Merged: Senate Inquiry
Nice rationalization! "I will be the first to mention it and encourage others to attend but my supreme sacrifice is to not attend in the interests of dignity and promoting the cause."
You will lead the howling mob but not support the damsel in distress. Not much of a knight in shining armour. More like a silly old git in a Ned Kelly costume.
You will lead the howling mob but not support the damsel in distress. Not much of a knight in shining armour. More like a silly old git in a Ned Kelly costume.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight out of CAsA industry management 101.
Lesson 1: Divide and conquer.
Lesson 2: Exploit the conservative values, avoid or ignore overt hostility.
Lesson 3: See lesson 1.
Interesting that both the radical stance or the soft option have the same aim. It must be confusing to be hated by both. Chivalry and CAsA are an alien conception and I question your exploration of someone else's motives Leftwing. It would appear you have nothing to offer, now you are resorting to ridicule, so can you go and "ping" somewhere else. You are a most irritating identity.
Lesson 1: Divide and conquer.
Lesson 2: Exploit the conservative values, avoid or ignore overt hostility.
Lesson 3: See lesson 1.
Interesting that both the radical stance or the soft option have the same aim. It must be confusing to be hated by both. Chivalry and CAsA are an alien conception and I question your exploration of someone else's motives Leftwing. It would appear you have nothing to offer, now you are resorting to ridicule, so can you go and "ping" somewhere else. You are a most irritating identity.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 29th Jul 2014 at 04:49. Reason: Tinnitus.
Typical Frank, when you have nothing to say accuse someone of being from CASA, straight out of Chairman Maos Little Red Book.
The only thing irritating you (and others) is a different point of view and highlighting hypocrisy. My crime, according to the howling mob, was asking who was going to attend the function at the RAeS with Ziggy. Who after all these years is still after answers as to why she she was left permanently disabled when CASA should not have allowed the operation to have approval in the first place. She wanted to know who, amongst the loyal K followers who after all these years still talk endlessly about Beakers and Screaming Skulls, was going to join her. A reasonable request given the tone of the regulars posting. Surprise surprise only one has actually said they are attending. The rest just descend into the usual monologue about Wabbits and Wodgers, to my dismay even Sarcs who normally plays with a straight bat but is now very much afflicted by the Stockholm Syndrome.
If I irritate you (thanks by the way that cheered me up a lot), 004, Kharon, Jinglie etc etc etc then there is simply the ignore function.
The only thing irritating you (and others) is a different point of view and highlighting hypocrisy. My crime, according to the howling mob, was asking who was going to attend the function at the RAeS with Ziggy. Who after all these years is still after answers as to why she she was left permanently disabled when CASA should not have allowed the operation to have approval in the first place. She wanted to know who, amongst the loyal K followers who after all these years still talk endlessly about Beakers and Screaming Skulls, was going to join her. A reasonable request given the tone of the regulars posting. Surprise surprise only one has actually said they are attending. The rest just descend into the usual monologue about Wabbits and Wodgers, to my dismay even Sarcs who normally plays with a straight bat but is now very much afflicted by the Stockholm Syndrome.
If I irritate you (thanks by the way that cheered me up a lot), 004, Kharon, Jinglie etc etc etc then there is simply the ignore function.
Senate Estimates QON index finally released??
The normally extremely efficient RRAT committee have finally linked the QONs for the 2014-15 Budget Estimates.
As we all know (from past experience & much to the Senators angst) the AQONs are never answered by the Dept & its agencies by the due date. Indeed we will be lucky to see the answers earlier than a week before the next Estimate hearings.
It is quite unusual for the Secretariat not to release the index till after the published due date for the actual answers (25 July). However in this case I think I can see where the delay has occurred. The QONs index, in comparison to last year, has grown exponentially from 49 pages to this year a 107 pages. Most of the additional 58 pages seem to have been gobbled up in a large number of written QONs, some of which would have taken the Senators considerable time to research & compose...interesting??
Anyhow for those interested here is the link - QON Index
A couple of QONs of interest.
Sen Fawcett in regards to CVD/O'Brien AAT hearing:
What I found most interesting was this written QON from DF...
:
But my particular favourite was the Heff's extremely annoyed QON to Beaker after DF's questioning on UAVs...
:
The body language of which was priceless and can be relived at the tail end of this poohtube vid...
As we all know (from past experience & much to the Senators angst) the AQONs are never answered by the Dept & its agencies by the due date. Indeed we will be lucky to see the answers earlier than a week before the next Estimate hearings.
It is quite unusual for the Secretariat not to release the index till after the published due date for the actual answers (25 July). However in this case I think I can see where the delay has occurred. The QONs index, in comparison to last year, has grown exponentially from 49 pages to this year a 107 pages. Most of the additional 58 pages seem to have been gobbled up in a large number of written QONs, some of which would have taken the Senators considerable time to research & compose...interesting??
Anyhow for those interested here is the link - QON Index
A couple of QONs of interest.
263
40
CASA
FAWCETT
AFM Data
Senator FAWCETT: The runway length required really then comes down to the AFM data factored appropriately—I think it is 1.2 for short grass runways and 1.25 for certain weights of aircraft, and there are a couple of factors go in there. But the bottom line is that it is a greater number than is in the AFM itself and that is the legal requirement for operators to operate to.
Mr Leeds: I could not quote those figures exactly. I do not have that information to hand but those other factors do exist.
Senator FAWCETT: With a situation like the master plan for Essendon, where they are proposing to shorten runways, the assurance to the aviation community is that it is a process that will be considered. When CASA provides its input to that process, is that the kind of process that your people will be going through to say that the minimum strip length, particularly for those non-transport category aircraft, is not just what the AFM has but it includes all those factors that an operator is required to consider to operate the aircraft safely?
Mr Leeds: Yes, we would be looking at those sorts of things consistent with the ICAO standards for aerodromes but the exact details I would have to take on notice.
Senator FAWCETT: What I am getting at is, if the proponent for a master plan said the AFM says, 'We need 1,000 metres,' that the aircraft operator would be quitelegitimately be able to say, 'What CASA requires is the AFM minimum plus the factors,' which might make it 1,200 metres, that that is actually the minimum strip length required or the accelerate stop distance available, as opposed to the 1,000 metres from the AFM.
Mr Leeds: Again, I am not familiar with the exact science. I would have to take that on notice.
264
41
CASA
FAWCETT
Archerfield Case
Senator FAWCETT: Could I take you to the Archerfield case, where there was a proposal to change the orientation of one of the grass runways and make it essentially north-south. My understanding is that CASA has endorsed the consultant's calculation of strip length based on the AFM data as opposed to the factored data. Are you able to shed any light on whether CASA did in fact apply the factors so that the end result is a clear indication of what the operator legally has to have to take off and land—with landing it is even greater—or was that advice purely on the AFM data?
Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice for Archerfield. We will get back to as soon as we can. I know where you are going with this.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, take it on notice, but as a principle the operator's requirement is to comply with his ops manual, which has to take into account engine failure situations in terms of the take-off and landing length available.
Mr McCormick: Certainly for the accelerate stop distance available when we are talking about balanced fields length, I should imagine. The grass case is one where I am not too sure what we have said about the grass orientation. I agree with you, and we will take that on notice and get it back to you as soon as possible. We do not have Archerfield in front of us, unfortunately.
40
CASA
FAWCETT
AFM Data
Senator FAWCETT: The runway length required really then comes down to the AFM data factored appropriately—I think it is 1.2 for short grass runways and 1.25 for certain weights of aircraft, and there are a couple of factors go in there. But the bottom line is that it is a greater number than is in the AFM itself and that is the legal requirement for operators to operate to.
Mr Leeds: I could not quote those figures exactly. I do not have that information to hand but those other factors do exist.
Senator FAWCETT: With a situation like the master plan for Essendon, where they are proposing to shorten runways, the assurance to the aviation community is that it is a process that will be considered. When CASA provides its input to that process, is that the kind of process that your people will be going through to say that the minimum strip length, particularly for those non-transport category aircraft, is not just what the AFM has but it includes all those factors that an operator is required to consider to operate the aircraft safely?
Mr Leeds: Yes, we would be looking at those sorts of things consistent with the ICAO standards for aerodromes but the exact details I would have to take on notice.
Senator FAWCETT: What I am getting at is, if the proponent for a master plan said the AFM says, 'We need 1,000 metres,' that the aircraft operator would be quitelegitimately be able to say, 'What CASA requires is the AFM minimum plus the factors,' which might make it 1,200 metres, that that is actually the minimum strip length required or the accelerate stop distance available, as opposed to the 1,000 metres from the AFM.
Mr Leeds: Again, I am not familiar with the exact science. I would have to take that on notice.
264
41
CASA
FAWCETT
Archerfield Case
Senator FAWCETT: Could I take you to the Archerfield case, where there was a proposal to change the orientation of one of the grass runways and make it essentially north-south. My understanding is that CASA has endorsed the consultant's calculation of strip length based on the AFM data as opposed to the factored data. Are you able to shed any light on whether CASA did in fact apply the factors so that the end result is a clear indication of what the operator legally has to have to take off and land—with landing it is even greater—or was that advice purely on the AFM data?
Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice for Archerfield. We will get back to as soon as we can. I know where you are going with this.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, take it on notice, but as a principle the operator's requirement is to comply with his ops manual, which has to take into account engine failure situations in terms of the take-off and landing length available.
Mr McCormick: Certainly for the accelerate stop distance available when we are talking about balanced fields length, I should imagine. The grass case is one where I am not too sure what we have said about the grass orientation. I agree with you, and we will take that on notice and get it back to you as soon as possible. We do not have Archerfield in front of us, unfortunately.
265
42
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Senator FAWCETT: …
Mr McCormick, may I move on to answers that you gave at estimates last year about the costs associated with an AAT case relating to colour vision deficient pilots. You indicated that, as of 1 December 2013, the costs were $43,500. Can you tell me, in terms of forecast costs, how many expert witnesses CASA plans to call for that inquiry or tribunal?
Mr McCormick: Are you talking about the upcoming O'Brien tribunal in July?
Senator FAWCETT: Yes.
Mr McCormick: I will ask the manager of the legal branch to give you that figure, Senator.
Mr Rule: There will obviously be a number of specialist witnesses called to give evidence.
Senator FAWCETT: Two? Ten? Fifteen?
Mr Rule: I am not across the precise number that would be—
Senator FAWCETT: Would I be wrong if I said 12?
Mr Rule: I could not say that that number is wrong. We are out of the ballpark, but I cannot give a confirmed number at this stage. The exchange of evidence between the parties only just finished at the end of last week, I believe, so there will be some to-ing and fro-ing as to which evidence and which witnesses are required. I can certainly take that on notice and provide a more settled estimate of that for you, if that would assist.
266
43
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Senator FAWCETT: …you must also have metrics from previous inquiries. Knowing what expert witnesses charge for their appearances, the travel and accommodation costs, the whole cost of conducting the inquiry in terms of transcript fees et cetera, have you made a provision in your budgeting for how much you anticipate this AAT case will cost?
Mr Rule: Obviously, we do do forward estimates of how much we think a case is likely to cost. Generally we do it across quarterly budget considerations, so total cost can get washed out as you conduct these cases piecemeal.
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to add the figures up, Mr Rule, if you could give me the figures across those quarterly milestones.
Mr Rule: We can certainly take that on notice and provide those figures.
267
44
CASA
FAWCETT
Mandate the CAD Test
Senator FAWCETT: I understand. You did also say in that period that you did not believe there was any intention to mandate the CAD test and that was not the direction CASA was going. But I have subsequently seen a couple of examples where CASA refused to renew the medical of people who previously had multiple renewables of their medical unless they sat the CAD test. Does that not contradict your comment that that is not CASA's intended direction?
Mr McCormick: I will go back and check what I actually said at the time, my recollection of the conversation was that we were talking about using the CAD test as the principal test rather than the Ishihara test or something like that. As I said, I will check that on notice.
42
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Senator FAWCETT: …
Mr McCormick, may I move on to answers that you gave at estimates last year about the costs associated with an AAT case relating to colour vision deficient pilots. You indicated that, as of 1 December 2013, the costs were $43,500. Can you tell me, in terms of forecast costs, how many expert witnesses CASA plans to call for that inquiry or tribunal?
Mr McCormick: Are you talking about the upcoming O'Brien tribunal in July?
Senator FAWCETT: Yes.
Mr McCormick: I will ask the manager of the legal branch to give you that figure, Senator.
Mr Rule: There will obviously be a number of specialist witnesses called to give evidence.
Senator FAWCETT: Two? Ten? Fifteen?
Mr Rule: I am not across the precise number that would be—
Senator FAWCETT: Would I be wrong if I said 12?
Mr Rule: I could not say that that number is wrong. We are out of the ballpark, but I cannot give a confirmed number at this stage. The exchange of evidence between the parties only just finished at the end of last week, I believe, so there will be some to-ing and fro-ing as to which evidence and which witnesses are required. I can certainly take that on notice and provide a more settled estimate of that for you, if that would assist.
266
43
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal
Senator FAWCETT: …you must also have metrics from previous inquiries. Knowing what expert witnesses charge for their appearances, the travel and accommodation costs, the whole cost of conducting the inquiry in terms of transcript fees et cetera, have you made a provision in your budgeting for how much you anticipate this AAT case will cost?
Mr Rule: Obviously, we do do forward estimates of how much we think a case is likely to cost. Generally we do it across quarterly budget considerations, so total cost can get washed out as you conduct these cases piecemeal.
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to add the figures up, Mr Rule, if you could give me the figures across those quarterly milestones.
Mr Rule: We can certainly take that on notice and provide those figures.
267
44
CASA
FAWCETT
Mandate the CAD Test
Senator FAWCETT: I understand. You did also say in that period that you did not believe there was any intention to mandate the CAD test and that was not the direction CASA was going. But I have subsequently seen a couple of examples where CASA refused to renew the medical of people who previously had multiple renewables of their medical unless they sat the CAD test. Does that not contradict your comment that that is not CASA's intended direction?
Mr McCormick: I will go back and check what I actually said at the time, my recollection of the conversation was that we were talking about using the CAD test as the principal test rather than the Ishihara test or something like that. As I said, I will check that on notice.
:
273
244
CASA
FAWCETT
Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;
Written
244
CASA
FAWCETT
Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;
Written
:
Mr Dolan: I am happy to give you a response on notice.
…
CHAIR: Then will you come back to the committee—or through the secretary or through the department or through the minister—and explain to the Australian public and this committee what their protection is from the growing plethora of unmanned vehicles in the air?
…
CHAIR: Then will you come back to the committee—or through the secretary or through the department or through the minister—and explain to the Australian public and this committee what their protection is from the growing plethora of unmanned vehicles in the air?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarity
I have the answers I need.
I will challenge the answers with questions.
I have been to many conferences, as a guest speaker too. I can hold myself.
Overall, the aim is for a rather serious cause. Aviation Safety that is transparent and true.
Maybe look to the middle a bit more. Ya need balance.
I slammed into the ocean, high speed impact that broke the aircraft underneath me seat. Plane sinking, seatbelt stuck. Release, in angry, dark ocean, injured, half-inflated life vest, held my patient in shark infested waters for over an hour, terrifying. The aftermath. Disgraceful. Next time you are flying over the ocean at night, think of me. Hypocrisy is really falseness. Therefore the blatant evidence that has been found, after it was hidden, is where the real hypocrisy lands. Safety first. How?
I am not a damsel in distress, nor do I need rescuing. A damsel is a single woman. I am happily divorced. A few may judge me as a "distressed damsel", just let me check. Brain mapping my neuro feedback system via quantum neuro biomechanics. Yep. I'm not a damsel, just Ziggy.
Cosmology, chemistry, politics plus much more. Understood.
"Glimpses of hope" means more to me than you CP. So I ignore the negative blindness to the clear "in your face facts" regarding this matter.
Can't argue the truth. Some try.
I'm just going to the shindig. My will is good. Lighten up fellas.
I shall disappear for a bit.
I do not wish to cause iarguments over such an important issue.
Thank you to all the "Monkeys" for the insight and support.
Keep the bastards honest...escapes me who said it, but, I bloody agree!
Humbly yours,
Ziggy.
"I fell apart, but got back up again"..."to battle is the only way we feel"
Jared Leto.
I will challenge the answers with questions.
I have been to many conferences, as a guest speaker too. I can hold myself.
Overall, the aim is for a rather serious cause. Aviation Safety that is transparent and true.
Maybe look to the middle a bit more. Ya need balance.
I slammed into the ocean, high speed impact that broke the aircraft underneath me seat. Plane sinking, seatbelt stuck. Release, in angry, dark ocean, injured, half-inflated life vest, held my patient in shark infested waters for over an hour, terrifying. The aftermath. Disgraceful. Next time you are flying over the ocean at night, think of me. Hypocrisy is really falseness. Therefore the blatant evidence that has been found, after it was hidden, is where the real hypocrisy lands. Safety first. How?
I am not a damsel in distress, nor do I need rescuing. A damsel is a single woman. I am happily divorced. A few may judge me as a "distressed damsel", just let me check. Brain mapping my neuro feedback system via quantum neuro biomechanics. Yep. I'm not a damsel, just Ziggy.
Cosmology, chemistry, politics plus much more. Understood.
"Glimpses of hope" means more to me than you CP. So I ignore the negative blindness to the clear "in your face facts" regarding this matter.
Can't argue the truth. Some try.
I'm just going to the shindig. My will is good. Lighten up fellas.
I shall disappear for a bit.
I do not wish to cause iarguments over such an important issue.
Thank you to all the "Monkeys" for the insight and support.
Keep the bastards honest...escapes me who said it, but, I bloody agree!
Humbly yours,
Ziggy.
"I fell apart, but got back up again"..."to battle is the only way we feel"
Jared Leto.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a damsel in distress, nor do I need rescuing.
You are a tough girl and have earned our absolute respect. You plunged into the ocean and suffered serious injury, but you survived. Your mental strength and determination helped you remain afloat while still caring for your patient - you saved two lives in that hour, you both survived. You have stood up to the Beast known as CAsA, amid legal threats and intimidation, and you have survived. You mention the physical and emotional pain, the moments of doubt and the periods of anger, yet again you continue to survive.You have experienced something that the absolute vast majority of us would likely never experience in a 1000 lifetimes. For that you earn my absolute respect. You are not a 'damsel in distress'. Only a conceited, ignorant, self opinionated sexist batty boy would think that you are.
Ziggy, a lifetime supply of Kharons chocolate frogs is on its way
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke to Dom James yesterday. He has moved to DRW an is applying for jobs in a cafe. What a joke. The man deserves much better than that. Is this a democracy? I'm starting to wonder! Watch the Senate hearings and make your own mind up.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The great glacier race.
Sarcs # 2115 "Most of the additional 58 pages seem to have been gobbled up in a large number of written QONs, some of which would have taken the Senators considerable time to research & compose...interesting?"
Of course the Senate is in a race with the Truss entry – the poser is "Will you adopt the recommendations of the report you commissioned and we paid for? Once again, not a difficult question: check your glacier, no surprises there – in the same time period it is a racing certainty that the glacier will have actually moved.
The Rev. Forsyth report in recommendations 6, 7, 18, and 34 maps out a perfectly acceptable, do-able system for speeding thing up. With an active board and the reforms in place, perhaps the six month hiatus between questions being asked and answers returned could be diminished. The need to spend Senate time trapping slippery creatures in dark corners could be significantly reduced, just for lack of questions. Then, perhaps we could get progress reports instead of a fortune being wasted on producing obvious answers to questions that should not ever need to be asked.
Time could then be spent productively: maybe even on a review system to prevent the double jeopardy horrors of the Quadrio case or the persistent administrative embuggerance inflicted on James. Neither of these cases can be considered with pride or satisfaction. But stand they do, along with so many other instances as examples of just how the system is manipulated, by the unscrupulous as and when required. Peer review not trammelled by an 'in-house', solo ICC would help. Imagine, Boyd + 2 looking over a charge sheet rather than a CASA employed, career minding lawyer – now that beats watching glaciers moving any day.
Aye well – I expect by this time next year a clear decision on the colour scheme for the executive dunny will have been made; but that's the cost of progress.
Toot toot.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scary stories and grim tales.
Jingle – It's not just Ziggy doing it the hard way though is it? What about the passengers who survived the ditching; I hear the patient/husband team have almost gone broke, the wife still requiring psychiatric and medical care, the husband not in good shape. Now I can't verify any of this yet, it's just the way I understand it; happy to be hopelessly wrong. The insurance company which carries their medical insurance, the package including 'medivac' transport (i.e. the insurer arranged and paid for the flight), does not and is not required to insure them against flight risk (prang). It seems that some very old clauses from the 1929 'law' (statute?) mean that for medical evacuation flight – there is no coverage and so no compensation in the event of a prang. (Chances of survival rated at near zero).
It all seems very complex and 'legal' but apparently the Department (MM) has been aware of this 'black hole' for a very long while. There have been many attempts to have the law changed and this insurance company get out of jail free card removed from play, but no action has been taken. While the insurer has probably acted within 'the law', which is fine, this is of small comfort to the people who's lives have been so drastically altered, through no fault of their own; except perhaps by not reading the fine print on an insurance policy. Ziggy's research into the matter is truly awesome (well done), lets hope that with better health we see a more concise appraisal from her, of how exactly the much vaunted Australian safety system let these innocent, trusting folks down so very badly.
It's a sad indictment though; Pel Air slip through the CASA safety net, the insurance company through the legal net and to add insult to injury, the ATSB bypass the nets altogether and fail to produce any one thing toward preventing a similar event. Every protection we believe we have, rendered null and void. Right down to the life jackets; and even they failed this hapless group in time of need.
But, don't worry, newly minted safety 'experts' are on the job. Who knows, perhaps when enough platitudes have been uttered, and when the newly learned 'safety speak' words have assuaged the disturbed masses; and, enough newly published educational material has been distributed, all will be well; until the next time...
Selah..
It all seems very complex and 'legal' but apparently the Department (MM) has been aware of this 'black hole' for a very long while. There have been many attempts to have the law changed and this insurance company get out of jail free card removed from play, but no action has been taken. While the insurer has probably acted within 'the law', which is fine, this is of small comfort to the people who's lives have been so drastically altered, through no fault of their own; except perhaps by not reading the fine print on an insurance policy. Ziggy's research into the matter is truly awesome (well done), lets hope that with better health we see a more concise appraisal from her, of how exactly the much vaunted Australian safety system let these innocent, trusting folks down so very badly.
It's a sad indictment though; Pel Air slip through the CASA safety net, the insurance company through the legal net and to add insult to injury, the ATSB bypass the nets altogether and fail to produce any one thing toward preventing a similar event. Every protection we believe we have, rendered null and void. Right down to the life jackets; and even they failed this hapless group in time of need.
But, don't worry, newly minted safety 'experts' are on the job. Who knows, perhaps when enough platitudes have been uttered, and when the newly learned 'safety speak' words have assuaged the disturbed masses; and, enough newly published educational material has been distributed, all will be well; until the next time...
"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned," W. Congreve.
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Jul 2014 at 21:05. Reason: Catching a glimpse of the fabled insurance elephant.
Bureaucratic liability paranoia & CAR206 strike again!
"Catching a glimpse of the fabled insurance elephant"
More than a glimpse I would of thought...
The rumour is it is one hell of a monster bull elephant, with more resources at its disposal than half a dozen third world countries combined...
Although..it does kind of make sense of the whole PelAir embuggerance, which quite frankly has never really added up..
Ok research hat coming on I reckon...
Kharon:
Disgusting really that such a loophole in this day and age can be allowed to exist, kind of makes you ashamed to be Australian...
In my limited understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that if the PelAir AOC had of been issued by any of a number of other countries that are signatories to ICAO & the Warsaw Convention (as modified by Chapter I of the Hague Protocol and Chapter I of the Montreal Protocol No. 4), this loophole would not have existed and the insurance company would have no other choice but to pay out under the terms of the CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS' LIABILITY) ACT 1959 .
Perhaps this is better explained by (surprise, surprise..) Fort Fumble in their NPRM 1304:
FF go onto describe the 'unique' Oz classification for MT Flights:
Irony of ironies is that the proposed NPRM for "Regulation of aeroplane and helicopter ‘ambulance function’ flights as Air Transport operations" has largely come about due to the findings & recommendations of the Senate AAI inquiry...
Though that is small comfort for Ziggy & Co, who will be dealing with personal injuries (both physical & psychological) in the aftermath of the ditching for the rest of their lives...
Much more to follow on this..
More than a glimpse I would of thought...
The rumour is it is one hell of a monster bull elephant, with more resources at its disposal than half a dozen third world countries combined...
Although..it does kind of make sense of the whole PelAir embuggerance, which quite frankly has never really added up..
Ok research hat coming on I reckon...
Kharon:
It all seems very complex and 'legal' but apparently the Department (MM) has been aware of this 'black hole' for a very long while. There have been many attempts to have the law changed and this insurance company get out of jail free card removed from play, but no action has been taken.
In my limited understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that if the PelAir AOC had of been issued by any of a number of other countries that are signatories to ICAO & the Warsaw Convention (as modified by Chapter I of the Hague Protocol and Chapter I of the Montreal Protocol No. 4), this loophole would not have existed and the insurance company would have no other choice but to pay out under the terms of the CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS' LIABILITY) ACT 1959 .
Perhaps this is better explained by (surprise, surprise..
) Fort Fumble in their NPRM 1304:
3.1.1 Interpretation of medical transport flights
Leading aviation nations, such as the UK, Europe, Canada, New Zealand and the USA (for the USA, specifically when the patient is on board the aircraft), recognise that MT flights, including:
These nations have applied definitions and applicability of commercial air transport (CAT) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) – as outlined in Annex 6, Parts I and III to the Chicago Convention – to their operations. In Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines commercial air transport as:
commercial air transport operation (is) an aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.
Clearly, the abovementioned countries have interpreted this to mean that the transport of passengers for MT flights is an AT operation, and have written their legislation for these operations accordingly. CASA is of the view that such an interpretation confers many safety advantages to MT flights, chiefly that the full range of organisational, equipment, flight crew and safety system standards confirmed by the issue of an AOC are applicable to such operations.
ICAO reinforces this through their definition of an AOC:
Air operator certificate (AOC). A certificate authorizing an operator to carry out specified commercial air transport operations
Leading aviation nations, such as the UK, Europe, Canada, New Zealand and the USA (for the USA, specifically when the patient is on board the aircraft), recognise that MT flights, including:
- patient inter-hospital retrieval
- international patient repatriation
- emergency medical service (EMS) operations,
These nations have applied definitions and applicability of commercial air transport (CAT) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) – as outlined in Annex 6, Parts I and III to the Chicago Convention – to their operations. In Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines commercial air transport as:
commercial air transport operation (is) an aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.
Clearly, the abovementioned countries have interpreted this to mean that the transport of passengers for MT flights is an AT operation, and have written their legislation for these operations accordingly. CASA is of the view that such an interpretation confers many safety advantages to MT flights, chiefly that the full range of organisational, equipment, flight crew and safety system standards confirmed by the issue of an AOC are applicable to such operations.
ICAO reinforces this through their definition of an AOC:
Air operator certificate (AOC). A certificate authorizing an operator to carry out specified commercial air transport operations
Amongst leading aviation nations, Australia is unique in classifying MT flights as aerial work under the prescribed purpose of ‘ambulance functions’, outlined in subregulation 206 (1) (a) of CAR. This classification subjects Australia’s MT operations to a different standard of regulation than would be the case under the ICAO AT standards and those of most other leading ICAO Member States.
Though that is small comfort for Ziggy & Co, who will be dealing with personal injuries (both physical & psychological) in the aftermath of the ditching for the rest of their lives...
Much more to follow on this..
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey PPs,
I did not attend the RAS meeting. I was quite sick and shut down on Wednesday. I thought that's alright, I'll save my energy for the meeting on Thursday. I even had it in my calendar as Thursday. Honest mistake. That's the only reason I was not there.
I will not give up though. I will be a thorn in their side until the truth is on the table.
To Dinglie Bits No Hoper,
First- you weren't there
Second - when you truly believe you are going to die and have accepted your fate, it is a strange sensation when you realise you are actually alive. It was pitch black, disorientating and survival instinct along with shock, it was very surreal. With the certainty of death, given the conditions, when I realised I was alive, personally, it took a couple of minutes to sink in, so to speak.
As for the silly questions regarding Dom, another reminder, you were not there. I would hope you are both on this site for productive purposes not to be immature and be so rude to my Captain. He landed the aircraft, (along with Zoe) in circumstances which I would think you have not experienced.
Dom maintained a calm and encouraged us every time he did a head count. Which was regular, along with asking if we were doing ok. I can not say the same of the CP. I too was injured and unconscious during the second and third impact. My injuries are permanent and hurt like hell the water whilst I held my patient.
To offend a person directly without being there, well, kinda stupid. Not professional behaviour.
Why be on the site if it is to criticise an individual who has clearly, via evidence base facts, been used as a scapegoat.
Please, leave my Captain alone. Do you not think he has been through enough?
As we all have. But I will emphasise it again...
Neither of you were there.
Keep it on the real issues of Aviation Safety.
I certainly believe that the issues of P/As incompetences along with the hidden reports along with the "aberration" of an investigation etc etc etc, are of much more importance than the ridiculous question, after five years, to keep on jabbing him.
Don't either of you see the bigger picture?
Respectfully yours,
Ziggy.
I did not attend the RAS meeting. I was quite sick and shut down on Wednesday. I thought that's alright, I'll save my energy for the meeting on Thursday. I even had it in my calendar as Thursday. Honest mistake. That's the only reason I was not there.
I will not give up though. I will be a thorn in their side until the truth is on the table.
To Dinglie Bits No Hoper,
First- you weren't there
Second - when you truly believe you are going to die and have accepted your fate, it is a strange sensation when you realise you are actually alive. It was pitch black, disorientating and survival instinct along with shock, it was very surreal. With the certainty of death, given the conditions, when I realised I was alive, personally, it took a couple of minutes to sink in, so to speak.
As for the silly questions regarding Dom, another reminder, you were not there. I would hope you are both on this site for productive purposes not to be immature and be so rude to my Captain. He landed the aircraft, (along with Zoe) in circumstances which I would think you have not experienced.
Dom maintained a calm and encouraged us every time he did a head count. Which was regular, along with asking if we were doing ok. I can not say the same of the CP. I too was injured and unconscious during the second and third impact. My injuries are permanent and hurt like hell the water whilst I held my patient.
To offend a person directly without being there, well, kinda stupid. Not professional behaviour.
Why be on the site if it is to criticise an individual who has clearly, via evidence base facts, been used as a scapegoat.
Please, leave my Captain alone. Do you not think he has been through enough?
As we all have. But I will emphasise it again...
Neither of you were there.
Keep it on the real issues of Aviation Safety.
I certainly believe that the issues of P/As incompetences along with the hidden reports along with the "aberration" of an investigation etc etc etc, are of much more importance than the ridiculous question, after five years, to keep on jabbing him.
Don't either of you see the bigger picture?
Respectfully yours,
Ziggy.
Last edited by Ziggychick; 31st Jul 2014 at 08:46. Reason: Spelling correction
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, "No Hoper"...name says it all!!
Exactly Zig's...but then the Skull said Dom was the only one to blame, therefore those Trolls charged with shutting this thread down will espouse the establishment line, its what spinmeisers get paid for. "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
Exactly Zig's...but then the Skull said Dom was the only one to blame, therefore those Trolls charged with shutting this thread down will espouse the establishment line, its what spinmeisers get paid for. "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
Last edited by thorn bird; 31st Jul 2014 at 08:56.
Way back in the dim dark past of this thread there was a lot frustration expressed by more than a few people that the co-pilots role in the Pel-Air ditching was a missing piece of the puzzle. Dom was wearing the criticism including from the CP who I think appeared on 4 corners.
Now Ziggy has lifted a small part of the lid with the statement:
while defending the Captain. As you said none of us were there so your observations of the crew before and after the event will go a long way in helping the rest of us understand the crew dynamics. Entirely your call whether you expand on your statement or not. However how crews work together in, and respond to, an emergency is something all pilots and crew can learn from.
I will be upfront and state that I have been critical of the Captains actions based on the information that has been in the public domain but I am more than willing to change my view if it comes to light that the support he was getting only added to the stress.
Then again you might want to say "bugger off'' thats okay too, 004 and Kharon are telling me that all the time!
Now Ziggy has lifted a small part of the lid with the statement:
Which was regular, along with asking if we were doing ok. I can not say the same of the CP.
I will be upfront and state that I have been critical of the Captains actions based on the information that has been in the public domain but I am more than willing to change my view if it comes to light that the support he was getting only added to the stress.
Then again you might want to say "bugger off'' thats okay too, 004 and Kharon are telling me that all the time!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"However how crews work together in, and respond to, an emergency is something all pilots and crew can learn from."
That and a hell of a lot more!
That is exactly the point leftie, your mentor didn't want to go there because it exposed his organization and therefore the "Guvmint" to liability.
That can not happen.
The imperative to manipulate the weakness in management of the ATSB, subvert their investigation and install the party line.
All the safety lessons unfortunately sacrificed, because they impinged on the carefully managed scenario, "The pilot dunnit"...we are the experts...therefore there is nothing to see here move along!!
That and a hell of a lot more!
That is exactly the point leftie, your mentor didn't want to go there because it exposed his organization and therefore the "Guvmint" to liability.
That can not happen.
The imperative to manipulate the weakness in management of the ATSB, subvert their investigation and install the party line.
All the safety lessons unfortunately sacrificed, because they impinged on the carefully managed scenario, "The pilot dunnit"...we are the experts...therefore there is nothing to see here move along!!
That is exactly the point leftie, your mentor didn't want to go there because it exposed his organization and therefore the "Guvmint" to liability.
When you can string a coherent sentence together please reply, otherwise put on your tin foil hat and go and shake your fist at the chemtrails.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean, really?
Yeah, peace to you No Hoper,
I just explained the mind-bending, surreal shock of trying to get out of a sinking plane in the dark.
My seatbelt was stuck and I was injured. Permanently. I am medically retired and have a permanent disability. With pain everyday.
But I am not on here to bitch like school yard girls regarding who was where or exited in what order. I can't even remember that clearly.
It is a tiny fraction of the incident and from what I believe, the CP has made a full recovery and continues to enjoy employment and physical freedom.
So, once again, sook to someone else. Is that the only gripe you have regarding this matter?
Pretty sure I've answered it.
Also, I do not think that tiny fraction would be the reason why the Captain can not gain employment. Think it may have to do with a few other uninformed sheep.
I just explained the mind-bending, surreal shock of trying to get out of a sinking plane in the dark.
My seatbelt was stuck and I was injured. Permanently. I am medically retired and have a permanent disability. With pain everyday.
But I am not on here to bitch like school yard girls regarding who was where or exited in what order. I can't even remember that clearly.
It is a tiny fraction of the incident and from what I believe, the CP has made a full recovery and continues to enjoy employment and physical freedom.
So, once again, sook to someone else. Is that the only gripe you have regarding this matter?
Pretty sure I've answered it.
Also, I do not think that tiny fraction would be the reason why the Captain can not gain employment. Think it may have to do with a few other uninformed sheep.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50 Shades of Shame
Lefty,
If you read the FOI's, the Senate report, the submissions and the ASRR, you will no longer be too concerned with the "shock/disorientation etc" that I explained which effects each individual differently. That is enough on that topic unless you gain consent from the CP.
Please read the material with a middle/neutral view. I am sure after some lengthy reading, you will see in plain black and white the evidence and connect the dots as so many others have.
Have your own opinion, but as a professional man, be well informed of the known facts first.
Happy reading. It's lengthy.
50 Shades of Shame
Enjoy.
If you read the FOI's, the Senate report, the submissions and the ASRR, you will no longer be too concerned with the "shock/disorientation etc" that I explained which effects each individual differently. That is enough on that topic unless you gain consent from the CP.
Please read the material with a middle/neutral view. I am sure after some lengthy reading, you will see in plain black and white the evidence and connect the dots as so many others have.
Have your own opinion, but as a professional man, be well informed of the known facts first.
Happy reading. It's lengthy.
50 Shades of Shame
Enjoy.
Last edited by Ziggychick; 31st Jul 2014 at 11:30. Reason: Oopsie Daisy