Posts

Helicopter Safety and CASA Complaint Process

,

In this Senate Estimate session, I asked questions regarding helicopter pilot safety procedures and was informed about the minimum heights required for flying over residential areas, along with general safety protocols.

I also learned about the process for filing complaints and the types of evidence that would be helpful to confirm any reported breaches. The CASA representatives were quite helpful and informative.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s do some safety related questions. Thank you for the copies of the permits with regard to helicopter flying and dispersion of chemicals. How low may a helicopter fly to distribute insecticide over a property? 

Ms Spence: I might refer that to my colleague. 

Mr Campbell: It can vary, but generally, for dispensing operations, it can be as low as 300 feet, or lower if it’s crop spraying. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about in a hilly valley? 

Mr Campbell: The pilots would have to take that into account. When they do dropping operations, they always do a risk assessment, and that will all come into it. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about around houses, especially houses that have water tanks for catching drinking water off the roof? 

Mr Campbell: Anything near a populous area will require not only the risk assessment but consultation with that property to go through those kinds of matters. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t have environmental responsibility? 

Mr Campbell: No, we don’t. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. How close can they fly to a house? Could they fly close enough to disperse toxins on a house? 

Mr Campbell: The drop site will be planned out previously, and it won’t involve a house. It’s up to the pilot and the operator to ensure that anything that’s dropped remains within the planned drop site. 

Ms Spence: Senator, it’s a bit like the other question. As we briefed your adviser, if someone has evidence of a helicopter dropping bait in a way that’s not consistent with the way that Mr Campbell has described, again, they should report it to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority or through the ATSB’s REPCON process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Must a helicopter avoid flying low over houses and dumping payload onto residential buildings? It sounds like they must. 

Ms Spence: That’s exactly right; they must. And if they don’t, then it should be reported to us. We do not have any examples of it having been reported to us. So, again, as we briefed your office, we would appreciate examples of that happening. And it can’t just be an anecdotal one; we would need to have as much information as possible—preferably photos that would allow us to see what has actually happened. 

Senator ROBERTS: Must a helicopter avoid dumping payloads of what it’s dispersing, to use your words, Mr Campbell, in creeks and waterways? Or is that beyond your authority? 

Mr Campbell: That is beyond our remit. We deal with safety—as long as they are not dropping anything that’s going to injure humans or animals or damage property. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, if a helicopter pilot dispenses something that hurts humans or animals— 

Mr Campbell: Injures or damages. 

Senator ROBERTS: Injures or damages. What’s ‘injures’, literally? Is it ingestion of chemicals that cause someone to be sick or an animal to die? 

Mr Campbell: No, I don’t think it extends to illnesses that are created from whatever the dispensing agent is. It is about when it hits the ground or near a person. 

Ms Spence: Physically. 

Senator ROBERTS: If it becomes a projectile. 

Ms Spence: It’s an issue where, again, as we’ve discussed, there are multiple regulators in this space. Issues about the impact of the chemicals that are used to bait the fire ants are not something that we have any role in approving or anything like that, so I expect that concerns about the impact on the environment as a result of how those baits are used are probably better taken up with someone in the environment portfolio. 

Senator ROBERTS: We are, and we’ll be taking it up here again with a third committee. What can be done to stop a helicopter pilot from doing any of the things like dropping payloads on crops, animals, creeks, waterways or houses? 

Ms Spence: If it’s reported to us, we can then investigate. The more information we have, the more likely we can actually take enforcement actions against an operator who does something illegally. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your permits, as I understand it, don’t come with conditions. Do you leave it up to the pilot? 

Mr Campbell: The operator, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: So it’d be pretty hard to say that the pilot has done something wrong. 

Ms Spence : No. If they’re flying below the height that’s approved—again, as we passed on to your office, a lot of those details are set out in the actual manual of standards and the regulations. So, if they’re operating in a way that’s not consistent with the manual of standards or the regulations, that can get reported to us and we can then take enforcement action. 

Senator ROBERTS: What would you say into the camera now, to constituents in Queensland who are infested with these helicopters disturbing them? 

Ms Spence: I would say that they should be reporting. If they are concerned that a helicopter is operating outside the parameters that Mr Campbell outlined to you, they should be reporting that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Where would they find those parameters? 

Ms Spence: There’s the material that we did send through to your office, but it is around the 300 feet and the area in which they can operate. 

Mr Campbell: Yes. If there are residents out there who feel that helicopters are dropping— 

Ms Spence: Flying too low— 

Mr Campbell: flying too low around their home, they can take video footage or take photos, as Ms Spence said, and report them, and we’ll do our best to assess whether they’ve operated outside of their approval. 

Senator ROBERTS: How do you regulate these behaviours? How do you regulate their behaviours? 

Ms Spence: The same ways—we provide the approval that they can operate in accordance with the requirements that we set, and then, if someone has evidence to say that someone is operating outside of those parameters, we investigate and we can either take enforcement action or refer it to the DPP. 

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair. What’s the process for making complaints about breaches of safety protocols or regulations? 

Ms Spence: On our website, there is actually a mechanism to report a safety concern, and I think the ATSB has also got a similar ability to report on their website. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, and, after months or years of trying to extract things from CASA, it is a pleasure to have you in my office giving us information freely. 

Ms Spence: Always happy to help, Senator. 

/by

CASA Has Loose Ends It “Cannot Recall”

,

CASA’s credibility is in free fall.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is meant to be the authority regulating aviation safety and yet senior executives have free and exclusive access to Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge that aren’t available to the public. These exclusive memberships were not listed as gifts or benefits on the register until AFTER I drew attention to them. CASA quietly updated their website with these gift memberships without issuing a clarification.

How is this not a conflict of interest? The behaviour of these senior CASA members is bordering on contemptuous and as the Chair noted during this Estimates session, it’s sloppy.

What else is hidden from the public by Miss Spence and other CASA executives?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s tidy up some loose ends. We’ve got a fresh set of questions coming in May. I asked at the previous estimates whether CASA was aware of all the incidents in relation to Qantas on a list that I circulated. Ms Spence told me that these were all ones that CASA was aware of, yet in the answer to question on notice SQ23003791 CASA clarified it actually wasn’t aware of five of the provided incidents. Can you clarify whether those events were then self-reported or if CASA had to make inquiries to Qantas to initiate those reports? 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I don’t think that was at the last hearings. Was it at the hearing before that you raised those issues? 

Senator ROBERTS: It was October-November 2023. 

Ms Spence: It wasn’t at our last hearings, I don’t think. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the date I’ve got written on the Hansard reference. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I’ll have to take that on notice. I don’t have the information in front of me. Apologies. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, presumably, the answer, presumably from CASA, says that four of the five incidents—they say in brackets afterwards, ‘this event has now been reported’. So at the time it wasn’t. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I genuinely don’t have that document in front of me so I can’t— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m telling you what the document says. 

Ms Spence: I know. And it’s very difficult for me not having it in front of me to be able to explain what the context was. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to make a copy of this? 

Mr Marcelja: Sorry, I’m just looking for it as well. 

Ms Spence: I know the document you’re talking about, but I genuinely thought it was— 

Mr Marcelja: A bit further back. 

Ms Spence: My recollection was that you raised a list, and we said we thought most of them would have been covered. The reason we took it on notice was to test which ones we were aware of and which ones we weren’t aware of. And the ones that— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll remind you that I asked you if you’d seen these incidents on the document. Without looking at the document, you said, ‘No, these are not on the document.’ 

Ms Spence: I doubt very much— 

Senator ROBERTS: Then I said, ‘Would you please look at the document before answering?’ How can you have any credibility with me? 

Ms Spence: Obviously I don’t. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, you don’t. You don’t have a lot of credibility with many pilots either. 

Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I just genuinely don’t. I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’. 

Senator ROBERTS: You also told me that the frequency of incidents on the list that I gave you, before you’d seen it, was not out of the ordinary. If some of the incidents weren’t reported to you then it’s hard for you to say that there isn’t an increase in frequency, correct? 

Ms Spence: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If you look at the last one there, the October 2022 Perth-Sydney incident, it remained unreported. What is the status of your investigations on this incident? 

Ms Spence: We don’t investigate. The ATSB investigates. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t chase it up with Qantas? 

Ms Spence: As I said, I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’ and what we did, but at the end of the day we do not do accident or incident investigations. Unidentified speaker: If I could— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask the questions here. That might be the question you’d like me to ask. 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have you inquired about that incident? 

Ms Spence: I just said I’d take that on notice. I don’t know. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. Do you believe that senior leadership of the agency that is meant to be regulating aviation—that’s your agency—having access to the exclusive Qantas Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge creates a conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not even as a potential perceived conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: In the May 2022 Senate estimates your evidence was that all gifts and benefits were listed on your website under the gifts and benefits register. That wasn’t true, was it? 

Ms Spence: I thought that they all were on the list. I haven’t deliberately misled the committee. If something wasn’t included, I apologise. But everything is certainly on the register now. 

Senator ROBERTS: Now? 

Ms Spence: And has been for some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you put it on the register, that means you think it was a gift. But you told me it wasn’t a gift. 

Mr Marcelja: We were pretty clear in our written response that those memberships predated people joining CASA. We clarified that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. That’s clarified in your opinion, but it doesn’t clarify it so far as the Public Service Association is concerned. Senior members of the aviation regulator had been given access to exclusive airline clubs that aren’t available to the public, and this was kept a secret from Australians. Yet you maintain that this doesn’t create even a potential conflict of interest. 

Ms Spence: I don’t accept the premise that it was kept a secret. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one too. This explanation from the Australian Public Service Commission is very important: “… Public confidence in APS agencies and the APS more broadly can be damaged when gifts and benefits that create a conflict of interest are accepted or not properly declared. The appearance of a conflict can be just as damaging to public confidence in public administration as a conflict which gives rise to a concern based on objective facts”. Having gifted access to exclusive aviation lounges is obviously a conflict of interest when you are the aviation regulator—the aviation regulator. 

Ms Spence: No, we’re the aviation safety regulator. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is regardless of whether the benefit predates the official’s employment, and this was not declared. 

Ms Spence: I genuinely don’t recall us not being on the register—of me having Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond lounge membership. When I was in the department and first received those invitations to join those, it’s always been something that I’ve declared in any of my potential conflicts of interest. Notwithstanding that, I genuinely don’t believe it creates a conflict of interest. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue. It’s very concerning to me that you try to tell this committee that all benefits were declared on the gift register at a time they clearly were not. You made no mention of the fact that you had updated the register with these gifts— 

Mr Marcelja: Senator, we— 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja, I’m trying to talk! 

Ms Spence: Just— 

Senator ROBERTS: You just quietly updated the webpage and tried to act like those things had been there properly for the entire time, and that’s not the case, is it? The gifts weren’t on the register at the time you gave evidence to this committee that they were. Ms Spence: Senator, I’ll have to take that on notice. I genuinely thought that they were always on the register. If they weren’t, they’re certainly on there now and it has never been a secret that I’ve had those lounge memberships. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, it seems that it’s contemptuous of this committee for you to try and just quietly update this information in the secretive manner that you have. Why not alert the committee that the previous evidence was incorrect and issue a clarification, which is what most honest public servants do? 

Ms Spence: As we said in our response to your question, nothing was declared on the CASA gifts and benefits register as no lounge access had actually been provided to CASA executives or board members as a result of their roles in CASA. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a furphy, Ms Spence! They have done— 

Ms Spence: It’s not a furphy, Senator! 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re making out that they had them before they joined CASA. 

Ms Spence: They did—I did. 

Senator ROBERTS: They still have them— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: and they weren’t declared. Then, when you updated it to declare them, you didn’t advise the committee. You just did it quietly. 

Ms Spence: I’m genuinely sorry that you feel that I’ve misled the committee— 

Senator ROBERTS: It isn’t my feelings that matter! It’s the facts that matter— 

Ms Spence: Well, I apologise to the committee unreservedly, but there was never any intention to mislead. As I said, the issue, as far as I can recall, was because you list things as they’re provided to you, and because they were already in the possession of myself and some of our board members prior to them actually being on the board they must not have been listed originally. They’re on there now, and I have nothing else I can say. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, does this— 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my last question. This brings much of the evidence that you’ve given to this committee into question, Ms Spence, if this is how you deal with answers that you later find are incorrect. We wouldn’t even know this unless someone had trawled back through the internet archives. You have apologised; is there anything else you need to apologise for in our exchanges? 

Ms Spence: No, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see you as a credible witness with your evidence, Ms Spence. 

CHAIR: What I might do, Senator Roberts, due to the hour, is this. I have kept saying all day that we have that report about behaviour—you know what it is—and you have made your point. Ms Spence, it is sloppy— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

CHAIR: Let’s get over it. The behaviour of politicians in this building over the last few years is pretty questionable too—but anyway! Senator Roberts, do you have further— 

Senator ROBERTS: I have finished my questions, thank you, Chair. 

/by