Case study of FOI request to Civil Aviation Safety Authority

First 15 of 15 paragraphs shown Peter Cromarty, the Executive Manager of Airspace And Aerodrome Regulation had deleted sections of a report, and thus the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had used FOI rules to block access to aircraft noise noise policy, Federal Member for Pearce Judi Moylan, LIberal Party, said 11 May.
Speaking on the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 and the cognate bill, the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009; Moylan gave real-world example about freedom of information.
CASA's weasely FOI Aircraft on noise: Moylan said it appeared Peter Cromarty, the Executive Manager of Airspace And Aerodrome Regulation had deleted sections of a report in black letter ways, which mocked the purpose of the application a query of a CASA claim that unconsulted changes to aviation routes, were made for safety reasons.
How the FOI claim came to be: Moylan said “Constituents in my electorate have complained to me about a dramatic change in aircraft noise.
- Flight paths were changed without open, public consultation and the ramifications for people in the electorate of Pearce were real: it devalued their properties, it destroyed the quality of life in an area that is quiet and peaceful up in the hills outside Perth and it has left many people sleep deprived, so naturally people are very angry about it.
- Why no consultation? Moylan questioned to Air Services Australia the federal government owned corporation providing air traffic control management services to Australias aviation industry.
Air Services Australia blames CASA: Air Services Australia said the changes rested on a CASA report which made safety recommendations, and that was the impetus for the change.
Access to report denied: Moylan
- met with Air Services Australia again and asked to view a copy of the report, but they refused.
- wrote to the minister and asked for the report , was refused that report.
Applied under FOI: Moylan said ‘ My only option then was to apply under freedom of information to CASA directly, after also approaching CASA for the report, and I therefore wrote a cheque and paid the fee for the information.
Report? What Report? Some initial research on CASAs and Air Services Australias websites revealed a discrepancy over which was the actual report that led to the changes, so in my FOI request I requested the report that led to the sudden changes to flight paths in 2008 and noted the report in question would make reference to CASA regulation part 172, which deals with safety management and air traffic services.
Weasel FOI: The report that I received after paying the fee consisted of 10 pages, but when I received it, the vast majority was marked deleted. Only four sections with references to regulation part 172 were left, amounting to about 11/2 pages.
Letter from CASA explains: 'Peter Cromarty, the Executive Manager of Airspace And Aerodrome Regulation, informed me in his covering letter that he decided to release the report with material outside the scope deleted. I am quite puzzled as to how parts of the report could be outside the scope when I requested the report itself. My reference to part 172 was used as justification to narrow the information provided to only the four sections specifically mentioning part 172 and deny access to the rest of the document as being outside my request'.
...Log in to read rest of Article or image.