[Peetwo]

A very short debate.

Thursday, 19 September

To be moved by Senator Patrick:

• Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights –Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Amendment Instrument 2019 [F2019L00554]; and

• Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights -Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Instrument 2019 [F2019L00134].


It was a very short discussion last evening; one of the shortest on record for the BRB. Not even a note of dissention from the E-mail ‘loops’ although some very good suggestions were made, (some not printable). So, in short dear Senators, the collective opinion of many:-

(i) - The ‘Amendment Instrument’ should be disallowed; the logic and data provided in support is considered deeply flawed. Deemed completely irrelevant to improving the ‘Safety’ of CSF operations. 

(ii) - Without a Sector Risk Profile (SRP) being conducted, the data supporting ‘the Instrument’ cannot be considered as a meaningful solution to any perceived operational safety matter. It is of little practical value and considered to be without probity.

(iii) The Mt Gambier accident report, standing alone, is deeply flawed, on many levels. This matter needs to be addressed. This considered particularly important as any future proposed changes to CSF operations will be based against the accident report.

To what end this gross manipulation of accident, operational and statistical data and has been presented remains a mystery to the professional aviators.

Toot – toot.

To buttress up the BRB verdict please refer the original (not redacted or edited by CASA) Reiss consultation submission (Consultation Draft for Proposed Safety Standard - CSF) on pages 17 to 22 of the Angel Flight - CASA submission 

Extract from page 4 of the Reiss submission:

...It would appear CASA has made a subjective decision without supporting

evidence and without following normal well-published procedures.

aj. Bypassing the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) process

b/. Bypassing recommendations of the ASSR, in particular:
Not adhering as closely as possible rules in other similar jurisdictions USA,
New Zealand, Europe and Canada.
Not developing unique Australian regulations except when absolutely
necessary and only when the steering committee agrees to them.

c/ Not considering the impact on individuals, businesses and the community
when developing or amending regulations. This is clearly spelt out as a
requirement in the 2015 Statement of Expectations for the Board of the
CASA

d/. Changing regulations without proper regulatory process by the CEO of
CASA without Parliamentary scrutiny thereby curtailing the rights of
pilots to exercise the full privileges of their licenses.

e/. CASA claims to hold a philosophy of ensuring that its "Actions and
Decisions are Informed, Consistent, risk Based, Evidence Driven and
without bias" Their actions over this matter do not support their
espoused philosophy.

f/. Further adding changes to the Aviation Medical Questionnaire/ Assessment
process to introduce a requirement for pilots to indicate if they intend to
do Angel flights - since when did it become a requirement for a pilots
medical, whether Class 1 or Class 2 to asses the health of the passengers.

g/. To describe the changes to maintenance standards as slightly enhanced is
farcical, the changes from AD/ENG/4 amendment 11. Requirement 1 to
requirement 2 will impose major cost penalties requiring perfectly
serviceable engines to be overhauled on Calender life, 80% of private
owners will have engines that are at half engine hour TBO, running on
condition and at peak engine performance and reliability. The cost
Involved in the case of a twin-engine aircraft will be well in excess of
$100,000 and in many high performance singles well north of $70,000.

Surely if it is considered safe for Flying Schools to operate to Aerial Work
Requirement 1 then it is also safe for private CFS flights. Lifting
maintenance standards to "Arial Work" would be an acceptable standard as

most privately owned aircraft are at present being maintained to this
standard. The proposal to require Charter category maintenance will
result in 80% of present aircraft owners withdrawing from CFS and most of
the more experienced owner pilots will be lost to CSF's for no safety
benefit There have been no accidents in Angel Flight operations related to
engine failures or maintenance issues.

Mike Busch a highly respected GA Maintenance Engineer, he is a recipient
of FAA National Aviation Technician of the year and has written many
papers on engine maintenance, is of the opinion that many thousands of
hours of engine operating experience have proven that engines that are
calendar expired are more reliable than freshly overhauled engines,
provided of course that they are maintained, correctly, cylinder leakage
tests conducted and SO hourly oil and filter changes performed,
spectrographic engine oil analysis can also be used to determine engine
condition.

h/. None of the proposed changes have any bearing or relationship to the two
accidents that occurred and Angel Flight have put in procedures above and
beyond the CASA's license standards for private pilots, or even
commercial pilots.

I can only assume that CASA have made an arbitrary decision, which is neither
evidence based, nor that will make any real contribution to aircraft safety, simply
to shut down the Community Service Charities. The irony of this is that many
country people will die prematurely simply because they cannot access specialist
medical treatment in Capital Cities, because they cannot afford any other form of
safe air transport, but then I can only assume that the CASA's Philosophy is that
ultimate air safety can be achieved by grounding all aircraft, forget community
benefit and the life saving health benefits of CSF.

I often meet people who have been able to access often life saving treatment that
that they could not have afforded were it not for Angel Flight. Their gratitude is
reward enough for the cost and effort that my skills and aircraft provide.

This great service must not be killed off by an over zealous regulatory
environment that will not enhance safety. The community benefit is far too
important to be closed down by bureaucratic intransigence, without this service
many country people will not be able to afford specialist treatment.

H Phillip Reiss

Now keep in mind that the excellent 5 page contribution from Mr Reiss was reduced to the following by the CASA...  

I agree with minimum experience requirements and flights at night to be
conducted under IFR and pilots to be suitably qualified. I also consider a Class 2
medical should be required. I don't consider maintenance standard should be the
same as for charter, aircraft maintained to CASA Private category is adequate.

 
Hmm...no further comment required - UDB! 

Addendum: Dr Gates submission No.10

Summary Remarks


The ATSB report on the Angel Flight accident at Mt Gambier fails to entertain other explanations for the primary cause of the crash beyond the spatial disorientation hypothesis when, given the age of the pilot who was 78, other potential aged-related catastrophic events possibly of a vascular nature, should have been included in the evaluation process. Absence of evidence to support a medical problem does not necessarily mean evidence of absence of a medical problem. The fact that the pilot was able to successfully manoeuvre to a landing through inclement conditions not consistent with VFR would suggest that less weight should be given to this factor in the analysis and that it should possibly be treated as a contributing factor through cognitive load which could have increased the demands on his vascular system leading to a catastrophic event notwithstanding a Class 2 medical pass. Our report suggests that consideration now be given to more rigorous medical/neuropsychological assessments of pilots over seventy or 75 but ONLY following an independent Amicus Curiae report which examines in detail this complex area and the adequacy of current investigative procedures in ascertaining accident cause.

Our report also has concerns, canvassed by others, about the adequacy and appropriateness of the statistical analysis of accidents reflected in the ATSB inquiry into Angel Flight and the recommendations which flow from that. In view of the fact that VFR into IFR accidents are a problem across the board, a requirement for an IFR rating for Angel Flights might be a useful interim measure but this does not deal with the problem of those who are risk takers and the increased frequency of vascular events with age which might lead to catastrophic failure while at the controls of an aircraft as a lone pilot.

We are also not clear about the risk models being used by ATSB, CASA and the parent department in assessment of accident and accident risk. It would appear that different models are being used which in some cases may be putting the public at risk and disadvantaging others. We ask that a clear statement be made with regard to risk assessment for aviation and that this statement be assessed independently in the Amicus Curiae. Our particular concern relates to the fact that economic consideration may be being put ahead of public safety with regard to risks to aviation in certain circumstances. There does not appear to be equity in assessment of risk.

We are prepared to discuss our report if it would be useful in improvement of aviation safety in Australia.


A/Prof. Gordon Richard Gates, MSc., PhD.
President
Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee Inc.