Merged: Senate Inquiry
lookleft,
I am well aware of the general trends of thought, with which I agree, about the deterioration in handling competency.
There is no shortage of research on the subject, FSF and FAA are two places to look.
However, blaming all that on ab nitio training, when somebody has been an airline pilot for some years, is another thing altogether. To me and many others, there are multiple deficiencies in many airlines' continuation training, even airlines whose upset training is a good as (not very good) a modern simulator allows.
And, of course, upsets are as old as aviation, they didn't suddenly start to occur with the advent of airline cadet pilots.
As for Bloggs' comments, typical of somebody whose horizon and perceptions end at the Australian 12 mile limit. Bloggs, old chap, you are not going to turn the clock (and a goodly percentage of the airline industry) back 60 years.
I am well aware of the general trends of thought, with which I agree, about the deterioration in handling competency.
There is no shortage of research on the subject, FSF and FAA are two places to look.
However, blaming all that on ab nitio training, when somebody has been an airline pilot for some years, is another thing altogether. To me and many others, there are multiple deficiencies in many airlines' continuation training, even airlines whose upset training is a good as (not very good) a modern simulator allows.
And, of course, upsets are as old as aviation, they didn't suddenly start to occur with the advent of airline cadet pilots.
As for Bloggs' comments, typical of somebody whose horizon and perceptions end at the Australian 12 mile limit. Bloggs, old chap, you are not going to turn the clock (and a goodly percentage of the airline industry) back 60 years.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time passes
Popgun # 1 - 6/10/10.
Three years ago, Popgun kicked off this thread, the Senate Committee was quite rightly concerned, as are most of the rest of the world about pilot training and standards. The committee was essentially told to bugger off and read the great, soft white paper, which said "no worries", CASA have it under control: then we get part 61, just to prove it.....
The young'ns coming through today are no less or more competent than they were 30 years ago; they want to learn and, as 'volunteers', they are most willing to learn. As usual that learning occurs through self funding (in whatever format), which again proves willingness and determination to become professional flight crew. But somewhere in there, there is a 'gap' (for want of better) – which is becoming noticeable. Perhaps there is enough expertise about the place to define the 'gap' and place a well written, short, accurate submission into the willing hands of D. Fawcett esq. or Sen. Xenophon stating the case as asking could we please revisit the issues. I am certain they are still a tad miffed with the "white paper" episode, still concerned that there is something (as yet undefined) wrong within the system and; in all probability, would try to get things sorted as best they may.
Think on, in the last three years the problems at flight school level have probably transitioned from a harmless Jabiru onto the flight decks of passenger jet transport, in another three years, those issues may be training and checking pilots.
So, what d'ya say boys; bicker on Pprune or provide solutions. Hell, we do it all day at work; identify the problem, execute the fix and get home in time for tea. Surely this little problem is not beyond the collective intelligence of the once proud Australian aviation communities.
Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety
I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.
(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector; etc.
I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.
(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector; etc.
The young'ns coming through today are no less or more competent than they were 30 years ago; they want to learn and, as 'volunteers', they are most willing to learn. As usual that learning occurs through self funding (in whatever format), which again proves willingness and determination to become professional flight crew. But somewhere in there, there is a 'gap' (for want of better) – which is becoming noticeable. Perhaps there is enough expertise about the place to define the 'gap' and place a well written, short, accurate submission into the willing hands of D. Fawcett esq. or Sen. Xenophon stating the case as asking could we please revisit the issues. I am certain they are still a tad miffed with the "white paper" episode, still concerned that there is something (as yet undefined) wrong within the system and; in all probability, would try to get things sorted as best they may.
Think on, in the last three years the problems at flight school level have probably transitioned from a harmless Jabiru onto the flight decks of passenger jet transport, in another three years, those issues may be training and checking pilots.
So, what d'ya say boys; bicker on Pprune or provide solutions. Hell, we do it all day at work; identify the problem, execute the fix and get home in time for tea. Surely this little problem is not beyond the collective intelligence of the once proud Australian aviation communities.
Last edited by Kharon; 5th Oct 2013 at 18:57.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon, a good post.
Having observed the skill sets of one or two newbies fresh out of flying school, I have a suspicion you may be right, there does seem to be something lacking in their basic training.
Difficult to put your finger on it, but I suspect a lot of box ticking goes on during their early training as opposed to ensuring their competence levels.
I have some sympathy for our regulator as I believe competence can be a very esoteric subject and as we know our regulations in Australia fall under the criminal code where things must be in black and white.
The new massive part 61 attempts to set everything in cement by micro managing the entire process. The problem with that, I believe is there can be no allowance made for each individuals abilities, the whole process becomes massively expensive and encourages even more box ticking.
It would appear that Australia has priced itself out of the training of foreign students in favour of New Zealand, I believe Part 61 will do the same thing to our local market.
Having observed the skill sets of one or two newbies fresh out of flying school, I have a suspicion you may be right, there does seem to be something lacking in their basic training.
Difficult to put your finger on it, but I suspect a lot of box ticking goes on during their early training as opposed to ensuring their competence levels.
I have some sympathy for our regulator as I believe competence can be a very esoteric subject and as we know our regulations in Australia fall under the criminal code where things must be in black and white.
The new massive part 61 attempts to set everything in cement by micro managing the entire process. The problem with that, I believe is there can be no allowance made for each individuals abilities, the whole process becomes massively expensive and encourages even more box ticking.
It would appear that Australia has priced itself out of the training of foreign students in favour of New Zealand, I believe Part 61 will do the same thing to our local market.
Time passes and the cannon is primed!
Kharon:
Perhaps it is time to reflect on the combined wisdom and efforts of Sen X & Sen Fawcett (in all things ugly and white papered over) to do with aviation safety in Oz...
Senator Xenophon: Pilot Training & Airline Safety Senate Report Comments
PelAir Report additional comments
Senator Fawcett: Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill - Speech
Airport Amendment Bill Govt response - Speech
But my all time favourite from DF recently and worth regurgitating in its entirety (borrowed from Ben
):
Hear..hear! 
& Minister take note NX and DF are honorary members of the "IOS"!
Perhaps there is enough expertise about the place to define the 'gap' and place a well written, short, accurate submission into the willing hands of D. Fawcett esq. or Sen. Xenophon stating the case as asking could we please revisit the issues. I am certain they are still a tad miffed with the "white paper" episode, still concerned that there is something (as yet undefined) wrong within the system and; in all probability, would try to get things sorted as best they may.
Senator Xenophon: Pilot Training & Airline Safety Senate Report Comments
PelAir Report additional comments
Senator Fawcett: Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill - Speech
Airport Amendment Bill Govt response - Speech
But my all time favourite from DF recently and worth regurgitating in its entirety (borrowed from Ben
):
Pel-Air air safety issues spelt out by pilot and Senator, David Fawcett
A parliamentary speech that everyone concerned about the safety of the flying public, and the competency and integrity of CASA and the ATSB should read
Earlier this week Senator David Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) urged the upper house of Australia’s federal parliament to ‘take note’ of the Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s final report into the 2009 Pel-Air crash and related matters.
Senator Fawcett was a military helicopter pilot, and was the Commanding Officer, RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit, Edinburgh, SA, and an experimental test pilot, before being elected to public office.
He played a very measured and penetrating role in the air accident investigation committee hearings which were were instigated by fellow SA independent Senator Nick Xenophon.
This is Senator Fawcett’s address to the motion that the Senate take note of the committee’s findings. Whatever the attitude of the government and opposition benches to the Pel-Air matters, the disgrace they brought on CASA and the ATSB will neither be forgiven nor go away.
This is about the safety of the Australian public, and the functioning of the bodies charged to regulate air safety (CASA) and investigate safety issues to further air safety (ATSB). In the Hansard of Senator Fawcell’s speech some emphasis has been added by Plane Talking.
Senator FAWCETT I move: That the Senate take note of the report: The final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations was tabled in May this year.
It followed a long period of investigation into the inquiry by the ATSB into the accident in which a Pel-Air aircraft ditched off Norfolk Island in 2009.
The Senate report highlighted that the performance of the two government agencies that were primarily involved, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, came far short of the expectations that the Australian taxpayer, this parliament and the aviation community should have.
In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies.
Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas.
I will list them and then talk in more detail about them.
They failed to maximise the beneficial aviation safety outcomes that could have been derived from the investigation into this incident.
They failed to enhance public confidence in aviation safety.
I think we saw that in the controversy in the aviation industry and the media around the report when it was finally released.
They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety.
They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency’s complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA’s specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other’s functions.
They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement.
The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting. Safety outcomes is one area that I would like to touch on.
Accident investigations are an opportunity for an informed and expert body to sit back and take a considered look at why an incident occurred.
That body may be expert but they are not necessarily the best judges of how the lessons from that incident may be applied to other sectors of the aviation industry.
The committee found that for various reasons and over time the ATSB processes have got to the point where much evidence can be excluded if it does not fall into the categories that they consider will impact on high-risk future operations. So we have a situation where they are making an arbitrary decision to exclude evidence, and without evidence they are not then investigating or reporting on what actually occurred.
That means that other aviation operations are not the beneficiaries of an explanation of occurrences and failures in a system safety approach and what defences failed such that the accident occurred. It has been the traditional approach to identify each of those factors and let the stakeholders make their own assessment. But the safety outcomes are no longer optimised because of this approach of trying to make that arbitrary decision at the front.
That is a significant flaw in the current approach which the committee has recommended be revisited. The report and CASA’s statements in name supported the concept of a systemic approach to aviation safety.
But what we found very clearly was that the investigation focused very quickly on the pilot in command on the night, as opposed to looking at the raft of other factors.
Looking at the James Reason model of system safety, one sees that there are a number of defences which are in place, which include the operating company, the regulator and a raft of things—training et cetera—as well as the pilot. But many of those factors were given, at best, lip-service. They were mentioned in the report so a box could be ticked to say that they were considered, without a detailed consideration of them.
For that reason, the report was quite flawed.
What made the matter worse was that, having required both CASA and ATSB to produce documents for the inquiry, which initially they were reluctant to do, we spent some considerable time going through literally boxes and boxes of documents to find information, emails, reports and things that were relevant to the report and, having seen a report that said that the company was applying all of its regulatory requirements and CASA was auditing it and so there were no organisational factors to consider, we found that CASA in fact had done a special audit.
Not only had they done a special audit that found a range of problems within the company; they had done their own internal report about CASA’s performance of their oversight of the company and found that, in their own words, that was deficient.
So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, ‘No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,’ they chose not to do that.
That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.
It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations.
That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change.
So the ATSB, in its approach to its report, and CASA, by withholding that information, have done the aviation industry in Australia a great disservice.
The aviation industry relies on open, transparent and accurate reporting from the regulator and from the safety investigation agency to make sure that the organisations concerned can be ongoing learning organisations that maximise the safety outcomes for the travelling public and for people operating aircraft. The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this.
The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment.
To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields.
There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.
The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were under resourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing.
From subsequent discussions, I would argue that, in some cases, they did not have the background to be writing the regulations or standards in the first place.
I believe there is a strong requirement to look at the regulatory reform process and the role that industry should have, not just with token consultation but with a powerful voice, even to the point of veto, where they can work with the regulator to highlight what is industry best practice, and that should form the basis of regulation unless there is a very clear safety case to not go down that path.
Australia’s travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better.
I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring.
A parliamentary speech that everyone concerned about the safety of the flying public, and the competency and integrity of CASA and the ATSB should read
Earlier this week Senator David Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) urged the upper house of Australia’s federal parliament to ‘take note’ of the Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s final report into the 2009 Pel-Air crash and related matters.
Senator Fawcett was a military helicopter pilot, and was the Commanding Officer, RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit, Edinburgh, SA, and an experimental test pilot, before being elected to public office.
He played a very measured and penetrating role in the air accident investigation committee hearings which were were instigated by fellow SA independent Senator Nick Xenophon.
This is Senator Fawcett’s address to the motion that the Senate take note of the committee’s findings. Whatever the attitude of the government and opposition benches to the Pel-Air matters, the disgrace they brought on CASA and the ATSB will neither be forgiven nor go away.
This is about the safety of the Australian public, and the functioning of the bodies charged to regulate air safety (CASA) and investigate safety issues to further air safety (ATSB). In the Hansard of Senator Fawcell’s speech some emphasis has been added by Plane Talking.
Senator FAWCETT I move: That the Senate take note of the report: The final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations was tabled in May this year.
It followed a long period of investigation into the inquiry by the ATSB into the accident in which a Pel-Air aircraft ditched off Norfolk Island in 2009.
The Senate report highlighted that the performance of the two government agencies that were primarily involved, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, came far short of the expectations that the Australian taxpayer, this parliament and the aviation community should have.
In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies.
Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas.
I will list them and then talk in more detail about them.
They failed to maximise the beneficial aviation safety outcomes that could have been derived from the investigation into this incident.
They failed to enhance public confidence in aviation safety.
I think we saw that in the controversy in the aviation industry and the media around the report when it was finally released.
They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety.
They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency’s complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA’s specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other’s functions.
They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement.
The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting. Safety outcomes is one area that I would like to touch on.
Accident investigations are an opportunity for an informed and expert body to sit back and take a considered look at why an incident occurred.
That body may be expert but they are not necessarily the best judges of how the lessons from that incident may be applied to other sectors of the aviation industry.
The committee found that for various reasons and over time the ATSB processes have got to the point where much evidence can be excluded if it does not fall into the categories that they consider will impact on high-risk future operations. So we have a situation where they are making an arbitrary decision to exclude evidence, and without evidence they are not then investigating or reporting on what actually occurred.
That means that other aviation operations are not the beneficiaries of an explanation of occurrences and failures in a system safety approach and what defences failed such that the accident occurred. It has been the traditional approach to identify each of those factors and let the stakeholders make their own assessment. But the safety outcomes are no longer optimised because of this approach of trying to make that arbitrary decision at the front.
That is a significant flaw in the current approach which the committee has recommended be revisited. The report and CASA’s statements in name supported the concept of a systemic approach to aviation safety.
But what we found very clearly was that the investigation focused very quickly on the pilot in command on the night, as opposed to looking at the raft of other factors.
Looking at the James Reason model of system safety, one sees that there are a number of defences which are in place, which include the operating company, the regulator and a raft of things—training et cetera—as well as the pilot. But many of those factors were given, at best, lip-service. They were mentioned in the report so a box could be ticked to say that they were considered, without a detailed consideration of them.
For that reason, the report was quite flawed.
What made the matter worse was that, having required both CASA and ATSB to produce documents for the inquiry, which initially they were reluctant to do, we spent some considerable time going through literally boxes and boxes of documents to find information, emails, reports and things that were relevant to the report and, having seen a report that said that the company was applying all of its regulatory requirements and CASA was auditing it and so there were no organisational factors to consider, we found that CASA in fact had done a special audit.
Not only had they done a special audit that found a range of problems within the company; they had done their own internal report about CASA’s performance of their oversight of the company and found that, in their own words, that was deficient.
So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, ‘No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,’ they chose not to do that.
That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.
It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations.
That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change.
So the ATSB, in its approach to its report, and CASA, by withholding that information, have done the aviation industry in Australia a great disservice.
The aviation industry relies on open, transparent and accurate reporting from the regulator and from the safety investigation agency to make sure that the organisations concerned can be ongoing learning organisations that maximise the safety outcomes for the travelling public and for people operating aircraft. The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this.
The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment.
To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields.
There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.
The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were under resourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing.
From subsequent discussions, I would argue that, in some cases, they did not have the background to be writing the regulations or standards in the first place.
I believe there is a strong requirement to look at the regulatory reform process and the role that industry should have, not just with token consultation but with a powerful voice, even to the point of veto, where they can work with the regulator to highlight what is industry best practice, and that should form the basis of regulation unless there is a very clear safety case to not go down that path.
Australia’s travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better.
I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring.
& Minister take note NX and DF are honorary members of the "IOS"!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accursed grapevine.
There's a very unsettling rumour doing the rounds, that despite the best efforts being made by various folk, ol' trusty Truss has done a deal with devil in the name of saving face. I do hope it's unfounded; there will not be too much face left to save if the unthinkable occurs.
I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......
I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......
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
done a deal with devil
It's strange that he wouldn't hedge his bets by having a fallback to blame Albo if or when the big silver bird "augers" in. By getting into bed with the devil he makes himself a "buckstop". Or is that "buckshot"?
Remember Chamberlain trying to broker a deal with Hitler.
Most all Transport Ministers have historically been a few sandwiches short of a picnic at the best of time. A Transport Minister should be a loose cannon like Barnaby or even "the potplant Senator".
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 7th Oct 2013 at 21:59. Reason: Loose cannon got loose.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But there's more.
I got this straight off the back of the Cairns truck – and verbatim I do quote it. "Entsch has backed off supporting Barrier, threatened law suite or some such". It's a disgrace how these scurrilous rumours get started; it's beyond me; but at least it makes for an interesting smoko discussion.....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pause for reflection?
Posted here as it seems pertinent to the Senate discussions:-
Pro Aviation – Paul Phelan. The latest article is an interesting, subtle piece, worth the few moments it takes to read. The question "what went wrong?" is 'germane' it also presents a refresher on one of Dick Smith's best efforts; perhaps this is why the iron ring got tighter. Say what you like about Dick, he does get accused of many things for which he was not responsible, but the Phelan article (for mine) highlights the well meaning intentions of the man, if nothing else. Two years in the Hall of Doom is worth cherry picking, even if you are dedicated anti Smith; at least he has actually been there and will stand behind the words. Admirable quality in any man.
If, as I did, you fail to read the introduction and launch straight into the 'guts'; it's a surprise when you see who wrote it and when. Anyway – for weel of for woe the piece is on Paul's website....
Pro Aviation – Paul Phelan. The latest article is an interesting, subtle piece, worth the few moments it takes to read. The question "what went wrong?" is 'germane' it also presents a refresher on one of Dick Smith's best efforts; perhaps this is why the iron ring got tighter. Say what you like about Dick, he does get accused of many things for which he was not responsible, but the Phelan article (for mine) highlights the well meaning intentions of the man, if nothing else. Two years in the Hall of Doom is worth cherry picking, even if you are dedicated anti Smith; at least he has actually been there and will stand behind the words. Admirable quality in any man.
If, as I did, you fail to read the introduction and launch straight into the 'guts'; it's a surprise when you see who wrote it and when. Anyway – for weel of for woe the piece is on Paul's website....
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon
There's a very unsettling rumour doing the rounds, that despite the best efforts being made by various folk, ol' trusty Truss has done a deal with devil in the name of saving face. I do hope it's unfounded; there will not be too much face left to save if the unthinkable occurs.
I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......
There's a very unsettling rumour doing the rounds, that despite the best efforts being made by various folk, ol' trusty Truss has done a deal with devil in the name of saving face. I do hope it's unfounded; there will not be too much face left to save if the unthinkable occurs.
I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......
Truss demands action on Senate Committee’s ATSB/CASA recommendations
1
Paul Phelan ..... August 22, 2013
Shadow Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss has supported demands from Senator David Fawcett for immediate action on the recommendations of the Senate committee enquiry into CASA and ATSB’s handling of the Pel-Air ditching at Norfolk Island almost four years ago:
“Minister Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Said Mr. Truss.
“The recommendations, handed down by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.
“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.
“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.
“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
“Specifically, the report states:
‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.
“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.
“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.
“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.
“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”
For the committee’s recommendations, see here
1
Paul Phelan ..... August 22, 2013
Shadow Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss has supported demands from Senator David Fawcett for immediate action on the recommendations of the Senate committee enquiry into CASA and ATSB’s handling of the Pel-Air ditching at Norfolk Island almost four years ago:
“Minister Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Said Mr. Truss.
“The recommendations, handed down by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.
“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.
“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.
“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
“Specifically, the report states:
‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.
“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.
“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.
“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.
“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”
For the committee’s recommendations, see here
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Prince becomes a king
Crumbs how things have changed? Mr Truss unseats Albanese for the top job (to coin a phrase) and suddenly the games rules have changed? Now that Warren has what he wanted, his own toy set to play with, he is supportive of CASA? He has gone to ground, quietly supporting his aviation watchdog while firmly embedding himself as the new Minister for ass covering. Perhaps he will adopt Wingnuts policy of not reporting asylum seeking boat arrivals by implementing a new policy in which nothing aviation is allowed to be reported? No whispering about malfeasance in the hallway, no chitter chatter about anything to do with the governments beloved Qantas, no bedroom talk about aviation mischief, no innuendo or discussions in the tea room, not even sign language behind the pot plants is permitted Yes, that is how he will fix things. And if that fails well it is the gulag for all IOS (or perhaps 5 years in Opotiki).
Sad to see your Senators hard work go down the drain with all the pot plant nutrients.
Yes, that is how he will fix things. And if that fails well it is the gulag for all IOS (or perhaps 5 years in Opotiki).Sad to see your Senators hard work go down the drain with all the pot plant nutrients.
Is Kharon's post invisible or something??
Kharon paying Dick a compliment
and everyone missed it, or maybe no one wants to recognise that Dick maybe eccentric and some of his ideas might be out there but he has always worn his heart on his sleeve...
A new approach to enforcement
And this wouldn't be a Sarcs post without a coupla quotes:
and two.. nah bugger it those interested enough can do their own bloody clicking 
and everyone missed it, or maybe no one wants to recognise that Dick maybe eccentric and some of his ideas might be out there but he has always worn his heart on his sleeve...A new approach to enforcement
And this wouldn't be a Sarcs post without a coupla quotes
:
First, aviation safety depends upon there being a high level of trust between CASA and the industry. The Board is concerned that over recent years the level of trust has declined. Some parts of the industry believe that CASA’s current enforcement processes are arbitrary, inconsistent and unfair. Key organisations are advising their members not to speak to CASA about incidents or rule contraventions. There is much work to be done by both CASA and industry to repair the damage that has been done, but the Board believes that a new approach to enforcement is a good place to begin.
This is not a new problem and was clearly expressed by Sir Donald Anderson, the Director-General of the Department of Civil Aviation, in an open letter to the industry dated 16 October 1972. Sir Donald stated:
I have been concerned for some time by the number of incidents which reveal an element of reluctance on the part of pilots to seek help. It seems to me that it may be helpful if I, as Director-General, give some lead on the rapport which I believe needs to exist between pilots and others in the system if we are to avoid some of the mistakes that are evident. It is important that no barrier should exist to inhibit a readiness by all to give and take in the common interest of safety
If an atmosphere of reluctance or hostility develops to a point where there is discouragement from making full use of the services available, the end result could be disastrous in critical operational situations.
A similar concern was expressed 23 years later in the Plane Safe Report of the Parliamentary Committee chaired by Peter Morris MP. The Committee stated:
“The committee was dismayed by the denigration, venom and viciousness of the evidence. This attitude of mistrust if not mutual contempt between the participants places a heavy load on CASA in fulfilling its statutory function of promoting higher safety standards through education, training, advice and consultation.”
This is not a new problem and was clearly expressed by Sir Donald Anderson, the Director-General of the Department of Civil Aviation, in an open letter to the industry dated 16 October 1972. Sir Donald stated:
I have been concerned for some time by the number of incidents which reveal an element of reluctance on the part of pilots to seek help. It seems to me that it may be helpful if I, as Director-General, give some lead on the rapport which I believe needs to exist between pilots and others in the system if we are to avoid some of the mistakes that are evident. It is important that no barrier should exist to inhibit a readiness by all to give and take in the common interest of safety
If an atmosphere of reluctance or hostility develops to a point where there is discouragement from making full use of the services available, the end result could be disastrous in critical operational situations.
A similar concern was expressed 23 years later in the Plane Safe Report of the Parliamentary Committee chaired by Peter Morris MP. The Committee stated:
“The committee was dismayed by the denigration, venom and viciousness of the evidence. This attitude of mistrust if not mutual contempt between the participants places a heavy load on CASA in fulfilling its statutory function of promoting higher safety standards through education, training, advice and consultation.”
Last edited by Sarcs; 9th Oct 2013 at 20:22. Reason: Green MiLE I'm sure the feeling is mutual!
Kharon paying Dick a compliment and everyone missed it
Sorry, but personally I don't particularly care, agree with (or understand most of the time) what Kharon has to say.
Cheers...
Cheers...
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
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." - Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Apologies to all Ostriches.
Addendum to post #1545
Update to EASA FTL reg debate mentioned in post #1545 and directly relevant to Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion on CAO 48.1:
So the pilot unions were celebrating last week only to be weeping in their pints this week! 
Sounds kind of familiar!
David Learmount does a good job of straddling both sides of the fence:
Pilot fatigue: the battle is over but the war still rages
on CAO 48.1:
Europe adopts new Flight Time Limitations (FTL) regulations
The European Parliament adopted the European Commission proposal to harmonise flight and duty time limitations (FTL) for cabin crew and pilots across the European Union.
This European Commission proposal is based on an EASA Opinion. Amongst others, night flight duty will be reduced to 11 hours in the new regulation, instead of 11h45 previously. More flights will be considered night flights and subject to shorter duty periods. Total flight time in 12 consecutive months will be limited to 1000 hours instead of 1300 hours.
The weekly rest will be increased by 12 hours twice a month. The combination of standby at the airport with flight duty will be capped at 16 hours. It is currently 20 hours or 26 hours, or even without limit at all in some EU Member States.
The European Cockpit Association (ECA), along with other flight crew unions, was opposed to the proposal. ECA President Voorbach stated: ”The proposal still contains dangerous safety loopholes. They will allow pilots to land a plane – full of passengers – after being 22 hours awake. It also allows pilots to fly for 12hrs30 through the night. This is up to 25% longer than the 10 hours unanimously recommended by scientists.”
On September 30, 2013, the European Parliament’s transport committee had voted against new flight time limitation measures. In a plenary vote, the European Parliament voted in favour of the new rules.
The European Parliament adopted the European Commission proposal to harmonise flight and duty time limitations (FTL) for cabin crew and pilots across the European Union.
This European Commission proposal is based on an EASA Opinion. Amongst others, night flight duty will be reduced to 11 hours in the new regulation, instead of 11h45 previously. More flights will be considered night flights and subject to shorter duty periods. Total flight time in 12 consecutive months will be limited to 1000 hours instead of 1300 hours.
The weekly rest will be increased by 12 hours twice a month. The combination of standby at the airport with flight duty will be capped at 16 hours. It is currently 20 hours or 26 hours, or even without limit at all in some EU Member States.
The European Cockpit Association (ECA), along with other flight crew unions, was opposed to the proposal. ECA President Voorbach stated: ”The proposal still contains dangerous safety loopholes. They will allow pilots to land a plane – full of passengers – after being 22 hours awake. It also allows pilots to fly for 12hrs30 through the night. This is up to 25% longer than the 10 hours unanimously recommended by scientists.”
On September 30, 2013, the European Parliament’s transport committee had voted against new flight time limitation measures. In a plenary vote, the European Parliament voted in favour of the new rules.
Sounds kind of familiar! David Learmount does a good job of straddling both sides of the fence
:Pilot fatigue: the battle is over but the war still rages
Barrier?
Folks,
The below is from an email today, with an update from the RAAA conference.
Obviously, they were no convinced by the soothing words of Mr. McCormick about what is supposed to be in Part 61, because they are more concerned about what is actually in Part 61 now, before a whole swag of amendments, now in the mill, hit the streets --- and Part 61, Version 1.0 isn't even in operation yet.
Looks like most of the member of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia are at least Honorary Members of the Ills of Society Society.
Tootle pip!!
The below is from an email today, with an update from the RAAA conference.
Obviously, they were no convinced by the soothing words of Mr. McCormick about what is supposed to be in Part 61, because they are more concerned about what is actually in Part 61 now, before a whole swag of amendments, now in the mill, hit the streets --- and Part 61, Version 1.0 isn't even in operation yet.
Looks like most of the member of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia are at least Honorary Members of the Ills of Society Society.
Tootle pip!!
Warren Truss addressed the RAA Conference today and he told the
> regional airlines that they are close to completing the terms of
> reference for the review by an international expert.
> He stated that he will make the announcement in a month or two.
>
> He also stated that the Board will be changed and the indication was
> it would be this year.
>
> He re-affirmed that he has to take the decisions as quickly as
> possible to implement their policy.
>
> The RAAA Chair, Jeff Boyd, in his opening speech stated too much had
> been wasted and we are out of step in this region. He went on to say
> the RAAA Board supports the adoption of the NZ system.
>
> Everyone is against the current direction and totally against Part 61.
> regional airlines that they are close to completing the terms of
> reference for the review by an international expert.
> He stated that he will make the announcement in a month or two.
>
> He also stated that the Board will be changed and the indication was
> it would be this year.
>
> He re-affirmed that he has to take the decisions as quickly as
> possible to implement their policy.
>
> The RAAA Chair, Jeff Boyd, in his opening speech stated too much had
> been wasted and we are out of step in this region. He went on to say
> the RAAA Board supports the adoption of the NZ system.
>
> Everyone is against the current direction and totally against Part 61.
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Oct 2013 at 14:53.
Truss at Coolum swings and roundabouts
Good catch Leady!
Here is a link to Truss's speech in full:
‘Regional Airlines’ bumpy ride needs a smooth landing’
and Jeff Boyd has already made his opinion widely known, here's a rehash courtesy of Phearless Phelan: A Bridge Too Far
Although I can't remember JB (IOS and F.A.R.T Honorary member) mentioning Part 61 in there...hmm perhaps we'll be able to get the full text of his speech at the Coolum dinosaur park???
Here is a link to Truss's speech in full:
‘Regional Airlines’ bumpy ride needs a smooth landing’
and Jeff Boyd has already made his opinion widely known, here's a rehash courtesy of Phearless Phelan: A Bridge Too Far
Although I can't remember JB (IOS and F.A.R.T Honorary member) mentioning Part 61 in there...hmm perhaps we'll be able to get the full text of his speech at the Coolum dinosaur park???
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truss and the Future of Aviation
It certainly is in Mr. Truss's hands and it needs to be a rapid transition with attention to a whole range of issues including:
Warren Truss to the Regional Aviation Conference Coolum 2012 | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
- Regulatory process - Immediate cessation of activities by casa [happenened in 1999], so there is a precedent, with the proposed changes to airspace pulled up in a single day;
- Stop the investigatory powers of casa - Pilots, Owners, Operators and Engineers are not criminals;
- Get AVMED and remove the poor performers, plus correct with proper supervision of the DAME system;
- Weed out the rorters of the system [Cover-up of Hemple];
- and Lots More
Warren Truss to the Regional Aviation Conference Coolum 2012 | Assistance to the Aviation Industry
Pause for reflection MKII...why indeed?
In an article by Gerald Frawley from AA magazine put out prior to the election gives further 'pause for reflection' and he asks some particularly pertinent questions in the context of this thread:
: - Why is it that aviation was hit by the carbon tax when other transport sectors were not?
- How has it come to pass that relations between industry and CASA are as bad as they have ever been, and regulatory reform as slow and contentious as it ever was?
- Why has CASA been downsized and de-skilled in the name of cost-cutting so much that its approval processes are so slow it externalises costs back onto industry in foregone revenue generating activities?
- Why is general aviation, that training ground of civil aviation, in alarming decline?
- Why are some of the country’s most important airports seen by their owners as property developments with irksome runways in the middle?
- Why are many council-owned regional and rural airports struggling to pay for maintenance and upkeep of runways and taxiways?
- Why haven’t burdensome security regulations been reviewed a dozen years after 9/11?
- Why isn’t the pilot training industry supported by HECS-subsidised training courses?
- Why isn’t there a second Sydney airport and an increased movement cap at the current airport?
- Why is there a looming shortage of LAMEs?
- Those are just some of the issues facing aviation in Australia today. So why isn’t there a minister for aviation or – at the very least a parliamentary secretary – who can champion aviation’s development and work to address its issues?
- And indeed why isn’t there a minister, and government policies, that champion aviation’s opportunities and potential as well?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More QON's ?
Mr Frawley just joined the IOS legion. Welcome
All good questions, I am sure Mr Truss, his boss and all the other minions will take them on notice, to be answered........never.
All good questions, I am sure Mr Truss, his boss and all the other minions will take them on notice, to be answered........never.
Last edited by Paragraph377; 14th Oct 2013 at 03:32.
