CASA

Last night I went to a CASA safety seminar at Tamworth Aero Club.

Well worth the trouble to attend, with about twenty flyers taking part.

Impressive to see so many experienced professional pilots working to maintain and improve their skills.

https://www.casa.gov.au/education/seminars-and-workshops/avsafety-seminars

I have been to several and always find them interesting. They steer clear of discussing anything controversial. The last one seemed to be preaching what was pushed many years ago but with different names. I hate the acronyms we need to learn, to be considered knowledgable about thing we learned years ago under a different name.

The safety advisor that does mine seems to know very little about "recreational" aviation, GA or otherwise, and tends to engage more with the commercial operators in the room.

Yet the theme of most nights is directed more at private operations I feel, with the majority attending from that demographic.

Many of the local commercial operators never attend which seems strange to me as aviation is their livelihood......

The safety advisor that does mine seems to know very little about "recreational" aviation, GA or otherwise, and tends to engage more with the commercial operators in the room.

 

Yet the theme of most nights is directed more at private operations I feel, with the majority attending from that demographic.

 

Many of the local commercial operators never attend which seems strange to me as aviation is their livelihood......

 

That could be as simple as the advisor staying away from areas of Self-Regulation where he would be expecting RAA to be running similar nights, and focusing on issues that were coming up day to day where commercial operators, who fly every day want to talk about operational issues they're running into on a daily basis.

There was a reference at Ausfly about how the senate supported CASA , to our detriment, and how Labor and Greens joined with the Liberals.

I would be interested to know more of this story.

There was a reference at Ausfly about how the senate supported CASA , to our detriment, and how Labor and Greens joined with the Liberals.

 

I would be interested to know more of this story.

 

Pretty sure this was in relation to the decision re Angel Flight.

Yes, indeed it was about AF, the Senator Rex Patrick(?) motion to disallow (to not approve) the CASA instruction to AF was indeed clubbed to death. Rex had a go.

Yes, indeed it was about AF, the Senator Rex Patrick(?) motion to disallow (to not approve) the CASA instruction to AF was indeed clubbed to death. Rex had a go.

 

Here's what Senator Rex had to say. You'll notice that he tipped a bucket over both pilots which is the more relevant issue at the present time.

Yes, indeed it was about AF, the Senator Rex Patrick(?) motion to disallow (to not approve) the CASA instruction to AF was indeed clubbed to death. Rex had a go.

 

Here's what Senator Rex had to say. You'll notice that he tipped a bucket over both pilots which is the more relevant issue at the present time.

Link added: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/d7431ad9-4e44-466a-bdda-464ed807c97f/&sid=0222

Here's what Senator Rex had to say. You'll notice that he tipped a bucket over both pilots which is the more relevant issue at the present time.

 

Link added: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/d7431ad9-4e44-466a-bdda-464ed807c97f/&sid=0222

 

I found this Australian Flying summary of what happened:  https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/angel-flight-disallowance-defeated-in-the-senate

day to day where commercial operators, who fly every day want to talk about operational issues they're running into on a daily basis.

 

Lets hope one of the "operational issues" they run into is not a RAAus aircraft - after all we all inhabit the same airspace and (hopefully) play by the same rules.

34 road fatalities between 2012 and 2016 in one corner of South Australia. No mention of the serious, but not fatal injuries. How many non-commercial aviation-based fatalities. During 2017, there were 14 fatalities from 21 accidents in commercial air transport operations, 21 fatalities from 93 accidents in general aviation operations, and five fatalities from 53 accidents in recreational aviation operations. The source of that information did not say how many of those GA fatalities were from airwork or commercial non-transport. We do know that three were from the Mt Gambier Angel Flight.

This I find disgusting: 

Only Senators from The Greens, Centre Alliance and One Nation supported the motion along with Senator McDonald. All other National senators, plus traditional aviation supporters such as Senators Brockman, Fawcett and Sterle did not have their votes recorded or were absent from the senate when the vote was taken.

Also this gem: Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham from SA stated that the government would not over-ride advice given to them by CASA. Therefore, given our regulator's advice, the government does not support the disallowance motion before the Senate."

Is it any wonder that people have lost respect and trust in our politicians, and have come to realise that the un-elected Public Service is running the country.  Shades of Yes, Minister. 

34 road fatalities between 2012 and 2016 in one corner of South Australia. No mention of the serious, but not fatal injuries. How many non-commercial aviation-based fatalities. During 2017, there were 14 fatalities from 21 accidents in commercial air transport operations, 21 fatalities from 93 accidents in general aviation operations, and five fatalities from 53 accidents in recreational aviation operations. The source of that information did not say how many of those GA fatalities were from airwork or commercial non-transport. We do know that three were from the Mt Gambier Angel Flight.

 

We no longer use the old history based accident triggers, except where the various State Governments have retained prescriptive control.

So we not longer have an "allowance" for people to die before action was needed.

 

 

This I find disgusting: 

 

Only Senators from The Greens, Centre Alliance and One Nation supported the motion along with Senator McDonald. All other National senators, plus traditional aviation supporters such as Senators Brockman, Fawcett and Sterle did not have their votes recorded or were absent from the senate when the vote was taken.

 

 Senator Brockman did not support the Patrick NOM, and didn't need to be there because the NOM had virtually no support and was clearly going to fail.

 

 

 

 

Also this gem: Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham from SA stated that the government would not over-ride advice given to them by CASA. Therefore, given our regulator's advice, the government does not support the disallowance motion before the Senate."

 

You need to find the whole discussion (which I had a lot of difficulty in doing because it seems to be in bits and pieces on the APH website), but during the discussion it was pointed out that the CASA instrument has had no effect on availability of Angel Flight pilot volunteers (so no effect of reducing operations).

Also, what's missing from all the public information so far is what triggered CASA to step in. That they did this since 2017, and the suggestion that they took their decision from the ATSB report, seems to have people thinking that's what happened, but CASA can step in as soon as they see a risk, at any time. Even if it was the 2017 crash that caused them to decide on something they should have done before, they still have a duty, if they see a risk to take action. It would help if someone came out and said "Our decision did not come from any material in the ATSB report, just from our own activities of about that time." That would clear it up.

Is it any wonder that people have lost respect and trust in our politicians, and have come to realise that the un-elected Public Service is running the country.  Shades of Yes, Minister. 

 

This was a single Notice of Motion from a single Senator, who, if he had some compelling evidence, chose not to disclose it.

Several other Senators discussed it and it was dropped.

76 Senators opted not to support it.

No "Yes Minister" in any of that; if you go and have a trawl through Hansard and look at the Senate Committees you will see a similar pattern on dozens of current committees. Someone raises an issue in the Senate, the Senate looks at it; if its no big deal they send it back to the committee. Checks and balances.

QUOTE: {What Turbo said}

Just goes to show how little most of us know of how the Government works. Most of us would think that matters of governance were sorted out in the Chambers of the two Houses. Looks like things are examined and plans of actin are made in committee rooms. I suppose that doing things this way is efficient, saving the theatrics of both Houses to be performed during Question Time.

It's too bad that the politicians don't think it is worthwhile to ensure that the mechanics of government decision making are put out in the open so that the electors begin to learn what is involved in running the country.

I'm not criticising the committee room work, which I suppose is mainly non-partisan. I'm just lamenting the failure to explain how things are done.

QUOTE: {What Turbo said}

 

Just goes to show how little most of us know of how the Government works. Most of us would think that matters of governance were sorted out in the Chambers of the two Houses. Looks like things are examined and plans of actin are made in committee rooms. I suppose that doing things this way is efficient, saving the theatrics of both Houses to be performed during Question Time.

 

It's too bad that the politicians don't think it is worthwhile to ensure that the mechanics of government decision making are put out in the open so that the electors begin to learn what is involved in running the country.

 

I'm not criticising the committee room work, which I suppose is mainly non-partisan. I'm just lamenting the failure to explain how things are done.

 

It probably is explained somewhere on the APH site. To be fair to the Senators, governance is by Acts, mainly kicked off in the House of Representatives, and back in the 1990s they came up with an Act to form CASA and have it do day to day safety management. The Senate members represent their States, and their main function is to review the Acts the House of Representative comes up with and try to find any faults before passing them, so most of their work IS in the Chambers and not in Committee rooms. The Senate also has some extra powers and can inquire into any issues it thinks might not be clear, or right or have gone off the rails, and this is how Senator Patrick raise his issue with what CASA had done, so it shows that someone is always watching. In this case most members decided if the changes hadn't affected AF's delivery of service, then there was no practical issue.