Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[dubbleyew eight]

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.

[Creampuff]

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?

[Sarcs]

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medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and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...

[Kharon]

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.

[Up-into-the-air]

casa is out of touch with the Aviation Industry Part 61

Here is the current [and casa has a "new portal" www.casa.gov.au/RR]

Is this their response to the WLR [ASRR]??

And Monday's missive [13th January 2014]:

AMENDMENTS TO FLIGHT CREW LICENSING AND AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS AND REGISTRATION REGULATIONS

FLIGHT CREW LICENSING


The aviation industry will find it easier to transition to new licensing regulations following the amendment of the Flight Crew Licensing Regulations Package. Since the flight crew licensing regulations (Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts 61, 64, 141 and 142) were made in February 2013, CASA has received feedback from the aviation industry about their impact. As a result of this feedback CASA has introduced a number of amendments that will resolve unintended consequences of the new rules and reduce the burden and cost of regulatory compliance.


The amended regulations for Flight Crew Licensing will commence on
1 September 2014. To find out more and to read a summary of the amendments visit the licensing regulations pages on the CASA website.

AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS AND REGISTRATION

Amendments to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations that deal with aircraft airworthiness and registration have also been approved, resulting in benefits for continuing airworthiness management organisations (CAMOs), approved maintenance organisations (AMOs), Part 66 licence holders and aircraft owners. The amendments relate to an expansion (on a voluntary basis) to the types of aircraft that can have their airworthiness management services provided by a CAMO and maintenance provided by a Part 145 AMO. The amendments also simplify the administrative processes associated with changes of aircraft ownership and medical status notifications for Part 66 licences.

The regulation amendments took effect from 18 December 2013.

To find out more and to read a summary of the changes visit the maintenance regulations pages on the CASA website.

AND HERE is the "summary":

Summary of Flight Crew Licensing Amendment Package

The aviation industry will now find the new licensing regulations easier to transition to from 1 September 2014, with the amendment package for Flight Crew Licensing Regulations (CASR Parts, 61, 64, 141 and 142) approved by the Federal Executive Council on 12 December 2013.

Since the Flight Crew Licensing Regulations were made in February 2013, CASA has received feedback from the aviation industry regarding the new rules and their impact.

This is a summary of the amendments.

The full amendments package can be found on the ComLaw website.

• The student pilot licence no longer exists under the amended regulations. The removal of the student pilot licence results in the same level of safety but with less red tape and expense for students and flying schools. Flying schools and flight instructors will continue to be responsible for flights conducted by student pilots. The general requirements still apply to student pilots conducting solo flights such as age, general English language proficiency and medicals.
• The requirement for a pilot to have a photographic licence has been dropped in favour of pilots carrying an acceptable identification document. This will reduce regulatory compliance costs and administration.
• Applicants for the air transport pilot licence (ATPL) will no longer need a recommendation from a Part 141 or Part 142 operator to attempt the ATPL flight test.
• The privileges of the commercial pilot licence (CPL) have been amended to permit commercial pilot licence (CPL) holders to continue to act as the pilot in command of an aeroplane certified for single pilot operations and a maximum take-off weight less than 5,700 Kgs in a regular public transport (RPT) operation.
• Multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) holders will only be able to fly with an operator that has a training and checking organisation.
• Additional aircraft types have been added to the aircraft class rating system, which reduces entry control and compliance costs. However, the more complex aircraft within the class will be identified in a legislative instrument and pilots will require specific training and a flight review to fly the aircraft type the first time. Thereafter, the aircraft is treated the same as other aircraft within the class. The additional initial training and flight review requirements reflect the current training approach, and balance the need for more initial training while realising the main benefits of the class rating system.
• In the original regulations, additional requirements were imposed on pilots when they obtained a type rating granted on the basis of a flight test conducted in a simulator. These have been relaxed and now only apply to multi-engine turbine powered aircraft.
• A 90 day recent experience provision has been added to the limitations on the cruise relief type rating. In addition to successfully participating in a cyclic training and proficiency program, the pilot must have completed at least two hours of simulated flight time as co-pilot, passed a flight test or exercised the privileges of the rating in an aircraft.
• The original regulations required instrument rated pilots to have demonstrated their competency to use a specific instrument approach procedure to an instructor or examiner, before conducting such an operation. The amendment regulations limit this function to flight examiners.
• When the holder of an Instrument Rating, ATPL(A) or MPL(A) fails an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC), the holder can no longer exercise the privileges of the rating in an aircraft of the same category. This mirrors CAO 40.2.1 for grades of ratings.
• The aerial application rating night endorsement recency standard has been simplified to align with the existing CASA exemption.
• Instructor rating proficiency checks have been simplified to permit a single proficiency check to exercise the privileges of the rating. Separate checks for each training endorsement are no longer required.
• Prerequisites for a number of the endorsements have been amended in the instructor rating endorsements table to reflect existing requirements.
• The Examiner rating proficiency check has been simplified to permit a single proficiency check to exercise privileges of the rating. Separate checks for each flight testing endorsement are no longer required.
• A new Examiner rating limitation has been introduced. The privileges of the rating may only be exercised in an aircraft if the flight test for the endorsement(s) has been conducted in an aircraft.
• Flight reviews and proficiency checks will be aligned. Flight reviews will be valid up to the end of the month in which they are done. Also, if a flight review is completed within the three month period prior to the current review expiring, the new review validity period would start from the expiry date of the current review.
• Provisions relating to instrument proficiency checks have been adjusted to ensure a pilot continuing to participate successfully in an operator’s cyclic training program is not affected by a proficiency check that takes place outside of the program.
• Under the amendment package a pilot can pass a proficiency check even if the 3D endorsement is not covered. However, the pilot would be limited to 2D operations until 3D proficiency is again demonstrated. This will provide relief to pilots in remote areas where 3D approaches and flight simulation training devices are unavailable.
• Under the original regulations, pilots completing an integrated CPL(A) course could not start a flight instructor rating course until they acquired 200 hours. The amendment package allows the pilot to commence the course once they have completed the integrated course of training and satisfied the requirements for the grant of a CPL.
• Provisions for the Modified Austroads medical standards have been moved into Part 67 and amended to align with the existing medical exemption relating to wearing corrective lenses. Under the original regulations, pilots would have been excluded if the only reason they didn’t meet the unconditional licence standard was because they needed to wear corrective lenses.
• In Part 64, an amendment has been made to ensure aircrew holding CAR Part 5 flight radiotelephone operator licences are eligible for the aeronautical radio operator certificate.
• Provisions have been made to preserve for three years the CAR Part 5 requirements for the grant of private and commercial pilot helicopter licences. Such licences will not be compliant with International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO Annex 1 standards and will be annotated accordingly.
• The definition of integrated training has been clarified for Part 142 operators who engage another person or organisation to conduct theory training on their behalf. This amendment removes any doubt about the ability of the operator to utilise service providers delivering content under the management of the Part 142 operator, and according to its schedule.
• A consequential amendment has been introduced to provide relief from the requirement to complete multi-crew cooperation training for pilots who have previously conducted multi-crew operations.
• A new limitation has been applied to existing helicopter grade 2 instructors. These instructors will not be permitted to conduct basic instrument flight training or authorise a student to conduct a first solo flight unless they satisfy the requirements specified in the prerequisites for the Grade 2 endorsements in 61.1235. This is consistent with the current rules and manages the safety risks for helicopter instructors transitioning to the new qualifications framework.
• The original Part 61 regulations required a helicopter grade 3 instructor to have completed 100 hours of navigation training before conducting initial flight training. The amendment regulation relaxes this provision, so instructors will now need to have completed 100 hours of flight training under the endorsement before conducting simulated engine failure training activities.
• The amendment provides for type ratings to be granted if the pilot has completed training and a flight test conducted under the authority of a recognised foreign authority. This provision allows more time for transition and ends on 31 August 2018.
• The amendment allows foreign examiners to continue conducting instrument proficiency checks for a further three years.
• In Parts 141 and 142, the qualifications for the head of operations are relaxed for operators who do not conduct training for the grant of a licence.
• The amendment introduces requirements for an operator to provide a description of how the operator supervises instructors and student pilots.
• Under the amended regulations, decisions made by examiners, instructors or authorised persons will be subject to the requirements of 11.055 and reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
• Amendments to the CASA dictionary have been made to harmonise Part 61 terms with ICAO terminology.

and who is responsible??

McComick, McComick, McComick, McComick

[Cactusjack]

Grasshopper, we are in harmony as one

Aargh, yes UITA, your key bolded word, in red, is harmonise. Hard to imagine the Screamer at harmony with anything really, and to say that they are trying to harmonise with industry (aka the IOS) is most humorous.
Fort Fumble only know how to;
- Harmonise themselves with fully loaded taxpayer filled troughs
- Harmonise their asses with business class seats to take them to Montreal
- Harmonise with their workforce and its hatred for fairness and justice
- Harmonise with the DOIT in their approach to cover over their shortfalls, mistakes and violations of rights.

I can see it now, Xmas 2014 - The Screamer, mi mi mi Beaker and maybe the King Krat singing a Stevie Wonder song and promoting their falsely promoted love for the IOS;

You Tube

[Frank Arouet]

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.

[Up-into-the-air]

or Frank[ly] just forget it all and "harmonise"

From the t.w.i.t.t.e.r universe:

Does your organisation promote #aviation safety? You might be eligible for sponsorship. http://www.casa.gov.au/sponsorship pic.twitter.com/Fq3Oswabrt

[Up-into-the-air]

or, just use one of these on them:

[Kharon]

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:-

In space – no one can hear you scream.

Toot toot.

[Sarcs]

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....

[Frank Arouet]

Latin?

Taurus excreta conundrum cerebellum.


Perhaps?

[aroa]

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?

[Sarcs]

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?'

[Frank Arouet]

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.

[Cactusjack]

TICK TOCK

So Minister 'Where the bloody hell are you?'

He is busy tending to the lettuce farm. Ironically pigs in a pen also love lettuce, go figure!
Sarcs, he is part of the charade. The delay tactics, obsfucation, endless empty promises and not to mention 'a governments policy on saying shhhhhhh on the big issues' leaves no doubt in my mind that nothing forthcoming will ever be seen, not until the Independents have aviation and IOS support bestowed upon them.
Minister, as you were sir, oink oink. Sarcs question for you is interesting, but my question is more like this - 'Will you get to retire or get voted out before the inevitable smoking hole takes place'? Tick Tock indeed.

TICK TOCK

[Two_dogs]

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.

[Cactusjack]

Two dogs, a trip down memory lane!
Uzu, Polar Aviation, Quadrio, etc etc. Mix in some Lockhart, Canley Vale and Pel Air accidents and then spice up the mix with a dash of the CAsA GWM and some Wichdoctory and you pretty soon get an idea about not just how they operate, but more importantly and disturbingly how they are allowed to operate, fully endorsed, sanctioned, permitted and encouraged to behave towards all. And in my opinion thanks to each Australian government and it's elected ministers, and ICAO. There is an overwhelming majority in Australian aviation, and even a number within CAsA itself that recognise that this fish has well and truly rotted from the head to its tail. It is a palpable, disgraceful and amoral situation that we, the taxpayer have to endure and accept this situation.

I once held CAsA in complete contempt, but I am starting to now see more clearly why they do and act the way they do. We need to hold them to account, but need to look beyond them and look at their master(s).

Anyway, just like two dogs I am enjoying a nice bottle of red, will retire to the land of sleep shortly, shall awake refreshed, switch on the AM news and see whether the 'Newsflash - Smoking Hole' story fills the screen. If not, no problem, will do the same the following morning, and over and over until......

TICK TOCK

[Kharon]

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.

[brissypilot]

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.