[Peetwo]

Sunday dots & the Mc-QON-dary - 

Evil Archbishop of GA purgatory

In 60 moves. 

Pawn to Rook 9.  Check mate.



..The Skidmore missive reflects this and the duplicity of which CASA are capable.  Behind the scenes, the minister and department are fed a story line ‘all’s well’, which they believe.  Meanwhile additional defences are being reinforced against the Forsyth review, which is almost a forgotten whisper, the CVD pilot matter, the ADSB matter, the Part 61 matter and the CAO 48.1 matter, which are all baited distractions to cover the lack of reform of the regulator.  There is no intention, none whatsoever within CASA to take a backward step on all or any of these aberrations.   Skidmore fully supports this, said so publicly, on the record.  I mean, Forsyth was just ‘an opinion’; CVD case wins can be appealed; the list goes on and on...  

...The world and it’s wife knows who is the whispering voice behind the throne, the ventriloquist; the only thing that changes is the Dummy used to deliver the twisted logic and clear directions on how to reach Perdition – (a small hamlet, three miles South of Hell’s gate, see either Minnie, GD or myself to buy a one way ticket; there is no return service).

"Importantly, it will build stronger and more effective internal relationships ..."

Aye, but who has captured whom?  Exemptions anyone? They are free but you need to sing the little song printed on the back, OK.  There you go minister, another happy convert.  

Toot toot.

QON in isolation?

Strangely, even though the question on notice was previously asked of Skidmore and therefore should have made the question of JA null & void, a QON was registered (& answered with the obligatory 'refer to' reply), not in amongst the other associated QON but almost as an after thought, tacked onto the end of the CASA AQON:

QON 173

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

Dr Aleck: What I will tell you is that in the normal course, when a regulation is made, it has an effective date in it. When that regulation is published then anyone who knows of the regulation—it is incumbent upon an operator to be aware of it—knows what is the effective date. But I will add that our process has always been that when we are introducing new legislation—generally well before the legislation is made, let alone when it comes into effect—there is a campaign to make sure that those who are going to be affected by it are made aware of it. We can put it out there. We can hold events and we can put it on the website. But whether it gets into somebody's brain or not ultimately is their responsibility. I should be very surprised if a major operator were unaware of the fact that a particular regulation that will affect their operations comes into effect on a certain date. What I cannot tell you offhand is what that date was.

Senator STERLE: Okay. But someone will be able to find out.

Dr Aleck: I am sure that is so, yes.

Answer:

See response to 163.

 
Ok and the response to 163:

Answer:

As indicated on page 120 of the Committee Hansard, CASA published the ADS-B booklet on its website and distributed it to industry in November 2012. The relevant Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No.1) was signed on 16 August 2012.

This bit from Dr A IMO almost encapsulates the true (evil) underlying intent of the Iron ring puppet-master...

"..We can put it out there. We can hold events and we can put it on the website. But whether it gets into somebody's brain or not ultimately is their responsibility..."

In other words dare to question the Civil Aviation Safety big A-authority you will suffer the consequences...

In following the strangely isolated Dr A-QON - - & the references made in AQON 163 in the above quoted M&M thread post, a couple of large dots are starting to appear on the horizon - 

First the reference - Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. 1).  For some strange reason this was signed by McComic's deputy dog Tezza: 

I, Terence lindsay farquharson, Acting Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 207 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
[Signed T. Farquharson]

Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety
16 August 2012

Maybe JMAC was in Montreal or R&R; or maybe the ADS-B/GNSS mandate dates were deemed to have potential to cop bad PR flack, so therefore Tezza was delegated as the go to man to deflect the crap?? However in reference to the NPRM DRAFT it would appear that was never the original intent: 

DRAFT

I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 207 of the

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety
Date 2012

Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. x)

1 Name of instrument

This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No. x).

2 Commencement

This instrument commences on the day after registration.

3 Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 20.18

Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 20.18...

 
So why couldn't the CASA LSD have gotten McComic to sign the instrument prior to his R&R or trip to Montreal??
This got me thinking back to the onslaught last year by Dick Smith & the Australian on Airservices Australia & (by default) CASA. In particular there was two articles:
1) Flyers burnt by air safety U-turn

Mr Edwards, who runs charter service Edwards Aviation with seven aircraft based in Armidale, NSW, sought along with other smaller operators to be exempted from installing ADS-B for a few years, until the economies of scale and mass production of the equipment in the US brought it down to a fraction of the cost.

“I could see it was going to cost me a big whack of money,” Mr ­Edwards said. “For one of my aircraft there were still no engineering solutions out there, so we said, ‘What are we going to do, we want an exemption’.”

Engineers had told him it would cost $125,000 to equip that aircraft with ADS-B, because the equipment manufacturer, Honeywell, had not designed the adaptation engineering for the aircraft type, and would not be doing so until the market developed in the US. “In five years, it would cost a tenth as much,” Mr Edwards said.

Mr McCormick met Mr ­Edwards in Armidale, and said CASA would arrange for an exemption for him and others in his sector of the aviation industry.

Soon after, Mr McCormick wrote to Mr Edwards. “I have spoken to (an aviation industry officer representing smaller air operators) and Airservices and the ­approach they have spoken of ­between themselves is to treat biz jets that are not ADS-B compliant in the same manner as Airservices dealt with non RVSM compliant aircraft when that initiative was introduced,” Mr McCormick wrote. RVSM refers to an advanced altimeter system, in relation to which exemptions were granted, and are still granted, to small operators, who are only required to ­accept occasionally being placed in second priority for flight clearances by air traffic controllers.

Mr Edwards said once he ­received the letter from Mr McCormick, “I went, you beauty, we can relax.”

But on a flight from Launceston to Uluru with Russian tourists, air traffic controllers kept his aircraft below 29,000 feet instead of the preferred cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, meaning it was burning twice the fuel. The controllers said he could not fly at the higher altitude ­because he had not installed ADS-B, and ignored his protestations that he had been granted an exemption by CASA.

Knowing the aircraft would not make it to Uluru, Mr Edwards touched down at Whyalla in South Australia to refuel.

“We were not going to make it,” Mr Edwards said.

He then spoke to CASA, but could not immediately get a ­response to what had happened to his promised exemption.

He spoke to businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who contacted Mr McCormick. Mr McCormick told Mr Smith that Airservices had changed its mind and decided it did not want the ­exemptions granted. In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, Mr McCormick wrote: “CASA took into consideration and accepted Airservices Australia’s safety ­arguments against exemptions.”

Mr Smith yesterday said: “CASA is the safety regulator, why are they letting a profit-making business decide safety issues?” P2 comment- Exactly, that is the multi-billion dollar question  

2) Airservices resisted safety drive, says ex CASA boss John McCormick

The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against ­reforming airspace management along US lines.

John McCormick, who stepped down from CASA last year, said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace.

In his first interview since ­leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air ­traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices ­issues,” Mr McCormick said.

In one case, Mr McCormick said, he had to issue a directive to have Airservices’ air traffic controllers take charge of aircraft around Avalon airport in Victoria, a move he believes may have ­prevented a potential serious air accident...

...Mr McCormick said he did succeed in some reform, such as improving airspace arrangements at the main secondary airports used for general aviation in each mainland capital.

At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.

“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.

He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.

It was after controlled airspace was introduced at Avalon that air traffic controllers helped avoid what potentially could have been a major air accident, Mr McCormick said, after a Tiger Airways airline pilot decided on a go-around of the runway at night.

“In the subsequent missed approach procedure the radar controller noticed they were descending when they shouldn’t be,” Mr McCormick said. “The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”

It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.

In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives.

 
Finally in relation to the ADS-B/GNSS mandates - considered to be possibly the final nail & a huge financial impost to GA industry; i.e. the straw that broke the camel's back - was quietly set in parliamentary legislative motion 8 days before Xmas 2014 and was signed by guess who??

I, TERENCE LINDSAY FARQUHARSON, Acting Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulations 207 and 232A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and subsection 33 (3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

[Signed T. Farquharson]
Terry Farquharson
Acting Director of Aviation Safety

16 December 2014

9B.10 On and after 2 February 2017, an aircraft:

(a) that is first registered before 6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated under the I.F.R.;

must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved
equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in
Appendix XI.

9B.11 On and after 4 February 2016, an aircraft that is operated under the I.F.R. in airspace:

(a) that is Class A, B, C or E; and
(b) that is within the arc of a circle that starts 500 NM true north from Perth
aerodrome and finishes 500 NM true east from Perth aerodrome;

must carry serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved
equipment configuration by meeting the conditions for approval set out in
Appendix XI.

Unless of course you can (afford to) pay the piper and are quite prepared to sell your soul to the Devil...

9B.12 Paragraphs 9B.8 to 9B.11 do not apply to an aircraft if:

(a) the aircraft owner, operator or pilot has written authorisation from CASA, based
on a safety case, for the operation of the aircraft without the ADS-B transmitting
equipment; or...

MTF...P2