation Safety Standards, (98) Manual of Standards, Legisla-tive Instruments and Civil Aviation Orders. What has not been utilised properly is CASA’s function to promulgate Aviation Safety Standards. However, the ASRR Report & Recommendation 30 clarifies how this should be done.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two -tier regulatory framework (act and regulations) to a three -tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:
a. regulations drafted in a high -level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative prov i-sions, including offences b. the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language. (ASRR Page 106) In relation to the standards: – as a first priority, compliance with ICAO SARPs , with any departures from ICAO SARPs to be specifically identified for formal approval by the Steering Committee – plain language in a logical understandable structure – adherence as closely as possible to the substance of rules in other developed jurisdictions (US, New Zealand, Europe, and Can-ada) to ensure compatibility, facilitating bilateral recognition agreements and efficient international operations. – include unique Australian provisions only when absolutely necessary, and only when the Steering Committee formally agrees to their inclusion – take into account the economic impact and a RIS is to be completed – current draft documents are to be used as a starting point to help accelerate the program.
An Act Sec 9(1)(c) ASS promulgating FAR Part 61 would be a a good start with a CASR Part 61 based on (a) above.
(From AMROBA newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 08 August — 2014)
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two -tier regulatory framework (act and regulations) to a three -tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:
a. regulations drafted in a high -level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative prov i-sions, including offences b. the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language. (ASRR Page 106) In relation to the standards: – as a first priority, compliance with ICAO SARPs , with any departures from ICAO SARPs to be specifically identified for formal approval by the Steering Committee – plain language in a logical understandable structure – adherence as closely as possible to the substance of rules in other developed jurisdictions (US, New Zealand, Europe, and Can-ada) to ensure compatibility, facilitating bilateral recognition agreements and efficient international operations. – include unique Australian provisions only when absolutely necessary, and only when the Steering Committee formally agrees to their inclusion – take into account the economic impact and a RIS is to be completed – current draft documents are to be used as a starting point to help accelerate the program.
An Act Sec 9(1)(c) ASS promulgating FAR Part 61 would be a a good start with a CASR Part 61 based on (a) above.
(From AMROBA newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 08 August — 2014)
MTF...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gone- is it international now?
Sarcs " There is (IMHO) no doubt that the PelAir inquiry, & subsequent report, was the main driver for Truss to instigate the ASRR."
Still, it's only an international forum read by the IOS and insignificant in the great scheme – what only 11,065 posts and 19,070,361 reads. Perhaps some PR or spin could be provided along with a clear explanation of why 'black boxes' aren't too important, just to save the nations reputation (such as it is)...
Just a passing strange thought.
Last edited by Kharon; 11th Aug 2014 at 22:23. Reason: To the point of ennui.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry
The latest two-finger salute by FF to the Honourable Senators and their PelAir inquiry.
Comments are on their way ppruners
to the casa "project"
Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements
Comments are on their way ppruners
to the casa "project"
Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 14th Aug 2014 at 08:08. Reason: edits to the edit!!
No comment needed just get on with it!
Consultation Draft Proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 subsection 3A
Nearly fifteen years since the issue was first broached...
R20000040:
Which in apparently nine years led to OS 09/13...
Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements - Project approved. 21 Aug 2009
And with the PelAir ditching the project was expanded to include Aerial Work (Aeromedical flights) and then in July 2010 the NPRM 1003OS was released:
Four years since then and all it took was this...
"..3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each certificate authorising 1 or more of the following operations in an aeroplane:
(a) charter operations for the carriage of passengers;
(b) regular public transport operations for the carriage of passengers;
(c) aerial work operations for ambulance functions or for functions substantially similar to ambulance functions (medical transport operations);
is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island unless:
(d) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(e) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(f) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island, unless CASA approves otherwise in writing; and
(g) when the flight commences the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight; and
(h) during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its nominated alternate aerodrome if necessary, with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
(2) Paragraph 3A (1) applies to a medical transport operation whether or not a passenger is carried on the flight to a remote island.
(3) An approval under subparagraph (1) (f) may be subject to conditions..."
{Comment: Has to be one of the smallest amendments I've seen in the last 5 years or so..}
Hmm..it must have been a busy time for FF as July 2010 was also when the infamous CAIR 09/3 & Wodgers Weport were also released (reference my post #2035). And in fact CAIR 09/3 made mention of OS 09/13 at para 4.4
Strange how the ALIU had a slightly different take on how OS 09/3 was initiated??
Oh well good to see that someone in FF is finally taking the initiative to close the loop..
Wonder when the other part of the FF intended safety actions addressing the ATsB (closed) minor safety issue will eventuate...: AO-2009-072-SI-01
Hopefully we won't have to wait another fifteen years for that to happen..
MTF...
Nearly fifteen years since the issue was first broached...
R20000040:
SAFETY ACTION
As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.
Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements - Project approved. 21 Aug 2009
And with the PelAir ditching the project was expanded to include Aerial Work (Aeromedical flights) and then in July 2010 the NPRM 1003OS was released:
3.3 Reasons for change
3.3.1 The application of the additional remote island fuel requirements in CAO 82.0 which is currently limited to passenger-carrying charter operations was reviewed in the early stage of the project. As the safety of passengers is CASA’s highest priority, it was considered that excluding other passenger-carrying operations in the aerial work and RPT categories from the remote island fuel requirements had no justifiable safety
reasons.
Note: The term “passenger” is defined in CAR 2 as meaning “any person who is on board an aircraft other than a member of the operating crew”. The term “operating crew” is defined in CAR 2 as meaning “any person who is on board an aircraft with the consent of the operator of the aircraft and has duties in relation to the flying or safety of the aircraft”.
3.3.1 The application of the additional remote island fuel requirements in CAO 82.0 which is currently limited to passenger-carrying charter operations was reviewed in the early stage of the project. As the safety of passengers is CASA’s highest priority, it was considered that excluding other passenger-carrying operations in the aerial work and RPT categories from the remote island fuel requirements had no justifiable safety
reasons.
Note: The term “passenger” is defined in CAR 2 as meaning “any person who is on board an aircraft other than a member of the operating crew”. The term “operating crew” is defined in CAR 2 as meaning “any person who is on board an aircraft with the consent of the operator of the aircraft and has duties in relation to the flying or safety of the aircraft”.
"..3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each certificate authorising 1 or more of the following operations in an aeroplane:
(a) charter operations for the carriage of passengers;
(b) regular public transport operations for the carriage of passengers;
(c) aerial work operations for ambulance functions or for functions substantially similar to ambulance functions (medical transport operations);
is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island unless:
(d) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(e) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(f) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island, unless CASA approves otherwise in writing; and
(g) when the flight commences the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight; and
(h) during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its nominated alternate aerodrome if necessary, with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
(2) Paragraph 3A (1) applies to a medical transport operation whether or not a passenger is carried on the flight to a remote island.
(3) An approval under subparagraph (1) (f) may be subject to conditions..."
{Comment: Has to be one of the smallest amendments I've seen in the last 5 years or so..
}Hmm..it must have been a busy time for FF as July 2010 was also when the infamous CAIR 09/3 & Wodgers Weport were also released (reference my post #2035). And in fact CAIR 09/3 made mention of OS 09/13 at para 4.4
Strange how the ALIU had a slightly different take on how OS 09/3 was initiated??
Oh well good to see that someone in FF is finally taking the initiative to close the loop..
Wonder when the other part of the FF intended safety actions addressing the ATsB (closed) minor safety issue will eventuate...
: AO-2009-072-SI-01
Finally, CASA also advised of their intent to regulate Air Ambulance / Patient transfer operators as follows:
- Air Ambulance/Patient transfer operations in the proposed operational Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) will be regulated to safety standards that are similar to those for passenger operations.
- While CASR Parts 138/136 will be limited to domestic operations and, if CASA decides to retain Air Ambulance/Patient transfer operations in these rule suites, any such operation wishing to operate internationally will also be required to comply with CASR Part 119. If, however, CASA decides to move these operations into CASR Parts 121/135/133 they will already be required to comply with CASR Part 119. Either way, Air Ambulance/Patient transfer operations will be regulated to the same standard as Air Transport Operations (ATO). In relation to Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands, all ATO which include Air Ambulance/Patient transfer, will be required to carry mainland alternate fuel.
- CASR Parts 119/121/135/133 are expected to be finalised by the end of 2012 and are currently proposed to commence in June 2014. CASR Parts 138/136 are expected to be made by June 2013 and are proposed to commence in June 2014. Given that the drafting of these CASR Parts are subject to third party arrangements (Attorney-General’s Department) and CASA and the industry’s ability to effectively implement the new rule suite, these timelines are subject to change.
MTF...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs,
from what I have read on the Part 121/135 rules, I guess, just as part 61 gifted all the foreign training and shorty all our domestic, these new amendments will gift all our ambo work to Singapore and NZ.
from what I have read on the Part 121/135 rules, I guess, just as part 61 gifted all the foreign training and shorty all our domestic, these new amendments will gift all our ambo work to Singapore and NZ.
Part One- The inconvenience of facts & timelines??
Again, although much belated, I applaud the initiative of FF team OS 09/13 to bring fwd, in an obvious period of uncertainty, the Consultation Draft Proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 subsection 3A ...
...it maybe small consolation but I am sure Ziggychick and others will appreciate your efforts...
However, at the same time, I am extremely intrigued by certain aspects in the history of project OS 09/13 (Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements Consultation history ).
So in an effort to join the dots let us start with the 15 July 2010 NPRM webpage (click here ). In the NPRM 1003 OS pdf in the foreword it was stated...
"I would like to thank you for expressing interest in this proposal and emphasise that no rule changes will be undertaken until all NPRM responses and submissions received by the closing date 9 September 2010 have been considered..."
And on previous page...
"...Following consideration of responses to this NPRM, CASA will prepare a Summary of Responses, and make revisions to the draft CAO amendment where considered appropriate.
2010 version:
I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under paragraph 28BA (1) (b) and subsection 98 (4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
(1) Unless CASA approves otherwise in writing, each certificate authorising aerial work, charter or regular public transport operations in an aeroplane is subject to the condition that a passenger may be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island only if:
ps Interesting how Phase One & Two (as quoted below) from today's version of OS 09/13 is at odds with the CAIR 09/3 version (see post #2188)...
Purpose/Objectives
The CAO amendment would add Cocos (Keeling) Island to the list of existing remote islands (which are Christmas, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands).
The amendment would substitute a new subsection 3A, which provides that each AOC for passenger-carrying charter, RPT operations, or for aerial work ambulance-type functions (medical transport operations) is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried to a remote island unless the following requirements are complied with:
a. the aeroplane is multi-engined
b. the pilot has nominated an alternate aerodrome
c. that alternate aerodrome is not itself on a remote island (unless CASA specifically approves)
d. the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight
e. during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its alternate aerodrome (if necessary) with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
In some medical transport operations, medical and nursing staff may not be considered as 'passengers' (for example, because they have flight safety duties to perform). To protect the safety of such personnel who are, in effect, third parties like passengers, for medical transport operations the safety requirements described above would apply whether or not a 'passenger' is carried on the flight to a remote island.
The CAO amendment would add Cocos (Keeling) Island to the list of existing remote islands (which are Christmas, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands).
The amendment would substitute a new subsection 3A, which provides that each AOC for passenger-carrying charter, RPT operations, or for aerial work ambulance-type functions (medical transport operations) is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried to a remote island unless the following requirements are complied with:
a. the aeroplane is multi-engined
b. the pilot has nominated an alternate aerodrome
c. that alternate aerodrome is not itself on a remote island (unless CASA specifically approves)
d. the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight
e. during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its alternate aerodrome (if necessary) with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
In some medical transport operations, medical and nursing staff may not be considered as 'passengers' (for example, because they have flight safety duties to perform). To protect the safety of such personnel who are, in effect, third parties like passengers, for medical transport operations the safety requirements described above would apply whether or not a 'passenger' is carried on the flight to a remote island.
However, at the same time, I am extremely intrigued by certain aspects in the history of project OS 09/13 (Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements Consultation history ).
So in an effort to join the dots let us start with the 15 July 2010 NPRM webpage (click here ). In the NPRM 1003 OS pdf in the foreword it was stated...
"I would like to thank you for expressing interest in this proposal and emphasise that no rule changes will be undertaken until all NPRM responses and submissions received by the closing date 9 September 2010 have been considered..."
And on previous page...
"...Following consideration of responses to this NPRM, CASA will prepare a Summary of Responses, and make revisions to the draft CAO amendment where considered appropriate.
CASA will conduct further analysis of the extent of the impact these changes will have on operators and pilots to ensure an adequate timeframe is given for implementation. It is envisaged that a transition period of 3 to 6 months will be allowed to ensure operators have revised procedures in respect to these changes..."
Now to the man at the back of the room the obvious question is WTF happened to NPRM 1003 OS in the interim period of nearly four years?? Do FF seriously expect the MATBOTR to accept this as an excuse...
"...Under Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 1003OS (published in July 2010) the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) proposed changes to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.0 to include Cocos (Keeling) Island as a designated remote island...
...CASA Project OS 09/13 was re-phased to allow for the inclusion of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) developments relating to...
...With the SARP now effective, and the ICAO Fuel and flight Planning Manual (FFPM) finalised, these standards are being drafted into the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). CASA now considers it appropriate to start to bring forward some aspects into the CAOs and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) prior to the making of the Operational CASR Parts..."
Moving onto Annex A - Proposed Amendment to CAO 82.0 - Air Operators' Certificates. And a quick comparison between the 2010 & 2014 versions of the proposed amendments to CAO 82.0.
2010 version:
I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under paragraph 28BA (1) (b) and subsection 98 (4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
July 2010
Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2010
1 Name of instrument
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1)
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1)
2010.
2 Commencement
This instrument commences [3 to 6 months after registration].
This instrument commences [3 to 6 months after registration].
3 Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 82.0
Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 82.0.
Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 82.0.
Schedule 1 Amendments
[1] Paragraph 2.1, new definition, minimum safe fuel
insert minimum safe fuel has the meaning given by paragraph 2.3.
[1] Paragraph 2.1, new definition, minimum safe fuel
insert minimum safe fuel has the meaning given by paragraph 2.3.
[2] Paragraph 2.1, definition of remote island
substitute remote island means:
substitute remote island means:
(a) Christmas Island; or
(b) Cocos (Keeling) Islands; or(c) Lord Howe Island; or
(d) Norfolk Island.
[3] Paragraph 2.1, new definition of reserve fuel
insert reserve fuel means the variable fuel reserve and the fixed fuel reserve to be carried by an aircraft in accordance with guidelines issued by CASA for
insert reserve fuel means the variable fuel reserve and the fixed fuel reserve to be carried by an aircraft in accordance with guidelines issued by CASA for
subparagraph 234 (3) (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
[4] Paragraphs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1
substitute
2.3 Unless CASA approves otherwise in writing for a particular flight, the
minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island is the greater of the following:
(a) the total of:
substitute
2.3 Unless CASA approves otherwise in writing for a particular flight, the
minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island is the greater of the following:
(a) the total of:
(i) the minimum amount of fuel that would enable the aeroplane to fly,
with all engines operating, to the remote island aerodrome and then to
(ii) reserve fuel
2.3.1 For paragraph 2.3, a critical event for an aeroplane means:
(a) the failure of an engine; or
(b) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; or
(c) both the failure of an engine and a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft.
2.3.2 An approval under paragraph 2.3 may be given with or without conditions.
2.4 An amount of fuel mentioned in paragraph 2.3 is to be worked out:
(a) for an aeroplane that is a transport category aircraft, by using:
(i) the performance data and the fuel consumption data contained in the
aeroplane’s flight manual; or
(ii) the performance data and the fuel consumption data obtained from a
(ii) the performance data and the fuel consumption data obtained from a flight test of the aeroplane carried out in an approved manner.
2.4.1 For sub-subparagraphs 2.4 (a) (i) and 2.4 (b) (i), if the issue of a supplemental type certificate for an aeroplane has the effect of amending the performance data or the fuel consumption data referred to in the sub-subparagraphs, the amended performance data or fuel consumption data must be used.
[5] Subsection 3A
substitute
3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islandswith all engines operating, to the remote island aerodrome and then to
the nominated alternate aerodrome; and
(ii) reserve fuel;
(b) the total of:
(i) the minimum amount of fuel that would enable the aeroplane to do the
following if a critical event were to occur at the most critical point of
the flight:
(A) fly to its destination aerodrome, or an alternate aerodrome;
(B) fly above the aerodrome for 15 minutes at 1 500 feet at holding
speed under standard temperature conditions;
(C) land at the aerodrome; and
(ii) reserve fuel;
(b) the total of:
(i) the minimum amount of fuel that would enable the aeroplane to do the
following if a critical event were to occur at the most critical point of
the flight:
(A) fly to its destination aerodrome, or an alternate aerodrome;
(B) fly above the aerodrome for 15 minutes at 1 500 feet at holding
speed under standard temperature conditions;
(C) land at the aerodrome; and
(ii) reserve fuel
2.3.1 For paragraph 2.3, a critical event for an aeroplane means:
(a) the failure of an engine; or
(b) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; or
(c) both the failure of an engine and a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft.
2.3.2 An approval under paragraph 2.3 may be given with or without conditions.
2.4 An amount of fuel mentioned in paragraph 2.3 is to be worked out:
(a) for an aeroplane that is a transport category aircraft, by using:
(i) the performance data and the fuel consumption data contained in the
aeroplane’s flight manual; or
(ii) the performance data and the fuel consumption data obtained from a
flight test of the aeroplane carried out in an approved manner; or
(b) for an aeroplane that is not a transport category aircraft, by using:
(i) the following:
(A) the performance data for the aeroplane provided by the
manufacturer of the aircraft’s airframe, or contained in the
aeroplane’s flight manual or the pilot’s operating handbook for the aeroplane; and
(B) the fuel consumption data for the aeroplane obtained from 1 of the
sources mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (A),or provided by the
manufacturer of the aeroplane’s engines; or
(b) for an aeroplane that is not a transport category aircraft, by using:
(i) the following:
(A) the performance data for the aeroplane provided by the
manufacturer of the aircraft’s airframe, or contained in the
aeroplane’s flight manual or the pilot’s operating handbook for the aeroplane; and
(B) the fuel consumption data for the aeroplane obtained from 1 of the
sources mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (A),or provided by the
manufacturer of the aeroplane’s engines; or
(ii) the performance data and the fuel consumption data obtained from a flight test of the aeroplane carried out in an approved manner.
2.4.1 For sub-subparagraphs 2.4 (a) (i) and 2.4 (b) (i), if the issue of a supplemental type certificate for an aeroplane has the effect of amending the performance data or the fuel consumption data referred to in the sub-subparagraphs, the amended performance data or fuel consumption data must be used.
[5] Subsection 3A
substitute
(1) Unless CASA approves otherwise in writing, each certificate authorising aerial work, charter or regular public transport operations in an aeroplane is subject to the condition that a passenger may be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island only if:
(a) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(b) at the start of the flight, not less than the minimum safe fuel is carried by
the aeroplane for the flight; and
(c) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(d) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island.
(b) at the start of the flight, not less than the minimum safe fuel is carried by
the aeroplane for the flight; and
(c) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(d) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island.
(2) An approval under paragraph (1) may be given with or without conditions.
Note 1 Under subregulation 2 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, passenger means any person who is on board an aircraft other than a member of the operating crew
Note 2 Subsection 3A, read with paragraph 2.3, means that an AOC holder may not conduct an aeroplane operation carrying a passenger to a remote island except in a multi-engine aeroplane, whose pilot in command has nominated an appropriate alternate aerodrome for the flight, and which at take-off is carrying sufficient fuel to reach the destination aerodrome and then the nominated alternate aerodrome without using any reserve fuel.
[6] Appendix 5, after subclause 6 (3)
insert
insert
(4) If subsection 3A applies to an AOC holder for an aeroplane conducting an
EDTO flight, then:
(a) the amount of fuel calculated for subclause (2) must be not less than the
minimum safe fuel; and
(b) the operations manual must include the calculation of the minimum safe
fuel.
EDTO flight, then:
(a) the amount of fuel calculated for subclause (2) must be not less than the
minimum safe fuel; and
(b) the operations manual must include the calculation of the minimum safe
fuel.
Note Subsection 3A deals with passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands.
Remote island, reserve fuel and minimum safe fuel are defined terms under this Order.
2014 version:
I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under paragraph 28BA (1) (b) and subsection 98 (4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety
[DATE] 2014
Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2014
Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2014
1 Name of instrument
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2014.
2 Commencement
This instrument commences on the day after registration.
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2014.
2 Commencement
This instrument commences on the day after registration.
3 Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 82.0
Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 82.0.
Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 82.0.
Schedule 1 Amendments
[1] Paragraph 2.1, definitions
substitute
substitute
remote island means:
(a) Christmas Island; or
(b) the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; or
(c) Lord Howe Island; or
(d) Norfolk Island.
(a) Christmas Island; or
(b) the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; or
(c) Lord Howe Island; or
(d) Norfolk Island.
[2] Subsection 3A
substitute
3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each certificate authorising 1 or more of the following operations in an aeroplane:
(b) regular public transport operations for the carriage of passengers;
substitute
3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each certificate authorising 1 or more of the following operations in an aeroplane:
(a) charter operations for the carriage of passengers;
(b) regular public transport operations for the carriage of passengers;
(c) aerial work operations for ambulance functions or for functions substantially similar to ambulance functions (medical transport operations);
is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island unless:
(2) Paragraph 3A (1) applies to a medical transport operation whether or not a passenger is carried on the flight to a remote island.
is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island unless:
(d) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(e) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(h) during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its nominated alternate aerodrome if necessary, with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
(e) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(f) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island, unless CASA approves otherwise in writing; and
(g) when the flight commences the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight; and
(g) when the flight commences the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight; and
(h) during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its nominated alternate aerodrome if necessary, with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
(2) Paragraph 3A (1) applies to a medical transport operation whether or not a passenger is carried on the flight to a remote island.
(3) An approval under subparagraph (1) (f) may be subject to conditions
{Note: Still reviewing the subtle differences in para 3A but the obvious difference is that the 2014 version is much more condensed and provides a more distinct definition of MTO flights with the addition of sub para (2).}
Q. What happened to the 2010 responses which in the normal NPRM due process are usually published??
Still joining the dots...
Part two to follow...
Q. What happened to the 2010 responses which in the normal NPRM due process are usually published??
Still joining the dots...
Part two to follow...
ps Interesting how Phase One & Two (as quoted below) from today's version of OS 09/13 is at odds with the CAIR 09/3 version (see post #2188)...
Phase 1 will involve amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) and a review of CAAP 234-1 for flights to Isolated Aerodromes in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass fuel and operational requirements for flights to Isolated Aerodromes. The review will also consider the provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome from a destination that is a designated Isolated Aerodrome. The CAAP234-1 will also be expanded to provide guidance and considerations necessary for flights to any Isolated Aerodrome, in particular when, and under what circumstances, a pilot should consider a diversion.
Phase 2 will involve amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) and further review of CAAP 234 in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass regulatory changes related to the implementation of general fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes. This review will include the methods by which pilots and operators calculate fuel required and fuel on-board.
Last edited by Sarcs; 15th Aug 2014 at 03:49.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Sarcs Morriarty reincarnated?
Sarcs #2190 – "Still joining the dots.."
Thorny - "Sarcs, mate, you really are a cynical Bast..ard"
.....I'm going to call his bluff; there is a possible entrant from overseas, little known in Oz but if the connections decide that they will run the horse, it will alter the odds. So let's see, (looking – looking) Ah, howzabout - Canadian Club; horse, out of Federal Plod by Criminal Intent.
You see, I reckon Sarcs has 'inverted' the perspective and instead of wondering why the Canadian form guide has not been published; he has tracked the MoP, backwards; from the Canadian TSB audit point of view i.e. What the CTSB would see when they investigate ICAO compliance. In that context, if Sarcs has started from the compliance with ICAO annex 13 end and worked backwards through to the ubiquitous MoU. Could the CTSB possibly feel that the MoU disturbs the ICAO tenet of ATSB 'sovereignty' during an investigation and the righteous issuing of Safety Recommendations? Could this notion naturally lead to examining the dramatic drop of the Safety Recommendations (SR) from 'Serious' to 'Minor'? In short, have the Pel Air books been 'cooked'?
In a honest world, the MoU should work just fine; ATSB notifies CASA that SR are incoming; the FF 'White hats' grab the spell book and start weaving - preparing a proper response. All good until it was realised CASA were going to have 'egg on their face', had the ATSB not backed down. Perhaps that 'GWM report' was prepared to riposte the ATSB brick bat. "We're on top of this" says Sleepy Hollow.
The consensus (among the BRB) is that the CASA 'White hats' receiving information through the MoU were preparing for a 'serious safety' call from the ATSB on three issues; (1) the serious lack of CASA action on CDP on 82.0; and, (2) CASA oversight of the operator; (3) against the operator.
Enter the FF Black hats – Instead of timely advice being used to prepare the way for a much delayed 'fuel policy' changes; the good intentions of the MoU pave the merry road to perdition. The Black hats take the early advice and set about 'subverting' it so that the mighty blow the ATSB was intending to deliverer became little more than a gentle 'well done' pat on the back. There is good support information for this to be had from the total lack of action taken on ATSB, Coronial and many other 'safety' related recommendations and there is no closed loop system for tracking, auditing or examining those changes. There is certainly no system for audit of those changes – refer CRM 82 time line. What is it now 20 years ? bad law Reg 206 and RFDS and etc. etc. What a witches brew..small wonder 'white hats' leave in droves.
The disconnect is clear enough from the Sarcs post above. Has the benefit of the MoU been grossly misused to undermine the ATSB 'sovereign' authority under the ICAO?; the 'disturbance' of the TSI Act is clearly apparent. If the AFP investigation and the Canadian audit turned up the same conclusions; possibly two things would happen (1) the minuscule would 'sit' on the CTSB report (2) the AFP information prompted Heffernan, Stearle and Xenophon to bring on the MoP. The latest gossip 'on the breeze' is that the PM's department is actively involved (Choc frog Sunny) and that the TSB 'report' is in town but the minuscule has deemed it 'low priority'.
It's a bit of a stretch but could the exposed, cynical manipulation of Pel-Air be parlayed in criminal charges? If that eventuates will Chambers and White along with McComic and possibly Sangston need a little 'legal' advice?
Sarcs you research daemon, let's have a look at part two. It's cruel to torment a curiosity bump (or hump). You can sing the verse below using the -
The sexual life of the camel
Is stranger than anyone thinks.
At the height of the mating season
He tries to bugger the Sphinx.
But the Sphinx’s posterior orifice
Is clogged by the sands of the Nile,
Which accounts for the hump on the camel
And the Sphinx’s inscrutable smile.
What the hell - it's Saturday, ain't it? Toot toot..
Last edited by Kharon; 16th Aug 2014 at 02:05. Reason: I curse Google Chrome - no smilies = bummer...Hey fixed it Yay!!!