Casino’s aviation community is outraged at a bid to close their airport for up to twelve days a year to allow drag racing events.

Two dragster sessions already held by the “Summerland Drag Racers” have left the tarmac melted in parts under the heat of the spinning tyres, and airport users fear that more such usage would soon damage runways, taxiways and aprons so badly that they would be useless to aircraft – and probably also eventually to dragsters.

Although the damage so far has been caused by souped-up production cars, they are now alarmed that vehicles like the “Bandag Bullet,” billed as the world’s fastest truck at 305 kph, is being promoted as an attraction a dragster meet scheduled at Casino on July 31. This 8 tonne monster is powered by two inter-coupled V8 diesel engines, with two superchargers and four turbo chargers.  These deliver a total of 2,200 hp with some 5,600 ft/lb of torque on tap. This could expected quickly to demolish essential aviation assets beyond economical repair.

As well, one airport user warns: “They want to park 1,000 cars on the grass runways and taxiways. They’re not stipulating dates [beyond July 31] but they want to operate at least four times a year and are planning on about 4,000 spectators. It’s huge, and aviation businesses would be severely affected by it. We have helicopter maintenance here, two flight training facilities, two agricultural operators with their own hangars, and all these guys are going to be severely affected if the airport is further downgraded. As well there are already four new hangars here and by the end of the year it looks like another five. Even the Rural Fire Services has secured a  block and they’ll be putting in a big permanent air base here. Council in the past has fostered the development of aviation industries but now these things are conflicting.

“One of the councillors has a drag race car, and this makes matters worse for the aviators because his fellow councillors seem more inclined to support him than aviation use. The Council has deregistered the airport at Casino, but it still shows as an airport in many GPS databases. The Council never issues notams [notices to airmen] about airport closure.”

Dragsters on the runway and a housing development on final approach

De-registering an airport also ensures that there will be no CASA safety standards oversight, nor will NOTAMs (notices to airmen) be published to warn arriving aircraft on days when the dragsters have taken over.

There is now growing concern all over Australia over the future of airports as local government airport operators allow such non-aviation incursions, apparently in breach of contracts called deeds of transfer, between operators and the Commonwealth Government signed in 1992 as part of the government’s airport local ownership plan (ALOP.)

The contracts, all of which are understood to be based on the same pro forma, typically require the aircraft operator to (paraphrased):

(a)     Operate the aerodrome, open to public use, in compliance with (the regulations and standards) for the type and category of aircraft operations at the aerodrome and shall permit access to the aerodrome access to the aerodrome to (authorised persons)

(b)     Be solely responsible for operating and maintaining the aerodrome and its equipment to (Civil Aviation Authority standards.)

(c)     Permit open, unrestricted and non-discriminatory access to the aerodrome by (airline and aircraft operators…..)

(d)     Allow, where applicable, all operations and aircraft movements that are in pursuance of (international aviation rights.)

(e)     Be responsible for the safety of the aerodrome in accordance with (the relevant Acts and Regulations.)

(f)       Bear the same responsibilities for airport security.

(g)     Take such action as is within its power to prevent the restriction of aircraft operations to and from the aerodrome by objects such as buildings, other structures, trees or other natural objects (acting as obstacles to aircraft movement)

The deeds also require councils to exercise their land zoning authority to prevent residential and other incompatible development in areas which may be affected by aircraft noise, to prevent hazards to aircraft, and prevent developments that might be incompatible with air navigation and communications facilities.

Aviation tenants at a large number of ALOP airports are now complaining that local government airport operators and transport bureaucrats are deliberately ignoring these contractual obligations and that apparently no moves have ever been made by government to monitor compliance.

According to documents provided to AviationAdvertiser:

• On December 18 2001 the council considered an approach by the Campervan and Motorhome Club (CMC) of Australia to allow it to purchase “an area of land,” requesting that the negotiations be “commercial in confidence.”
• The Council voted to exclude the press from its deliberations “until negotiations are completed.”
• The sale of the Casino airport land never went out to tender.
• On 19 December 2001 Council’s General Manager wrote to DOTRS seeking approval to sell the land to the Motorhome Club of Australia to establish a “home-base”, citing economic reasons and community benefits.
• At this point both the Council and the Department of Transport was aware that the Council intended to sell all or part of the airport in December 2001 but the public was still not aware of that intent.
• The Council sold 122.49 hectares of Casino airport (including a terminal building worth $800,000) to a Casino Village Limited, a private developer, for $660,000.
• The sale terms provided for a deposit of $160,000 including GST, and five annual payments each of $100,000 interest free.
• One month after the completion of the sale contract the land was revalued for almost three times the sale price, freehold land being valued at $1.2 million and buildings at $500,000.
• The submission by Council to DOTARS failed to state that the true purpose of the sale was the establishment of a residential development, citing economic benefits to the region arising from local materials and construction. This did not eventuate because the buildings were prefabricated and transported in on trucks.

The Richmond Valley Council has never explained to the aviation or general communities exactly what benefits accrued to ratepayers or airport users from these transactions, nor has it explained who in fact did benefit.

There is now a housing development off the end of the main runway, which is in breach of the Council’s contracted obligations and will ultimately be the basis for noise complaints and all the implications that follow from that.

The air ambulance regularly calls in to Casino to pick up patients. Twice a medical specialist from Sydney has been unable to land his aircraft at Casino and has had to divert because of the drag racing. When the drag races are on, the airport is closed for three days.

The grass runway beside the sealed runway now has large ruts in it which could easily cause a glider or light aircraft to nose over and crash.

Tenants and other airport users believe the airport remains an essential community asset, and that it is high time the responsible Minister and his department took assertive action to demand compliance with the deed of transfer.

If anybody was wondering when the airport privatisation penny would drop, they’ll be happy to know that has now happened!

The open display of totally sympathetic support and downright generosity towards one of Bankstown airport’s best-known flight training organisations was an outstanding testimony to the determination of an entire industry to arrest the demolition of those critical community assets – our aerodromes.

Yesterday (Sunday June 20) well over 500 highly aviation-aware people showed up to support Ray Clamback and Aminta Hennessy in their unequal legal battle with Bankstown Airport Corporation over its “legalised confiscation” of their major asset – a hangar which would now cost something like $1.4m to replace, even if there was an airport somewhere to build one.

AviationAdvertiser Managing Director Ben Morgan was Master of Ceremonies and also provided a call to action, urging the aviation community to start getting assertive in broadening awareness of the industry’s ongoing plight.

This hangar was just one of an unknown number of aviation assets that the Commonwealth Government in effect sold to a consortium  of property developers that now owns Bankstown and Camden airports, even though it wasn’t the government’s to sell.

Now you own it – now you don’t. Compliments of your elected government.

An impressive aspect was not only the numbers, but the credentials of so many well-known senior Australian aviators and aviation businessmen who attended, many flying in from interstate. These people showed a deepened understanding of the way three successive governments (and their bureaucracies) have mismanaged a process that was established with the worthiest of goals – to secure the future of major public assets in a way that would deliver industry and community benefits by maintaining and improving those assets under private ownership.

But it wasn’t only the elders of the aviation tribe who turned up – it was everybody from first-solo student pilots to LAMEs to young (and old) instructors and people who just understand and appreciate aviation for what it is and what it means to Australians.

Although many of these individuals and industry figures had never before discussed it as a group, all had obviously drawn the same conclusions on the root causes of the failure of privatisation to deliver the industry and community benefits that were expected of it.

Flying support, a great turn up of aircraft and supporters

By a trick of chronological fate Clamback & Hennessy were among the first to feel the force of their new landlords’ determination to squeeze out more blood than remains in the aviation stone, because the expiry of their current lease (from the former Federal Airports Corporation) came up not long after BAL took over the airport. The message was not lost on other airport tenants whose leases would expire in the coming months and years.

Aviation people all over Australia (like those who attended the Bankstown event yesterday) are now becoming more aware of the threat to their industry from the betrayals and oversights of successive governments over the last (almost 20) years.

They have identified the problems and now they want them fixed.

First, the government must acknowledge that multiple unintended problems exist. If that is in doubt, and high school student with a flair for statistics would be far more helpful than the sources the government is currently using.

The next step would be to examine the purpose and intent of the Airports Act 1966, and the degree to which it has been observed and complied with in policy.

Next for scrutiny, are the mechanisms that were put in place – the constraints on airport operators detailed in the leases of GAAP and other airports under the Act, and also in the Deeds of Transfer related to about 350 regional airports under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP).

The burning questions become obvious:

• Have the legal contracts entered into by head-lease holders at GAAP (and other) airports covered by the Act been adequately enforced?
• If not, why not?
• And what is the fix for these negligences?

And exactly the same questions must be asked and answered about the outrageous handling of the ALOP airports.

AviationAdvertiser.com.au has now conducted considerable research on these issues and we already have a volume of documented evidence that points to specific deficiencies in the way the privatisation processes have been managed and monitored.

We have offered to use our resources to help consolidate industry concern and to present it, along with ample documented evidence, to those who bear responsibility for the proper conduct of government processes, and ultimately also for continued failure to meet those responsibilities.

The outcomes everybody hopes for are nothing more than an acknowledgment that the process hasn’t met its goals, and a very rapid response based on actions, not words.

If you want to help but would like to know more, just send an email to pdphelan@aviationadvertiser.com.au and we’ll email you some interesting reading, along with space to add a signature in support of this awakening.

And keep watching this space.

Tenants of Caloundra airport are gearing up for another fight in defence of their airport, fearing that some Sunshine Coast Regional Councillors (SCRC) are getting too close to the land developers who are pressing for aerodrome closure.

“Recent comments in the media from Councillor Anna Grosskreutz such as: ‘councillors needed to have space before any decision could be made’ and references to ‘helicopters behaving badly’ clearly indicate that she is not a supporter of keeping the airport and is rather trying to undermine our efforts using the aircraft noise issue,” says airport tenant group representative David Miles.

“The fact is that noise complaint statistics confirm there is only a very small number of individuals who complain regularly.”

The looming dispute surrounds the 1992 Deed of Trust signed by the (then) Caloundra City Council before it was amalgamated into the huge local government body that covers the entire Sunshine Coast.

Mr. Miles and his supporters believe the Caloundra Council and the Supreme Court were in breach of the Deed of Trust’s Para H (i) requiring it to ‘create land use zoning around the aerodrome which will prevent residential and other incompatible development in areas which are, or which may be, adversely affected by aircraft noise.’

“Sunshine Coast Regional Council has inherited the responsibility to uphold the content of the Deed of Trust and if they approve Belle Vista 2 [the current development proposal] they will again be in breach of the Deed,” said Mr. Miles, referring to the current development proposal.

“There is also a positive letter today from urging Mayor Bob Abbott to keep his election promise to “save the airport if he had the power” Well he now has that power, he’s an environmentalist, and I think if he really understood the issues he would be supportive of the airport.

“A Caloundra Council decision that was made in (about) 2007 very clearly stated that the Council supported closure of the aerodrome “providing a replacement aerodrome is provided for the existing users to relocate. Now that the State Government has ceased investigating relocation that should mean the 2007 decision defaults to not supporting closure of the aerodrome,” says Mr. Miles.

“Three weeks ago at a meeting at Council, Councillor Grosskreutz confirmed that was the decision on the books. At that meeting she claimed no knowledge of the Deed of Trust, even suggesting a cover up. Her position now, only weeks later, appears to be: “It’s (The Deed of Trust) is not worth the paper it is printed on.”

Those words have been repeatedly used by councilors seeking closure of the airport, including former Mayor Don Aldis.

However recent correspondence dated March 2010, from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, indicates clearly that the Commonwealth recognises the existence of the Deed and of SCRC’s obligations.

The group is also alarmed by the apparent support of town planner Warren Bunker who “appears to be pro airport closure, and is the man whose idea it was in the first place.”

Mr Miles understands that council’s first meeting on the subject is next Tuesday (April 20) with the three people briefing council being Councillor Anna Grosskreutz, Town Planner Warren Bunker, and Deputy Mayor Tim Dwyer.

Attention anyone conducting retail business on GAAP or other Commonwealth-owned airports:

Airport tenant Bema Gold (Australia) Pty Ltd yesterday was before the Victorian Civil Administration Tribunal (VCAT) seeking relief against forfeiture of its premises at Moorabbin Airport. It sought a declaration that the premises are retail premises within the meaning in the Retail Leases Act 2003. And they had a win.

The Act was designed to protect business property lessees from excessive and unjustifiable rentals and other conditions demanded of retail tenants by some shopping centres. Commonwealth head-lease holders have long argued immunity from various provisions including lease disputes and planning permissions on the basis that they are operating on Commonwealth property.

The matter was heard yesterday (Thursday, 11 March 2010) and determined by the Tribunal before Deputy President Michael Macnamara.

In the Act, Retail Premises means: “premises, not including any area intended for use as a residence, that under the terms of the lease relating to the premises are used, or are to be used, wholly or predominantly for-

(a).  the sale or hire of goods by retail or the retail provision of services……”.

Bema was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that “hangarage” and its use of the premises for hangarage constituted the retail provision of services, and therefore the premises came within the meaning of the Retail Leases Act.

The implications are that the provisions and protection provided by the Act cover the leasing of hangarage and other services such as aircraft maintenance, charter and training if they are provided as retail provision of services.

We spoke with Barry Moshel Solicitor from Caulfield, Vic, who acted for the successful applicant Bema Gold in the matter. He said that his client was delighted as the implications of the decision are that protection for the tenant is now provided under the Act.

The protections under the Act includes the benefit of the “unconscionable conduct” provisions under the Act which protect the tenant against grossly unfair conduct by landlords, appointment of a specialist retail valuer when the lease goes to market (for example upon exercise of option for a further term) and the assignment provisions where the landlord cannot refuse an assignment of lease unless under certain situations.

The VCAT determination has not been published as yet. There will have to be  implications and application of this decision for the many other tenants in the various airports in Victoria who may be carrying on and providing retail services where the Retail Leases Act may well apply.

The decision is expected to bring considerable relief to Victorian airport tenants. Lessees at interstate airports who are similarly affected, would be well advised to identify whether parallel State legislation exists, especially if their leases specifically allow for hangarage or other retail activities.

Helicopter pilot training professionals contacting AviationAdvertiser say they were appalled to hear that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) was not investigating the training helicopter crash on Mount Barney near Kyogle on January 28.

According to reports and photographs, Robinson R44 Raven helicopter VH-RWN collided with a sharp rock-strewn ridge, at the very lip of an almost vertical precipice estimated at about 1,000 feet.

The accident occurred during a training flight and the three occupants were two Omani student pilots and an Australian instructor.

They say the pilot obviously failed to enter and maintain a hover and collided with the ridge, rolling on its right side at the brink the cliff. Industry identities say it was “almost a miracle” that the aircraft was not destroyed either by impact or falling from the cliff.

The reason the pilot was demonstrating that procedure in that environment has not been explained, and possibly never will be because the ATSB has decided not to investigate the accident.

When asked why ATSB was not investigation the accident, officials explained that the bureau’s resources are limited, that the annual number of accidents reported exceeds its capacity to investigate them all, and that ATSB’s priorities therefore had to focus on major accidents or incidents from which important safety lessons could be learned for the benefit of aviation as a whole.

Not good enough, we’re told by people who have been in helicopter operations and training all their lives. One of them says:

“It’s appalling. You could just about do the complete investigation without stepping out of your office in Canberra. The ridge top was about 4,300’, give or take 50 feet, and there wasn’t anywhere you could land, so one of the first things helicopter pilots – and especially instructors – learn, went out the window. That’s “don’t practice forced landings anywhere you can’t actually land.”

“But that’s not the worst bit. Take the empty weight of the helicopter, add the minimum amount of fuel it would have had to carry to do whatever the pilot was trying to do and return to base with minimum reserves, then add the weight of the three people on board, and the look at the density altitude which (given the ambient temperature) would have been over six thousand feet above sea level.

“Then look at the performance graphs for that model Robbo, and you’ll see that it was an attempt to do something that absolutely had to result in failure to arrest the descent, and the loss of control that followed. The aircraft was well above its full throttle height [the height above which normal engine performance begins to diminish even at full throttle] and there was simply no chance of recovering.”

Three other experienced helicopter pilot/instructors known to us have provided similar evaluations, also venting forceful views on the quality of training at some schools, the lack of adequate regulatory oversight in helicopter and other areas of flight training, and apparent ATSB disinterest in what one of them describes as “systemic failure to deliver competent training in an environment that appears to be full of incompetence, lack of oversight, and apparent corruption.”

We also called CASA, to check on statements that the regulator too had decided not to investigate, and explaining industry concerns at the reported decision.

CASA later some time returned the call and its spokesman told us CASA was now “taking an interest” in the matter.

Professional flying schools, both helicopter and fixed wing, have long expressed concern at the quality of some Australian flight schools, which they say may damage the reputation of the Australian pilot training industry to a point where it could close down businesses and their export income altogether.

They are hoping that both ATSB and CASA (whom they tell us are barely on speaking terms) might team up to become more positive, assertive and effective.

Qantas’ low-cost carrier Jetstar has changed its operating procedures following a mishandled missed approach during an attempted instrument landing system (ILS) approach at Melbourne on July 21, 2007.

A report released today by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) found that the go-around didn’t work as intended for two primary reasons. First, the engine thrust levers had been incorrectly positioned for the manoeuvre; and second, the flight crew had been unaware of the aircraft’s “flight mode status” during the first part of the missed approach because of the sequencing of the operator ’s flight procedures.

Following an uneventful flight from Christchurch with eight crew and 105 passengers, the Jetstar Airbus A320 was aligned for an instrument landing approach, but Melbourne airport was shrouded in fog, and several other inbound aircraft had already had to carry out missed approaches (also called “go-arounds.”)

Aligned with Runway 27 and approaching the “decision height” (the published minimum height unless the crew can see the runway), the pilot in command (PIC) moved the thrust levers forward to what he thought was the takeoff go-around (TOGA) position.

Movement of the thrust levers to that point re-sets the aircraft’s flight management computers to the vertical and horizontal flight modes necessary for a go-around and initial climb using the “speed-reference-system mode.”

However the flight data recorder shows the levers were moved only to a point just forward of the flexible-maximum continuous thrust (FLX/MCT) detent and did not reach the TOGA position. (A detent is a groove in the throttle quadrant that helps hold the levers in the selected position.)

When the “gear up” order was given, the PIC retarded the thrust levers back to the climb (CL) detent, as if conducting a missed approach with an early reduction of thrust – a manoeuvre known to Airbus flight crews as a “TOGA tap.”

However there was no confirmation from the aircraft ’s flight mode annunciator (FMA) that the thrust levers had reached the TOGA position before being retarded to the CL detent.

Normal procedures when changing the flight mode require pilots to check that the FMA is displaying the selected mode.

The copilot responded to the ‘go -around ’ command from the PIC and commenced the checklist actions required by the operator ’s standard operating procedures (SOP).

These included raising the flaps one stage, selecting gear up after a positive climb had been established, and monitoring the aircraft ’s rate of climb.

Vertical flight path and body angle clues available to a crew at this point include the ILS needles, vertical speed indicator, artificial horizon, airspeed indicator, altimeter, the aural warning (TOO LOW! GEAR!) from the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS), and automated aural readouts of actual height above ground triggered by the radio altimeter.

The EGPWS sensed that the aircraft was still descending with the gear selected up. The gear configuration warning, the master warning and aural alerts continued sounding despite the copilot’s attempts to cancel the gear warning.

The ATSB report says: “The reported distractions and increased workload possibly contributed to the copilot ’s momentary inability to recall the required announcement in the case of a continuing descent [“SINK RATE”], with the result that the go-around procedure did not progress at the point of the ‘positive climb ’ call. Following the initial movement of the thrust levers, neither of the flight crew identified the aircraft ’s actual flight mode. The announcement of the FMA status was an item that the aircraft manufacturer had included in the early part of its go-around SOP, in order to ensure crews’ awareness of the aircraft’s flight mode.

ATSB says: “As there were three simultaneous changes to the aircraft ’s flight mode during a go-around (thrust setting, vertical and lateral guidance modes), this announcement was pivotal in ensuring flight crew awareness of any changes in the aircraft ’s flight modes. The change to the go-around procedure that had been made by the aircraft operator, to move the order of that announcement from the third to the ninth item, meant that its crews’ flight mode awareness could be lost, as the majority of the procedure had to be performed, without error or delay, before the crew got to the item that confirmed the flight mode status of the aircraft.”

About 48 seconds after the PIC performed what had been intended as a TOGA tap, the thrust levers were again advanced, but this time far enough to reach the TOGA detent.

In the meantime the aircraft had continued descending towards the runway, accelerating to an airspeed of 164 knots and reaching a recorded radio altitude of 38 feet above the surface before recovery.

A second ILS approach was attempted and the aircraft behaved normally but the crew was again forced to make a missed approach, followed by a successful landing at Avalon.

The investigation found that Jetstar had changed its cockpit procedures and the FMA status checklist item had been moved from third to ninth position. ATSB noted that the operator had not conducted a formal risk analysis prior to the change: “In addition, the operator is reviewing its flight training requirements, has invoked a number of changes to its document control procedures, and has revised the incident reporting requirements of its safety management system.

“In addition to the safety action taken by the aircraft operator the aircraft manufacturer has, as a result of the occurrence, enhanced its published go-around procedures to emphasise the critical nature of the flight crew actions during a go-around.”

The ATSB adds: “This incident has prompted the operator to change its go-around procedures and to ensure that a formal risk assessment is done for any changes to aircraft operating procedures. The ATSB has also issued a safety advisory notice to all aircraft operators reminding them of the importance of conducting risk assessments before changes to operating procedures are implemented.”

The ATSB is also concerned that because of Jetstar’s reporting of the event, it almost went uninvestigated: “The ATSB assessed that the circumstances did not warrant the initiation of an investigation. On 11 September 2007, in response to media reports of a potentially serious incident at Melbourne Airport, the ATSB contacted the operator, who provided additional information on the 21 July incident. Based on that additional information, the ATSB re-assessed the circumstances to be of sufficient seriousness to warrant the initiation of an investigation.

“The ATSB investigation also found that Jetstar’s reporting of the occurrence had not met the requirements of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.”

The ATSB report does not discuss whether any of the crew or passengers actually sighted the runway, although industry sources say the crew saw the runway markings, which is unsurprising at an altitude of 38 feet.

One of our readers throws some further light on the event:

“I was on the flight. I noticed the power spool up and then the runway sighted and thought it was quite close below us. A fleeting glance. Then the fog obscured it again. The rest was handled well. First thought was it was a bugger that the go-around was initiated and had to be continued when the runway appeared. I never felt threatened, but if it was as close as the data says then let’s get it out in the open. No cover-ups should be allowed. Why has this taken so long to come out?”

Good question.

Pressure is now mounting from all GAAP airport users for a case by case review of  CASA CEO John McCormick’s “Directive 329/09”,  which applies uniform restrictions on all GAAPs regardless of major differences in airspace layout, traffic movements and other key issues.

In the most recent move Jandakot airport users have written to the Director claiming his decision was based on now-discredited advice, without an impact statement or appropriate consultation, battering their businesses and damaging the training industry’s international credibility.

Several independent experts have also criticised the language and the risk analysis methodology and assumptions of the “Ambidji Report” on which the decision was based. Jandakot users say they are now being locked out of meaningful consultation, with local officials refusing to discuss how Class D airspace is to be implemented.

Here’s their letter to Mr McCormick:

Mr. J.F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
GPO Box 2005
Canberra, ACT 2601

CASA Directive 329/09 – Proposed Introduction of Class D Airspace

Dear Mr. McCormick,

Following our letter to you on August 12th 2009 and my subsequent telephone conversation with Terry Farquharson in September, we still have major concerns over this directive and the lack of consultation with the operators at Jandakot Airport.

Background

We represent the operators and users of Jandakot Airport. This is the most successful GA airport in Australia and the largest training base for GA in the Southern Hemisphere. Much effort has been invested by the WA government over the last 15 years to encourage overseas training organisations’ relocation to Jandakot. All training up to CPL/IR levels for Singapore Airlines and China Southern is based at Jandakot. This is in addition to another ten flying schools including the Royal Aero Club of WA. We understand that collectively, the training establishments at Jandakot represent close on half all new Commercial Pilots Licences issued in Australia.

Obligation To Issue A Regulation Impact Statement

Given the substantial business cost impact of your directive 329/09 to our members, you are obligated as a public servant to issue a Regulation Impact Statement. This we have yet to see. Our initial assessment shows a reduction in revenue of 20% and reduction in operators’ profits of up to 40%. This is not a “low impact” impost on business, including the $80 million export revenue generated by Jandakot training establishments.

In addition to the administrative requirement to issue a Regulation Impact Statement, you may also have obligations to address under Section 44ZZ et al, of the Trade Practices Act.

Rationale For Change Discredited

You issued this CASA directive following the publication of the Ambidji Review.

a) Independent assessments of the Ambidji Review call into serious question the statistical methodology (See appendix 1). In essence, the statistical basis is nonsense.

b) The anecdotal evidence in the report as it relates to Jandakot is flawed and is statistically irrelevant. 78% of respondents to the Ambidji survey questionnaire never operate at Jandakot airport. Of those respondents that do operate into Jandakot, only 7% visit the airport more than monthly.

c) As Jandakot Airport represents close on half all GA training activity in Australia, the Ambidji consultants should be directed to consult with our local aviation community before making spurious comments and using provocative language (e.g. intolerable risk ) in relation to the safety issues at Jandakot.

d) We are surprised CASA personnel did not review this report in a professional, measured and structured way. Instead, there appears to have been a knee-jerk reaction to a flawed report. This is not something the aviation community expects from what up to now has been a highly professional public service organisation.

Consultation

Your personnel have not entered into any meaningful consultation with the stakeholders at Jandakot Airport.

a) At meetings with our members, none of your staff is prepared to discuss why the successful extant GAAP procedures should not be retained or modified to perhaps improve safety and efficiency.

b) CASA staff are only willing to dictate to the members of the aviation community, and declare that Class D airspace will be introduced at Jandakot.

c) When asked how this Class D airspace will be implemented at Jandakot, they are reticent and will not outline how it will be done. It is almost as though CASA management is gagging its staff.

d) At the last WA RAPAC meeting, the state operators were so concerned about the process adopted by CASA to propose Class D airspace, that they voted a no confidence motion in the way CASA is handling the process.

Problems Associated With The Introduction of Class D Airspace at Jandakot

a) The dimensions of the control zone are such that it would be difficult to implement effective Class D Airspace control.

b) The integration of IFR procedures under Class D between Perth Airport and Jandakot would result in significant delays for VFR operations and circuit operations.

c) Special VFR operations at Jandakot (e.g. retrieving students from encroaching weather in the training area) could impact RPT operations at Perth.

d) Because of the size and shape of the control zone at Jandakot it would be difficult to introduce Class D airspace as practiced in North America.

Proposal

a) In line with the Jandakot “HAZID” meeting recommendations, we would like to see movements and circuit traffic numbers continue to be controlled at the discretion of Air Traffic Control.

b) You as the regulator have a duty of care not to rush into dramatic airspace changes at Jandakot without due diligence, careful review, consultation with the stakeholders and sound numbers.

c) Jandakot, with a fine safety record over the last 40 years, can be seen as a model for good airspace design.

Yours faithfully,

Michael G. Braybrook
President, Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce

Industry identities this week were dismayed at a reported CASA decision to establish an in-house “Ethics and Conduct Committee,” apparently either bypassing or replacing the regulator’s Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC).

CASA will not comment on details of the new group, understood to have been instituted by order of CASA Director John McCormick,

We asked CASA today: “I am aware that the Director has ordered the formation of an ‘Ethics & Conduct Committee’ within CASA and that the committee’s membership includes Messrs:

• Terry Farquharson, who has recently been appointed Acting Executive Manager of the Office of the Director of Aviation Safety;
• Jonathan Aleck, currently Head of Legal Services; and
• Gary Harbor, Executive Manager, Corporate Services.

CASA advised it “can’t offer anything.”

We had also asked for missing details which would have defined the committee’s total membership, terms of reference, reporting lines, responsibilities in terms of published CASA policy, and means of ensuring its decisions will be able to be made independently of the committee members’ employers.

AviationAdvertiser holds ample documentation that reveals that at least two of the committee members we’ve named are the subject of numerous grievances currently under the scrutiny of the ICC, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Federal Court, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and possibly other agencies – as well as a small mountain of even more unresolved issues.

Complainants cover the entire spectrum of industry activity within CASA’s responsibility. However we’re not identifying any of these at the moment because of the need to confer with each of the many victims, some of whom fear further adverse reactions from the regulator or from individual officials. They cover aircraft maintenance & overhaul services, aircraft and parts manufacturers, airworthiness issues, flight operations, AOC and workshop approval holders, and individual licence and approval holders.

Other victims of alleged CASA abuses whose businesses and lives have been damaged by over-zealous and/or inadequately overseen, trained and supervised officials, say they are watching one of these matters – the events surrounding Polar Aviation’s lawsuit with great interest. See: Mouse in the House of CASA

In 1996 the Attorney-General’s Department provided CASA with a legal opinion that (in part) warned that in relation to various legal actions which may be brought against CASA – such as negligence, including negligent misstatement, breach of confidence, injurious falsehood or misfeasance in public office – the government indemnity will not apply in favour of a CASA officer, where that officer is guilty of serious or wilful misconduct. “The likelihood that such actions would be brought, not only on the grounds of defamation, appears very high,” said the advice.

The Polar Aviation lawsuit, which was scheduled to be the subject of a directions hearing today, seeks unquantifed damages from three named CASA officials including Mr Farquharson, from three former officials, and also from CASA itself.

Industry figures believe the environment for generating further complaints is now increasing and that the risk exists, that members of the new committee may find themselves investigating complaints against themselves, many of which are already published documents.

Opinion Editorial, Paul Phelan.

Many aviation industry identities have contacted us over the past week to express surprise at a series of recent executive appointments by CASA’s new CEO John McCormick. Their concerns cover virtually all CASA activity – regulatory reform, flying operations, airworthiness, aviation medicine, compliance & enforcement and legal.

They are shocked to find that many of the necessary reforms implemented under Bruce Byron appear now to be reversed by individuals who have been unexpectedly promoted within the organisation.

A growing number of CASA employees have now either left because of what they see as a deteriorating workplace or are in the “departure lounge.” New appointees include:

• Terence Farquharson, who is to now effectively Chief of Staff at CASA, having been appointed head of the office of Director of Aviation Safety John McCormick.

Mr Farquharson was recently promoted to this acting position apparently without the normal public service formalities. He is currently being sued for a seven-figure sum in damages by Western Australia AOC holder Gerard Repacholi, who alleges misfeasance in public office which damaged his business.

Separately Mr Clark Butson of WA-based Polar Aviation is also sueing Mr Farquharson and a small number of other CASA officials personally on similar grounds. For details see: http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2009/02/theres-still-a-mouse-in-the-house-of-casa/).

As (then) Regional Manager Western Region, Mr Farquharson was also involved in a serious legal farce when actions by CASA eventually forced Mr Barney Fernandes to sell his interest in the China Southern West Australian Flying College of which he was then Managing Director. Not satisfied with bullying China Southern into ousting Mr Fernandes, CASA subsequently laid criminal charges against Mr Fernandes on 28 separate counts of conducting training flights without an approved Chief Flying Instructor.

Apparently the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions finally got the message in the form of a nolle prosequi submission by top Western Australian criminal lawyer Malcolm McCusker in July 2003; but CASA reacted only days before this legal extravaganza was to begin and the case did not proceed. After two years of worry for Mr Fernandes and his wife, the entire case was abandoned, albeit at huge cost to both the taxpayer and Mr and Mrs Fernandes.

This issue is now being examined by CASA’s Industry Complaints Commissioner. See also a detailed analysis of these events, titled Bastardising Barney which has been published and is available on request to paulphelan@aviationadvertiser.com.au

• Narelle Tredrea, a lawyer who has acquired a reputation for legal adventurism in her relentless pursuit of convictions apparently regardless of cost, damage, or veracity. As one recent example, see http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2009/04/dad’s-army-rides-again/. That travesty, which resulted in Mareeba pilot Richard Rudd being charged with an offence which was physically impossible to commit, was thrown out when CASA became aware that statements made by three CASA officials were untruthful. The matter was examined by an external investigator and CASA subsequently advised that the three had been found not to have breached the “CASA code of practice”, which was not what Mr Rudd had accused them of.

Ms Tredrea has also distinguished herself in a recent action against John Johansen, a record-breaking GA pilot who was accused of some relatively minor infringements. CASA management who examined the case agreed that the matter should be dealt with through a couple of infringement notices and some voluntary undertakings by Mr Johansen. But although that course of action was endorsed by the head of CASA’s legal department, Ms Tredrea has subsequently caused Mr Johansen to be charged with five criminal offences.

• And Mr John Flannery, now designated “Head of Continuing Airworthiness,” was the delegate in a decision to remove the training approvals of Cairns general aviation Max Davy. The decision was finally reversed after publication of an analysis titled Dudding the Delegate, available on request to paulphelan@aviationadvertiser.com.au, and a small number of involved CASA employees has since left the organisation. Unfortunately there are numerous other well-documented events in which Mr Flannery’s interactions with industry have had serious effects on industry organisations and individuals as well as on CASA’s reputation. Some of these are a little technical and will be the subject of a separate report.

In the medical area, CASA is now seeking to “get tough” on the issue of pilot colour vision tests, which have been studied to death in the past, particularly by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We’re told this may include annual colour vision tests (currently required only on initial issue) and that this is so far from international practice and research that it can only be described another uniquely Australian regulatory aberration. Principal Medical Officer Dr Pooshan Navathe is reported to have told a medical conference in Vanuatu recently that CASA intends to be “a regulator with a capital R.” Does this make you see red? (Or green?)

And Mr Ken Cannane, a former senior CASA airworthiness official and currently Executive Director of the Australian Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul Business Association, is now preparing an analysis of CASA’s failure, over the past twenty years, to deliver meaningful regulatory reform, which we hope to publish next week.

One caller told us: “The drain of talent from CASA has now put the organisation back twenty years. I don’t think the industry can survive these shenanigans.”

Another suggested that inappropriate people are now “running the asylum.”

Sorry, we’d like to have ended the week on a brighter note.  Comments from the industry are welcomed.

Imagine finding yourself at the controls of a heavy jet bomber that just accidently became airborne, following a poorly executed high-speed taxi demonstration…Enter a 70 year old retired RAF pilot, Mr Bob Prothero, who managed to carefully place the 50 year old bomber back on mother earth.  Both pilot and co-pilot should purchase a lottery ticket.

Ed.

Click here to view the embedded video.