Merged: Senate Inquiry
CHTR, AWK & back to 'Reason' on FRMS.
Top pick up slats...
The more layers of the onion you peel off the more murky & smelly this whole thing gets...
Here is the whole passage to which slats quotes from:
The funny thing is slats that some inquisitive bugger from the bureau's investigative team in early 2010 obviously discovered the same discrepancy but was promptly shut down by Wodger's mate MAL(I)U...
: 3 Correspondence from CASA to the ATSB regarding the classification of air ambulance flights, received 22 October 2012;(PDF 492KB)
Coming back to the PA FRMS and I remembered that the Australian Lawyers Alliance had a bit to say (& no obvious skin in the issue..
) on FRMS/CAO48.1 in their ASRR submission #218. On a second read (or maybe fourth read..
) I decided it was too good to ignore, so here it is from Section 4 para 4.1 in full:
4.1 PEL-AIR AND SYSTEMIC REGULATORY ISSUES WITH FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT
Certainly this would have resulted in disruption to the airline in terms of scheduling both its crew, and a replacement flight notwithstanding the unquestionable air safety benefit (ie, no pilot flew tired). However, it also has several economic consequences for the airline in relation to compensation for delay to passengers under relevant international law which may not be so readily apparent, but which should serve as a reminder of one of the many consequences of inflexibility in flight duty times for flight crew members. Under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage,40 under which most if not all the passengers on the Dallas to Brisbane flight, Qantas would have been liable for compensation for proven losses brought about by delay of each passenger in an amount limited presently to 4,694 Special Drawing Rights (approximately $8,200 AUD as at the date of writing).41 In an aircraft that carries over 300 passengers this amount is substantial. Furthermore, under US DOT rules and the airline’s own policies, refunds of fares must be offered in some cases.
Hmm....nah makes too much sense...
The more layers of the onion you peel off the more murky & smelly this whole thing gets... Here is the whole passage to which slats quotes from:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (PEL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Regional Express Holdings and holds AOC number 1-1 VAV2-0l issued on the 23 October 2006. The AOC permits the conduct of Regular Public Transport (Cargo Only), Charter and Aerial Work operations in a fleet of 27 above 5700kg turbo prop and jet aircraft. Operations are conducted with 2 pilots
(multi crew). The aircraft types include seven Westwind WW1124, two Westwind 1124A, four learjet L35/36, ten Metro III, four Metro 23, and one Brasilia EMB 120 aircraft. These aircraft operate mainly from bases at Sydney, Darwin, Nowra, and Brisbane conducting night freight within Australia, and national and international medivac and passenger charter. Airwork operations consist of target towing for the Royal Australian Navy at Nowra NSW using Learjet and Westwind aircraft. The company has a current application with CASA to vary their AOC to operate SAAB 340 aircraft for both passenger and freight operations.
Background
Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (PEL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Regional Express Holdings and holds AOC number 1-1 VAV2-0l issued on the 23 October 2006. The AOC permits the conduct of Regular Public Transport (Cargo Only), Charter and Aerial Work operations in a fleet of 27 above 5700kg turbo prop and jet aircraft. Operations are conducted with 2 pilots
(multi crew). The aircraft types include seven Westwind WW1124, two Westwind 1124A, four learjet L35/36, ten Metro III, four Metro 23, and one Brasilia EMB 120 aircraft. These aircraft operate mainly from bases at Sydney, Darwin, Nowra, and Brisbane conducting night freight within Australia, and national and international medivac and passenger charter. Airwork operations consist of target towing for the Royal Australian Navy at Nowra NSW using Learjet and Westwind aircraft. The company has a current application with CASA to vary their AOC to operate SAAB 340 aircraft for both passenger and freight operations.
: 3 Correspondence from CASA to the ATSB regarding the classification of air ambulance flights, received 22 October 2012;(PDF 492KB)
I refer to email dated 31 March 2010 requesting information under section 32 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 in respect of the Pei-Air investigation A0-2009-072.
CASA has reviewed the Doskite and Pei-Air Aviation Operations Manuals and cannot find any reference to Air Ambulance flights being classified one way or the other.CASA is not aware of any changes from Charter to Airwork in respect of Air Ambulance functions. The matter may require further clarification from Pel-Air.
Strange...
...you would have thought the regulator should know to within a minute or an inch of its life, what an operator can or can't do and under what classification certain AOC approved ops are conforming to...
...you would have thought the regulator should know to within a minute or an inch of its life, what an operator can or can't do and under what classification certain AOC approved ops are conforming to... Coming back to the PA FRMS and I remembered that the Australian Lawyers Alliance had a bit to say (& no obvious skin in the issue..
) on FRMS/CAO48.1 in their ASRR submission #218. On a second read (or maybe fourth read..) I decided it was too good to ignore, so here it is from Section 4 para 4.1 in full:4.1 PEL-AIR AND SYSTEMIC REGULATORY ISSUES WITH FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT
Mention has been made above in passing of criticisms proferred by the Senate Committee RRAT Report.33 Many of the criticisms made about the ATSB report of the Pel-Air accident investigation34 are outside the scope of this submission, and include systemic issues as and between CASA and the ATSB. One of the substantive systemic issues reported and agreed to have been a shortfall in the investigation report, was CASA’s lack of oversight of the relevant operator’s fatigue risk management, training and checking systems in the context of a CASA Special Audit which resulted in several CASA-issued requests for corrective action by the operator.35
The relevant CASA surveillance which resulted in the requests for corrective action predated the existing FRMS requirements, but post-dated the commencement of CASA’s original Civil Aviation Order 48.1 which prescribes duty flight time limitations.36 This means that minimum rest time for pilots was set by CAO 48.1 and not strictly the subject of a formal risk management system as it might be argued might now applies to such an operator. The issue then becomes less one of FRMS per se, but one of FRM regulatory oversight. Is a prescribed duty time limit easier to enforce and better than a FRMS which leaves such decisions to pilots and operators in the high demand environment of commercial aviation?
Some argue FRMS is the lesser of two evils, but this submission aims to outline the difficulty in coming to a regulatory solution given the competing interests of aviation operational employees and airline management, in the context of the international standards and recommended practices Australia should adopt, but also recognising the difficulties of adopting any particular standards as all have both economic and air safety consequences for airlines and individuals (pilots and passengers).
Pilot groups have argued that the scientific principles and knowledge said to inform the ICAO SARPs are in fact flawed and that both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European Safety Agency Rules (EASA) rules in this regard continue to prescribe actual time limits to ensure there is no balancing of safety through “CASA bowing to industry pressure to deliver a less restrictive system”.37The relevant CASA surveillance which resulted in the requests for corrective action predated the existing FRMS requirements, but post-dated the commencement of CASA’s original Civil Aviation Order 48.1 which prescribes duty flight time limitations.36 This means that minimum rest time for pilots was set by CAO 48.1 and not strictly the subject of a formal risk management system as it might be argued might now applies to such an operator. The issue then becomes less one of FRMS per se, but one of FRM regulatory oversight. Is a prescribed duty time limit easier to enforce and better than a FRMS which leaves such decisions to pilots and operators in the high demand environment of commercial aviation?
Some argue FRMS is the lesser of two evils, but this submission aims to outline the difficulty in coming to a regulatory solution given the competing interests of aviation operational employees and airline management, in the context of the international standards and recommended practices Australia should adopt, but also recognising the difficulties of adopting any particular standards as all have both economic and air safety consequences for airlines and individuals (pilots and passengers).
In our submission the criticism for the Panel to note is that the FRMS rules now applicable by virtue of the commencement of the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (No. 1)38 on 30 April 2013 are not only subject to major contrary views but this view was acted upon by a motion to disallow in the Senate which lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013 prior to the Federal Election. Since that time, and following the opening of submissions to the present ASRR, a second motion to disallow was made, and is presently pending for resolution in the Senate by 24 March 2014. These indications of public discontent must not be forgotten in determining a way forward for resolving the debate on flight time limitations.
That being said, an element of circularity exists in what can be done about the situation in Australia while still holding Australia out as a State attempting to provide international best practice regulation in accordance with our obligations as an ICAO State. Departure from SARPs in local law is something which directly affects Australia’s USOAP scores unless a notification of differences is filed with ICAO under Article 38 of the Chicago Convention.
The best solution going forward may be, in this instance, to adopt the approach of the US in 14 CFR Parts 117, 119 and 12139 which provides some prescription in relation to duty limitations and makes FRMS use optional, whereas the Australian approach makes FRMS applicable for current and new holders of flight crew licences but not air operators (AOC holders) until 30 April 2016, unless they voluntarily opt in to the scheme. Certainly, the US approach in this instance may be viewed by industry stakeholders as the preferable option, notwithstanding the costs to CASA of amending the present instrument should it be amenable to that approach. In our submission, the compromises in the US approach better serve the interests of both air operators and secure confidence in the safety of pilots for travellers.
4.2 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC?
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC?
The ramifications of flight crews exceeding duty time limitations can, at the extreme, contribute to consequences like the Colgan crash of 2009. It can also have ripple effects in practice (eg, flight delays) which typify the cost-benefit analysis which often emerges as a refrain in all facets of aviation safety regulation: airline operations and management’s demands for flexibility in regulation to get on with business and ensure their services – ie, the “product” provided when one buys an air ticket – operate on schedule, versus the rights and responsibilities of the pilot in command who bears the (regulatory) responsibility for the final disposition of any particular flight including the safety of all onboard. This is not a new issue.
However, recent examples where flight time limitations have operated to cause passenger delays by an airline (in addition to economic losses from having to cancel/reschedule an international flight) in circumstances beyond the airline’s control, indicate that some measure of flexibility might be warranted in the system which eventuates in Australia (vindicating the approach advanced by CASA in the 2013 Instrument).
In March 2013 a Qantas flight from Dallas to Brisbane was delayed by mechanical issues, and on 15 January 2014 Qantas (due to unrelated infractions of US DOT tarmac delay rules) received a civil penalty from the US DOT. In the “Consent Order” which described the steps Qantas took to mitigate the inconvenience for passengers of the tarmac delay, it is revealed the flight, which was delayed by more than 4 hours, was ultimately cancelled because the crew’s duty time limitations were insufficient to complete even a flight to an alternate, and closer, destination (Auckland).
Certainly this would have resulted in disruption to the airline in terms of scheduling both its crew, and a replacement flight notwithstanding the unquestionable air safety benefit (ie, no pilot flew tired). However, it also has several economic consequences for the airline in relation to compensation for delay to passengers under relevant international law which may not be so readily apparent, but which should serve as a reminder of one of the many consequences of inflexibility in flight duty times for flight crew members. Under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage,40 under which most if not all the passengers on the Dallas to Brisbane flight, Qantas would have been liable for compensation for proven losses brought about by delay of each passenger in an amount limited presently to 4,694 Special Drawing Rights (approximately $8,200 AUD as at the date of writing).41 In an aircraft that carries over 300 passengers this amount is substantial. Furthermore, under US DOT rules and the airline’s own policies, refunds of fares must be offered in some cases.
An additional complication of matters arises when one considers that, as is the case in the US, pilots may have contractually negotiated limitations on their duty times.
In the US at least, the FAA has taken the view that the more restrictive FAA rules would not supersede collective bargaining agreements where those arrangements were not in conflict with an FAA requirement.42
In summary then, our submission is that the Panel should ensure in any continuing regulatory reform in relation to FRMS, the multiplicity of stakeholder interests be considered, in the light of alternative States’ ways of handling the same competing interests in aviation law (safety/airlines/pilots/passengers).
In the US at least, the FAA has taken the view that the more restrictive FAA rules would not supersede collective bargaining agreements where those arrangements were not in conflict with an FAA requirement.42
In summary then, our submission is that the Panel should ensure in any continuing regulatory reform in relation to FRMS, the multiplicity of stakeholder interests be considered, in the light of alternative States’ ways of handling the same competing interests in aviation law (safety/airlines/pilots/passengers).
Hmm....nah makes too much sense...
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 18th Sep 2014 at 07:31.
I wonder if it possible the AOC specified charter but the company manual (approved by CASA) specified aerial work.
It seems a central issue. Had the flight been charter then there would have been alternate fuel.
It seems a central issue. Had the flight been charter then there would have been alternate fuel.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disappointment.
There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded. Mark Twain.
For starters, they did promise to 'visit' with certain folk, once their 'team' was picked and boots were on the ground; there was an intention to look at the Senate 'stuff' and to take a broad view of the situation, despite the narrow, restrictive ToR specified. It seems none of these promises were kept; this reflected in email chains which were, initially open, cheery and friendly that changed to carefully scripted 'weasel' words, with a definite change of tone. It seems the ToR were not only to be strictly adhered to but a narrow view was to be taken on that. Disappointing.
Then there is the change of pace to consider, from the bustling 'can do' approach to the meandering, dragging of feet, snail pace we see now. Why?, I expect only the minuscules and their 'advisors' know why. The latest application of the parking brake comes in two flavours: editing and checking, then checking and editing of the edited draft of the first iteration; to be sure, to be sure: and that although divided by a common language, there are no 'technical' errors and that a 'Canadian' definition does not contradict an Australian definition. Disappointing.
Then there is the 'translation' to French to consider, lots of scope there for added delay. If the Canadians must translate the thing to French, why should that delay the 'Australian' version of the Australian ordered report being delivered to the Australian people; who paid for it. This is not a Canadian report which affects Canadian safety or has any bloody thing to do with Canada at all; barring that the Canadian TSB was asked to do it. Why not translate it into bloody Mongolian while you're at it. Disappointing.
Passing strange, the TSBC don't mess about with their own reports; there'd be hell to pay from the government, the tax payers and the aviation community; so why, in the seven hells are they playing at silly buggers with our report. Disappointing.
I regret, my respect for the TSBC is rapidly waning, day by day. I'd have thought they had more self respect. Disappointing.
Heigh ho. Anyway, it's almost not worth waiting for the wretched thing now, being as it's too late to be effective and too embuggered to be of any further practical or intrinsic value.
C'est rien que de la merde- On t'a bercé trop près du mur?
Toot toot.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs,
Great footage of McComic doing everything except answering the question in Chambers Report and the 89 mill..!
It simply remains the case that the accident aero medical operation would not have been allowed under some other Fatigue Rule systems. That fact should have been communicated within and to both CASA and the ATSB by both parties. It was not. How is the fatigue science to progress if matters are covered up. You have to hand it to Fawcett he is brilliant in this role. I hope us ills of society can keep him applying pressure for some change in this business. (If only to prove Cream Puff wrong !)
Great footage of McComic doing everything except answering the question in Chambers Report and the 89 mill..!
It simply remains the case that the accident aero medical operation would not have been allowed under some other Fatigue Rule systems. That fact should have been communicated within and to both CASA and the ATSB by both parties. It was not. How is the fatigue science to progress if matters are covered up. You have to hand it to Fawcett he is brilliant in this role. I hope us ills of society can keep him applying pressure for some change in this business. (If only to prove Cream Puff wrong !)
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
QUOTE "Anyway, it's almost not worth waiting for the wretched thing now" QUOTE.
It would be interesting to see the original and the Canberra "doctored" versions if only to confirm what we already know.
My dogs blue underpants are murdered by setting fire to the wall. (pas plus pour etre vraiment triste).
It would be interesting to see the original and the Canberra "doctored" versions if only to confirm what we already know.
My dogs blue underpants are murdered by setting fire to the wall. (pas plus pour etre vraiment triste).
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 19th Sep 2014 at 01:12. Reason: Said! not sad. stupid bloody translator.
So 2008 audit suggests the AOC specifies charter operations. The 2008 audit states that CASA is watching PelAir closely.
Aircraft ditches to 2009 as no alternate fuel - which would have been required for charter.
The operator claims no alternate fuel was required as it was aerial work.
The 2009 special audit (following the crash) states the flight was aerial work. The preamble to this 2009 audit is worded more vaguely than the 2008 audit regarding the categories of operations permitted under the AOC.
2010 email within CASA stating no record of any change from charter to aerial work.
All very odd. Did the AOC change between March 2008 and November 2009? If so, how? During a period when CASA was closely monitoring the operator.
Aircraft ditches to 2009 as no alternate fuel - which would have been required for charter.
The operator claims no alternate fuel was required as it was aerial work.
The 2009 special audit (following the crash) states the flight was aerial work. The preamble to this 2009 audit is worded more vaguely than the 2008 audit regarding the categories of operations permitted under the AOC.
2010 email within CASA stating no record of any change from charter to aerial work.
All very odd. Did the AOC change between March 2008 and November 2009? If so, how? During a period when CASA was closely monitoring the operator.
Last edited by slats11; 19th Sep 2014 at 03:50. Reason: Clarification
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-hash.
In the absence of fresh material, a ramble, (revisit) with your forbearance, in an attempt to answer for Slats 11 one of the many very good, if vexed questions, which remain unanswered.
That, along with hints that only six monthly AOC were being issued, up until the 'new' CASA management of Pel Air took over the reigns and smoothed things out begs some interesting questions, which are probably 'awkward' to answer. We must turn to history, which goes back to before the illusion of change, albeit temporary, window dressing of the Chief pilot shuffle, to assist with speculation.
One of the 'problems' the Senate committee had was a very narrow window to wriggle in through. They did a stellar job within the framework provided but were focussed, quite rightly on the ditching only. What the committee managed to reveal – within the confines of their remit – was the tip of an iceberg. We must speculate from here on, but it's reasonable to assume that what they uncovered did truly offend them, hence the call for a deeper inquiry into the 'operations' and actions of CASA within a wider framework.
To be fair, Xenophon (bless) had NFI things were in such a state and was concerned with the surface issues; like everyone else not directly connected to industry. He assumed the government agencies involved were reasonably honest and competent. By the time the awful truth dawned it was too late. The Senate crew initiated the inquiry and had it not been for some solid work from external sources, may never have penetrated the smoke, mirrors and highly polished surface layers of Teflon. The Senate crew only got a glimpse of the beast, but it was enough to call for more and deeper inquiry. The simple fact that the Senate generated some 20 odd scathing recommendations supports the construct. I for one believe what the Senate crew saw, lurking behind the bluff, bluster and spin scared them; it scared industry experts and Fawcett (gods luv 'im) must be counted amongst the 'expert' group. Industry is indeed lucky to have masters Fawcett and Xenophon in the Senate.
The entire Pel Air 'thing' was heading towards a disaster, expanded reference and set to do some serious damage; had it not been for the minuscule and the WLR. It's reasonable to assume that all would be revealed through further Senate inquiry, given the amount and quality of 'evidence' which would be provided. The WLR derailed that wagon, wasted a lot of time and money and despite using a hand picked crew, the WLR still managed to add further fuel to the fire. Now the minuscule had, and still has two potential train wrecks to deal with. Perhaps he believes time will make them go away – news flash – No way.
So Slats, here we sit; should there be a 'proper' open, unrestricted inquiry into the way CASA do business? I believe so. Just one of the more lethal elements will be a comparison drawn between the 'management' of three issues; Pel Air, Airtex and Skymaster. Once you start down that road, Hempel, Quadrio, Barrier, Polar and many, many others are all waiting to greet the traveller, it is not a lonely road. Any half way decent, open, without fear analysis into that handful of case studies is quite capable of fully supporting not only the Senate recommendations, but those of the Forsyth review and demanding more change to system which is not only morally bankrupt, incompetent and dangerous, but has in it's current configuration the potential to cause a FAA downgrade of Australia.
I am not a great believer in the 'smoking hole' theory as a catalyst for change; I do believe the massive economic and social damage being caused by the 'system' will be the harbinger for change as the 'system' and those entrenched within it, slowly, but inevitably strangle the industry.
Was the whole Pel Air thing on the nose, including AOC and compliance with?– In my opinion, on the balance of probability Yes. Was "AWK" category a red herring?, more than likely. Was there a move to lead the Senate committee away from these 'sensitive' areas?; IMO, Yes, beyond all reasonable doubt. Will there be a call from the Senate for a deeper, wider investigation? – well Sir; to my mind, that is the only part of the whole worthy of question and speculation.
What's that old thing about "he who builds on sand". Aye well, enough. The coffee pot sings it's siren song.
Selah._.
Slats -"All very odd. Did the AOC change between March 2008 and November 2009? If so, how? During a period when CASA was closely monitoring the operator."
One of the 'problems' the Senate committee had was a very narrow window to wriggle in through. They did a stellar job within the framework provided but were focussed, quite rightly on the ditching only. What the committee managed to reveal – within the confines of their remit – was the tip of an iceberg. We must speculate from here on, but it's reasonable to assume that what they uncovered did truly offend them, hence the call for a deeper inquiry into the 'operations' and actions of CASA within a wider framework.
To be fair, Xenophon (bless) had NFI things were in such a state and was concerned with the surface issues; like everyone else not directly connected to industry. He assumed the government agencies involved were reasonably honest and competent. By the time the awful truth dawned it was too late. The Senate crew initiated the inquiry and had it not been for some solid work from external sources, may never have penetrated the smoke, mirrors and highly polished surface layers of Teflon. The Senate crew only got a glimpse of the beast, but it was enough to call for more and deeper inquiry. The simple fact that the Senate generated some 20 odd scathing recommendations supports the construct. I for one believe what the Senate crew saw, lurking behind the bluff, bluster and spin scared them; it scared industry experts and Fawcett (gods luv 'im) must be counted amongst the 'expert' group. Industry is indeed lucky to have masters Fawcett and Xenophon in the Senate.
The entire Pel Air 'thing' was heading towards a disaster, expanded reference and set to do some serious damage; had it not been for the minuscule and the WLR. It's reasonable to assume that all would be revealed through further Senate inquiry, given the amount and quality of 'evidence' which would be provided. The WLR derailed that wagon, wasted a lot of time and money and despite using a hand picked crew, the WLR still managed to add further fuel to the fire. Now the minuscule had, and still has two potential train wrecks to deal with. Perhaps he believes time will make them go away – news flash – No way.
So Slats, here we sit; should there be a 'proper' open, unrestricted inquiry into the way CASA do business? I believe so. Just one of the more lethal elements will be a comparison drawn between the 'management' of three issues; Pel Air, Airtex and Skymaster. Once you start down that road, Hempel, Quadrio, Barrier, Polar and many, many others are all waiting to greet the traveller, it is not a lonely road. Any half way decent, open, without fear analysis into that handful of case studies is quite capable of fully supporting not only the Senate recommendations, but those of the Forsyth review and demanding more change to system which is not only morally bankrupt, incompetent and dangerous, but has in it's current configuration the potential to cause a FAA downgrade of Australia.
I am not a great believer in the 'smoking hole' theory as a catalyst for change; I do believe the massive economic and social damage being caused by the 'system' will be the harbinger for change as the 'system' and those entrenched within it, slowly, but inevitably strangle the industry.
Was the whole Pel Air thing on the nose, including AOC and compliance with?– In my opinion, on the balance of probability Yes. Was "AWK" category a red herring?, more than likely. Was there a move to lead the Senate committee away from these 'sensitive' areas?; IMO, Yes, beyond all reasonable doubt. Will there be a call from the Senate for a deeper, wider investigation? – well Sir; to my mind, that is the only part of the whole worthy of question and speculation.
What's that old thing about "he who builds on sand". Aye well, enough. The coffee pot sings it's siren song.
Selah._.
Last edited by Kharon; 19th Sep 2014 at 20:58.
Its referred to as the Tombstone Imperative Kharon and it is the sad reality of how safety change occurs in aviation. Weather radar, EGPWS, non-toxic materials in cabin furnishings, CRM, stick shakers to name but a few. Look at the title of this thread and it will give you a clue as to the effectiveness of Parliamentary inquiries as a game changer in getting aviation back into worlds best practice. Look at the Part 61 changes. One of the biggest cockups to be visited upon the industry and the wider world doesn't care. Sunny's much vaunted PM&C sit silent on the matter because they simply don't understand what the problem is. As many others have stated, including those who no longer tread the boards (well not under that name anyway) the only way the pollies and the wider public will be shaken out of their complacency is unpleasant images on their TV screens and expose's on ACA and the tabloids.
A lawyer could argue that three holes lined up here
I. Decision not to carry alternate fuel
II Weather at NI below minima. Weather there is notoriously fickle.
III. Apparent failure of pilot to be aware of weather, and so proceeded past PNR. It appears Nadi passed on incorrect ceiling. It is not clear if pilot received amended weather. Again, air services in the South Pacific are not infallible.
There are a lot of additional issues, but these are the 3 core issues directly related to this crash.
Of these three holes, the only one within the domain of the operator and / or regulator is that of alternate fuel. They have no control over the other variables. Which makes it all the more critical to manage the issue of alternate fuel. Which means the issue of aerial work or charter one of central significance.
I. Decision not to carry alternate fuel
II Weather at NI below minima. Weather there is notoriously fickle.
III. Apparent failure of pilot to be aware of weather, and so proceeded past PNR. It appears Nadi passed on incorrect ceiling. It is not clear if pilot received amended weather. Again, air services in the South Pacific are not infallible.
There are a lot of additional issues, but these are the 3 core issues directly related to this crash.
Of these three holes, the only one within the domain of the operator and / or regulator is that of alternate fuel. They have no control over the other variables. Which makes it all the more critical to manage the issue of alternate fuel. Which means the issue of aerial work or charter one of central significance.
Slats there is a big difference between the requirement to carry alternate fuel and the decision to carry alternate fuel. Given point II of your core issues, that decision rests squarely with one person. So the issue of AWK v CHTR is an interesting technical discussion but not really the core issue IMHO. The core issue is how PeLAir supervised and risk managed these flights given the sector lengths. The crew were given limited guidance and assistance to complete the task. The Regulator knew all this and did very little about it, that I think are the two core issues. The performance of the crew after ToD was all their responsibility.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boring - Done to death.
Slats there has never, not ever been any disagreement that there were errors of judgement, James admits he made errors, the Senate agreed he made errors, the accident, apart from the appalling treatment of Karen Casey has, for a very long while now been history. No one is remotely interested.
What has become exposed is the absolutely dreadful performance of the 'authority' and the attempts made to manipulate the reports, misdirect the inquiry and abrogate all responsibility to a pitiful, meaningless 'pilot error' call. Back in the 2000+ posts on this thread stand alone; this has been discussed. To revisit that old, stale argument about fuel and fool, is pointless. However, if you wish to research and reinvent the wheel, do so. But please be sure of the facts you use to back the assertions. Be aware that a very clever lawyer or two and various assorted experts took the argument well beyond the James admitted errors of judgement, for which he paid and still, today pays a stiff price for. The same people delved deeply into what CASA and the ATSB did, before and after the incident and found them wanting. You need to think it through. For instance:-
The manual, including fatigue, flight planning and fuel policy would be 'accepted' by CASA, not approved. The line between the two conditions being a seriously 'grey' area; the old merry go round of endlessly amending and adding 'twiddles' to an operations manual to satisfy the peculiar tastes of the individual FOI, so that the FOI 'accepts' the manual as part of the certification process. There exists a mountain of tales and stories about getting CASA to 'tick the box' and even Raffety's rule book would be handy; ask any CP who has had the simple pleasure of adding a 'new' type to an AOC, ask his boss how the bank balance held out and then, for kicks, have a read of some of the mind bending dribble written in support. It's a sad indictment and cautionary tale.
When McComic stated that R206 was a "good example of bad law", you must understand the statement was made with relish, not in condemnation. It really is a buggers muddle which suits a big "R" regulator very well; the more complex the more exemption etc. and so it rolls on. To a practical man does it matter a bean if the flight was classed as charter, farter or martyr: during the 'acceptance' process the fuel policy, the recommendations, process, calculations and the rationale for the policy edicts should have been in place and thoroughly tested. The simple fact is, they were not and the company was allowed to continue operations without, for many years. That does not get young James completely off the hook, but had there been more 'situational awareness' of the fuel critical nature of the proposed flight and he better educated as to how to 'step around' the traps and pit falls, perhaps there may have been a better outcome. Perhaps not.
Lefty – I know mate, I know. But what's a girl to do?. One must at least learn to ask for dinner and dancing, before the fateful, inevitable event; there is no guarantee of course, that you'll get it....
What has become exposed is the absolutely dreadful performance of the 'authority' and the attempts made to manipulate the reports, misdirect the inquiry and abrogate all responsibility to a pitiful, meaningless 'pilot error' call. Back in the 2000+ posts on this thread stand alone; this has been discussed. To revisit that old, stale argument about fuel and fool, is pointless. However, if you wish to research and reinvent the wheel, do so. But please be sure of the facts you use to back the assertions. Be aware that a very clever lawyer or two and various assorted experts took the argument well beyond the James admitted errors of judgement, for which he paid and still, today pays a stiff price for. The same people delved deeply into what CASA and the ATSB did, before and after the incident and found them wanting. You need to think it through. For instance:-
I wonder if it possible the AOC specified charter but the company manual (approved by CASA) specified aerial work.
Slats - "Had the flight been charter then there would have been alternate fuel."
Lefty – I know mate, I know. But what's a girl to do?. One must at least learn to ask for dinner and dancing, before the fateful, inevitable event; there is no guarantee of course, that you'll get it..
..
Last edited by Kharon; 19th Sep 2014 at 23:19. Reason: Gone all PC - no more cussin' - Mummy smack.
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
I understand fuel was further limited by commercial limitations placed upon take up at obvious alternates. Been canvassed previously and still doesn't abrogate CAsA or ATSB's duty to provide a measured and accurate response.
Sunday cogitation - A Stray thought or two.
From a Ferryman post from the 'Wuss asleep at the wheel' thread...
Some interesting and shameful parallels are highlighted in those two 'request assistance' investigations...
For the first point of interest (POI) refer to the interim report for AE-2013-223, see here. Under Abstract it says...
As a result of these can do, prompt actions the CAA investigators were very quickly able to make a number of important observations:
Although only a short factual interim report the extremely divergent parallels to the PelAir & Hempel cover-up investigations are quite remarkable. And from the tail-end of the report:
Unlike our current domestic ATSBeaker there is no doubting the intent, integrity & transparency of the above statement from the CAANZ...
You are automatically left with the impression that the Kiwis will leave no stone un-turned to get to the cause of this tragedy. This is further highlighted by the fact that the Kiwis realise they don't have the necessary resources to properly analyse the ATC recordings. They then have no compunctions or reservations in automatically referring to our bureau for assistance. After all, under ICAO Annex 13, that is the way the system is supposed to work...FFS!
PelAir & beyond (BASR).
"K" also makes the point that left un-embuggered by our BASR domestic situation (& the apparently uncontrollable CAsA behemoth) our bureau coalface boys'n'gals still do stirling work...
Just before the PelAir cover-up debacle the bureau put out a glossy paper titled - PAST PRESENT FUTURE. Under the section - The International Dimension (page 65) - it highlights the many positive contributions internationally that the bureau has made, example:
The paper then goes on to praise the positive contributions of Alan Stray in overseeing the ATSB involvement in the Indonesia
Transport Safety Assistance Package (ITSAP):
Alan's efforts led to him being awarded a Public Service Medal (PSM) :
Upon reflection how he must now cringe when he reads these words from earlier in the bureau glossy...
"...As a founding member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Australia has played a prominent role in the Council and the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). Since 1974, Australia has consistently been
PAST PRESENT FUTURE
The subjects may be found –HERE - and – HERE - . The thing that drew my attention and earned some admiration was the quality of work which the ATSB is capable of producing – when playing away from home. Some cynics would say – far away from malign influences; I reckon it's pure frustration from our well qualified, competent troops at the coal face. Released and given a chance to shine – they do. Bravo..
For the first point of interest (POI) refer to the interim report for AE-2013-223, see here. Under Abstract it says...
"...Later that day, search and rescue personnel located parts of aircraft wreckage floating on the ocean surface.
The New Zealand Navy located the main aircraft wreckage on the seabed at a depth of approximately 59 metres. On 6 April 2013, Navy divers located and retrieved the body of the passenger. The following day the aircraft wreckage and the pilot’s body were recovered by the Navy onto its specialist dive vessel, the HMNZS Manawanui..."
As a result of these can do, prompt actions the CAA investigators were very quickly able to make a number of important observations:
...Once recovered, initial examination of the wreckage indicated that the aircraft had impacted the water with a slight nose down attitude its wings almost level and with a slight yawing movement.
Examination of the aircraft’s propellers indicated that the propellers were under little or no power at the time the aircraft impacted the water. The propeller angles were in a position usually associated with a cruise setting. Neither propeller was feathered.
Examination of the flight controls and control surfaces showed that the flap and gear selectors were in the fully retracted position. Aileron and rudder trim were in a near neutral position, however, the elevator trim was trimmed 21 units nose up.
The CAA safety investigation is being conducted in accordance with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Act. The objective of the safety investigation is the prevention of accidents by determining the contributing factors or causes and establishing what lessons can be taken for the improvement of the NZ aviation system.
The focus of the investigation is to establish the cause of the accident on the balance of probability. Safety investigations do not always identify one dominant or ‘proximate’ cause.
Often, an aviation accident is the last event in a chain of several events or factors, each of which may contribute to a greater or lesser degree, to the final outcome.
You are automatically left with the impression that the Kiwis will leave no stone un-turned to get to the cause of this tragedy. This is further highlighted by the fact that the Kiwis realise they don't have the necessary resources to properly analyse the ATC recordings. They then have no compunctions or reservations in automatically referring to our bureau for assistance. After all, under ICAO Annex 13, that is the way the system is supposed to work...FFS!
PelAir & beyond (BASR).
"K" also makes the point that left un-embuggered by our BASR domestic situation (& the apparently uncontrollable CAsA behemoth) our bureau coalface boys'n'gals still do stirling work...
Just before the PelAir cover-up debacle the bureau put out a glossy paper titled - PAST PRESENT FUTURE. Under the section - The International Dimension (page 65) - it highlights the many positive contributions internationally that the bureau has made, example:
On 31 January 2003, an Ilyushin 76TD aircraft impacted terrain during a landing approach to Baucau, Timor-Leste. The six aircraft occupants were fatally injured by the impact forces. At the request of the government of Timor-Leste, the ATSB conducted the investigation into the accident. The investigation report highlighted that deviations from recommended practice during the approach and landing phase of flight significantly increase the risk of a CFIT event.
Transport Safety Assistance Package (ITSAP):
The ATSB appointed Alan Stray, PSM, Director International, to oversee and coordinate the ATSB’s involvement in this important regional transport safety initiative.
The main elements of the ATSB’s contribution to ITSAP are to deliver training and support for NTSC investigators. This includes the ATSB providing staff dedicated to various capacity building projects, funding ATSB training courses in Indonesia and Australia, and expand opportunities for aviation, marine, and rail investigators to work with ATSB counterparts for extended periods. Support is also being provided on individual transport safety investigations.
The main elements of the ATSB’s contribution to ITSAP are to deliver training and support for NTSC investigators. This includes the ATSB providing staff dedicated to various capacity building projects, funding ATSB training courses in Indonesia and Australia, and expand opportunities for aviation, marine, and rail investigators to work with ATSB counterparts for extended periods. Support is also being provided on individual transport safety investigations.
:
In January 2009, Alan Stray was awarded the Public Service Medal “For outstanding public service improving aviation safety in Australia and Indonesia”.
"...As a founding member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Australia has played a prominent role in the Council and the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). Since 1974, Australia has consistently been
elected to the council as a Category One State of Chief Importance in Air Transport, and plays a major part in the activities of ICAO. Australia’s role has been underpinned by its perceived integrity and lack of bias, and excellent safety record..."
{Comment: Some of the weasel words in the Albo message & Beaker intro are also, upon reflection, positively vomitus..
}
} Hmm...SOB....& BRING BACK ALAN!
..& BRING BACK ALAN! MTF...
{NB - Part two on the positive NZed Aviation Safety system, where the NAA is uniquely also the AAI. Versus our BASR system with a seemingly uncontrollable big "R" NAA slowly but surely regulating the GA industry out of existence; while our bureau (domestically at least) is a mere hand muppet helping facilitate the CAsA agenda of GA annihilation }
} PAST PRESENT FUTURE
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As played in heaven.
Ever wonder why the All Blacks keep winning – and manage to maintain a seriously formidable record. Their blokes are no bigger, fitter, smarter or any more skilled than our fellahin but they win; even when the score line shows otherwise. I believe the difference is in freedom; the Kiwi's simply have the freedom to improvise and keep the ball alive to obtain the end result – a try. The Australian teams seem hidebound; constrained by complex 'set piece' strategy, beaten into a mentality which depends on complex, stylised micro rule sets; which, once upset lead to confusion, excuses and denial. Individual brilliance is subjugated and improvisation sacrificed to 'herd discipline'. Which is fine, until a size 24 prop has gleefully grabbed you by the ears and is not going to let go; the set piece collapses and no one is looking to recover; just for who's to blame. “No battle plan,” he sagely noted, “survives contact with the enemy.” – Moltke
NZ aviation reflects the All Blacks 'spirit' – sure there is a game plan and rules; but with the shackles of micro management removed and simple, clear cut instructions assist a free running game. It's not only how to win at rugger we should learn from the Kiwi's. Aircraft down in the water – now, who would have ever imagined using the NZ navy to recover the aircraft, quickly, cheaply, effectively, give the troops some real training and a chance to shine. Beaker sure as hell didn't; did he now. Purblind bloody fool.
What's this twiddle got to do with aviation? – well: if Sarcs has headed down the research path I believe he'll take, the thinking man may glean some insight into why the NZ CAA is light years ahead of not only Australia, but of many other enlightened countries in the way they have progressed aviation, not just 'safety'; but in the regulatory and fiscal fields, resulting in increased efficiency naturally leading to improved safety outcomes.. Can't wait for Sarcs, part two – nice catch and bravo for having the patience to tease out the data...
Toot toot..
NZ aviation reflects the All Blacks 'spirit' – sure there is a game plan and rules; but with the shackles of micro management removed and simple, clear cut instructions assist a free running game. It's not only how to win at rugger we should learn from the Kiwi's. Aircraft down in the water – now, who would have ever imagined using the NZ navy to recover the aircraft, quickly, cheaply, effectively, give the troops some real training and a chance to shine. Beaker sure as hell didn't; did he now. Purblind bloody fool.
What's this twiddle got to do with aviation? – well: if Sarcs has headed down the research path I believe he'll take, the thinking man may glean some insight into why the NZ CAA is light years ahead of not only Australia, but of many other enlightened countries in the way they have progressed aviation, not just 'safety'; but in the regulatory and fiscal fields, resulting in increased efficiency naturally leading to improved safety outcomes.. Can't wait for Sarcs, part two – nice catch and bravo for having the patience to tease out the data...
Toot toot..
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Sep 2014 at 22:02. Reason: Reason? don't need no stinkin' reason.
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
I'm unsure who the NZ Minister for Aviation is, if in fact there is one, but whoever, he and his lot have just been given a resounding pat on the back for a job well done in the weekend elections.
Says something about the Kiwi mindset as well.
Says something about the Kiwi mindset as well.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 21st Sep 2014 at 22:28. Reason: When youre on a good thing stick to it! (trade mark protected perhaps).
Follow the links - 'Fat dumb but unhappy!'
Kharon - Sarcs has headed down the research path I believe he'll take, the thinking man may glean some insight into why the NZ CAA is light years ahead of not only Australia, but of many other enlightened countries in the way they have progressed aviation, not just 'safety'; but in the regulatory and fiscal fields, resulting in increased efficiency naturally leading to improved safety outcomes..
For a small nation geographically & population wise NZed certainly punches above it's weight..
Comparisons can not only be made in Rugby, the Kiwis also excel in aviation, just take a look at the financials for Air NZ v our majors; or in GA versus our slowly but surely suffocation of a once thriving industry (pre 1990s)...
So what is the difference??
It cannot simply be about a better written, more easily read and understood rule set; there has to be a lot more to it than that??
Part of the problem for Oz aviation is we have drifted, over now a good many years, into a third world mentality of complacency living off the fat of the land and extreme mineral wealth, none of which the Kiwis had in the first place. We are also encumbered by several extra layers of bureaucracy that the Kiwis simply don't have to deal with...
It was pointed out in the Forsyth report that Performance Based Regulation (PBR) is the new mantra for NAA world’s best practice in aviation regulation, a philosophy that best fosters & nurtures an essential industry for any nation’s economic benefit.
From executive summary ASRR report:
Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.
A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.
A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.
Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system…
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected…
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system…
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected…
And that is where the two requests for assistance from CAANZ to our very own ATSB comes in, so here goes my follow the links...
To begin from those reports the NZed system for AAI is very unique in that the CAA also holds the responsibility for the receiving of incident/accident reports, while also being responsible for overseeing the investigation according to ICAO Annex 13. Sometimes they delegate the carriage of the investigation to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) but not always, as is evident in the Baron tragedy.
From AE-2013-023:
Further information on the CAA investigation, including an interim factual report on the occurrence can be found on the CAA website, at
www.caa.govt.nz, and
www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/N254F-interim.pdf
www.caa.govt.nz, and
www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/N254F-interim.pdf
Next go to the RHS index of links & click on Policy and Rules and go down to the heading Government Support and click on Civil Aviation Act Review.
This brings up a Ministry Transport webpage which is well worth reading and begins to paint the picture on how & why NZed, like the ALL BLACKs, are light years ahead of us and most of the world when it comes to State aviation safety oversight & regulation.
Finally click on the link in the middle of this extremely refreshing text:
In addition, over the past 20 years, significant change has occurred within government and throughout the international aviation industry. Some of the changes are:
· the flourishing of New Zealand’s aviation business. About $9.7 billion of revenue is now earned by the aviation industry each year – almost as much as the $10.4 billion earned from the country’s dairy industry . The government expects the industry to continue to be a major contributor to economic growth. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the Act is not unnecessarily constraining aviation business in New Zealand and across the globe
· the government’s ‘Better Regulation, Less Regulation’ (external link) initiative. The review is a response to finding new ways of tackling transport regulation to ensure it is of high quality and implemented in a cost-effective manner
· the Civil Aviation Authority has moved to a more proactive, risk-based approach to aviation regulation. It is implementing a change programme to improve regulatory quality, service delivery, and efficiency and effectiveness. The review provides an opportunity to ensure the Act can support the Civil Aviation Authority to achieve its change programme
· the international aviation industry is changing rapidly due to increased demand for services, improved technology, the increasing cost of jet fuel and environmental concerns. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework supports the needs of a dynamic sector
· the flourishing of New Zealand’s aviation business. About $9.7 billion of revenue is now earned by the aviation industry each year – almost as much as the $10.4 billion earned from the country’s dairy industry . The government expects the industry to continue to be a major contributor to economic growth. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the Act is not unnecessarily constraining aviation business in New Zealand and across the globe
· the government’s ‘Better Regulation, Less Regulation’ (external link) initiative. The review is a response to finding new ways of tackling transport regulation to ensure it is of high quality and implemented in a cost-effective manner
· the Civil Aviation Authority has moved to a more proactive, risk-based approach to aviation regulation. It is implementing a change programme to improve regulatory quality, service delivery, and efficiency and effectiveness. The review provides an opportunity to ensure the Act can support the Civil Aviation Authority to achieve its change programme
· the international aviation industry is changing rapidly due to increased demand for services, improved technology, the increasing cost of jet fuel and environmental concerns. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework supports the needs of a dynamic sector
Hmm…meanwhile in our world the out of control big “R” regulator continues to dictate & rule the roost with an archaic, draconian mind-set that threatens to decimate our once proud GA industry…
TICK..TOCK miniscule time to wake up or shove off!
ps miniscule Ben has some questions for you that the IOS think you should answer ASAP...
: Pel-Air: Is 2nd rate crash report good enough for Australia?pps This comment says it all really...
Minister Truss writes in the Courier-Mail (Letters to Editor, 22/9/14) this morning about CASA and Angel Flight. Amongst other things he writes that “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”
ATSB has similar status so I assume that his advice is that he cannot direct it on safety matters either.
ATSB has similar status so I assume that his advice is that he cannot direct it on safety matters either.
Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Sep 2014 at 15:06.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time and patience.
Or, T&P if you like. The sterling effort from brother Sarcs above took lots of both; a good job well done and thank you. After reading that, I'm left to wonder how CASA is going to deal with the sniggers and snide remarks made at those expensive international shin-digs.
I can imagine the worlds best, nudging each other as the 'entertainment' shows up; laughing quietly up its collective sleeve at the posturing and pretence exhibited when team Australia stands up, beating its chest and claiming to be a well respected member of the NAA club. It's a very good thing they have Truss conned; for no one else will believe them.
Same-same Beaker – a trend setter, with his very own Beyond Reason approach; listened to politely in public and the subject of derision and ridicule in private. How long before the world NAA begin to publicly humiliate this country? and how long before they start to think that perhaps, with Australia doggedly clinging to a stone age mentality, there may be an accident with some of their nationals on board and take steps to protect their people; even if it's just from the insurance companies.
I find I have neither time nor patience for this bloody awful creature; who claims to be a concerned member of parliament, a champion of the bush and dare even appear in public, claiming to be the final authority on transport. I find it hard to believe that a fully paid minister of the crown can stand up, in public and declare 'he' has no control of CASA. He's the minister for crying out loud; not some gutless, puling clerk in the back office, wringing his sweaty hands, trying to explain to his boss there is a better way.
BOLLOCKS !! - Then who can, you painted, decrepit clown? What a deceitful, despicable, back sliding road to take; and this to further disadvantage the disadvantaged, who can't fight back. Further empowering an organisation the minister freely admits, he can't control. Porridge for brains and the backbone of an amoeba. What's next then, hit squads in bush to exterminate those who inconveniently get sick and cannot travel to hospital? or will the minuscule now pay for 'free' RFDS services; or, subsidised air fares? Yeah, right. You may still drink the water here, but don't get sick or be poor; not in Warren's version of the bush anyway.
(A) – Well the minuscule, Beaker and their Canadian side kicks seem to think so; I guess we must accept the rulings, made by 'experts', in their own best interest.
That this caricature, this cardboard cut-out of a man with almost unlimited power, will not lift so much a well groomed eyebrow to help anything or anyone is a national disgrace. It's a bigger disgrace that we – the people – allow it.
Meanwhile, we sit back and watch the rest of the worlds aviation counties rules mature and grow, helping industry to be useful, employment and revenue generators, contributing to the national wealth. Shame on you minister and well done America, Britain and New Zealand – yet again.
Selah..
I love a scorched earth country, a land of acid rain, where aircraft plough the paddocks, again and again and again. etc. etc..
I can imagine the worlds best, nudging each other as the 'entertainment' shows up; laughing quietly up its collective sleeve at the posturing and pretence exhibited when team Australia stands up, beating its chest and claiming to be a well respected member of the NAA club. It's a very good thing they have Truss conned; for no one else will believe them.
Same-same Beaker – a trend setter, with his very own Beyond Reason approach; listened to politely in public and the subject of derision and ridicule in private. How long before the world NAA begin to publicly humiliate this country? and how long before they start to think that perhaps, with Australia doggedly clinging to a stone age mentality, there may be an accident with some of their nationals on board and take steps to protect their people; even if it's just from the insurance companies.
I find I have neither time nor patience for this bloody awful creature; who claims to be a concerned member of parliament, a champion of the bush and dare even appear in public, claiming to be the final authority on transport. I find it hard to believe that a fully paid minister of the crown can stand up, in public and declare 'he' has no control of CASA. He's the minister for crying out loud; not some gutless, puling clerk in the back office, wringing his sweaty hands, trying to explain to his boss there is a better way.
Truss - “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”
Ben (Q) - Pel-Air: Is 2nd rate crash report good enough for Australia?
That this caricature, this cardboard cut-out of a man with almost unlimited power, will not lift so much a well groomed eyebrow to help anything or anyone is a national disgrace. It's a bigger disgrace that we – the people – allow it.
Meanwhile, we sit back and watch the rest of the worlds aviation counties rules mature and grow, helping industry to be useful, employment and revenue generators, contributing to the national wealth. Shame on you minister and well done America, Britain and New Zealand – yet again.
Selah..
I love a scorched earth country, a land of acid rain, where aircraft plough the paddocks, again and again and again. etc. etc..
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Sep 2014 at 22:30. Reason: Add a bit - Still smoking –steam definitely ON.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs, excellent post. Whilst reading it and around two thirds of the way though it I had a lightbulb moment - the reason we Australians are so over regulated, not trusted, micro managed and all treated as being guilty of breaking some kind of aviation rule is because of this - our heritage! We are Convicts!!! You see there is most likely two types of Australians (in the eyes of the idiots responsible for creating our Stasi like existence) - there is the general Aviator, whose ancestry can be traced back to Convicts deported to Australia for minor rule infractions such as stealing a loaf of bread or breaking wind in public (the equivalent today of forgetting to fill in your log book the instant you finish taxiing to the gate, or exceeding flight duty time by 18 seconds, or being colour blind according to CASA standards and Dr Pooshan's interpretation of the rules). Then you have those whose bloodline dates back to those who implemented these Nazi like rules in the first place. Sadly they too live among us today and work in positions of authority where they still believe we are all guilty of a crime before committing it, and as such must be bound and hog tied with red tape, rules and even more rules and add a few more rules on top of that, to ensure that we are not given enough space to even breathe the air that surrounds us.
CASA really just don't get it do they. Suppress the people enough (in this case our aviation industry) and eventually the whole system implodes and scenes of chaos ensue, with the people taking back their streets so to speak. Unfortunately there are signs of this occurring as most of us have had enough of being treated like third rate criminals when in fact we are honest, hard working citizens merely trying to eek out a living from an industry we love. CASA - this is 2014, not 1750. Wake the hell up, get over it, join the real world, please.
CASA really just don't get it do they. Suppress the people enough (in this case our aviation industry) and eventually the whole system implodes and scenes of chaos ensue, with the people taking back their streets so to speak. Unfortunately there are signs of this occurring as most of us have had enough of being treated like third rate criminals when in fact we are honest, hard working citizens merely trying to eek out a living from an industry we love. CASA - this is 2014, not 1750. Wake the hell up, get over it, join the real world, please.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS.
The embuggerance is really starting to be felt at grass roots level. Our PPL and recreational flying folk rarely have to deal with the CASA, in any meaningful way. It's as I said to Quadrio – tell your tale in the pub, people will listen but, as it don't affect them and the yarn will soon be forgotten. If industry does not get a grip, unites and force some sort of meaningful response from Truss, the post below will become so common place as to be unremarkable.
Last chance folks, the clock is ticking and don't ask for whom the bell tolls.
Last chance folks, the clock is ticking and don't ask for whom the bell tolls.
Icon -I have been lurking here for quite some time (look at my join date) and have seen all the CASA bashing statements coming from everyone. Up until 2 weeks ago I though they were all a bunch whiners with nothing better to do, hey I was just a PPL who never had any issues with CASA so what was everyone's problem. Then I got my letter, then I did some research, now I am scared!
