Merged: Australian Aviation Safety Rating
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NSW,Australia
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merged: Australian Aviation Safety Rating
From "CRIKEY"
Top Stories
1 . Australia in danger of losing its aviation safety rating
Ben Sandilands writes:
Deficiencies in air safety in Australia have been uncovered in an audit by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and must be fixed by the end of the year to avoid risking the loss of its Level 1 rating as a nation in full compliance with the highest standards.
ICAO debriefed the relevant public servants and AirServices Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other parties three weeks ago. It gave some of these parties a period of months to devise and implement a corrective action plan pending its publication of a final audit report by the end of the year.
This report will be posted after a draft version is circulated to and discussed with the Federal government and the safety bodies with ICAO having the last word over as to its contents or conclusions.
A spokesperson for CASA confirmed that the debriefing identified areas where Australia doesn’t conform to the various rules or annexes of ICAO but declined to give specifics.
He said, "There are no shock horrors in it. It did not identify any immediate threats to aviation and any suggestion that it does are an exaggeration."
Crikey understands the debriefing strongly endorsed some aspects of air safety procedures in Australia, including technical excellence in making recommendations arising from issues with faulty components. However it was described as being sufficiently confronting over certain deficiencies to put Australia’s over all ICAO level 1 rating at risk.
It is not difficult to guess where it found them, within an air traffic control system that doesn’t continuously control even at major airports, an air safety investigator that doesn’t always investigate, and an air safety regulator that not only doesn’t always regulate, but according to departing chief executive officer Bruce Byron, sees its role as encouraging rather than enforcing compliance.
Such spectacles as Qantas refusing to take off or land at Australian airports because AirServices Australia can’t fulfil its responsibilities haven’t escaped notice. Nor, it is understood, has the absurd exposure of larger scheduled aircraft to light aviation movements around airports where passenger numbers are rapidly growing.
If Australia loses its Level 1 ICAO rating it also drops from a Level 1 to a Level 2 nation under the US Federal Aviation Administration’s safety assessment rules.
The FAA allows the established carriers of Level 2 countries to continue flying into US airports subject to heightened surveillance, but it bars entry by new carriers using their own aircraft unless they are wet-leased (meaning crewed and maintained by) an airline from a Level 1 state.
This means Virgin Blue’s plans for flights to the US by ‘V Australia’ are in effect hostage to the current and unsatisfactory failings of air safety services and administration in this country.
Top Stories
1 . Australia in danger of losing its aviation safety rating
Ben Sandilands writes:
Deficiencies in air safety in Australia have been uncovered in an audit by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and must be fixed by the end of the year to avoid risking the loss of its Level 1 rating as a nation in full compliance with the highest standards.
ICAO debriefed the relevant public servants and AirServices Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other parties three weeks ago. It gave some of these parties a period of months to devise and implement a corrective action plan pending its publication of a final audit report by the end of the year.
This report will be posted after a draft version is circulated to and discussed with the Federal government and the safety bodies with ICAO having the last word over as to its contents or conclusions.
A spokesperson for CASA confirmed that the debriefing identified areas where Australia doesn’t conform to the various rules or annexes of ICAO but declined to give specifics.
He said, "There are no shock horrors in it. It did not identify any immediate threats to aviation and any suggestion that it does are an exaggeration."
Crikey understands the debriefing strongly endorsed some aspects of air safety procedures in Australia, including technical excellence in making recommendations arising from issues with faulty components. However it was described as being sufficiently confronting over certain deficiencies to put Australia’s over all ICAO level 1 rating at risk.
It is not difficult to guess where it found them, within an air traffic control system that doesn’t continuously control even at major airports, an air safety investigator that doesn’t always investigate, and an air safety regulator that not only doesn’t always regulate, but according to departing chief executive officer Bruce Byron, sees its role as encouraging rather than enforcing compliance.
Such spectacles as Qantas refusing to take off or land at Australian airports because AirServices Australia can’t fulfil its responsibilities haven’t escaped notice. Nor, it is understood, has the absurd exposure of larger scheduled aircraft to light aviation movements around airports where passenger numbers are rapidly growing.
If Australia loses its Level 1 ICAO rating it also drops from a Level 1 to a Level 2 nation under the US Federal Aviation Administration’s safety assessment rules.
The FAA allows the established carriers of Level 2 countries to continue flying into US airports subject to heightened surveillance, but it bars entry by new carriers using their own aircraft unless they are wet-leased (meaning crewed and maintained by) an airline from a Level 1 state.
This means Virgin Blue’s plans for flights to the US by ‘V Australia’ are in effect hostage to the current and unsatisfactory failings of air safety services and administration in this country.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Launceston. Tasmania,Australia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia in danger of losing its aviation safety rating
Ben Sandilands in Crikey.com writes:
Deficiencies in air safety in Australia have been uncovered in an audit by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and must be fixed by the end of the year to avoid risking the loss of its Level 1 rating as a nation in full compliance with the highest standards.
ICAO debriefed the relevant public servants and AirServices Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other parties three weeks ago. It gave some of these parties a period of months to devise and implement a corrective action plan pending its publication of a final audit report by the end of the year.
This report will be posted after a draft version is circulated to and discussed with the Federal government and the safety bodies with ICAO having the last word over as to its contents or conclusions.
A spokesperson for CASA confirmed that the debriefing identified areas where Australia doesn’t conform to the various rules or annexes of ICAO but declined to give specifics.
He said, "There are no shock horrors in it. It did not identify any immediate threats to aviation and any suggestion that it does are an exaggeration."
Crikey understands the debriefing strongly endorsed some aspects of air safety procedures in Australia, including technical excellence in making recommendations arising from issues with faulty components. However it was described as being sufficiently confronting over certain deficiencies to put Australia’s over all ICAO level 1 rating at risk.
It is not difficult to guess where it found them, within an air traffic control system that doesn’t continuously control even at major airports, an air safety investigator that doesn’t always investigate, and an air safety regulator that not only doesn’t always regulate, but according to departing chief executive officer Bruce Byron, sees its role as encouraging rather than enforcing compliance.
Such spectacles as Qantas refusing to take off or land at Australian airports because AirServices Australia can’t fulfil its responsibilities haven’t escaped notice. Nor, it is understood, has the absurd exposure of larger scheduled aircraft to light aviation movements around airports where passenger numbers are rapidly growing.
If Australia loses its Level 1 ICAO rating it also drops from a Level 1 to a Level 2 nation under the US Federal Aviation Administration’s safety assessment rules.
The FAA allows the established carriers of Level 2 countries to continue flying into US airports subject to heightened surveillance, but it bars entry by new carriers using their own aircraft unless they are wet-leased (meaning crewed and maintained by) an airline from a Level 1 state.
This means Virgin Blue’s plans for flights to the US by ‘V Australia’ are in effect hostage to the current and unsatisfactory failings of air safety services and administration in this country.
Deficiencies in air safety in Australia have been uncovered in an audit by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and must be fixed by the end of the year to avoid risking the loss of its Level 1 rating as a nation in full compliance with the highest standards.
ICAO debriefed the relevant public servants and AirServices Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other parties three weeks ago. It gave some of these parties a period of months to devise and implement a corrective action plan pending its publication of a final audit report by the end of the year.
This report will be posted after a draft version is circulated to and discussed with the Federal government and the safety bodies with ICAO having the last word over as to its contents or conclusions.
A spokesperson for CASA confirmed that the debriefing identified areas where Australia doesn’t conform to the various rules or annexes of ICAO but declined to give specifics.
He said, "There are no shock horrors in it. It did not identify any immediate threats to aviation and any suggestion that it does are an exaggeration."
Crikey understands the debriefing strongly endorsed some aspects of air safety procedures in Australia, including technical excellence in making recommendations arising from issues with faulty components. However it was described as being sufficiently confronting over certain deficiencies to put Australia’s over all ICAO level 1 rating at risk.
It is not difficult to guess where it found them, within an air traffic control system that doesn’t continuously control even at major airports, an air safety investigator that doesn’t always investigate, and an air safety regulator that not only doesn’t always regulate, but according to departing chief executive officer Bruce Byron, sees its role as encouraging rather than enforcing compliance.
Such spectacles as Qantas refusing to take off or land at Australian airports because AirServices Australia can’t fulfil its responsibilities haven’t escaped notice. Nor, it is understood, has the absurd exposure of larger scheduled aircraft to light aviation movements around airports where passenger numbers are rapidly growing.
If Australia loses its Level 1 ICAO rating it also drops from a Level 1 to a Level 2 nation under the US Federal Aviation Administration’s safety assessment rules.
The FAA allows the established carriers of Level 2 countries to continue flying into US airports subject to heightened surveillance, but it bars entry by new carriers using their own aircraft unless they are wet-leased (meaning crewed and maintained by) an airline from a Level 1 state.
This means Virgin Blue’s plans for flights to the US by ‘V Australia’ are in effect hostage to the current and unsatisfactory failings of air safety services and administration in this country.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. We are all part of a big team, and even government organisations have to do things correctly. The military style system of One Way communication is not appropriate.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well should we be surprised?
To quote the CEO CASA from the current issue of Flight Safety Australia, referring to a survey of CEO, chief pilots et al he said, " Everything the industry put up, I agreed with. But there were issues I knew to be strategic risks which the industry hadn't initiated. That's partly because they're worrying about today, tomorrow, next month, and not three years down the track."
Perhaps the CEO CASA needs to listen to himself and start joining the real CEO's etc in worrying about the complete mess the industry is now in. Pilot shortages, LAME shortages, flight cancellations are now issues. They are now risks. As the CEO CASA said, "if we don't look to what the risks are, and how they change; if we don't manage them, then we will become less safe"
I won't mention the shambles re our legislation!
Accountability BB old son! Start accepting it, stop philosophising or move on. Regardless of the option you choose, your term will not be remembered for its achievements.
To quote the CEO CASA from the current issue of Flight Safety Australia, referring to a survey of CEO, chief pilots et al he said, " Everything the industry put up, I agreed with. But there were issues I knew to be strategic risks which the industry hadn't initiated. That's partly because they're worrying about today, tomorrow, next month, and not three years down the track."
Perhaps the CEO CASA needs to listen to himself and start joining the real CEO's etc in worrying about the complete mess the industry is now in. Pilot shortages, LAME shortages, flight cancellations are now issues. They are now risks. As the CEO CASA said, "if we don't look to what the risks are, and how they change; if we don't manage them, then we will become less safe"
I won't mention the shambles re our legislation!
Accountability BB old son! Start accepting it, stop philosophising or move on. Regardless of the option you choose, your term will not be remembered for its achievements.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Aus
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate,
The US FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) is what you are asking about. The potential categories are 1, 2 or not rated. Broadly speaking, Cat 1 allows a nation's airlines to operate to the USA on the basis of the regulatory oversight of the particular nation. Australia currently has this status. Cat 2 is for countries that have been Cat 1, but have slipped, their carriers may continue to operate to the USA, but under strict conditions. Carriers from unrated countries may not operate to the USA. Okay, I know it's not quite as straightforward as this, but I did say broadly speaking.
The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) that Australia has just undergone looks at compliance with each of the ICAO Annexes, except Annex 17 (Aviation Security), so it includes such areas as Meteorology, Aerodromes, Air Traffic Control etc. The US FAA's IASA program deals only with compliance with ICAO Annexes 1,6 and 8 - namely Personnel Licensing, Airworthiness and Operations.
The FAA's assessment is much more detailed than ICAO, although the audit protocols are almost identical. I personally don't believe Australia is in any danger of loosing its Cat 1 status any time soon.
The Crikey report quoted mentioned the 'outgoing' CASA CEO is there something we've missed here?
The US FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) is what you are asking about. The potential categories are 1, 2 or not rated. Broadly speaking, Cat 1 allows a nation's airlines to operate to the USA on the basis of the regulatory oversight of the particular nation. Australia currently has this status. Cat 2 is for countries that have been Cat 1, but have slipped, their carriers may continue to operate to the USA, but under strict conditions. Carriers from unrated countries may not operate to the USA. Okay, I know it's not quite as straightforward as this, but I did say broadly speaking.
The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) that Australia has just undergone looks at compliance with each of the ICAO Annexes, except Annex 17 (Aviation Security), so it includes such areas as Meteorology, Aerodromes, Air Traffic Control etc. The US FAA's IASA program deals only with compliance with ICAO Annexes 1,6 and 8 - namely Personnel Licensing, Airworthiness and Operations.
The FAA's assessment is much more detailed than ICAO, although the audit protocols are almost identical. I personally don't believe Australia is in any danger of loosing its Cat 1 status any time soon.
The Crikey report quoted mentioned the 'outgoing' CASA CEO is there something we've missed here?
With the steeply climbing airline fuel costs leading to a reduction in fare paying passangers - I think our airspace problems will reduce.
TV news this morning reporting on US carriers dropping routes due fuel costs.
Why the previous Australian government did not make biofuels research a national priority is beyond belief.
TV news this morning reporting on US carriers dropping routes due fuel costs.
Why the previous Australian government did not make biofuels research a national priority is beyond belief.
Before we all rush to stick the knife into CASA over perceived safety "issues", just relax a little. Compared to our northern neighbours (don't you just love political correctness) Australian aviation is light years more safe. And from what I read from overseas accidents the Aussie industry can pat itself on the back compared with Eastern Europe and African aviation. I find it hard to believe that ICAO would seriously think Australian aviation safety record is so bad as to consider ticking the "below average" box.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 44
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi,
ICAO are only the group who determine whether our work practices, standards, operations, etc are up to international standard. Nothing really important at all obviously.
If our rating is brought down by ICAO, it will have been brought about by excessive cost-cutting measures brought in by management with tacit approval by governments of all stripes. Once again, the average punter let down by those who view themselves (and their bank balances!) as more important than the rest of us combined!
ICAO are only the group who determine whether our work practices, standards, operations, etc are up to international standard. Nothing really important at all obviously.
If our rating is brought down by ICAO, it will have been brought about by excessive cost-cutting measures brought in by management with tacit approval by governments of all stripes. Once again, the average punter let down by those who view themselves (and their bank balances!) as more important than the rest of us combined!
westausatc,
my gut feeling is the report will 'suggest' ways to waste more money for next to no gain.....
Edit - I was going to remove my previous post as being too flipant for a non jet blast thread, but will leave it as a reference to your thread.
my gut feeling is the report will 'suggest' ways to waste more money for next to no gain.....
Edit - I was going to remove my previous post as being too flipant for a non jet blast thread, but will leave it as a reference to your thread.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 22nd Mar 2008 at 04:42.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most airlines do not care what ICOA or anyone else thinks. They care what the shareholders think, and what the bottom line is. They are companies and their job is to make money.
Ansett was assessed as Australia's best, ahead of Qantas, and second in the world. Soon after that CASA shut them down because they said they were not safe.
Companies don't care whether they provide services, or employ people (they would rather not). They care about profits, and financial and political risk.
Some of our government air services are now businesses.
Ansett was assessed as Australia's best, ahead of Qantas, and second in the world. Soon after that CASA shut them down because they said they were not safe.
Companies don't care whether they provide services, or employ people (they would rather not). They care about profits, and financial and political risk.
Some of our government air services are now businesses.
