Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
HMHB, I wouldn't dare attend any CASA event, let alone ask a question, because, as many threads and AAT transcripts attest, all it takes is a pointed question or flippant remark to get in the bad books and be lined up for "the treatment".
In the case of John Quadrio, all it took was a half assed You Tube video. Rest assured that whle a Go Pro is part of my electronics, nothing I take will ever grace You Tube after the JQ case..
In the case of John Quadrio, all it took was a half assed You Tube video. Rest assured that whle a Go Pro is part of my electronics, nothing I take will ever grace You Tube after the JQ case..
Duckponds, nursing homes, scout halls and the FAA audit??
Slight thread drift here but I see that the Archerfield’s tenants group are taking Albo to court. From Paul Phelan’s article ‘Day of reckoning for Albanese’:
Some on here may say…“well so what?” However given the thread’s latest focus on the FAA (ICAO) audit there is relevance!?
A certain good Senator had been banging on about FF and DOIT lack of oversight of airport development and the safety risks posed by encroachment on protected areas (runway splays, overrun, overshoot and obstacle clearance restrictions) surrounding airports. Here’s a couple of examples from the relevant authorities and quoted from Senate Estimates Hansard 18/10/2011:
Senator Fawcett has consistently badgered the point in every Senate Estimate hearings since, including the last one on the 12/02/2013. There has also been fielded questions directly to DOIT but we could be here forever...
So finally back to the thread...it would appear that the FAA has also picked up on the same concerns and long before DF was even a Senator:
Hmm interesting comment in the 'estimated implementation date' section… “Ongoing”. Kind of brings more relevance to DF’s QON 129 and makes further mockery of the DAS statement….“ We can take most of that on notice, if you like. What I can give you now is that the majority issue was around the fact that we did not have sufficient training, in their mind, for our inspectorate”…and further on… “Since then we have rectified that completely.”
This represents just another example of a FAA NCN that appears to have been unaddressed and remains outstanding, I wonder how many more there is in that NCN list??
More to follow here me thinks??
Van Zyl Lawyers, solicitors for the Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc (AACCI), filed a comprehensive Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on March 8, naming Minister Albanese as respondent and AAC as second respondent. Following directions hearings recently, AACCI members believe the matter is likely to be heard by AAT President and Federal Court Judge, the Hon Justice Duncan Kerr, assisted by Deputy President Phillip Hack SC.
A certain good Senator had been banging on about FF and DOIT lack of oversight of airport development and the safety risks posed by encroachment on protected areas (runway splays, overrun, overshoot and obstacle clearance restrictions) surrounding airports. Here’s a couple of examples from the relevant authorities and quoted from Senate Estimates Hansard 18/10/2011:
Aviation and Airports
Senator FAWCETT: Section 9.2 of the lease talks about maintenance of runways and pavements:
“The lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for safe access by air transport to a standard no less than the standard at the commencement of the lease.”
Why then at Bankstown Airport has the airport operator ripped up the cross-runway, which is the only north-south runway available to light operators in the area, closed taxiways, reduced the number of runways by nearly three-quarters and moved the purpose-built compass wing area to a part of the tarmac that has ferrous material in it, which makes it not suitable, and also reduced significantly the area available for rotary wing training operations by moving it from the south to the north side of the runways?
Mr Doherty: The decommissioning of the cross-runway at Bankstown occurred in March 2005. It was identified in the master plan as a change of the layout of the aeronautics and that is provided for in the Airports Act. The new master plan was approved in 2005, so that was the basis for the action that then followed.
Senator FAWCETT: The changes were also opposed by operators at the airfield and MOPS 139 requires operators be consulted. Also with the cross-runway, particularly where there is ab initio training involved which there is—in fact the minister just in the last 12 months has reported the number of training operations at Bankstown is increasing—means the useability factor for a runway and cross-wing operations in particular should be 99.5 per cent. Was it actually established prior to that plan being approved and were the opinions of the users taken into account? The users certainly still believe that whilst they put forward contrary positions they were not considered nor in fact available publicly to see who opposed it.
Mr Doherty: I can only speak broadly. I understand that there were submissions from two of the tenants at the time which were taken into account and, I think before the decision was made, advice was sought from both CASA and Airservices. The essential advice was that the cross-runway was used very rarely, that it was inappropriate to use it while the main parallel runway system was in operation and the requirement to use the cross-runway occurred on maybe a couple of days a year for part of a day, so it was used to a very small extent, and there was no objection raised from CASA on safety grounds.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, how often do you use the airbags or seatbelts in your car?
Mr Doherty: I use the seatbelts all the time.
Senator FAWCETT: To prevent injuries in an accident. How often are they required?
Senator Carr: It is a bit unfair to put it to these officers. A decision was made and signed off, as I understand, by Minister Anderson at the time of the previous government. It really is a bit difficult to pursue the matter with officers some years later.
Senator FAWCETT: Minister, my point is that the process in terms of transparency around the relationship between the department, regardless of the flavour of government, and the aviation operators is not effective in terms of actually preserving the utility of airports for their primary purpose which is aviation. To quote the current minister: 'Nothing, I repeat, nothing is as important in aviation as safety.' I have no further questions.
Airservices
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take this on notice if you need to, but could you come back to the committee with any situations where you have had to revise your PANS-OPS criteria as a result of urban development or city development in either the Brisbane or Sydney areas in particular, or anywhere in Australia, but particularly those two?
Mr Russell: We will take that on notice. There have been some issues that I would like to make sure we get right.
Senator FAWCETT: Could you expand on that, please, Mr Russell, and tell the committee what those issues have been.
Mr Russell: It is urban encroachment on major airports. I think you are probably pointing this way. In Sydney, for instance, there are a number of high-rises around the airport that fall into this category. There are a number of infrastructure developments close to the airport, again, that fall into this category. If we could have some time to research this properly, we will come back to you on notice if we may.
Mr Harfield: I just want to provide some clarity. What we will do is provide information where there has been a redesign or a variation as a result of a change being put in. We do not have the authority to change PANS-OPS criteria. I just wanted to make that clear.
Senator FAWCETT: Yes, I understand that. With the issues you are working through, Mr Russell, do you feel as though there are appropriate checks and balances in place such that, if a developer does actually put forward a proposal, the operator, CASA and Air Services Australia have opportunity in a transparent way to register their opposition to something which is going to adversely affect the operational capacity of an airport and the requirements of airlines to actually fly steeper gradients during departures or approaches?
CASA
Senator FAWCETT: So you are satisfied that there are suitable options for a student pilot flying a Cessna with a 10 knot cross-wind limit to land in adverse wind conditions, in a north-southerly or a northerly wind in the Sydney Basin?
Mr Cromarty: I would say flying ops is not my area. However, having been a flying instructor I would say that it is the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the student can fly in the conditions they are flying in.
Senator FAWCETT: Conditions do vary, so that is not necessarily a fail-safe. Coming back to runway 28 at Archerfield, you talked about that overlap between the two points. It does not take away from the fact, though, that the information that is provided, for example into the en-route sub—because it is only a registered airfield as opposed to a certified airfield—comes from the operator and the description of 150 used in that equation, as opposed to the 180 from my readings of the MOS and the tables in there, particularly 7.1-2, appears to be an error. Yet that appears to be the basis of the take-off requirement. Is there any other circumstance in Australia where the compromise you have referred to of having to keep that obstacle visual during an IFR take-off has been applied, or is that unique to Archerfield?
Mr Cromarty: Not that I am aware of, no.
Senator FAWCETT: So it is unique, it is unusual, but it maybe accounts for the take-off. But what about the overshoot case, where somebody has come off the 28 RNAV, is forced to do an overshoot because of heavy rain and so does not have visual contact with what is now quite a large obstacle that intrudes into the airspace?
Mr Cromarty: May I take that on notice and get the definitive answer for you?
Senator FAWCETT: Please do, but it just highlights the fact that the system of oversight—putting safety ahead of the commercial interest—has broken down and there are operators who are at risk because of that breakdown in the system.
Mr McCormick: I do not think that is correct. I am not sure that that is the case and that we necessarily agree with that.
Senator FAWCETT: Section 9.2 of the lease talks about maintenance of runways and pavements:
“The lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for safe access by air transport to a standard no less than the standard at the commencement of the lease.”
Why then at Bankstown Airport has the airport operator ripped up the cross-runway, which is the only north-south runway available to light operators in the area, closed taxiways, reduced the number of runways by nearly three-quarters and moved the purpose-built compass wing area to a part of the tarmac that has ferrous material in it, which makes it not suitable, and also reduced significantly the area available for rotary wing training operations by moving it from the south to the north side of the runways?
Mr Doherty: The decommissioning of the cross-runway at Bankstown occurred in March 2005. It was identified in the master plan as a change of the layout of the aeronautics and that is provided for in the Airports Act. The new master plan was approved in 2005, so that was the basis for the action that then followed.
Senator FAWCETT: The changes were also opposed by operators at the airfield and MOPS 139 requires operators be consulted. Also with the cross-runway, particularly where there is ab initio training involved which there is—in fact the minister just in the last 12 months has reported the number of training operations at Bankstown is increasing—means the useability factor for a runway and cross-wing operations in particular should be 99.5 per cent. Was it actually established prior to that plan being approved and were the opinions of the users taken into account? The users certainly still believe that whilst they put forward contrary positions they were not considered nor in fact available publicly to see who opposed it.
Mr Doherty: I can only speak broadly. I understand that there were submissions from two of the tenants at the time which were taken into account and, I think before the decision was made, advice was sought from both CASA and Airservices. The essential advice was that the cross-runway was used very rarely, that it was inappropriate to use it while the main parallel runway system was in operation and the requirement to use the cross-runway occurred on maybe a couple of days a year for part of a day, so it was used to a very small extent, and there was no objection raised from CASA on safety grounds.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, how often do you use the airbags or seatbelts in your car?
Mr Doherty: I use the seatbelts all the time.
Senator FAWCETT: To prevent injuries in an accident. How often are they required?
Senator Carr: It is a bit unfair to put it to these officers. A decision was made and signed off, as I understand, by Minister Anderson at the time of the previous government. It really is a bit difficult to pursue the matter with officers some years later.
Senator FAWCETT: Minister, my point is that the process in terms of transparency around the relationship between the department, regardless of the flavour of government, and the aviation operators is not effective in terms of actually preserving the utility of airports for their primary purpose which is aviation. To quote the current minister: 'Nothing, I repeat, nothing is as important in aviation as safety.' I have no further questions.
Airservices
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take this on notice if you need to, but could you come back to the committee with any situations where you have had to revise your PANS-OPS criteria as a result of urban development or city development in either the Brisbane or Sydney areas in particular, or anywhere in Australia, but particularly those two?
Mr Russell: We will take that on notice. There have been some issues that I would like to make sure we get right.
Senator FAWCETT: Could you expand on that, please, Mr Russell, and tell the committee what those issues have been.
Mr Russell: It is urban encroachment on major airports. I think you are probably pointing this way. In Sydney, for instance, there are a number of high-rises around the airport that fall into this category. There are a number of infrastructure developments close to the airport, again, that fall into this category. If we could have some time to research this properly, we will come back to you on notice if we may.
Mr Harfield: I just want to provide some clarity. What we will do is provide information where there has been a redesign or a variation as a result of a change being put in. We do not have the authority to change PANS-OPS criteria. I just wanted to make that clear.
Senator FAWCETT: Yes, I understand that. With the issues you are working through, Mr Russell, do you feel as though there are appropriate checks and balances in place such that, if a developer does actually put forward a proposal, the operator, CASA and Air Services Australia have opportunity in a transparent way to register their opposition to something which is going to adversely affect the operational capacity of an airport and the requirements of airlines to actually fly steeper gradients during departures or approaches?
CASA
Senator FAWCETT: So you are satisfied that there are suitable options for a student pilot flying a Cessna with a 10 knot cross-wind limit to land in adverse wind conditions, in a north-southerly or a northerly wind in the Sydney Basin?
Mr Cromarty: I would say flying ops is not my area. However, having been a flying instructor I would say that it is the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the student can fly in the conditions they are flying in.
Senator FAWCETT: Conditions do vary, so that is not necessarily a fail-safe. Coming back to runway 28 at Archerfield, you talked about that overlap between the two points. It does not take away from the fact, though, that the information that is provided, for example into the en-route sub—because it is only a registered airfield as opposed to a certified airfield—comes from the operator and the description of 150 used in that equation, as opposed to the 180 from my readings of the MOS and the tables in there, particularly 7.1-2, appears to be an error. Yet that appears to be the basis of the take-off requirement. Is there any other circumstance in Australia where the compromise you have referred to of having to keep that obstacle visual during an IFR take-off has been applied, or is that unique to Archerfield?
Mr Cromarty: Not that I am aware of, no.
Senator FAWCETT: So it is unique, it is unusual, but it maybe accounts for the take-off. But what about the overshoot case, where somebody has come off the 28 RNAV, is forced to do an overshoot because of heavy rain and so does not have visual contact with what is now quite a large obstacle that intrudes into the airspace?
Mr Cromarty: May I take that on notice and get the definitive answer for you?
Senator FAWCETT: Please do, but it just highlights the fact that the system of oversight—putting safety ahead of the commercial interest—has broken down and there are operators who are at risk because of that breakdown in the system.
Mr McCormick: I do not think that is correct. I am not sure that that is the case and that we necessarily agree with that.
So finally back to the thread...it would appear that the FAA has also picked up on the same concerns and long before DF was even a Senator:
Hmm interesting comment in the 'estimated implementation date' section… “Ongoing”. Kind of brings more relevance to DF’s QON 129 and makes further mockery of the DAS statement….“ We can take most of that on notice, if you like. What I can give you now is that the majority issue was around the fact that we did not have sufficient training, in their mind, for our inspectorate”…and further on… “Since then we have rectified that completely.”
This represents just another example of a FAA NCN that appears to have been unaddressed and remains outstanding, I wonder how many more there is in that NCN list??
More to follow here me thinks??
Last edited by Sarcs; 26th Apr 2013 at 04:16. Reason: From the 'last post' back to the 'long post', beyond all reason!!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoops a Daisy.
"Sad when people don't trust regulator"
"No problem officer – we are good, compliant little Vegemites, honest. We tell FAA, ICAO and the bloody Pollies the same thing, all the time. Eh? - what's that? – the Minister in the AAT? – No, no, NO; (little foot stamp here) we are not to blame, read our white paper, we have lodged a difference or two".
Anyway – the hot rumour is, our Wodger has a weport drafted which eloquently explains it all away; so it may be truthfully said four years later we made such a good effort and are so compliant that the Federal Minister for Transport is now staring down the barrel of the AAT system. Even if the case is not good enough to stick; there's a funny, bitter sweet irony and a good dose of poetic justice involved. The LNP must be drooling in delight. Mac Comical – I'm loving it.
This advertisement sponsored by the Terminally Obfuscated Society Seeking Enlightenment Rehabilitation and Serendipity.
...
Last edited by Kharon; 26th Apr 2013 at 05:25. Reason: I claim Friday arvo clemency & a long sentence??
[T]he matter is likely to be heard by AAT President and Federal Court Judge, the Hon Justice Duncan Kerr …
The matter is unlikely to be heard before the change in government, so I guess the question is moot.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about the money.....
Thanks Sarcs.
Now, where have I heard this excuse before??
Aagh yes, It was not me Senator, I know nothing, I wasn't here then, I was in Montreal, I was in a different position, I had a bad case of crotch rot...........Bollocks. Cromarty is one of Team Skulls top management players and is another 'used car salesmean'.
And not to be outdone;
Yes Greg, quickly get back to the Senator with a response. Oops, sorry, too late, took the money and run.....
Metron Aviation - Metron Aviation Appoints Greg Russell as Executive Aviation Advisor
And who could forget the following when the Senators could smell a whiff of trough dwelling and pony pooh;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...saustralia.pdf
And of course as is often the case, The ATSBeaker's chief in charge of tautology and mi mi mi mi-ing has the last word on this sordid matter;
And finally the ATSBeaker and The Skull team up for not a Friday afternoon fax but a Friday afternoon duet;
Now, where have I heard this excuse before??
Mr Cromarty:I would say flying ops is not my area. However, having been a flying instructor I would say that it is the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the student can fly in the conditions they are flying in
And not to be outdone;
Mr Russell: It is urban encroachment on major airports. I think you are probably pointing this way. In Sydney, for instance, there are a number of high-rises around the airport that fall into this category. There are a number of infrastructure developments close to the airport, again, that fall into this category. If we could have some time to research this properly, we will come back to you on notice if we may.
Metron Aviation - Metron Aviation Appoints Greg Russell as Executive Aviation Advisor
And who could forget the following when the Senators could smell a whiff of trough dwelling and pony pooh;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...saustralia.pdf
And of course as is often the case, The ATSBeaker's chief in charge of tautology and mi mi mi mi-ing has the last word on this sordid matter;
And finally the ATSBeaker and The Skull team up for not a Friday afternoon fax but a Friday afternoon duet;
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 26th Apr 2013 at 06:41.
The "Great White Elephant Act" and the FAA audit!
Love it “K”:
And how embarrassing indeed for Albo to be going to the AAT on a matter that was picked up in the FAA audit and is yet to be effectively addressed by certain members of his circus troupe. And what was it that was stated on Airports in the ‘Great White Elephant Act’? Well let’s get a feel for the ‘Airport Planning and Development’ section in the GWEA:
And from the 'Safeguarding airports' section (this is particularly relevant in light of DF's continued campaign):
Well if the Archerfield case is an example of the GWEA in action then ‘god help us’ and Albo needs to ‘please explain’!
Oleo:
Thought you might pick up on those statements Oleo but you missed this one from the Minister rep Senator Carr:
And then this classic line of government obfuscation (the GWEA) which totally sh#t canned the last inquiry:
“Nothing to see here…move along”...or..."the answers are in the GWEA!"
Alrighty back to those FAA NCNs…..
Anyway – the hot rumour is, our Wodger has a weport drafted which eloquently explains it all away; so it may be truthfully said four years later we made such a good effort and are so compliant that the Federal Minister for Transport is now staring down the barrel of the AAT system. Even if the case is not good enough to stick; there's a funny, bitter sweet irony and a good dose of poetic justice involved. The LNP must be drooling in delight. Mac Comical – I'm loving it.
Conditions for aviation infrastructure investment will be optimised by:
· removing the requirement for a Major Development Plan assessment for high priority, low impact aviation facilities;
· providing the Australian Government Minister with discretion to reduce the public comment period around Major Development Plans where the material features of the proposed development have already been addressed in Master Plan consultations; and
· the development of national airport safeguarding measures, which will ensure that airport operations are subject to minimal unnecessary constraints from nearby construction and development.
· removing the requirement for a Major Development Plan assessment for high priority, low impact aviation facilities;
· providing the Australian Government Minister with discretion to reduce the public comment period around Major Development Plans where the material features of the proposed development have already been addressed in Master Plan consultations; and
· the development of national airport safeguarding measures, which will ensure that airport operations are subject to minimal unnecessary constraints from nearby construction and development.
· work with state and territory governments and authorities to strengthen arrangements to protect airspace around airports:
– address potential risks to aviation safety arising from inappropriate developments in the vicinity of aerodromes;
– ask that all states and territories put in place statutory powers and regulations to prohibit unauthorised construction that penetrates the published OLS and PANS-Ops surfaces for all airports;
– strengthen requirements for notice of proposed developments in areas where protected airspace might be affected a proposed structure, by cranes or other equipment used during construction, plumes or other gaseous emissions;
– extend the coverage of operational airspace safeguards to all registered airports and aerodromes including incorporating requirements for notification to CASA and Airservices Australia of potentially impacting developments;
– prevent unnecessary interference to aviation technical facilities, such as radar, from new buildings in the vicinity of airports;
– prevent unnecessary lighting and other pilot distractions from off-airport sources; and
– address potential risks to aviation safety arising from inappropriate developments in the vicinity of aerodromes;
– ask that all states and territories put in place statutory powers and regulations to prohibit unauthorised construction that penetrates the published OLS and PANS-Ops surfaces for all airports;
– strengthen requirements for notice of proposed developments in areas where protected airspace might be affected a proposed structure, by cranes or other equipment used during construction, plumes or other gaseous emissions;
– extend the coverage of operational airspace safeguards to all registered airports and aerodromes including incorporating requirements for notification to CASA and Airservices Australia of potentially impacting developments;
– prevent unnecessary interference to aviation technical facilities, such as radar, from new buildings in the vicinity of airports;
– prevent unnecessary lighting and other pilot distractions from off-airport sources; and
Oleo:
Aagh yes, It was not me Senator, I know nothing, I wasn't here then, I was in Montreal, I was in a different position, I had a bad case of crotch rot...........Bollocks. Cromarty is one of Team Skulls top management players and is another 'used car salesmean'.
Senator Carr: It is a bit unfair to put it to these officers. A decision was made and signed off, as I understand, by Minister Anderson at the time of the previous government. It really is a bit difficult to pursue the matter with officers some years later.
Senator Carr: Be fair. The minister put out a white paper on these issues, the first that had ever actually been produced by the Commonwealth. It outlined the procedures with regard to planning for development around airports. You have raised some issues with regard to one site, which the department has undertaken to have a look at. But I do think we have to get this in context; none of this work was ever done before.
Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
Alrighty back to those FAA NCNs…..
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough
I'm out of hospital Tuesday. I have read all the post and it is sickening that we have an aviation industry and a government that seems to protect them.
I have been extracting all the information to speak with the FAA & ICAO.
I respect all you pilots and will do me best for you wonderful people.
If CASA try to discredit me, they will lose. Enough is enough. How ridiculous to have such embarrassing stupidity in an industry that is so very important.
Once again thank you for the posts and PM which I will reply to once I am home. I will not stop until I have the FAA full attention regarding the corrupt, unsafe way of CASA and the ATSB.
Unbelievable info they will receive. This is so doable, especially as I am not a pilot but a survivor. I have nothing to lose. McSkull And Beaker can not hide from the truth forever. Enough is enough.
Loved the muppet clips on YouTube. So much likeness it's uncanny!
You have all been awesome x
I have been extracting all the information to speak with the FAA & ICAO.
I respect all you pilots and will do me best for you wonderful people.
If CASA try to discredit me, they will lose. Enough is enough. How ridiculous to have such embarrassing stupidity in an industry that is so very important.
Once again thank you for the posts and PM which I will reply to once I am home. I will not stop until I have the FAA full attention regarding the corrupt, unsafe way of CASA and the ATSB.
Unbelievable info they will receive. This is so doable, especially as I am not a pilot but a survivor. I have nothing to lose. McSkull And Beaker can not hide from the truth forever. Enough is enough.
Loved the muppet clips on YouTube. So much likeness it's uncanny!
You have all been awesome x
Climbing Mount Noncompliance!
Top stuff Ziggy!
Perhaps we could provide you a summary of the findings of the Senate AAI inquiry and you could ask the question whether the Norfolk ditching investigation/report was conducted in accordance with ‘world’s best practice’ and in compliance to ICAO?
Biccy yeah mate Xmas eve it was…seem to recall this was discussed on here way, way, way back….
OK back to the FAA/ICAO NCNs and I think we have more than enough evidence at hand to prove that DOIT, FF and co have got a long way to go before they are compliant with NCN AGA/05.
So onwards and upwards (working bottom to top) on the list of NCNs where we see this one:
Note the implementation date was 31 January 2010, so did it happen?
Tracking CASR 139 and changes implemented, there was an amendment on 7 December 2011 that might be relevant??
Note: Point of interest when you click on the FF proposed changes to CASR 139 it comes up with a blank page…sort of symbolic really of the RRP!
So maybe?? However only part of the amendment is in context to the NCN and only applies to aerodromes that have approved “Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems”and not to aerodromes generally. The FAA comment on proposed action was also quite revealing and critical hinting at a…“not entirely happy Jan”!
Even though FF didn’t indicate that they were going to notify a difference to Annex 14 maybe it’s worth checking in SUP H12/11 page 67-77.
Although there is a vast quantity of notified differences to Annex 14, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of “assessment and effectiveness of aerodrome information markings”.
So I guess the jury is still out on whether this NCN has been adequately addressed. Although I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility to believe that FF have still got this matter under review (since the 31 January 2010).
Doin a Kelpie before more climbing of Mount NCN!
Perhaps we could provide you a summary of the findings of the Senate AAI inquiry and you could ask the question whether the Norfolk ditching investigation/report was conducted in accordance with ‘world’s best practice’ and in compliance to ICAO?
Biccy yeah mate Xmas eve it was…seem to recall this was discussed on here way, way, way back….
OK back to the FAA/ICAO NCNs and I think we have more than enough evidence at hand to prove that DOIT, FF and co have got a long way to go before they are compliant with NCN AGA/05.
So onwards and upwards (working bottom to top) on the list of NCNs where we see this one:
Note the implementation date was 31 January 2010, so did it happen?
Tracking CASR 139 and changes implemented, there was an amendment on 7 December 2011 that might be relevant??
Note: Point of interest when you click on the FF proposed changes to CASR 139 it comes up with a blank page…sort of symbolic really of the RRP!
So maybe?? However only part of the amendment is in context to the NCN and only applies to aerodromes that have approved “Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems”and not to aerodromes generally. The FAA comment on proposed action was also quite revealing and critical hinting at a…“not entirely happy Jan”!
The corrective action plan submitted by the State partially addresses this ICAO finding and recommendation. The State has not addressed the need for the assessment and effectiveness of aerodrome information markings with the aerodrome operators.
Although there is a vast quantity of notified differences to Annex 14
, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of “assessment and effectiveness of aerodrome information markings”.So I guess the jury is still out on whether this NCN has been adequately addressed. Although I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility to believe that FF have still got this matter under review (since the 31 January 2010).
Doin a Kelpie before more climbing of Mount NCN!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerodrome relevance in the eyes of the Regulator = Pooh
Sarcs, I believe that this NCN for aerodromes fits the mindset and attitude of CAsA. Although ICAO and the FAA regard aerodromes as an essential, relevant and even safety critical element of the aviation industry, CAsA do not. The introduction of SMS into aerodromes in 2005 is a prime example of this. A sloppy lame arse implementation. Why do you think they are only recently making mention of aerodrome SMS, advising aerodromes to update their SMS including all the elements? CAsA just dumped it out there 8 years ago and did nothing!
Perhaps ICAO and the FAA could ask more about this?
Also, CAsA has always put aerodrome importance at the bottom of their pile. I still recall Dick Smith attending an industry conference when he was 'boss' and upon noticing a bunch of aerodrome inspectors he said 'I thought I got rid of all you blokes', or words very very similar. Even back then aerodromes was not relevant in the regulators eyes and cost cutting was desirable. The Ayatollah didn't give a toss about aerodromes and neither did Byron or Mr Skull. Ask yourself 'why are aerodromes inspectors' the least in number within CAsA? Why do these inspectors on average earn less than AWI'S and FOI's? It's perception, and CAsA doesn't view their role as equal to spanner twisters or Pilots.
Perhaps ICAO and the FAA are sniffing about and looking at the mitigation (or lack of) past audit results, hence an only recent refocus on aerodromes and particularly their SMS? After all, CAsA aren't proactive, they are reactive, so something must be rattling their chains?
Until we stop having burnt out pilots in the role of DAS propped up by snakes, lawyers and used car salesmen and we get fresh industry safety cognisant individuals into the top manager roles this farcical game will keep being rehashed and replayed with industry as the victims.
And may I assure you of one other point. CAsA have lost the battle against regulating Drones. In fact they never got past the starting block. These aeronautical Mosquitos are in plague proportion, hundreds being added to the skies monthly, and some of them are big arsed machines too. I bet the Government haven't published any information about the smashed ones that have been found at Mascot??? Again, another 'topic' that the FAA may be interested in.
All CAsA can do is piss on about some proposed weight classifications etc.
I can assure you from a safety perspective the risk levels are rising.
So Sarcs, I hope that ICAO and the FAA have packed their thermal underwear, hiking boots, compass and food packs because Mt Noncompliance is one heck of a mountain, it contains many hidden crevices, discarded rubbish and is littered with skeletons.
Perhaps ICAO and the FAA could ask more about this?
Also, CAsA has always put aerodrome importance at the bottom of their pile. I still recall Dick Smith attending an industry conference when he was 'boss' and upon noticing a bunch of aerodrome inspectors he said 'I thought I got rid of all you blokes', or words very very similar. Even back then aerodromes was not relevant in the regulators eyes and cost cutting was desirable. The Ayatollah didn't give a toss about aerodromes and neither did Byron or Mr Skull. Ask yourself 'why are aerodromes inspectors' the least in number within CAsA? Why do these inspectors on average earn less than AWI'S and FOI's? It's perception, and CAsA doesn't view their role as equal to spanner twisters or Pilots.
Perhaps ICAO and the FAA are sniffing about and looking at the mitigation (or lack of) past audit results, hence an only recent refocus on aerodromes and particularly their SMS? After all, CAsA aren't proactive, they are reactive, so something must be rattling their chains?
Until we stop having burnt out pilots in the role of DAS propped up by snakes, lawyers and used car salesmen and we get fresh industry safety cognisant individuals into the top manager roles this farcical game will keep being rehashed and replayed with industry as the victims.
And may I assure you of one other point. CAsA have lost the battle against regulating Drones. In fact they never got past the starting block. These aeronautical Mosquitos are in plague proportion, hundreds being added to the skies monthly, and some of them are big arsed machines too. I bet the Government haven't published any information about the smashed ones that have been found at Mascot??? Again, another 'topic' that the FAA may be interested in.
All CAsA can do is piss on about some proposed weight classifications etc.
I can assure you from a safety perspective the risk levels are rising.
So Sarcs, I hope that ICAO and the FAA have packed their thermal underwear, hiking boots, compass and food packs because Mt Noncompliance is one heck of a mountain, it contains many hidden crevices, discarded rubbish and is littered with skeletons.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 27th Apr 2013 at 01:25.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny, not sure. I do know at least two have been found, whether or not they were hit by aircraft (I would assume some form of damage would have been found on the aircraft) or whether they have been hit by aircraft wake or run out of puff my source cannot confirm. The size of them is also unconfirmed. My source is reliable that much I can tell you.
In the USA there have also been go around calls made by crews confirming sightings of Drones airside near runways at LAX. It is rumoured that others have been spotted around LaGuardia. My source gave me an ATC transmission from LAX which confirms the Drone being spotted by an aircraft on finals. I think that transmission is now in the public domain.
I find it amazing that they are spotted at all by approaching aircraft as the majority of amateur Drones operate below 1500 feet and are quite small, however it is possible that some larger ones have been flown in close proximity to the fields.
We will know we have a problem if amateur Drone footage starts appearing on Poohtube. Hopefully some law makers with a half a brain will be considering this risk. I still recall the dic#head who flew the remote controlled plane near the Virgin 737 in ADL some years ago....it only takes one.
In the USA there have also been go around calls made by crews confirming sightings of Drones airside near runways at LAX. It is rumoured that others have been spotted around LaGuardia. My source gave me an ATC transmission from LAX which confirms the Drone being spotted by an aircraft on finals. I think that transmission is now in the public domain.
I find it amazing that they are spotted at all by approaching aircraft as the majority of amateur Drones operate below 1500 feet and are quite small, however it is possible that some larger ones have been flown in close proximity to the fields.
We will know we have a problem if amateur Drone footage starts appearing on Poohtube. Hopefully some law makers with a half a brain will be considering this risk. I still recall the dic#head who flew the remote controlled plane near the Virgin 737 in ADL some years ago....it only takes one.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 27th Apr 2013 at 02:09.
Sadly, I believe Creamy is right. I have come to the conclusion that politics in Australia is basically corrupt and we are run by parasites with their own agendas and only ever look at the short term gains.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I enlisted in The Army twice for the cash after NASHO's. Barely paid my mess bill. I'm sure "ALL" our politicians have the same ideals.
BTW Creampuff, was that (c) a copyright notification? Just asking as you legal eagles do strange things sometimes.
No fkuc it! all the time.
Frank Arouet (C)
BTW Creampuff, was that (c) a copyright notification? Just asking as you legal eagles do strange things sometimes.
No fkuc it! all the time.
Frank Arouet (C)
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McCormick and his fuel
From a very reliable source. Picture this, McCormick and three executives in a car on the Pacific Highway near Coffs Harbour. He RAN OUT OF FUEL & needed to walk to a service station and fill a Jerry can to save his ass. What if he had to walk miles, dehydrating putting his life at risk or worse be flying. Does anyone else know of this because it is GOLD!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe fuel for all??
Ziggy, I hadn't heard that but I am very much hoping it is true.
There are so many angles to run on that rumour it isn't funny, however here is several possibilities;
• The Screaming Skull feigned running out of fuel because he was sick of hearing the co-driver/chief Voodoo Witch Doctor banging on about legal tautological nonsense and the use of his intellectual 15 letter words drove the Skull to desperation, he needed a break? Or did he have the Beaker with him in the car, and all of Beakers mi mi mi-ing drove him nuts?
• Then again, maybe 'the Chamber pot' sabotaged the car hoping that the Skull would be grounded, U/S at the meeting, and he would be mobbed and jostled by an angry mob?
• Or perhaps a wily meeting attendee siphoned the fuel and took the opportunity to piss in the tank? Only one of societies ills would do such a thing, but it is possible.
• Maybe the Deputy DAS was 'cutting cheese' in the car? (and not the James Reason type)
• Did the Skull forget to uplift the correct amount of car fuel due to operational pressures, fatigue, poor planning or unexpected weather delays or diversions on the road? Did the Skull forget to lodge a 'drive plan' prior to departing for the meeting, failing to leave any contact details in case he required a rescue?
• Did the Skull fail to put the correct fuel in his vehicle, perhaps he topped it up with JetA1?
• Has the root cause of the 'fuel oversight' been identified and mitigation undertaken to ensure said event is never repeated?
• When the Skull walked to the nearest fuel station was he wearing a reflective vest and carrying a whistle?
• And in true Skull style, he always blames the driver, so was he the Driver on the occasion in question and if so, does he accept full accountability for this occurrence?
Either way he has earned a new nickname from me for the week ahead - ESSO
(C)
There are so many angles to run on that rumour it isn't funny, however here is several possibilities;
• The Screaming Skull feigned running out of fuel because he was sick of hearing the co-driver/chief Voodoo Witch Doctor banging on about legal tautological nonsense and the use of his intellectual 15 letter words drove the Skull to desperation, he needed a break? Or did he have the Beaker with him in the car, and all of Beakers mi mi mi-ing drove him nuts?
• Then again, maybe 'the Chamber pot' sabotaged the car hoping that the Skull would be grounded, U/S at the meeting, and he would be mobbed and jostled by an angry mob?
• Or perhaps a wily meeting attendee siphoned the fuel and took the opportunity to piss in the tank? Only one of societies ills would do such a thing, but it is possible.
• Maybe the Deputy DAS was 'cutting cheese' in the car? (and not the James Reason type)
• Did the Skull forget to uplift the correct amount of car fuel due to operational pressures, fatigue, poor planning or unexpected weather delays or diversions on the road? Did the Skull forget to lodge a 'drive plan' prior to departing for the meeting, failing to leave any contact details in case he required a rescue?
• Did the Skull fail to put the correct fuel in his vehicle, perhaps he topped it up with JetA1?
• Has the root cause of the 'fuel oversight' been identified and mitigation undertaken to ensure said event is never repeated?
• When the Skull walked to the nearest fuel station was he wearing a reflective vest and carrying a whistle?
• And in true Skull style, he always blames the driver, so was he the Driver on the occasion in question and if so, does he accept full accountability for this occurrence?
Either way he has earned a new nickname from me for the week ahead - ESSO
(C)
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 27th Apr 2013 at 12:25.