Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[aroa]

CAsA and CORRUPTION

CAsA = Corrupt Authority, Safety an Afterthought.

CAsA is CORRUPT morally and IN FACT.

AND I can prove it ...but who's listening and who will deal with it.?

NOBODY...as we know.

When a competitor company with ex employees within CAsA want a job done on someone...and do it. THATs CORRUPTION.

When AWIs (dopes?.. or just dope smokers?) concoct false testimony with a view to a criminal conviction, and are protected by the DAS and CAsA system ... THATS CORRUPTION.

The skullduggery and serious bureaucratic buggery that has gone on in the Quadrio Event is CORRUPTION with a capital C

Trouble is Govermnents of all persuasions have left CAsA to go more rotten as the years go by, all camouflaged by the mystique of "safety" with bs covering phrases like "not fit and proper" or " a serious and imminent threat to "safety"".

We have now reached the diabolical stage where those statements belong entirely to CaSA itself, which is now not a fit and proper "agency" to oversee the industry, and is itself a serious and current threat to real safety.

While there are good people within CAsA , and Ive met some .I can count them on one hand, but I need to qualify that as I used to work in a sawmill and I dont have many digits left.

Why does CAsA ride roughshod over GA. Because it can, because CORRUPT they are bum up, heads down in the trough snuffling self interest and with NO interest in the survival of GA.
And they CORRUPTLY believe the law doesnt apply to them.

[Sarcs]

AMROBA Concerned.

AMROBA express concern for new DAS selection process.

Like many members of the IOS AMROBA has concerns with the current malaise of the miniscule (yet to blink) and the rumours going around that the next DAS will be selected by Hawke & the, largely, old board that has a history of poor choices when it comes to the CEO/DAS:CASA DAS Selection Process.

CASA DAS Selection Process

AMROBA has written to the Minister with regards to the process of selecting CASA’s next Director of Aviation Safety (DAS). Many members have raised concerns that the ASRR Report recommendations have not yet been accepted/rejected by the Minister prior to selecting the next DAS.

Considering the Victorian “head hunters” that recommended the last 3 CASA DAS are processing the current selection process, what criteria are they using to recommend their selections to the CASA Board?

If the report is endorsed by the Minister the DAS will need to be a person that understands the kind of regulator that the report recommends. If the report recommendations are rejected by the Minister then we will get a DAS that will serve up more of the same from CASA.

So what criteria are the 'head hunters' using to recommend a new DAS to the Board?

There are, we believe, 12 applicants that have made the final selection and the “head hunters” will be conferring with the CASA Chairman of the Board prior to having face-to-face interviews.

If the current Board repeats the selection criteria of the past, then the chance of CASA becoming a mature safety authority as proposed by the ASRR Report will have little chance of becoming a reality.

AMROBA has also written to the Minister and suggested that the Civil Aviation Act will need amending to permanently implement many of the report recommendations if the Minister adopts the report recommendations.

The more time that elapses, the more uncertainity is created in this industry.

Our biggest concern is that the Minister has not publicly stated the he supports his ASRR report recommendations. Therefore One can only assume that the selection criteria being used will be the same criteria that selected the last 3 CASA DAS. This is a worry.

If the Minister had publicly supported the report’s recommendations, then the selection criteria should have been changed to find someone that can implement the recommendations. However, the selection process started before the report was made public. Are we being given expectations that wont happen?

Lastly, AMROBA congratulates Mr Jeff Boyd being appointed to the CASA Board – he has a lot of industry experience.

FO (DF): “Captain (miniscule) you must listen!”

[004wercras]

Time for the ATsB to stand to account

While everyone is watching the CASA snakes and ladders show, the ATSB must not be allowed to slink off into anonymity, keeping their heads down and believing they have managed to slither, unnoticed out of the back door.

Agreed. Although most attention is on CAsA and its misuse of power for decades, we cannot forget Beaker. He has managed in less than 5 years to take the once well respected and well reputed ATsB and turn it into a spineless limp wristed penny pinching accountancy firm. The quality, content and effectiveness of its investigative reports and processes are laughable and lamentable, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe providing a higher quality and higher standard than our ATsB. Dolans experimentation with 'beyond Reason' methodology is a failure and a complete joke. Placing budget ahead of the Pel Air aircraft retrieval is outright lunacy and incompetency at the highest level, not to mention having 3 commissioners of whom none have an aviation investigative background
The true nuts and bolts of the ATsB are still there below the surface, thank god. What we need is for the top layer to receive a robust colonic irrigation and have all the ****e and amoebas flushed away, and a new directive including a new top tier, increased budget for investigator training and for actual investigations work, as well as a renewed focus on 'balls out' reporting including facts and recommendations is needed. I believe the ATsB of old could be returned in less than 2 years with a little elbow grease and less use of the temporary product called 'turd polish'.

'Tick Tock Miniscule, tick tock Mr Mrdak, do something soon or your A380 smoking hole awaits you'

[Sunfish]

i believe I almost died last week along with four others in a C210 on a dodgy take off. I was a passenger and my evidence is, as such, inconclusive. Would I report ir? No. All that would do is destroy the business for zero safety outcome..

I just hope that the pilot learned from their mistake..

[dubbleyew eight]

you didn't almost die.
the stall warning sounds about 5 knots faster than the speed at which a stall is inevitable.

it is good that you got a scare.
you'll learn from it perhaps.


during the course of this thread I have finally worked out what a not fit and proper person is.
quite simply a fit and proper person agrees totally with the "we know safety" nutters in CAsA.
since I happen, as a result of experience over a period of 41 years, to hold the sincere belief that CAsA are totally incompetent of the needs that an aviation community has. I am thus a not fit and proper person.
however I am right and they are wrong. Like Galileo before me I hold true to my beliefs and expect one day to be excommunicated by the lords of the religion of safety.
Until that day I shall continue flying and ignore them totally.
after that date I shall continue flying and ignore them totally.

in 300 years time I'm sure my position will be vindicated, as was Galileo's.

[thorn bird]

A lot less than 300 Dubya, I believe the industry has less than 10 years if things go on as they are, unless our luck runs out and a smoking hole appears.


I hope miniscule WUSS has briefed the cabinet on how much they will have to find to subsidize CAsA's safety, so essential services can continue.

[Jinglie]

12 Apostles

Sarcs, AMROBA,

Any word on who the chosen 12 may be? 12 seems an extraordinary long shortlist. I know in previous cases when the job has been offered, they got down to the 4th or 5th choice before someone would sign a contract!

[Kharon]

Whiff of grapeshot and reek of cordite.

I do wish the Senate could crack on and get the current business cleared away; it's slowing down the Forsyth debate and giving the murky Machiavellian's time to hatch cunning plans. But, before they get to Forsyth though there is the tasty morsel before the 'Privileges committee' and CVD and, (drum roll) the DAS selection to consider. Busy, busy, busy.

But, alas, it's all to no avail. This review and reform is now as well ducked as the previous ones; perhaps even more so. IF the information related to the way in which DAS selection process is being executed turns out to be accurate. Impossible to ignore the ominous signs. The forces of evil have stolen the march and are, as we speak, grooming and primping the selected McComic clone candidate; the 'runner up' to be appointed to the Hawke controlled board (Trifecta). Boyd may well be clever, tough and well supported but will become a token gesture, a sop to the IOS, one lone voice sitting in the back row watching the performance, powerless to do anything else but applaud politely; when the 'wrong man' appointment is allowed to proceed.

Unless Boyd, Fawcett, Xenophon step in now (as in Now, now) and demand complete transparency (soup to nuts) of the DAS selection and appointment process, any meaningful reform will wither and die once the spotlights have been turned off. Truss did not pay the 2008 electricity bill and is equally disinclined to pay the 2014 one; in darkness the forces of evil will flourish.

With 'their' man's feet neatly tucked under the table the brakes will come on and slowly, but irrevocably the reform bus will grind to a halt. "Major changes cannot be made overnight; first we must do our homework, then we must consider, then we must hasten slowly". Imagine in five years time, no ATSB reform, no CASA reform, no regulatory reform, embuggerance enshrined as the national standard and the IOS shutdown; for ever.

Don't expect the Senators read much Pprune or are even aware of it's existence, but FWIW - the warning signs are all there; easily read by those who have watched and studied the form guide compiled from the many, long past, dismally failed attempts at reform. If those who can act don't; this proposed reform will end up down the same drain as every single one of the last dozen or so have. This one all starts and ends with the murky DAS selection process. It's no wonder no one at Sleepy Hollow seems worried about anything else but how high they can climb up the toilet chain.

Just add another five or six million to the 'dead pool' of aviation reform for this last little pantomime, and ignore it until the next 'inquiry' and the next round of mugging the punters begins, again, in a bout five years... Again....

Selah..

[004wercras]

Hooray hooray we love the ASA

Imagine in five years time, no ATSB reform, no CASA reform, no regulatory reform, embuggerance enshrined as the national standard and the IOS shutdown; for ever.

Naughty Kharon, have you been peeking into the Australian governments mystical aviation crystal ball again, and with CVD rose coloured glasses, may I add?

Meanwhile, last night, at an undisclosed IOS frat house the topic of ASA raised its head. While indulging in smutty banter, aviation war stories and enjoying watching a buxom barmaid pulling pints of Guiness, our collective noted there appears to be a level of stability since Frau Staib came onboard and subsequently allowed the Hooded one off the leash since his arrival. It seems TIBA issues have quieted down, training for ATC has improved, all things fibre optic continue to improve, and importantly the $800 million dollar man Russell has become a distant memory. Is this evidence that a government organisation can morph into something tangible when the right people are Captaining the ship? Or are we being tricked by some Machiavellian smoke n mirror pony show, as we have been before? Perhaps our aircraft guiding tower boys and girls could provide us with a current scorecard for ASA? Personally I think it could be the fact that Hoody was already respected as a senior manager, and combine this with his frontline experience, and perhaps his penchant for nipple bling, we could be on to something? Even the Senators have gone quiet on ASA so perhaps one of three boxes have been ticked off, with just CAsA and ATsB to go? However I do feel that as long as the overweight turd massager Dr Hawke remains firmly planted within the CAsA Board there will be no long term adequate changes.

Either way, it's all a game really, just a bit of fun that pays pretty well. I mean sure, lives are at stake, lives have already been lost, investigations and findings ignored or twisted by the powers to be that earn taxpayer funded salaries, but jeez after all these years wouldn't things be boring if we suddenly had ethical, transparent, safety conscious governments and their departments caring for our industry??

Toot toot and a mighty fine morning to our fearless leaders in Canberra on this crisp early morning....(and make sure your willies don't shrink any smaller. Safety first and all that )

[Kharon]

Nail, head and hammer mate. Good managers value intelligent troops and use them. An unleashed Hood, for ASA can only be a good thing for all. It's the very best thing to watch a good pro at work. He impressed last estimates, relaxed the Senate crew and hopefully has found a niche where his good qualities are appreciated, rather than being the object of derision and slurs. (Guinness and nipple bling not withstanding).

Toot toot y'self...Fur lined jock straps and silver spurs all round I say...._.

[Sunfish]

Bump. Don't let this topic die. That is what the Minister and his Department is hoping for, reform fatigue.

[Sarcs]

No chance Sunny!

We hear your concern Sunny, just at the moment trying to get my head around the MH17 tragedy...MH17 down near Donetsk...which appears to have been shot down by a SAM. Tragically there was 20 odd Australians on-board very disturbing & condolences to their families. PT covering here: MH17: Malaysia Airlines 777 ‘shot down’ over Ukraine 295 dead

Okay back to the thread...

Apparently the miniscule will not be responding to the Forsyth report till the Spring parliament sittings which, according to the parliamentary timetable, means the earliest we can possibly get a Government MAP will be 26th of August.. However indications are that industry stalwarts will not ease up the pressure on the miniscule for strong, effective regulatory reform and adoption, with some tweaking, of nearly all 37 ASRR panel recommendations.

During the breaking news of flight MH17 the Oz released their Friday aviation articles and I'm afraid there is more bad press for Fort Fumble and (by association) the miniscule..

Starting with: CASA shortage left aerodrome unchecked

A SHORTAGE of Civil Aviation Safety Authority aerodrome staff meant at least one regional airport did not receive an in-person inspection for eight years, according to a new submission to the federal government’s safety review.

The issue is one of several raised by the Australian Airports Association in response to the recommendations released last month by the panel conducting the review into safety regulation.

The AAA said it understood that inspector staffing was down by as much as 30 per cent due to a combination of resignations, long service leave and retirements.

While these would normally be handled through the course of business, it said this had not happened due to budget restrictions and the federal government’s efficiency dividend.

The shortage and its impact became evident during recent consultations, according AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie.

“Given the size of the airport and the size of aircraft that service that airport, this is a very concerning outcome,’’ Ms Wilkie said in a letter to review chairman David Forsyth.

“Whilst the AAA is confident that the internal processes at that particular airport are sound and that inspections are regularly under*taken by an accredited third party inspector, it does raise questions about the scope and validity of the CASA inspection regime.

“To avoid potentially compromising safety in the future, it would be prudent to introduce a maximum allowable timeframe between aerodrome inspections, with any aerodrome inspections falling outside that timeframe to be reviewed as an urgent priority.’’

CASA said it had 17 aerodrome inspectors or associated roles and denied that “several vacancies’’ were adversely impacting on regulators’ functions.
It said a risk-based approach meant airports used by the majority of air travellers were “audited frequently’’. “For example, CASA aerodrome inspectors visit Sydney airport multiple times a year,’’ it said. “In most cases airports serviced by regular public transport operations are visited by CASA at least once a year.’’

The AAA also called for a person with airport experience to be appointed to the CASA board and reiterated its view that the Manual Operations of Standards Part 139 , which specifies the requirements of aerodrome and fire fighting services and defines a safety framework, needs to be quickly reviewed.

The association said a post implementation review of the standard had not been undertaken since its inception in 2008 despite the fact it was supposed to happen two years after implementation.

“By any standard, the review of MOS Part 139 is in incredibly overdue,” Ms Wilkie said, noting that plans to conduct the review announced last October had been further delayed. “The apparent ongoing lack of concern displayed by CASA, given the important need to undertake a review of MOS Part 139 is alarming.

“The industry has identified more than 100 issues that need to be urgently addressed in the document, through our paper titled ‘AAA Review of Manual of Standards 139’.

“This was provided to CASA in May 2014.’’

The association said it was comfortable with the report’s 37 key recommendations and strongly supported recommendation 18, allowing the use of discretion in inspections.

“The AAA believes that this would allow for a much more collaborative approach between CASA and aerodrome operators, allowing for a practical and *efficient outcome to be achieved in remedying any perceived breaches,’’ it said.

The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia supports or strongly supports 21 of the recommendations and another 13 with reservations or conditions.

It opposes a recommendation that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and CASA use the bilateral memorandum of understanding to accredit CASA observers to air crash investigations.

The association cited “significant ongoing concerns with CASA and its lack of understanding of a ‘just culture’ ’’ in its response to the report. It said its concerns about the importance of maintaining and enhancing the de-identification of safety information provided to CASA would remain until this changed.

Here is a link for the AAA letter to Forsyth: AAA response to ASRR report

"...The AAA has reviewed the ASRR report and is comfortable with the 37 key recommendations that have been proposed. Safety is of paramount importance for airport operators and the aviation industry as a whole, and it is pleasing to see that this issue has been identified as a priority.

In particular, the AAA strongly supports recommendation 18 of the report, which provides for CASA to reintroduce the ‘use of discretion’ procedure in its inspection processes. The AAA believes that this would allow for a much more collaborative approach between CASA and aerodrome operators, allowing for a practical and efficient outcome to be achieved in remedying any perceived breaches.

While many of the recommendations arising from the review are wide-ranging, they fundamentally highlight the importance of a more productive and collaborative relationship between the regulator and the aviation industry in the interests of improving the aviation safety regime for Australia. This is timely given that the industry has recently voiced its distress in relation to the current resourcing and operation of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)..."

While on the subject of industry responses to the Forsyth report, here is the RAAA response: RAAA SUBMISSION - AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW REPORT

Which is (unsurprisingly) pretty much mirrored by the REX response, which can be clicked on HERE; or summary viewed HERE

{Comment: Maybe the miniscule could task RED (PH), much like the submissions, to publish the industry response submissions for ease of IOS reference...}

Agree with Sunny...don't get complacent now when we're rapidly approaching the vinegar stroke, the miniscule has a long history of slipping out the back door when the spotlight gets flicked to the next actor on the stage...

Much more to follow for the Sarcs weekly wrap...

[Kharon]

More from today's Australian.

Chris Manning says the government must investigate why Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle airports have a disproportionately high number of “loss of separation” incidents. The term is used when passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of a mid-air collision.

Mr Manning, Qantas’s chief pilot between 2002 and 2008 and one of the most respected figures in Australian aviation, said while the three airports were not unsafe, they were less safe than the country’s other major airports and this was unacceptable.

“It is safe but, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report, there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he told The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes that civil aircraft use.”

Rather refreshing to witness an epiphany, in the press, of a senior industry figure 'suddenly' seeing the light and feeling the urge to pipe up. I wonder why it took so long for the light to come on, it's not as though there hasn't been ample opportunity to 'stick an oar in' to date. Nothing to do with a series of job interviews underway at the moment is it? Nah, course not.

Anyway – news from Townsville re-fueller is that some candidates have declined to complete the process, choosing rather to depart the fix, with much flouncing of skirts and in high dudgeon than remain in the holding pattern.

But in these cases
We still have judgement here; that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return,
To plague the inventor; this even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips.

Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on th' other.

Macbeth seems somehow more apt than Hamlet these days. Aye well, such is life...

[004wercras]

A SHORTAGE of Civil Aviation Safety Authority aerodrome staff meant at least one regional airport did not receive an in-person inspection for eight years, according to a new submission to the federal government’s safety review.

Probably got something to do with the fact that CAsA traditionally focus on the flying side of things. To them, and someone like the Skull, pilots are the main focus. That's why Fort Fumble has stacks of FOI's. AWI's and airworthiness comes next, and the poor lowly Aerodrome inspectors come last. No risk at airports boys!! Airport oversight wasn't respected even back in Dick's days. He got the ball rolling by slashing the inspectorate number and it has never gotten back up to an acceptable level. CAsA, in all its stupidity, dumped SMS into the lap of aerodromes back in 2005 and said 'here you go, you need to do this', and walked away. In the meantime they hit AOC and COA operators with SMS in and around 2008 onwards, and did a better job at it. But it is only in the past year that they have gone back to looking at aerodromes. The problem is there has been minimal consultation, a lot of the aerodrome inspectors don't understand SMS, and a lot of the aerodromes, some that are pretty darn large, don't even have a safety manager, yet are meant to operate the same way as a large airline when it comes to safety management systems! There simply aren't enough aerodrome inspectors, and until CAsA gets rid of people like the Skull who think the only risk or important thing in aviation is the pointy end of a plane, there is no hope for better safety outcomes. I can assure you that there are aerodromes out there that pose a larger safety risk than some airlines or maintenance operators. And from my last recollection there are around 300 certified aerodromes, all of which should have a SMS, and as part of the SMS one must have a safety manager with relevant qualifications accord to the regs, and very few, if any, have one. So how is that compliant??
Frau Wilkie is justified in her comments about CAsA, and I am sure that you all welcome her with open arms to the IOS. Her gift pack is in the mail
Who knows, perhaps the next DAS won't have his blinkers on and will be able to see the big picture rather than just the front end of a plane?

Kharon you magnificent creature, nice pick up on the statement by Manning;

Rather refreshing to witness an epiphany, in the press, of a senior industry figure 'suddenly' seeing the light and feeling the urge to pipe up. I wonder why it took so long for the light to come on, it's not as though there hasn't been ample opportunity to 'stick an oar in' to date. Nothing to do with a series of job interviews underway at the moment is it? Nah, course not.

I believe I mentioned Herr Manning some time ago as being the Number 1 contender in the DAS race. Could this be the first of numerous public statements? Could he be now greasing the aviation wheels, slowly and subtly, preparing us for his imminent arrival, starting to massage us an inch at a time, so to speak?

No Tick Tock tonight, to be con't.............

[Kharon]

By the pricking of my thumbs.

004 – "I believe I mentioned Herr Manning some time ago as being the Number 1 contender in the DAS race."

Yes, you did; but, and with all due respect to Chris Manning; is he the "type" we need as DAS? I'm sure Chris Manning is as fine a fellahin as you could wish to meet; highly qualified with a resume to match; no doubt about it. However: In troubled times, the Mafia used a war time Consigliere, in WWII, the Brits had Churchill as a war Prime Minister, cometh the hour, cometh the man and the situation within CASA must be looked on as serious trouble. Hell's bells, the waring factions alone are enough to keep a honest man awake at night.

Another major challenge is the minuscule; he had the same information available in 2008, the same troubles and the same advisors; and, apart from being six years closer to the grave; nothing has changed his disinclination to act. Perhaps the pictures from the Ukraine can show him what happens after any type of real smoking hole event and gently point out the ensuing, international and domestic ramifications.

Both the Senate and the Rev. Forsyth have clearly, unequivocally and absolutely shown that major reform is urgently required (soup to nuts). A chief Pilot of a major carrier requires a number of skills and talents; but are those traditional qualifications sufficient to comprehensibly take an angry industry into a true renaissance?

A 'Manning' type, going in 'cold' without specialised training will not spot the dodges and wheezes in time. Dealing with relatively 'honest' folk in airline operations cannot possibly prepare the candidate for a swim in the cesspool, no amount of Kevlar will protect the soft spots and learning to walk on quicksand is no easy task. Nope; with great respect for Capt. Manning he'll get eaten alive in the snake pit before the bell for round one is rung.

You must set a thief to catch a thief; we need a reformer who is capable of dragging the CASA into the light by whatever means are necessary, unafraid to spill blood, **** or snot as and when required. There's a requirement to remove three layers of morally corrupt management, before the reinstallation task can even begin. There's the incompetent, pedantic, overly aggressive FOI department to weed out, before starting to get the flight training, engineering, medical and administrative 'sheltered workshops' whipped into shape. Even then, still sitting there, mouldering away are the Hag ridden, benighted regulations.

The genetically modified, artificially inseminated abomination spawned by the McComic era will not go quietly into the night. It's very alive, dangerous and hungry. Dealing with this is not a job for polite, traditional, honest, intelligent, hard working chief pilot 'types'. Not by a country mile it ain't: it's in through the belly of the beast – and out through the daemons ass.

Disclaimer, please note; this is not in any way an attack on Chris; quite the reverse. If he is considering tackling the job he'll need every bit of help, warning and knowledge he can get....See Byron for on the job training notes; or, better still, grab a seat on the board, sit next to Boyd and support whoever is unlucky enough to fall into the snake pit.

Selah.

[Sarcs]

Sales pitch v Sour Grapes plus the Chris & Dick alliance??

The Forsyth report suggested criteria for the DAS position recommended:

7. The next Director of Aviation Safety has leadership and management experience and capabilities in cultural change of large organisations. Aviation or other safety industry experience is highly desirable.

And in the Executive Summary this criteria was expanded...

"...The Panel concludes that CASA and industry need to build an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Therefore, CASA needs to set a new strategic direction. The selection of a new Director of Aviation Safety should concentrate on finding an individual with leadership and change management abilities, rather than primarily aviation expertise. Other jurisdictions have appointed leaders without an aviation background, who have been successful in changing the strategic direction of the safety regulator..."

CM would have no problem with the latter part of the criteria but the 1st part could prove a major stumbling block. Discounting the Irish Bomber's bizarre attempts to bankrupt the company (& not being a Sky God myself so not really in the know), but I can't remember the last time that the Red Rat had a major cultural change within...?? Therefore maybe this isn't so much a sales pitch from CM but a case of sour grapes, either way it is certainly passing strange??

Also passing strange (& almost before the ink had dried on the CM diatribe), there was this follow up article from the Oz...

Dick Smith joins air traffic control safety row

THE former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Dick Smith, has warned the Defence Minister that he could be responsible for the nation’s first jet airline crash because of the shortcomings of military air traffic controllers.


In an extraordinary letter to David Johnston, Mr Smith warns that tough decisions are needed now because it was clear that safety levels for passenger planes at the military controlled airports of Darwin, Newcastle and Townsville were inadequate.

“Minister this is a shocker!” Mr Smith writes in a letter obtained by The Weekend Australian. “I am sure you do not want to be responsible for the first jet airline fatalities in Australia’s history!

“After 30 years experience in our civil aviation history, my view is that the military simply do not have the efficiencies of scale to be able to adequately operate an acceptably safe air traffic system for civilian aircraft.”

News of Mr Smith’s letter, written last month, follows a call yesterday by former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning for an urgent inquiry into safety at airports that are manned by military air traffic controllers.

Mr Manning, Qantas chief pilot from 2003 to 2008, is angry that the government has virtually ignored a damning Australian Transport Safety Bureau report from October last year, which found that air force controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts. Because they are near air force bases, Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle airports are run
by military air traffic controllers despite the fact that the vast majority of planes — 94 per cent at Darwin and 88 per cent at Townsville — are civil aircraft.

Mr Smith, in a separate letter to Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss, says that travellers should be told of this fact ­before they fly into these airports.

The ATSB report found that between 2008 and 2012 military controllers controlled 25 per cent of air traffic but were involved in 36 per cent of loss of separation incidents — when planes pass too close to each other, increasing the risk of a mid-air ­collision.

Defence has defended its 250 controllers, insisting they have the same training as their civilian counterparts and that rigorous safety standards are applied to their operations. Defence disputes the findings of the ATSB report, saying that it “does not agree with an implication that the number of loss of separation per number of aircraft movements directly correlates to safety”.

“Military-controlled airspace is inherently different to civilian-controlled airspace — with high traffic peaks but low overall aircraft movement statistics, diverse aircraft types and constrained airspace — which makes the statistical comparison flawed,” a Defence spokesman said.

CASA has responded to the critical ATSB report by conducting a joint safety study of Newcastle airport, but it insists that it has a constructive relationship with Defence on safety issues.

Strange bed pals indeed..

Kharon:

I wonder why it took so long for the light to come on, it's not as though there hasn't been ample opportunity to 'stick an oar in' to date.

Ample opportunity indeed "K"... And I'd suggest that there have been many less controversial but no less significant examples of Fort Fumble completely ignoring (proverbial middle finger..), delaying, arguing the toss, on any bureau SSI/SR(s) addressed to the regulator in recent times. The classic example was the initially notified CSI associated with the Norfolk ditching report, that over 2 1/2 years was slowly whittled down to minor and is still outstanding in action response: AO-2009-072-SI-01

On 25 June 2012, CASA advised that amendment 36 to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 6, State Letter AN 11/1.32-12/10 detailed a number of new Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) in regard to fuel planning, in-flight fuel management, the selection of alternates and extended diversion time operations (EDTO). In this respect, CASA provided the following update:

• CASA intends to review Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1 relating to fuel requirements. The ICAO fuel and alternate Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) are the basis of these changes and will be coordinated by CASA project OS09/13. While this project will focus specifically on passenger-carrying commercial flights the project will also be reviewing fuel requirements generally. The project will now be conducted in four phases. The first three phases will involve amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Order (CAO) applicable Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 234-1 and Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 234. The project objectives are as follows:
  • Phase 1 will involve amendments to the relevant 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 and will also consider the provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome from a destination that is a designated isolated aerodrome. The CAAP 234-1 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 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.
  • Phase 3 will involve amendment to CAR 234 to specify that the pilot in command, or the operator, must take reasonable steps to ensure sufficient fuel and oil shall be carried to undertake and continue the flight in safety. In addition, for flights conducted in accordance with Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO), CAO 82 and CAR 234 shall be amended to require consideration of a "critical fuel scenario" taking into account an aeroplane system failure or malfunction which could adversely affect safety of flight. It is anticipated that the methods chosen by the pilot-in-command and operator will therefore be sufficient to meet the requirements of CAR 234 to enable a flight to be undertaken and continue in safety.
  • Phase 4 will involve the publication of internal and external educational material along with conducting briefings where necessary.

and that:
The amendment to the ICAO Annex 6 standards will be considered, and where appropriate, incorporated into the relevant legislation/advisory publication. In addition it is anticipated that there will be guidance material for operators who can demonstrate a particular level of performance-based compliance. The intent is to provide a bridge from the conventional approach to safety to the contemporary approach that uses process- based methods and Safety Risk Management (SRM) principles.

The ICAO Fuel and Flight Planning Manual are reflected in the SARP to Annex 6. Inclusion of the provisions of the Amendment 36 SARPs will be captured throughout this project. The ICAO SARP becomes effective from November 2012.

CASA will endeavour to make the changes as soon as possible - subject to third party arrangements such as drafting and resource availability. However the timing of the CAR changes will be subject to a timetable that is not necessarily able to be controlled by CASA.

This MSI is also directly relevant to the ATsB YMIA incident investigation AO-2013-100, therefore giving CM the perfect excuse to weigh in on i.e. less controversial and far more relevant...

MTF...

[dubbleyew eight]

interesting to me that the money that it would have cost to widen the narrow runways in outback queensland (provided it wasn't done by a corrupt operator) is probably less than the cost of all the regulatory adjustments needed to allow for operation into the deficient strips.

in the fuel requirements example in the preceding post a viable industry not subject to the embuggerance of a clueless CAsA would probably generate enough business for a remote refuelling facility to survive commercially.
a remote fuelling facility would solve all the problems completely.
in the case of whyalla the guys put in an avtur tank with 10,000 litres of fuel beside the avgas tank. in the entire life of the avtur tank they had sold 125 litres to a rex guy who decided to top up in the face of a storm at destination.
I think the local aero club took over the facility just to keep it functioning.
a viable industry would keep all this infrastructure financially viable.

CAsA you really are totally wrong in your approach. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM in australian aviation. no amount of waffle will ever fix the problems you cause.

[Prince Niccolo M]

chris manning

I became aware of the Chris Manning blitzkrieg for both public profile and relevance while part way through breakfast. I immediately struggled with choosing between two reasons for this very belated step into the limelight: was it because Spencer Stuart had just told him that he didn't fit the Forsyth anti-pilot template or was it because the Miniscule had just told him he might?

Then I read that dribble about "one of the most respected figures in Australian aviation" and never fully recovered from the taste of vomitus, subsequently revisited on hearing of Smith's latest raving...

Maybe that was overcame Nick in the Senate - the fear that a Manning/Smith alliance might become the EXACTA (or PERFECTA)

Nonetheless, it does remain a great example of how slithering from President of AIPA across to QF Chief Pilot may look good on the CV without ever revealing competence in either role...

[dubbleyew eight]

there are no "highly respected pilots in australian aviation" it is a level playing field.
some of us anonymous guys are better pilots than any of the high profile w@nkers.
flying a commercial airliner make you a pilot of a commercial airliner.
flying a mirage fighter makes you a fighter pilot (canon fodder)
flying a cessna makes you a cessna pilot.

have you ever designed a successful aeroplane?
designed a successful aero engine?
ever written a successful book on aviation?
no? you've a long way to go then.
50,000 hours in the log book. whoopee. it is all past history. hope you enjoyed it.

announce to the world that you are a respected aviator. give us a break.
go enjoy your flying and let the rest of us get on with ours. ....and stop being a tosser.

[004wercras]

It really doesn't matter who is assigned the lofty position of DAS; it could be Manning, Smith again, Vladamir Putin of the head of ISIS - as long as the Iron Ring remains real change will not be possible, at all, so everyone can keep clicking their heels together and dreaming of a happy place. It isn't going to happen. If we were to have another pilot captaining the CAsA ship it would be good to see someone in their mid to late 40's, almost straight out of industry, perhaps a 20 year PNG chopper veteran who really knows what the real flying world is about, someone who understands change management, all aspects of safety, technologies and operations.....and no, I have nobody specific in mind who fits that mould, I just think that is the type of character we need in charge.

All and all Manning is a good bloke, an experienced pilot, articulate, understands the game of politics and would command respect from the troops, however the sheer depth of the **** at CAsA would shock him, and the antics of the Iron Ring would bury him. Although my source has seen Manning's name high up the list of 'potential candidates', I don't believe that now is his time. Perhaps in three years time after the wrecking ball has been put through Fort Fumble, then bring in the cleaner. But unless that robust wrecking ball is released sometime soon, Captain Manning's future career would be better served at ICAO or some place where CAsA's nuclear payload cannot reach him.