[Peetwo]

MOAS and Bipartisanship continues to kill off Australian Aviation...

Ref: 

And so it go’s.

The Patrick move to have a ‘Legislative instrument’ disallowed came to a very predictable end – the killer? Oh, that was our old mate Bi-Partisan responsibility ducking. Hardly worth mentioning the reasons why the motion was raised. AP’s resident Bookie managed to break even on the result, some had high hopes and lost – enough to cover the odds on favourite romping home, barley out of breath or a hair out of place.

Accurately predicted; not by some magical insight, but on rumour and hearsay – seems our incum-bent miniscule (according to scurrilous gossip leaked from within) put the ‘fix’ in before the committee was done scribbling their notes. I hate to think this was true – the minister – a bully? No way. The RRAT committee browbeaten into writing a load of dribble? Nah, can’t be.
Can it?

No way to prove it of course. But the facts and result stand – Angel Flight brought up the rear, while government strolled home, barely out of breath. Not a new outcome of course. Check out Fearless Phelan from some years ago; even – Modern History – repeats in less than a decade.

We have today lost more than can be counted. A quiet Ale, alone, in my own workshop with the solace of honest tools and reliable timber for quiet company will suffice this night. I’ve always found mourning to be a solitary affair. Thought to action…….

“Give sorrow words; the grief that does not speak knits up the o-er wrought heart and bids it break.”

The following is a pictorial (with Hansard link) of the Senator REX failed attempt to get bipartisan support to strike out the pointless, bollocks CASA inflicted CSF instrument:

And the part that hurts, the predictable 30+ year Laborial fear of all things aviation safety related (ie the MOAS strikes again) being exploited by the 'make work' aviation safety autocracy...

Note how nearly word for word the opposition and government spokespersons almost totally mimic each other...

Hansard link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus.../&sid=0000 

Laborial 1: (Opposition) ..We understand that community flight charities such as Angel Flight do indeed provide a valuable service to regional communities across Australia, and we pay credit to the organisation and the volunteers that give their time to help regional families who need to attend medical appointments in major centres. We also very much respect the role of CASA as the independent civil aviation safety regulator. There's no doubt in our nation that our community has the expectation that CASA will establish and enforce a regulatory system that keeps all passengers, whether fare-paying or not, safe when they take to our skies. Indeed, Senator Patrick highlighted to us his own experience as a qualified pilot and said in his own words that he wouldn't suggest people take a flight with him as a pilot.

The opposition take a bipartisan approach to aviation safety because we know that the community puts a very high premium on safety in our skies. We understand very much, however, the concerns raised by Angel Flight. It is also essential that we have the highest safety standards applied to these important flights. We will continue to monitor implementation of this instrument and any impacts on community service flights and the community service flight community. We will be working with the government to address any of these concerns going forward...

Laborial 2: ...The government acknowledges the great benefit provided by community flight charities such as Angel Flight in regional Australia. We appreciate the generous donation of time and expertise provided by volunteer pilots in support of this valuable work and the contributions that many make towards such organisations. We note that one of the two recommendations in the Senate committee's report includes a proposal to remove the provisions for additional aeroplane maintenance requirements which are beyond those required for airworthiness in general aviation. In this regard, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's view remains that the inclusion of the modest additional maintenance requirements for these flights is an appropriate and proportionate measure to address the identified risk of a high-use private aircraft undertaking passenger flights, and that these additional requirements are likely to affect less than 10 per cent of private aircraft engaged in these flights. The government supports CASA, our independent civil aviation safety regulator, to use its expertise and professional judgement to determine appropriate safety measures for flights carrying passengers.

Passengers, whether they are fare-paying or not, are generally less able to determine the level of risk in the service they are boarding and rely on the regulator to ensure aviation safety is maintained. While acknowledging that CASA's instrument places additional requirements on pilots—largely around the recency of experience and overall experience—these measures are a practical approach to mitigating any flight risk. Since commencing on 19 March 2019, we are not aware that the instrument has resulted in a lack of availability of pilots or their aircraft for community service flights. Therefore, given our regulator's advice, the government does not support the disallowance motion before the Senate...

   

Also note how - despite overwhelming evidence of a flawed report, miniscule Mick Mack's unconstitutional influence on the outcome of the Senate Inquiry report, with no findings/recommendations against the ATCB asking for the Mount Gambier report to be reviewed and/or withdrawn - has now had undue, undemocratic parliamentary influence on the outcome of the Senator REX DM...

Laborial 1: ...We note that the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport has inquired into matters associated with community service flights. We note that the committee made a couple of recommendations, which, as we understand it, the government are currently considering. So we in the opposition are looking forward to seeing the government respond to those in due course... P2 comment: Quite obviously Laborial 1 hasn't even read &/or understands  the basic premise of the Sen REX DM ie one of the committee recommendations was directly addressing the onerous maintenance requirements. Unfortunately Laborial 2 does - UDB!   

Laborial 2: ...As has been acknowledged, these issues were canvassed in the recent Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report, which looked at, among other matters, maintenance requirements relating to Angel Flight.

Finally I would like to go to the vote because IMO this is where the real depressing story lays...



To begin there is a positive with the new Chair Sen Susan McDonald crossing the floor to vote with the AYES...

Unfortunately that is where the positives stop...

1) From the RRAT committee which supposedly had bipartisan support for the ATCB inquiry report, there are two members, Sen Antic and Sen Watt that voted NOE - 
2) Long time active participating member of the committee Sen Gallacher, who supposedly was part of the bipartisan support for the report, also voted NOE - 
3) QLD Sen Stoker a quoted supporter of Angel Flight and who asked some extremely pertinent and probing legal questions of CASA about the AF instrument, also voted NOE - 
4) Newly minted Senator and former MP for Corangamite Sarah Henderson, also voted NOE -  (reckon Sandy might have a thing or two say about that... ) 

However the most disturbing observation from the vote, especially considering the NOE vote does not represent a majority of the Senate, is the notable absences in the vote, especially those who were actively involved in the committee inquiry and those members who couldn't even front up to vote - 

Picture worth a thousand words:



(hint the three pigs in the middle -  )

MTF...P2