Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 12th Jan 2014, 06:45
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Vag277, have you bothered reading any of the CASA rules or the proposed rule in the US? Or do you have difficulty with comprehension?
Here are the current CASA Driver's Medical Rules:
Recreational pilot medical restrictions

Medical Restrictions

Getting a Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) requires that:
  • the individual meets the Australian Fitness to Drive unconditional private drivers requirements; and
  • the individual does not have any of the disqualifying conditions.
If you have any of the disqualifying conditions you are not able to hold a Driver Licence Medical (Aviation) but you have the option to apply for a Class 2 medical certificate via a DAME.

Operational restrictions

The conditions of the exemption also impose restrictions on the flight rules that may be used by exempted pilots, on the aircraft that may be used, on the airspace that may be used, on the carriage of passengers and on the kind of flight that may be engaged in.
Restriction on aircraft

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must only operate single engine, piston powered aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter) with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 1500kg or less.
Restriction on flight rules

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must operate only by day and under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Night VFR and IFR flight is not permitted.
Restriction on use of airspace

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft as pilot in command in any airspace above 10 000 ft AMSL (above mean sea level).
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on carriage of passengers

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft with more than 1 passenger on board, and that 1 passenger (if carried) must be a qualifying passenger. This is a defined term meaning a passenger who, before boarding an aircraft has been told by the eligible person that he or she holds a current driver licence medical certificate (aviation) that is of a lower medical standard than a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate normally required but that he or she is acting under a CASA exemption and which imposes conditions, all of which are and will be complied with for the flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate.
Restriction on acrobatic flight

An eligible person holding a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) must not operate an aircraft in acrobatic flight.
However, this restriction does not apply if a control seat on the aircraft is occupied by an appropriately licensed and acrobatic flight-endorsed pilot with a current class 1 or class 2 medical certificate, and the eligible person’s licence is also endorsed for acrobatic flight.
Any person thinking of applying to operate under the recreational pilot medical should ensure they have read and understood the complete explanatory statement.
Compared to the proposal in the US:

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise medical certification regulations
to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a
covered aircraft without regard to any medical certification or proof
of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if--
(1) the individual possesses a valid State driver's license
and complies with any medical requirement associated with that
license;
(2) the individual is transporting not more than 5
passengers
;
(3) the individual is operating under visual flight rules;
and
(4) the relevant flight, including each portion thereof, is
not carried out--
(A) for compensation, including that no passenger
or property on the flight is being carried for
compensation;
(B) at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet
above mean sea level;

(C) outside the United States, unless authorized by
the country in which the flight is conducted; or
(D) at a speed exceeding 250 knots.
(b) Covered Aircraft Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered
aircraft'' means an aircraft that--
(1) is not authorized under Federal law to carry more than
6 occupants; and
(2) has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more
than 6000 pounds
(2721 kg).
The US proposal would make most GA single engine aircraft eligible. It is essentially the next step from the current Driver's Medical.
mightyauster is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 07:09
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Another vagabond appears, (and from Canberra of all places). I thought it was a well researched, accurate, topical and informative "rant". For a brief moment after reading the Fag277 reply I thought I could get an endorsement on an A380 on a DL medical in the interests of aviation safety.


BTW, nobody in Australia has a license, only a "privilege" to exercise a right to operate with something called a license, that is "granted" and that, can be taken away if someone doesn't like your aftershave or you have been caught mucking around with his boyfriend.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 07:58
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
mightyauster

In Australia, who has authority to determine whether an individual has any one of the (very long list of) ‘disqualifying conditions’?

Is there an equivalent list with equivalent consequences in the USA?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 11:43
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Creamie, I am presuming it is your GP who determines if "you have one of the disqualifying conditions". In practice (I haven't tried it yet), it would be interesting to see how many GPs would actually be prepared to "sign on the dotted line" if you requested a "drivers license medical certificate - aviation".
From the CASA website...
Medical examination

You will need a driver licence medical certificate (aviation) confirming your fitness to fly, issued in accordance with the conditions in Instrument CASA EX 68/12. When applying for this medical, you must tell the doctor of any condition that may adversely affect your ability to fly safely. Examples include but are not limited to diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions, stroke, eye problems (such as cataracts), psychiatric disorders, blackouts or fainting.

The certificate issued by a medical practitioner uses the uniform Australian private motor vehicle unconditional driving licence medical standards contained in the Austroads Inc. publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, but modified by additional CASA-designed medical standards. This type of medical examination can be undertaken by any general practitioner and is similar in form to the Austroads Inc. driver licence medical examination.


It's interesting to note the length of list of disqualifying conditions for normal class 1 to 3 medical in the USA....


Unless otherwise directed by the FAA, the Examiner must deny or defer if the applicant has a history of: (1) Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medication; (2) Angina pectoris; (3) Coronary heart disease that has been treated or, if untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant; (4) Myocardial infarction; (5) Cardiac valve replacement; (6) Permanent cardiac pacemaker; (7) Heart replacement; (8) Psychosis; (9) Bipolar disorder; (10) Personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts; (11) Substance dependence; (12) Substance abuse; (13) Epilepsy; (14) Disturbance of consciousness and without satisfactory explanation of cause, and (15) Transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory explanation of cause.
mightyauster is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 14:06
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
isn't this so typical of casa's crap approach.

the requirement is a simple drivers licence.

casa just cant let go of the bullshit.

we have to have a special driver's licence certification under instrument blah blah.

for gods sake casa give it a rest or you'll go blind.
it is all bullshit. realise it and let it go. the guys are quite capable of seeing a doctor and managing their health without all your casa embuggerance.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 14:16
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,129
dear old vag227 you should know that a PPL , a CPL and an ATPL are ICAO recognised licences while the Pilot Certificate issued by the RAA is a national domestic certificate not recognised internationally.
do try to understand how it works old bean.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 19:29
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
The certificate issued by a medical practitioner uses the uniform Australian private motor vehicle unconditional driving licence medical standards contained in the Austroads Inc. publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, but modified by additional CASA-designed medical standards. This type of medical examination can be undertaken by any general practitioner and is similar in form to the Austroads Inc. driver licence medical examination.
[My bolding]

Why oh why do they have to micro-manage this as well?
Creampuff is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 20:20
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Vag 277 steps into a minefield??

Not one for promoting threads drifting along for ever....and as "K" suggests perhaps it could be taken up elsewhere, however Creamy's last does take us to the nub of the issue that the WLR should be considering:
Why oh why do they have to micro-manage this as well?
For the benefit of Vag277 who said this originally..

"...The USA has caught up with Australia. Introduced here 2 years ago!..."

Actually the DLM concept was introduced as part of a package of Light Sport Aircraft rules back in 2004-5. Originally the FAA thought they would go down the path of writing a SFAR to incorporate these rules but then it was decided to introduce the LSA rules holus bolus into the relevant FARs.

Medical Certificate requirements therefore were introduced into FAR Part 61 as section 61.23:
FAR Part 61 Sec 61.23





(2) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must--

  • (i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle; (ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third- class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
    (iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
    (iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.
  • For Vag277's benefit here is the list of rules for LSA requirements for the US, reference page 4 for 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration.medical:
EAA abbreviated version of the rules

And if you want the long version of the reasoning for the rules visit here:
NFRM - LSA Effective September 1, 2004. (reference pg 150)

So again we have a case of the Yanks going the full hog and incorporating/adapting the rules (in this case for LSA) into the current regs (because they have them of course..) vs FF writing another tediously micro-managed exemption instrument (some 8 years later)...hmm so Vag 277 which system would you prefer??

OK back to the thread..

Addendum again for Vag277's benefit: If you had done the reading you would have picked up on the hidden clues from Paul Bertorelli's article Aviation Gets a Congressional Star Turn :
The bill would expand the use of the driver’s license medical certification to allow pilots to fly aircraft up to 6000 pounds, VFR in non-commercial operations. While I don’t think the elimination or curtailment of the Third Class will kill the light sport industry, it will put a dent in it, especially for some manufacturers. Many LSA buyers are older pilots who have the wherewithal to pay cash for $130,000 airplanes. Some are doing that because they’re selling their Bonanzas or Skyhawks out of medical-loss fear. They see LSAs as lifeboats to extend their flying career. If fear of medical loss no longer propels them, light sport will lose some sales.
Much like FF's peerless leader, it would appear, to this layman at least, of another classic case of FIMD (foot in mouth disease..)...err PMO your diagnosis please...

Last edited by Sarcs; 12th Jan 2014 at 21:10.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2014, 21:20
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Honeymoon salad - Lettuce alone.

Matters medical could stand it's own thread; probably been done before and like any a topic which touches everyone there's always a talent pool willing to provide good information and discussion. Even the obligatory troll; happily, they are fairly easy to pick and easily ignored. Which ever way you look at it, the old pony Poohshambolic seems to have run the course between the AAT and the office too many times to attract decent odds (gods alone know the total cost). This is an area where 'leadership', or rather the lack thereof, really starts to show up. You'd think a budget conscious, progressive boss would look at world best practice, look at what's occurring on his own patch, look to how improvements and savings could be made. A simple directive, setting out the strategy and a 'get on with it' line could save millions. Will the WLR could consider the Avmed rules as part of their robust review?, can they?; has our three man tea party enough time, latitude. horsepower and interest to get down in the weeds and look. Enough – lest I ramble.

An interesting though oblique element of the Avmed discussion is how much attention folk are willing to give to anything of which they have had experience. I had coffee with John Quadrio one day, quite accidental, bloke I was with knew John; introductions were made and, as I had time to kill, second coffee's were ordered. Considering the tale, John was remarkably calm and sanguine, told the story without rancour even the odd bit of humour thrown in; I was impressed and could not discern too much fairy dust being added to my long black. When the yarn was spun; it occurred to me to ask one final question. "If a bloke in a pub told you a story like yours, what would you do". A quiet smile on an honest face told me all I needed to know. Unless you have been through a CASA close encounter, of the pineapple kind, or the medical kind, or the engineering kind; it's just a yarn. But when you start to collate the facts, examine the evidence, read all the tedious, convoluted correspondence, weigh it against the procedure, protocol and rules, a quiet yarn over a coffee takes you to some ugly, dark places. Dare the WLR go there ?, can it?. Nay: caution human nature at work; if the beast is not in your cave, why leave the fire. Hush now.

The WLR must, if it does nothing else of any value look at the rules governing the way in which NCN, Safety Alert and Show Cause are sprinkled about like confetti at a wedding, then ruthlessly used as a club to enforce someone's vision of safety. It's time we were rid of bullies, liars, willing accomplices, catamites, unprincipled investigators, the lawyers that support them and the twisted notion that enforcement and prosecution outside of the principals of law can ever enhance safety. No matter how many plagiarised, nonsense reports are 'commissioned' to suit. Money won't go close to sorting it either. It is, very much a matter of principal and conscience

Dear Mr. Truss. We, the WLB running the WLR suggest that you immediately outlaw double jeopardy, forbid the use of the AAT and only allow prosecution in court by the CDPP. If not can we please find a man of good will and conscience to run the joint. All roads lead to Rome, even the long winding ones, through the wabbit warrens.

Selah.

IF you wake at midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
Them that ask no questions isn't told a lie.
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by.

Five and twenty ponies,
Trotting through the dark -
Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk.
Laces for a lady; letters for a spy,
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by!
Courtesy Mr. Kipling.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2014, 02:11
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
It's my opinion, the lot of them need a harmonic balancer... (or is that a syncro-phaser), plus the CASA dictionary, tied around their necks with barb wire and dropped off the continental shelf. But that's probably illegal as well.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2014, 19:27
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
On His Miniscule Secret Salad Service.

Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 No. 153, 1997 as amended
There are only a humble 90 pages in this document, but it does make clear who gets the pineapple. The problem of course is one of delivery.

responsible Minister means:
(a) for a Commonwealth authority—the Minister who is responsible for the authority; or
(b) for a Commonwealth company:
(i) the Minister who is prescribed by the regulations as the Minister responsible for the company; or
(ii) if no Minister is prescribed—the Minister who is responsible for the company.
27E Responsibility for actions of directors delegate.

(1) If the directors of a Commonwealth authority delegate a power under its enabling legislation, a director is responsible for the exercise of the power by the delegate as if the power had been exercised by the directors themselves.

(2) A director is not responsible under subsection (1) if:
(a) the director believed on reasonable grounds at all times that the delegate would exercise the power in conformity with the duties imposed on directors of the Commonwealth authority by this Act and the authority’s enabling legislation; and
(b) the director believed:
(i) on reasonable grounds; and
(ii) in good faith; and
(iii) after making proper inquiry if the circumstances indicated the need for inquiry; that the delegate was reliable and competent in relation to the power delegated.
You can discern the issues, why bother with paragraph one (1) and then provide a world of wriggle room in paragraph two (2). In a 'normal' world the terms would seem reasonable to an honest man; the term 'in good faith' is used. There's the entire cost of a child's education right there for any legal eagle. However if a case was ever driven through all the hoops, would it, in the final analysis come down to a two dog fight, Minister v Director.

Perhaps the WLR should consider some of the CASA actions in terms this Act and of potential court actions, against individual officers. Because one thing is certain, if anyone, under pressure from personal liability breaks ranks and blows the whistle, the only screaming heard will be that of liability, through responsibility. The Nuremburg defence didn't work when it was first used, it has no chance here, not in our proudly independent, litigious country. But the WLR needs to conduct the orchestra with caution; one trumpet out of tune can really spoil the performance. Remember:-


Toot toot.
Kharon is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2014, 21:43
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Promises...promises..promises!!

Thomas: "TOOT..TOOT!"

The Fat Controller: "Thomas your running late the Minister will not be happy, he is waiting on mail from the WLR panel...TICK..TOCK!"

Kharon:
Perhaps the WLR should consider some of the CASA actions in terms this Act and of potential court actions, against individual officers. Because one thing is certain, if anyone, under pressure from personal liability breaks ranks and blows the whistle, the only screaming heard will be that of liability, through responsibility.
Ahh yes the CAC Act, maybe it should be re-named the great government & government agency protection (obfuscation i.e 'protection racket') Act of 1997...what's latin for..."No one is accountable!"....??

Senator NASH: Was anybody at the table employed by CASA in 2000?

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?

Mr Boyd : Yes, but not in that position.

Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?

Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.

Senator FAWCETT: You've got an alibi!
Hmm..we never did hear from the DD..??

However "K" makes a good point for the panel to explore..

Moving right along and a quick pop quiz for the WLB:

Q/ Who was it that once said...?? {note edited by the IOSFOB - the Ills of Society freedom of information bureau..}

".....In broad summary, during my tenure I intend to ensure that {blank} refocuses on its core activity —the regulation of {blank} safety—that the governance arrangements within {blank} are strengthened, that the staff of {blank} are trained and properly deployed to strengthen {blank's} oversight and surveillance functions and that regulatory reform is completed in a most expeditious manner...."

".....The future of {blank} in Australia relies on the success of {the IOS}. To be blunt, if we kill {the IOS}, we kill {blank} and many other activities that rely on it. In summary, I look forward to contributing to the ongoing success of {blank} in Australia. I cannot do anything about the past, but I can do a lot about the future, and that is what I intend to do. Thank you for your polite indulgence....."

In the next breath this individual said...

".....At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of {blank's } actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving andfrequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual {blank} officers by name and by station...."

Oops may have given the game away with that one....

Last edited by Sarcs; 13th Jan 2014 at 23:00.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2014, 21:47
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Latin?

Taurus excreta conundrum cerebellum.


Perhaps?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2014, 01:29
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,201
Prime beef...top bs

The current ceo is imo a prime candidate for being done under this Act.
But like so much of these acts, regs, rules. codes of misconduct etc all lawyered into unuseable complexity, obfustication to eventual useless oblivion.
And ignored as well
Too complex, too hard, who's to do the job..or will allow it anyway?.
Miniscule v ceo...in ya dreams.!

Bring on the ides of March.!!

And if you read the full senate statement made by the ceo for the staff protection agency, you will see an unfinished sentence, all choked on syntax, big words and other rubbish.
Unwarranted demagoguery IMO.
demagogue : opportunist, haranguer. Mmmm yes.

How do you like yr lettuce with yr cheese sandwich, crisp of limp?
aroa is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2014, 05:44
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Devil The Bingle syndrome..??

Dear Minister,
Re: 'Where the bloody hell are you?'
[YOUTUBE]So Where the Bloody Hell are you? - YouTube

Note for the Minister & some reminders while your swanning around pretending to give a rat's while in the acting PM position.

Being as we are into the 2nd week of '14 & the Turkey has well and truly passed through the local turd burglar farm, here's a basic summary of your performance c/o of the IOS

1) Official change of government you missed the perfect excuse (& god knows after the PelAir debacle who would have blamed you..) that some of your Ministerial colleagues & TA partook in i.e. the post election bureaucrat be-headings (dubbed get a Head Crat day ).

(2) However you did announce your promise of a independent review of the RRP (i.e.ASRR), but the TORs and the no parliamentary protection has left that initiative dubbed the WLR.

(3) Next was the promise that you'd get your response to us before the end of the year. Which was again reinforced by your rep in the Senate Estimates hearing:
Senator XENOPHON: I just wanted to ask you, Mr Mrdak and the minister, about the Senate report Aviation accident investigations of May 2013, otherwise known as the Pel-Air report. That report contained a number of quite scathing findings both in relation to CASA and the ATSB, in particular the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB, about his competence in the handling of that investigation. It raised a number of serious issues in terms of the exchange of information between the two agencies and whether that, in fact, compromised or could potentially compromise air safety. Can the minister indicate—you may not need to take this on notice—when the government will be responding to quite a damning report that was unanimous in its findings across any party lines about—

Senator Sinodinos: My advice was we would respond before the end of the year. Are you aware that last week the minister also released the terms of reference and members for an international panel to undertake a fairly comprehensive review into aviation safety regulations in Australia?
(4) Now the IOS find that, much like the last mob, we have sailed past the due date for the answering of Senate Estimate QONs, again without any excuses offered...
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Questions on notice index: (PDF 548KB)
Answers are due Friday 10 January 2014
With all due respect Minister I have got half a dozen IOS members written submissions in my inbox, (members who are prepared to play the WLR game and make submissions) but their draft submissions are currently on hold with a Draft One {with the bureau debacle still to be fixed} & Draft two {with the bureau debacle partially fixed} version, these drafts hinge on:

(a) Your response to the PelAir report and Senator Xenophon's request to the department:
Senator XENOPHON: For instance—I am not saying this would be the case—if the majority of this committee was minded to ask for that response at some stage, whether it waits for the minister's response to the Senate inquiry with recommendations, you do not see any particular difficulty with that as a matter of principle?

Mr Mrdak : Without pre-empting the minister's consideration of the matter, we have put an extensive amount of material and a draft response to successive ministers. Without prejudicing that process I will take that on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us not talk at cross purposes here. I am saying that CASA gave a considered response presumably to the Senate inquiry, to the minister, to consider. That itself would not be a draft, it would be a document from CASA to the department. What harm would there be for that document eventually seeing the light of day?

Mr Mrdak : Again, without recalling the exact details of the document, I do not have an issue in principle, but I need to take it on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: At the end of the day you would not have an issue in principle with that being released, would you, Mr McCormick?
Mr McCormick : Again, I will take it on notice. I personally do not, but I am not sure what the protocols are. Perhaps Dr Aleck might have something to say.

Dr Aleck : I will concur with what has gone before and to add that CASA made a number of submissions to that inquiry. To the extent that the recommendations dealt with the same issues that were covered by the submissions I suspect there would be some alignment with our submissions.

Senator XENOPHON: That is why I am hoping to see that document sooner rather than later.
and; (b) Your department/agency response to certain QONs, for example Senator Xenophon's:
139 CASA 09 XENOPHON
Report on Aviation Accident Investigations

Senator XENOPHON: Mr McCormick, today marks four years to the day since the ditching of the VH-NGA off Norfolk Island and nearly seven months since the references committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has CASA formulated a response to the recommendations in the report?

Mr McCormick: The part that we had to do has been completed. The documents are no longer with CASA.

Senator XENOPHON: But there were various recommendations and you have given your views as to those recommendations to the department?

Mr McCormick: Yes, we have.

Senator XENOPHON: When did you do that?

Mr McCormick: I would have to take the exact date on notice. It was before the election.
You can see our dilemma Minister and with a due date of the 31st the clock is well and truly ticking...TICK..TOCK indeed...

So Minister 'Where the bloody hell are you?'
Sarcs is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2014, 07:35
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Flood fire or pestilence there is always a politician to face the media. They thrive on disaster, it shows "leadership" "empathy" and increases public support for the individual. Some are called statesmen/ (women) like Anna Burke chasing a woman made flood headline.


A big problem however when a big aluminum tube with hundreds of voters augers in when it could have been prevented by preemptive action aimed at the "watchdog". Especially if some from Cherbourg buy the farm, neighbors and near environs.


So, who's watching the watchdog Mr Truss? (apologies to Paul Phelan for using his headline). Reaction doesn't cut the hot English mustard either Minister.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2014, 09:25
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 349
Indeed it will certainly take a "smoking hole in the ground" for anything to change. Just Pruneing around today and stumbled across a link to a thread from the Uzu years, circa 2003. I remember it well, as of course will Torres and Sarcs. Important and Urgent?...10+ years?...FFS.

No wonder I have absolutely no CONFIDENCE or RESPECT for the system. I will concede that I have had dealings with individuals within both CAsA and ATSB that have been both productive and mutually beneficial; they were however an aberration in the scheme of things.

CASA in the news Important Urgent

INSIGHT investigates serious allegations made against the bodies that control the air, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, (CASA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (ATSB).

A former CASA manager and other aviation operators say the Civil Aviation Safety Authority engages in vindictive actions, which put many companies out of business. They say the vindictive action includes suspensions and cancellations for reasons which have nothing to do with public safety.


Signed, Disillusioned.

Last edited by Two_dogs; 14th Jan 2014 at 09:42. Reason: Red wine... and proofreading after posting.
Two_dogs is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2014, 18:57
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Of Cyclones and Wabbit proof fences.

FA -"Flood fire or pestilence there is always a politician to face the media. They thrive on disaster, it shows "leadership" "empathy" and increases public support for the individual."
'Top end' operators, you have to admire them. They survive the wet, cyclones, floods, bush fires, high temperatures, high humidity, dangerous animal and insect species in one of the most remote areas on the planet. Despite all of this, they manage to keep their aircraft airborne even with difficulties like spares deliveries and remote location breakdowns. They have provided countless pilots with that 'first job', invaluable experience, confidence and self sufficiency. Then this.

Moving a bit further a field, the Northern Territory and north-west of Western Australia both have large amounts of aviation activity, particular mining operation related, tourist sightseeing flights and aerial cattle mustering. CASA surveillance of these activities, even given our focus on safety related operations of public transport operators, should be enhanced. To that end, we are about to commence a surveillance sweep across the north of Australia, from the east coast to Broome. This is not going to be a one-off exercise, and an additional purpose is to identify sites for CASA work offices for the use of CASA officers where aviation activity is high. All these initiatives will be funded from internal cost savings in our present budget. my bold
Any trail of destruction left behind will eventually be rectified, with the same spirit, humour and resolve, even that of a 'boosted safety storm'. No doubt the 'sweep' caught a few significant safety issues, now filed away for future use against a target; many trees have no doubt been sacrificed on the alter of pointless, arse covering 'Amendment', tool kits will now contain freshly calibrated and certified tyre pressure gauges. The freshly minted NCN will have been responded to and fines paid by those who opted to stump up and have a peaceful life. But in reality were the claimed safety gains, weighed against the total real cost; worth the time, money, aggravation and distraction. The miniscule may be well impressed with the windy, self aggrandising rhetoric forecasting a veritable storm of safety, but he'd be the only one believing it. As said, up there they've survived other storms, a breeze from the nether regions of Canberra would be a doddle. It's a pity they are too busy providing essential services, generating revenue and doing their bit to dig the country out of debt to write a submission to WLR, providing their view of the great Northern safety storm. That would be worth a read.

Remember this -
"CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee,".
In setting his trap by requesting the original CASA response to the Pel Air recommendations, Xenophon lit a long, slow fuse. See Sarcs Post # 256 – (You have got to love the kids style). – Seems pretty clear to me; old goat or scapegoat ?– not fussy. Even Wabbit would do as an apéritif; at a pinch. Those pesky wabbits eh?, so unreliable. Mind you, without the support of the watchdog would those worthless wabbits have ever have gotten into the yard?. That would be a quite a question (on notice miniscule, if pleases) to answer – later perhaps. But answer he must, sooner or later and someone must carry can.

Last edited by Kharon; 14th Jan 2014 at 19:12. Reason: Whoa, top of the page= top of the morning to all.
Kharon is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 04:15
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 108
More AAT woes for Avmed

I posted this on the Empire Strikes Back thread earlier:

If there aren't enough examples already of Avmed's incompetent decision making, here's another recent example from the AAT files. There's definitely a common trend starting to develop...

Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013)

23.CASA called Dr Pooshan Navathe, its principal medical officer and the primary decision-maker. Some of Dr Navathe’s evidence detailed, quite unnecessarily, the legal framework for regulatory aviation medicine, the processes of aviation medicine decision-making within CASA, risk management and suchlike. The relevance of that evidence was never explained to me. Dr Navathe’s statement discussed, and annexed, various articles from medical research before expressing the opinion that[15],

... given Mr Bolton's history of head injury, there is a significant risk of [posttraumatic seizure]. There is a substantial or real and not remote possibility that Mr Bolton will suffer a [posttraumatic seizure] whilst in flight. Were Mr Bolton to suffer a fit whilst at the controls of an aircraft in flight, then this would pose a clear threat to the safety of air navigation, and thus I have reached the conclusion that the extent to which Mr Bolton fails to meet the class 1 and class 2 medical standard is such that I cannot issue him with a medical certificate under r.67.180 of the CASR.

24.Dr Navathe’s witness statement concluded in this way:

90.Having reviewed all three specialist reports, I remain convinced that I have made the safest decision in refusing Mr Bolton a Class 1 and 2 medical certificate at this time. I have formed the view that is supported by all three specialists, that Mr Bolton does not have a severe head injury, and ceteris paribus [all other things being equal] will be able to obtain medical certification after a period of 18 – 24 months has elapsed from the time of the injury.

91. I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal

Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.

25.Finally, CASA relied upon evidence (including a report of 4 November 2013) of Dr Ernest Somerville, a consultant neurologist. I have already made mention of the reference in Dr Somerville's report to a document from the Proserpine Hospital which is not in evidence in the proceedings. The failure to comply with the Guidelines is exemplified by this passage from Dr Somerville's report[16]:

The following opinion is provided in response to your letter of 30 October 2013 and telephone conversation with Dr Pooshan Navathe on 1 November 2013. Information about Mr Walker's [sic] medical condition is limited to the documents provided with your letter of 30 October 2013.

It is not known what documentary material was provided to Dr Somerville nor is it known what was conveyed to him by Dr Navathe in the conversation on 1 November 2013. Moreover, it is highly irregular that one expert witness, who is as well the primary decision-maker, was apparently briefing another expert witness in terms not disclosed. The danger of such a practice ought to have been evident. The vice is merely compounded by the failure to make clear what information was conveyed.

31. But even if that evidence was to be regarded as being evidence of a condition or of an effect of a head injury I have a distinct preference for the evidence of Dr Cameron. He alone had the benefit of a clinical examination of Mr Bolton. He concluded that Mr Bolton’s risk of posttraumatic seizures was no greater than that of the general population. The studies relied upon by the other witnesses, he said, considered the full range of head injuries not merely the very mild head injury suffered by Mr Bolton. It was Dr Cameron's opinion that a skull fracture increased the risk of posttraumatic epilepsy only if there had been penetration of the dura or if there had been bleeding in the cavities of the brain. Neither occurred in the present case. That evidence satisfies me that, had I concluded that Mr Bolton did not meet the medical standards, his present medical condition is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.

32.I will then set aside the decision to cancel and substitute a decision that Mr Bolton’s medical certificates not be cancelled.
brissypilot is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2014, 04:56
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 108
As for the AAT, jeez, what a shock, another crap decision that of course falls in favour of CAsA.
It appears the AAT's decision was in favour of the applicant...

32. I will then set aside the decision to cancel and substitute a decision that Mr Bolton’s medical certificates not be cancelled.
brissypilot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.