[Peetwo]

Hypothetical roundelay.

It’s a bit rum when a question may be dismissed as ‘hypothetical’.

“Hypothetically, could a drone hit a car on the harbour bridge and cause a major accident”? If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

“Hypothetically could control of an aircraft be lost near buildings close to the runway?” If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?

Mostly – safety ‘development’ comes from the ‘hypothetical’, could a lady skid on a wet floor and get hurt; could a gent with a walking stick fall down the escalator – there are a million examples of where the hypothetical is not ‘dismissed’ out of hand, but considered – every hour of every day in cockpits around the world – it is called risk analysis. Risk analysis is better discussed on the ground, safe and tucked up at the bar – the what if game – has saved many lives. Yet serious questions which probe the depth of ‘safety think’ from our ‘safety watchdogs’ are just fobbed off and mildly ridiculed, by those who should be able to intelligently discuss the matters honestly raised.

But for me, it is the glib, sleight of hand tricks which earn the contempt; slippery and despicable; disingenuous and misleading. What’s wrong with this statement, from Hansard:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

Give in; here’s a clue:-

Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.

There is little to no public risk in “the runway end zones”; there is great public risk with the ruddy buildings parked on the actual runway; and, those runway 'end zones' already exist.

Enough – Barkeep – two more here please and keep ‘em coming; I’ve a rotten taste of flim-flam in my mouth, I wish to be rid of it.

Excellent catch Ol'Tom...

Perhaps the Murky Mandarin would do well to take note of the 'closing the safety loop', slices of thin Swiss cheese that Senator Fawcett continues to harp on about when considering the disconnect between land developers, the original intent of the Airports Act and airport aviation safety:

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as you are aware, we have spoken before about manual of standards part 139, which goes to airport design. Over the years we have seen what have essentially been open spaces for airports, with standards put in place. But as commercial pressures have built up that real estate and that airspace have been encroached upon right up to, and in some cases, I would argue, intruding into, the limits that MOS 139 is supposed to put in place.

What Senator Xenophon was pointing to, I think, is the fact that if you look at a safety system holistically—a bit like James Reason and his accident causation model—what we are finding is that each of those pieces of Swiss cheese has been thinned to the absolute minimum that is permissible by law, which maximises the chance of an accident by minimising the options for a pilot who has a malfunction in an aircraft. I guess the request here is that we sit back and look at this holistically, as opposed to saying, 'Yes, they have met this requirement or that requirement,' and look at the aggregation of the loss of margin and, therefore, options for an aircrew member who has an issue with an aircraft. Public safety zones are but one element of that whole system.

I guess I am seeking assurance from you, Mr Carmody, that CASA's approach to this, as we have discussed here on multiple occasions, will move beyond the, 'It can be made safe by limiting the operations' to, 'This is what an airport is designed to do in terms of the Commonwealth lease'—which says it must maintain its existing capacity and have the option to grow capacity—so that CASA will put its hand up and say, 'If these changes are made for existing or future operations, it will be unsafe,' as opposed to saying, 'It can be made safe by limiting operations,' which has been the practice in the past. I am seeking that assurance from you that the organisation will change the way it views its role in assessing that aggregation of safety implications.

Mr Carmody : I will certainly look at that.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.

Mr Carmody : I understand the logic of the statement you have made. I would like to go back and review how it is actually done, but I understand the point you are making.

Senator FAWCETT: I have raised on multiple occasions the example in Archerfield and the realignment and shortening of runways and the fact that CASA has ticked off on that. Yet, as pointed out by the operators there, for them to comply with CASA's requirements, in terms of planning for wet runways, climb gradients, factoring that they have to put in, they cannot comply. Therefore, yes, it can be made safe by having reduced payloads, but that then affects the commercial viability of the operation and flies in the face of the terms of the lease for the airport.

Mr Carmody : Understood.

---

&.. a reminder from the Additional Estimates in February:

Senator FAWCETT: Secretary, I would just make the comment that messaging is important but at the end of the day what the Australian people expect is that governments who are responsible for aviation regulation will find a way to work with state and local governments so that the outcome is not just messaging but is consistent—safety. And I raised Jandakot before as a case where we see those concerns around the encroachment for the airport. But I just wanted to get an assurance that you have taken on board—I know the department's position is that CASA provides a safety input into master plans. We discussed probably 18 months ago at estimates Archerfield and the role that CASA played there in signing off on the shortened runways but did not take into account their own requirements and operators in terms of factoring for grass strips, wet strips, climb-out gradients with engine failures et cetera at the gross weight that the operators are currently able to operate at. So, they correctly said that it can be safe but that would require the operators to operate it with lower payloads and hence it would not be as commercially viable.

The discussion we had at the time was that that safety consideration by CASA needed to consider the operations as they are in terms of the capacity of the airport and the current aircraft operating there and make sure there is no detriment to that, as opposed to just saying that yes, it can be safe if you reduce the scope of your operations. That is not in the intent of either the lease or the original legislation surrounding the use of Commonwealth airports.

Mr Mrdak : I agree.

Senator FAWCETT: So, is that an assurance that yes, you are revising how CASA take their role?

Mr Mrdak : We have certainly for some time been looking closely, and I think CASA's engagement in the process is much improved over the last couple of years over what it has been in the past.

   

MTF...P2