Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
CASA Estimates.
#46
(10-18-2016, 07:39 AM)kharon Wrote: Contemporaneous notes;

(Or; scribble on the back of several beer coasters).

I believe we may safely elevate O’Sullivan to the IOS roll of honour along with Sterle, Xenophon, Fawcett, Nash, Williams, Gallacher, and several other worthies.  The man is every bit as terrifying and, perhaps a little more lethal than the inestimable ‘Heff’.  O’Sullivan is one of a dwindling breed of politician, a man of good will, good conscience, rock solid, honest, astute with the best interests of the Australian people at heart. The Senate committee continues to impress and inspire. Bravo.

Not even practiced, rehearsed, top deck scripted pony-pooh can be relied on as an effective defence against the committee. Halfwit for example; clearly schooled, nearly brainwashed into reiterating and espousing the ‘cover story’.  Fully armed with reams of carefully workshopped documentation to prove his risible arguments.  No matter, the well briefed Senate crew simply take the purple tie Muppet to pieces. Specious, carefully manufactured, polished dialogue, blown to bloody rags by men of ‘goodwill’; and the ANAO of course.

We need to study Hansard before getting into the details; but FWIW, some early impressions are worth mentioning. ATSB is yet to perform, the clock beaten by extended sessions, so we must wait a short while longer for that.

CASA were, as expected, only on stage for short time. It was my first ‘Wingnut’ experience and I must say I rather enjoyed it.  Far too early to form any sensible impression; but, would I have a beer with him? Yes, I believe I would. He very neatly smacked the AOPA bottom, agreed to ‘consider’ extending the ADSB timeline and generally managed the whole thing very neatly and very professionally. The really truly interesting parts are best seen on the video; one stand out was the casual manner in which a real live professional was wheeled front and centre to discuss ‘matters aeronautical’ and impressed. A stark contrast to the usual mumbling, stumbling nonsense we have come to expect from the CASA second row; well done that man. A few more like him and there may yet be hope for the CASA.  An interesting sidebar was the faces relegated to the second row, smacked arses all round. MTF when the Hansard appears.

That’s about it; my notes (those I can read) and the video will flesh out the bare bones. ATSB to follow in due course.

Toot - MTF – toot.
Reply
#47
(02-28-2017, 07:22 AM)kharon Wrote: The semantics of aircraft in the lounge room.

It depends which team you support how you regard last nights Estimates session with CASA. When we have the Hansard and video it will be a lot easier to pick out the bones, but one major topic for the BRB will be the way in which ‘responsibility’ for the dreadful safety state of our airports has been passed about like a parcel.  Old ‘Shifty’ Tique & Co. played a merry tune to go with the parcel passing.  Carmody was so quick to unload it he almost shoved Halfwit under the Senate bus (MTF).

For the lay person, the easiest thing to understand will be ‘buffer zones’ and the lack thereof. Essentially ‘tis but a ‘fenced off’ no building area, either side of the runway, precisely designed to prevent exactly the kind of accident we witnessed last week in Melbourne. The UK, USA and most ‘grown up’ aviation nations have these areas; for what must now be, to all, blindingly obvious reasons – Australia does not.

Where CASA took their lame defence was to what are known as Pans-Ops (PO). ICAO produce these and Australia does comply. What PO provide is an obstacle free area from the runway end out to a specified distance. The area is known as ‘the splay’. The splay widens progressively at a predetermined angle to that distance; like a fan if you will, laid out on the ground. There are maximum heights for man made structures within the fan, so to maintain a minimum clearance in the vertical (obstacle clear gradient).  Simply put, you may place a two story building at mile from the end of the runway, or; a ten story building at five miles within the ‘splay’ area. So ‘obstacle clear’ flight paths and buildings may coexist; and, provided the aircraft can maintain the gradient prescribed, in theory, all is well. This is where CASA deem their ‘safety’ responsibility to end.

Consider the Melbourne crash; the aircraft’s problems did not manifest within the ‘splay’ but within the aerodrome confines, without the protection of a ‘buffer’ zone, inevitably the aircraft crashed into whatever was ahead of it. Be it the DFO, the Freeway or a residential area, there is no protection afforded for either aircraft or the public from behind or outside of the minimum prescribed splay area; starting at the runway end.

The runway used by the crash aircraft is some 1500 meters long; the aircraft would be safely airborne and accelerating toward the splay within 1000 to 1100 meters, normally the remaining runway distance is travelled in a matter of seconds and the aircraft enters the ‘safe’ obstacle clear splay; even with an inoperative engine, given clear space the aircraft should obtain a safe height using the obstacle clear distances within that area (pilot responsibility). But the crashed aircraft did not enter the ‘splay’; whatever went wrong happened behind the ‘splay’ and the flight path was, quite legally, obstructed. Whether or not 500 meters of obstacle clear (buffer) area, to the side of the runway would have produced and different result is, as yet, hard to determine; but, given that time and distance the aircraft may well have accelerated to a speed which allowed a climb. This is why ‘buffer’ zones are mandated in other countries. If you are keen, take a look at the aerial view of Archerfield, then imagine you are in a single engine aircraft. Normally, the aircraft is airborne and climbing away within about 60% of the available runway; then engine failure. The right procedure is to land ‘straight ahead’ or as close as possible to straight.  Measure off two thirds of any Archerfield runway, then work out (roughly) the glide distance needed to land ahead, from about 60 feet and see where you finish up – mostly in Mrs. Smith’s front parlour; that’s where. Just in time for tea.

That is as close to describing the ‘problem’ for non aviation folk as I can get; and I’ve probably offended the ‘purists’, using a thumb nail dipped in tar to outline the situation, but that’s Ok. When Hansard do their thing we will take a closer look at just who is responsible for what; but CASA have made it clear they are, so far as they are concerned – off the hook.

Toot – MTF – toot.

















Hansard to follow... Wink


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#48
Budget Estimates 2017-18: CASA


(05-23-2017, 08:35 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
(05-19-2017, 11:42 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Senate Estimates: Daily program & ANAO into M&M's stable - Rolleyes

[Image: IMG_0066.JPG?as=1&mh=600]

Here is the link for next week's RRAT Committee Budget Estimates.. Wink :

Quote:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (PDF 136KB)           
        
     

Update: 23/05/17

Slight change in today's proceedings with AMSA appearing first before Murky's Aviation & Airports division - PDF 57KB .


(05-03-2017, 10:48 PM)Peetwo Wrote: The Fawcett factor on closing airport safety loops... Huh


(05-03-2017, 06:26 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Two bob’s worth of disgust please.

Why is it; that every single fatal accident involving public transport ends up this way? The expensive official inquiry, for no return on investment. The demands for change translated into onerous rules which serve only the ‘regulators’ purpose. The obfuscation of fact. The disavowal of any or all official responsibility. Lockhart has never been honestly examined. The ATSB were muzzled, the coroner if not misled was certainly confounded, the inquiry bamboozled; all to cover the simple fact that CASA could and should have been sanctioned for allowing the situation to develop to the point of impact. This is a common thread running through each and every one of the ‘fatal’ accidents from Advance to Monarch, from Seaview to Pel-Air. It is, IMO, time it was stopped. Regulation by the cartload is simply there to provide safe prosecution of the predetermined outcome; strict liability supporting.

It is a disgraceful situation. Perhaps the Essendon event and the Senators conscience will provide a different, more enlightened result. Time will tell, but first we need a ‘proper’ report from the ATSB – before the turn of the century. But lets be clear about this, very clear. Within 9 seconds at 150 meters from a runway centre line an aircraft hit, at 150 feet, a building (for whatever reason). That building should never have been allowed to be there; someone has manipulated the rules, someone has nodded at the safety aspects and someone has authorised the many shifts in the operationally available dimensions of that runway to suit a purpose. Those people are, in part, responsible for the building being there. Either way, someone needs to be treated the way a ‘civilian’ would be who had played fast and loose with the interpretation of the ‘regulations’, to cynically suit a commercial purpose and place the lives of those shopping there in clear and present danger, advertising to encourage people to come there. (Ugh). All very slick and clever, except there are now five men to add to the list of those  who will not be celebrating their next birthday with their families at home. Shame, shame, shame.

Wow Martha - wudja look at all them tall buildings.


[Image: C-3ehNrXYAEhoVS.jpg]
[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-3ehNrXYAEhoVS.jpg[/img]

After following and monitoring the firmly non-partisan RRAT committee in Estimates and aviation safety related inquiry for nearly a decade, IMO the real 'tell' that the committee has not yet succumb to bureaucratic 'nothing to see here Senators' pressure comes in the form of Senator Fawcett stepping in to question the Murky Mandarin & his 'Aviation & Airports division' minions.

Excerpt from Senate RRAT committee 'Additional Estimates' Hansard 27/02/17:
Quote: Senator FAWCETT: Thank you for your comments. Obviously it is very early days yet in terms of the investigation of this particular incident. I just want to take you back if I can to the broader principles. You would be aware that we have discussed on a number of occasions since 2011 and 2012 I think issues around airport planning, particularly the NASAG process. I believe you discussed that or mentioned that earlier. The NASAG process, as we have discussed multiple times before, deals with noise; it deals with protection of airspace, particularly the PANS-OPS airspace, and obstacles that may protrude into that. But what I am seeking from you is an indication as to whether or not now you will go back and revisit what we have discussed on a number of occasions, which is the unique Queensland public safety area legislation, where they look at the zones on runway ends to make sure that there is no construction that would prevent a place for a pilot who needed to make a forced landing to have the ability to do that.

In the past you have said that is outside the scope of NASAG, and we have raised multiple times the fact that Queensland does do that with some airports—not all. And we have seen both state government planning, whether it be Jandakot or Archerfield or other smaller council-operated airports around Australia, where construction of residential and commercial properties has been allowed quite close and in the zones where traditionally air crew perhaps would have considered that that was their option if they had a problem that required them to make an emergency landing. So, I am really just looking for an assurance that you will now go back to those discussions that we have had over the last six years or so to look not just at the PANS-OPS and the noise but also at the areas the pilots may need for forced landing areas.

Mr Mrdak : Certainly, Senator, and before you arrived I outlined to the committee—and I will ask my officers Mrs Macaulay and Ms Spence to outline this—that we had been working with Queensland on a draft guideline and guidance for jurisdictions in relation to runway end safety zones and to runway public safety zones generally around airports. That work has now progressed. This tragedy obviously has taken place, but the next NASAG meeting was due to consider the issue. There was a meeting in November which considered it. There has still been some reluctance by some state planning authorities in relation to these issues, but quite clearly the Commonwealth has sought to progress this for many years as part of a suite of NASAG guidelines and guidance material, which you and I have discussed at length over the last few years. I will ask Mrs Macaulay to give you an update in relation to the public safety zones...

.. 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.

Senator FAWCETT: And my final question is: could you perhaps look at providing the committee with a briefing on where you are up to with the NASAG process and what you are looking to take to the next meeting so that we get some visibility into that before it just becomes a fait accompli that is delivered?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly. We would be very happy to arrange that through the committee secretary.

Note: Here in pictures DF's body language speaks louder than words, he refers directly to M&M and gets him to 'agree' that CASA may have contravened the original spirit and intent of the Airports Act by providing deficient safety advice on proposed (DRAFT) Airport MAPs... Dodgy  



Division 5 of the Airport Act states:
Quote:Division 5—Obligation to use airport site as an airport

31  Obligation to use airport site as an airport..etc            

My interpretation of the above Fawcett v Mrdak exchange is that it is 'agreed' that the airport operational environment, before the lease agreement was drawn up, represents the 'spirit & intent' and therefore the benchmark for the lessee 'obligation to use the airport site as an airport'.

In the Essendon case this places M&M and his CASA minions in the awkward situation of having to explain why it is approval was given/not given/ignored for the airport operator to have several iterations/changes (see Ventus post #219) to the operational length (TODA/TORA/ASDA/STODA etc), runway width/splay dimensions etc.; of RW17/35 since the original lease agreement was signed in 2001... Blush

Update prior to CASA appearance.

I note that the outstanding CASA QON (113&114 from Additional Estimates) were finally answered last Friday... Dodgy :  
Quote:113-119

Civil Aviation Safety Authority: PDF 59KB 26/04/2017 questions: 113 & 114 answered on 19/05/2017



[Image: AQON-113.jpg]

[Image: AQON-114.jpg]


Definitely much, much MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#49
CASA Estimates hearing in pictures - Rolleyes   

(05-23-2017, 03:27 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
Quote:113-119

Civil Aviation Safety Authority: PDF 59KB 26/04/2017 questions: 113 & 114 answered on 19/05/2017



[Image: AQON-113.jpg]

[Image: AQON-114.jpg]

First in relation to airport development, aviation safety and the Essendon DFO accident (above references):









And a Senator Fawcett follow up (to above), this time addressing Carmody directly:






Lots MTF...P2 Cool
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)