Quote:“For want of a nail the shoe was lost.”

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”

All day, every day, across this planet people travel; and, in one form or another, they use publicly available transportation. Bus, train, ferry, aircraft - all available for the cost of a ticket. Included within the price of that ticket is a high percentage chance that they will arrive at their destination. While that 'safe arrival' is not 100% guaranteed, mostly it is a very, very safe bet. Ever wonder why. If you ask around, you will receive many different answers, but only those involved in providing that transport know how much work and money and research and training (blood, sweat and tears) has gone into providing that singular service safe result. The real answer is in one word 'Reliability'. 

(Technology reliability) x (Human reliability) = System reliability.

Every mode of transport, from roller skates to space ships depends on system reliability to arrive at the destination in one piece. Many serious accidents have been the result of not only the failure of one element, but the events subsequent to that failure.

“For want of a shoe the horse was lost.”

Watching hours of Senate estimates is not a popular pastime; for example, when its my turn, I play it in the workshop and listen while I do something constructive; bit like the cricket on the radio. Mostly, the focus is on 'matters aeronautical' Canberra style, however as all methods of publicly available transport systems are all basically similar (in essence) almost any form of 'transport' event catches the attention; trucks, trains, boats and planes. Why, Well there is almost always a 'lesson' to be learned from every transport accident; and IMO they are, in principal at least, transportable. Human and system failures which lead to headlines.

“For want of a horse the rider was lost”

Once the 'headlines' are out there inevitably is an 'investigation and/or an 'inquiry' of some sort; aviation is famous for them (for some unknown reason). The investigation template in the aviation world mostly follows a well trodden pathway. When the return of that 'investigation' is serious; often some form of 'inquiry' is opened; and, that is when the 'fun' starts. The 'circuit breakers' are the first called in; they serve to protect the next level up the sheltered ladder of responsibility and are utterly disposable. If the powers that be persist with inquiry, the next layer in the protection racket is wheeled in and the dissembling and obfuscation begins in earnest – for they protect the ministerial appointment holders. They are wonderfully entertaining, masters of the  no accountability game; and, serve the 'system' very well and rewarded in kind. Which keeps everybody happy, except for the public who have forgotten and those left behind to wonder. Every aviation inquiry has, more or less, finished in the same manner, an instantly forgettable report which resolves very little. The top shelf defenders have learned where they are vulnerable to any hint of 'responsibility' and take the steps necessary to cover the gap. Bigger budget to generate more complex rules which relocate 'blame' and additional 'responsibility' to those outside the 'agency' while ensuring that in no way can 'they' ever be accountable or responsible. Its a game, played publicly, in the open and available on any Senate estimates 'you tube' session you care to sit through.

“For want of a rider the message was lost”

One of our crew stumbled on an Estimates session from the NSW division – related to the Sydney Harbour ferry system. Ships at sea and the men who manage the business are very closely related to those who manage aircraft. The parallels easily drawn; the legal responsibilities on par as are the penalties for any mismanagement. Two ships collide – the Masters are the people in the dock. However; the Skippers of ferries seem to have a problem that no aircraft pilot would tolerate. Should an aircraft have any form of 'control' problem (airborne or on the deck) there are back up systems and/ or alternate methods which may be used to ensure a safe return to land. Once on the ground, that aircraft would not move out of maintenance until the 'problem' had be 'properly' resolved; and, a report made; and, that report made available to the world wide fleet if the 'problem' was deemed systematic. But, it goes a little further; the aircraft would be 'Returned to Service' with a 'signature' of the person ultimately carrying the legally enforceable responsibility for the RTS. All documented and legally binding. The pilot scheduled to operate the aircraft signs a 'maintenance release' (again legally binding) fully aware of the repairs. It is an almost fool-proof system, with clearly defined lines of 'responsibility and accountability' all the way back to the CEO - ultimately.

“For want of a message the battle was lost”

Recently in the news (courtesy Matt O'Sullivan) the plight of the Masters of the Sydney ferry system has been brought to the attention of the public. Aunt Pru took an interest and we were off to the races. The first item of real interest was the closely guarded secret of just how many abnormal 'steering' events have actually occurred. (Give any pilot the screaming me-mi's). Once,  in any aircraft, would be enough. But not for the NSW government contractors; multiple loss of control events, the Masters (and the media) have forced the matter to the government attention - for action. We thought the antics of the aviation bureaucrats at Senate estimates were worthy of attention; but the NSW tribe beat the band, hands down. Below is a 'you tube' recording of the NSW estimates session. Click on at the 1 hour 56 second mark and watch carefully. These guys make the Canberra lot look like honest upright citizens; boy, they're good. Circuit breakers popping all the way back to the Minister, although, happily, his ultimate get out gaol card is 'the contract'.

The NSW state government seem to have several 'real' matters of transport safety to deal with. There are rumbles from within the Unions of those who actually operate the state's transport network. Trains and busses all with 'safety' matters which, (pardon the expression) should a wheel come off can only lead to more expense and embarrassment associated with 'accident', particularly if people are harmed or killed. But the one, easily definable 'safety issue' matter is a stand out example; that of the ferries which operate on Sydney harbour. Multiple steering failures; rumours of dodgy welding: AMSA getting involved, then not. Big bucks at stake if OTSI join hands with ATSB (etc.) – and yet the resident evil within the steering system of these large, high speed, passenger carrying vessels cannot be sheeted home and guaranteed, certified as rectified. What is it now 10, 15 – 20? incidents of failure; yet revenue and political denial of responsibility or accountability shy away from responsibility or accountability - eschewing centre stage (in Spades).

“For want of a battle the kingdom was lost”.

So, a new forum has been demanded by the BRB; one open to all 'drivers' of machinery which carries the fare paying public. Those who should be able to expect an equivalent level of operational reliability from a ferry, train, or even a humble bus as they are guaranteed when travelling by air. Imagine a bus with a steering problem; causing an accident making headlines for more than a day - unlikely. Then imagine that 10 steering failure related accidents occurring in a short space of time – what then? Aye; you imagine correctly. Bus carries what, 50 people; a ferry can carry 400 – and has a track record of provable 'steering failures'. Think on..Someone has to make certain that the basic of safety – reliability – is maintained. Just don't look to the political system support crowd to accept responsibility, be accountable or, better yet,  get the problem sorted.

Ramble over; but at the end of the shift, after the accident, when the knives come out, someone has to pay the freight. Last man standing is the driver, easy target, far removed from the machinations of 'deals' -  'contracts' and the zero responsibility/ accountability of the administration.

Toot toot.

Arrgggh! - Victimology – from plagiarised victim to idiot in one one fell swoop – I will repay.

Quote:This miniscule McCormack thing, masquerading as ‘Minister’ has left the building with his flies undone. Or, has got his boxers on ass about. Does anyone remember old mate Darren – he of the 7G’s who managed to so completely bugger himself up – aviation wise – that half the operating politicians dismissed him as irrelevant?
 
Well, the little light has come on – 7G’s main advisor, a man with a foot in every camp, a hunter with the hounds and a runner with the Hares; the man who believes that through his ‘bureaucratic’ connections, he will be elected through the Victorian Nats; everybody's mate is now dear ol’ Mike 4G’s main man -. Considering how Darren 7D was totally buggered by the Campbell ‘in-put’ you have to wonder why McCormack has chosen the same vehicle to nonentity as his mate Dazza.
 
Thing that really bothers me – is just how dumb is the DPM? It Turnbull falls of the cat – house trapeze then Mike 4G will actually be in charge – terrifying concept. A man with an IQ the same size as his jock strap being ‘advised’ by Darren’s both ends against the middle man. Maybe, - when 4G's is standing in the dole queue, wondering WTD happened; his little light bulb too will illuminate the pathway to sheer folly.
 
“Yes Toots – set ‘em up again; I have a wonder of purblind stupidity to ponder”.

Quote:Latrobe Valley soars with aviation upgrade

Media Release
WT378/2015
18 November 2015

Joint release with:
Jaala Pulford
Victorian Minister for Regional Development
Darren Chester
Member for Gippsland


The Latrobe Valley's economy has received a significant boost with the opening of the Growing Aerospace Manufacturing facility at Latrobe Regional Airport today.

Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss said the $4.24 million project is a major boost for the region's economy.

“This project created 107 jobs during construction and up to 200 jobs have been created in the aerospace industry since the start of this project,” Mr Truss said.

“The work has involved the construction of an additional aircraft development hangar and infrastructure upgrades to support manufacturing and emergency services at the airport. It has also seen improvements to navigation aids, runway lighting, taxiways and aprons.

“What this means is a much more effective airport capable of handling growth in air traffic, a particularly important outcome for regional towns impacted by the tyranny of distance.”

Federal Member for Gippsland Darren Chester said the extensive upgrades had been ‘class-leading’.


“Outcomes of the project included the replacement of the old incandescent lighting system with a complete LED runway and taxiway lighting system, and a Precision Approach Path Indicator, which is the largest complete LED system currently in Victoria,” Mr Chester said.


“Other works included a 33,350 square metre resurfacing of the main runway, improved drainage and additional water tanks, as well as improvements to taxiways and line markings.”

Victorian Minister for Regional Development Jaala Pulford said the upgrades to the airport held benefits for more than just local residents.

“The Victorian Government hosts a number of its aerial firefighting aircraft at the airport, a particularly important service we can draw on during a hot dry summer,” Ms Pulford said.

“I am delighted to see the upgrades complete and I am looking forward to continued investment by the Australian Government in the region. Supporting projects like these is the aim of our $500 million Regional Jobs and Infrastructure Fund which will support major projects, create jobs and build stronger regional communities in the Latrobe Valley.”

Quote:RE:  Important information to get the fastest processing result for applications/notifications

The introduction of CASR Part 61, 64, 141 and 142 did impact on PAC’s service delivery.  We acknowledge that there were difficulties for industry, as well as for us, in coming to terms with the requirements of the new regulations.  We know it has been frustrating for industry and applicants and we do appreciate your understanding and patience.  However, we are now significantly picking up the pace on our processing.  During the last 5 months we have identified a number of common issues with the applications/notifications we receive and offer the following points to assist you with the process, which will lead to reducing the time it takes to return a licence.

For the issue of a CPL/MPL, in accordance with CASR 61.245(3)(b), the flight test must not be conducted by the same person (HOFO/CFI) who has certified in writing that the applicant has met the requirements of CASR 61.235. Please ensure for these flight tests that the flight examiner did not also certify the applicant was suitable.  This requirement ONLY applies to a flight test for commercial or multi-crew pilot licence.

If the training provider is a Part 141 organisation, the person certifying under 61.235(5) must either be the operator’s head of operations or a person named in the Part 141 operator’s operation manual as responsible for the flight training to which the flight test relates.
If the training provider is undertaking Part 142 activities, the person certifying under 61.235(5) must be the operator’s head of operations (CFI).

You must ensure on notification forms, particularly form 61-2I, that the applicant does not inadvertently complete and sign the declaration for the Person under CASR 61.235(5).  We are receiving applications where this has occurred.  The Flight Examiner has then conducted the flight test.  This is not acceptable, and the application/notification will be returned and the applicant’s record will not be updated at this time.

For applications for licences, please ask the applicant’s permission to include the training provider’s contact details in Section C:  Applicant Declaration of the form and enter a contact name and email address.  This will enable PAC to return an incomplete application to the training provider at the same time it is returned to the applicant.  This will greatly speed up the time taken to address any issues with the application and ensure the applicant gets their licence as quickly as possible.  We are bound by the Privacy Act and we cannot return an application to a third party without permission, even though we understand many flying schools complete much of the form on behalf of the applicant.

Please ensure you read all forms carefully and that you and the applicant complete all sections of the form.  Remember, you do NOT have to submit KDRs with licence applications any more.
When conducting flight tests and submitting notifications to CASA (issue of operational ratings, class/type ratings, proficiency checks etc), you must complete and send the appropriate notification form to CASA – not just the flight test page. 

Please be aware that an aeronautical radio operator certificate (AROC) is NOT a replacement for a flight radio operator licence (FROL).  The requirements for a FROL, previously issued under CAR 5, are embedded in the training for the licence.  Therefore this application for an AROC is not required as part of any licence application, including for an RPL.

If you are conducting flight tests for the conversion of an overseas licence, please be aware that the conversion of an overseas flight crew licence is a two-part process.  The applicant will submit Form 61-4A to CASA, who will verify the licence and assess the application.  CASA will send a letter to the applicant advising them that CASA is satisfied they hold overseas permissions that CASA will recognise and advising them to complete exams before contacting a 141 or 142 organisation to organise a flight test for the licence and, if applicable, operational ratings.  The applicant should then complete exams and take evidence of successfully passing the exams and the letter from CASA to the Flying School.  The Flying School will assess the applicant’s competency and if they are satisfied they have met all the competencies, the organisation will book a flight test.  On completion of a successful flight test, the Flying School will submit Form 61-4B to notify CASA of the result.  These two forms should NOT be submitted at the same time.

For licence applications, we would appreciate it if you could let applicants know they can pay online.  Online payments are available from the CASA website.  This will increase our efficiency in processing applications.

Please use the following links for further information that we believe is pertinent to you.  Your students or candidates for flight tests would also  benefit from this information and we would appreciate your assistance in ensuring they are aware of these links.
Aircraft ratings (overview)

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_101936

Aircraft ratings
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_101931

Class-rated aircraft that require training and a flight review - includes list of aircraft types
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102048

An alternative to a class rating flight review — includes list of aircraft types
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102049

Aircraft type ratings (overview)
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_101935

Guide to type-rated aeroplanes — includes list of ratings
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102026

A guide to type-rated helicopters — includes list of ratings
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102046
Flight reviews
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_101937

Proficiency checks
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_101938

New look pilot licences from 1 September 2014
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102135

Flight crew licensing - frequently asked questions
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102186

Flight Crew Licensing – Part 61
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_101440

Flight Examiner Handbook
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102160

Flight crew licensing entry guide
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102094

CAR Part 5 Licence Instruction Guide
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WC...=PC_102094

We are continuing to review our forms and processes to ensure we can make improvements that will assist industry and allow PAC to reduce service delivery timeframes.

Yours sincerely

Mark Taylor
Manager PAC

Quote:Government’s Direction

• As most of you are aware, the Government has set a clear agenda for CASA in 2015 and the years to follow through its response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR), which was released late in 2014. I am glad the Government’s response to the Review has coincided with the commencement of my tenure as the Director of Aviation Safety, as this provides a clear basis for planning, action and achievement.
  
• Aviation medical concerns were amongst the more contentious issues raised in submissions to the ASRR and continue to be the subject of industry stakeholder comment. We are aware of a range of concerns raised by some members of the aviation community in the Report in relation to administration and decision making processes with respect to the issuing of aviation medical certificates.
  
• In response to the ASRR, CASA has already identified a range of administrative measures to improve turnaround in the processing of certificates.
  
• In relation to more contentious medical conditions, the Government has asked that CASA ensure its processes are as transparent as possible to the applicant, including the supporting reasons for its decisions to grant or not grant a medical certificate or place conditions on licences. It is acknowledged that different specialists can reach a different view on particularly complex cases but ultimately CASA has to make its decision based on aviation safety grounds.
  
• Moreover the Government has asked that CASA undertake a review of its aviation medical Branch to establish whether a more effective and efficient system might be put in place without adversely impacting on safety.
  
• Although the Aviation Medicine (AvMed) capability in CASA has achieved a range of significant improvements in performance and outcomes over the past three years, CASA recognises the need to improve its service delivery and to ensure that its decision-making processes are transparent and evidence-based.
  
• As with other similar regulators, CASA is having difficulty in recruiting and retaining medical staff and a continued high level of CASA resources are tied up in aviation medical case reviews, complaints and appeals. These and other competing work pressures are contributing to a significant backlog of cases for medical review.
  
• However, on a positive note let me tell you that CASA has already commenced a process to permit approved DAMEs to issue and renew Class 2 medical certificates. A post implementation review of this process will be conducted in the second half of 2015.
  
• The results of the post implementation review will be considered and assessed to inform future consideration of a detailed examination of issues involved with the potential ability for DAME’s to renew medical certificates for classes 1 and 3 as identified in the ASRR’s recommendation.
  
• Further, we have commenced a full review of our AvMed capability to ensure that the delivery of its functions are effective and efficient, and fully aligns with CASA’s obligations under the Civil Aviation Act, the expectations of Government and the needs of medical certificate applicants. The review will include looking at various options to improve service delivery and the options for obtaining timely expert advice on complex matters. The review will be completed by the second half of the year.
  
• Let me provide a bit more detail on this review for your information. During this review, we will consider, amongst other things:
  • ongoing issues experienced with the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified and experienced aviation medicine medical practitioners,
    
  • the strategic approach to aviation medicine policy standards and clinical practice development, and
    
  • options for how the organisation can optimally deliver aviation medicine services into the future.
    
• The review is planning to engage with stakeholders (applicants, broader industry and other key stakeholders) in the coming months to collate feedback on the business improvements currently being made to AvMed. Active engagement in the review is encouraged to ensure that all contributions are captured in improving the delivery of this important function.
  

Quote:CASA seeks to hike fees as $25m loss looms  


Steve Creedy

Aviation Editor
Sydney

AUSTRALIA’S air safety regulator is calling for comment on a raft of new fees it is proposing as revenues from aviation regulatory services fall more than $25 million short of costs.  

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority predicts the cost of ­activities for which it charges will be $40.8m this financial year, resulting in a deficit of $25.8m and predicts this will increase due to inflation to $30m in 2018-19.

While it is not planning to raise existing fees, which have traditionally produced cost recovery revenue from aviation regulatory services of below $15m, it has proposed applying hourly rates to a raft of new areas.

Many of these are associated with the controversial introduction of new Part 61 regulations on flight crew licensing that have ­angered aviation groups at the small end of town.

They include new fees for testing, approvals, professional development and endorsements.
CASA has not raised its four-tier hourly rates since 2007 and currently charges $100, $130, $160 or $190 per hour.
Which rate applies to which area depends on the complexity involved, what administration is involved and whether it requires the skills of specialist staff.

The top hourly rate of $190 applies where a senior CASA officer or an officer with specialist experience and qualifications are involved.
These now include services involving regular public transport, aerospace and aerodrome regulations, corporate jet and multi-­engine helicopters as well as flight simulators.

CASA emphasises in its Cost Recovery Implementation Statement that it will not change its overall fee and expense profile.
It says the new fees were made necessary by the introduction of part 61 as well as Part 64 authorisations for unlicensed personnel such as ground crew as well as parts 141 and 142 relating to pilot training.

“There are no increases in any existing fees,’’ the proposal says. “CASA forecasts that the revised costs recovery arrangements will be revenue neutral.

“Increases in revenue and expenditure from the new fee items are expected to be offset by a corresponding reduction in connection with existing fees.’’

The authority’s audited financial statements show it lost $4.2m in 2013-14, when expenses of $184.9m outstripped revenue of $180.7m.
The loss was down from a $12m surplus in 2012-13.

Aviation regulatory services last financial year brought in $14.6m. The government provided $42.7m and the aviation fuel excise generated $120.10m.

The new fees are already raising the ire of those affected.

"Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said there seemed to be a contradiction between CASA’s approach and government policy that new regulations should be cost neutral and red tape should be reduced." {Couldn't have put it better myself Phil }

Mr Hurst said the industry was also still waiting for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to provide a letter of intent that gave effect to the findings of the Forsyth review on aviation safety regulation.

“And then CASA, oblivious to all that, puts out a draft CRIS which says they’re going to raise by their accounting 90 new charges,’’ he said.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, the peak body for aviation groups, last month urged Mr Truss as well as the new Civil Aviation Safety Authority board and the authority’s boss Mark Skidmore to pursue “a fundamental improvement in aviation in Australia”.

"It called on Mr Truss’s letter of intent to direct CASA to follow a new path of co-operation that would cut outmoded regulation."  I repeat - [i]"Dear Mr Truss..FFS stop with the procrastination & just get on with it!"       [/i]