Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
The number of people who actually complain and have something that they actually bring to us is very small.
"just give them want they want so I can on with my job"
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
FWIW
Mr Mrdak, at least in my experience, is a very competent career Public Servant with a depth of experience in the Transport portfolios through Labour and Liberal Governments.
I suspect he is one of the old school, which in my view is a plus not a negative in the sense that he actually works for the public interest.
FWIW
Mr Mrdak, at least in my experience, is a very competent career Public Servant with a depth of experience in the Transport portfolios through Labour and Liberal Governments.
I suspect he is one of the old school, which in my view is a plus not a negative in the sense that he actually works for the public interest.
I suspect he is one of the old school, which in my view is a plus not a negative in the sense that he actually works for the public interest.
Yep, Mr. M did a great job in the public interest on airports, particularly the secondary airports --- that is why those of us who are left are so ecstatically happy about the airports and aerodromes in Australia, that's why we're all 100% in support of what Mr. M did in allowing local councils to abrogate their duties under the ALOP contracts.
Gary, go have a look at the public records, to see who did what to whom, and where Mr. M has fitted into the system in the last 15 years.
Remember the problems at Jandakot, until you and your group got Mark Vaile to actually enforce the law and the terms of the airport lease.
Tootle pip!!
From Barrier thread!
Serious shot across the bow, love it! 
:
Top stuff Wazza!
:
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Chief Opposition Whip)(21:30): I rise tonight to outline a very serious issue —the seemingly corrupt and anticommercial conduct of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority office in Cairns, which appears to hide in the shadows and cites 'safety' as a reason to advance personal vendettas against local aviation operators. Numerous operators in Cairns have been subjected to incompetence, threats and demands from individuals who make decisions outside of CASA's authority. Barrier Aviation is the most recent victim, but I know of at least three other operators who have been irreparably damaged by the gestapo tactics of a few individuals, namely, Phil Lister, Mark Ayrey and Gerard Campbell, and with the Director of CASA himself turning a blind eye.
The complaints include: totally incorrect interpretations of regulations, requiring operators to jump through unnecessary hoops at the inspectors' commands; the inexperience of inspectors, not knowing how to interpret regulations or legislation; inspectors entering aircraft unauthorised and unsupervised and interfering with master control switches; inspectors threatening regulatory action if operators do not do as they are told even when the inspectors are wrong; formal complaints being buried and never responded to.
It is common knowledge within the aviation industry that, if CASA want you shut down, they simply bury you with regulations and wear you down with costs until you go broke. In Cairns the personal vendetta against David Kilin, an industry stalwart of almost 40 years, has led to the closure of his life's work.
It started back in 2011 when a complaint was made by Barrier to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. This complaint implicated a number of individuals within CASA Cairns who had displayed incompetent, unethical and irresponsible conduct towards Barrier. In a blatant conflict of interest, the main subject of the complaint, Mr Phil Lister, remained as an inspector of Barrier Aviation and associated companies and, incredibly, received a promotion. Despite requests, CASA's office refused to assign Barrier to another CASA office. Meanwhile, the complaint was never responded to and, in retaliation, CASA spent almost 18 months setting Barrier Aviation up. This included a complaint that was lodged against Barrier by a disgruntled ex-employee, who then fled back to his home country of New Zealand, resulting in the cancellation of Barrier's AOC.
Barrier has serious concerns with CASA Cairns's procedures, including the total lack of collaboration between CASA and the industry, unilateral decisionmaking, reversal of the onus of proof and the lack of procedural fairness and rights of appeal. At no time did CASA try to work with the operator to address their concerns. It was simply a witch-hunt to seek revenge on David Kilin. CASA has lied about evidence and padded their investigation to make Barrier into an
unsafe operator despite Barrier previously excelling in this area.
What is also unbelievable is the abuse of process. Six months after Barrier was forced to shut its doors, they still have not been able to test a single allegation in court—and at the cost of $28,000 per day in lost revenue. And to top it off, CASA has sent press release after press release with statements that have never been tested.
Around 50 people have lost their jobs, investors have lost millions of dollars, and David Kilin has lost his life's work. And even now, CASA is not content with just burying Barrier, they want to dance on the grave as well. I was disgusted to learn that CASA Cairns has been speaking to potential purchasers of Barrier aircraft, threatening that they will not approve their airworthiness.
Since Barrier's very public demise, I have had numerous calls from right across the country from people telling me that CASA Cairns has a history of destroying small businesses. The most troubling thing is that, while these callers are keen to express a huge amount of sympathy for Barrier, they are too scared to speak publicly. This industry urgently needs an independent body and rights mechanisms to hold CASA Cairns accountable for their own inadequacies and conduct. After 14 September, I will be calling for a full inquiry. I will not let Barrier be destroyed without holding those individuals who are directly responsible for this sordid business accountable for their actions.
The complaints include: totally incorrect interpretations of regulations, requiring operators to jump through unnecessary hoops at the inspectors' commands; the inexperience of inspectors, not knowing how to interpret regulations or legislation; inspectors entering aircraft unauthorised and unsupervised and interfering with master control switches; inspectors threatening regulatory action if operators do not do as they are told even when the inspectors are wrong; formal complaints being buried and never responded to.
It is common knowledge within the aviation industry that, if CASA want you shut down, they simply bury you with regulations and wear you down with costs until you go broke. In Cairns the personal vendetta against David Kilin, an industry stalwart of almost 40 years, has led to the closure of his life's work.
It started back in 2011 when a complaint was made by Barrier to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. This complaint implicated a number of individuals within CASA Cairns who had displayed incompetent, unethical and irresponsible conduct towards Barrier. In a blatant conflict of interest, the main subject of the complaint, Mr Phil Lister, remained as an inspector of Barrier Aviation and associated companies and, incredibly, received a promotion. Despite requests, CASA's office refused to assign Barrier to another CASA office. Meanwhile, the complaint was never responded to and, in retaliation, CASA spent almost 18 months setting Barrier Aviation up. This included a complaint that was lodged against Barrier by a disgruntled ex-employee, who then fled back to his home country of New Zealand, resulting in the cancellation of Barrier's AOC.
Barrier has serious concerns with CASA Cairns's procedures, including the total lack of collaboration between CASA and the industry, unilateral decisionmaking, reversal of the onus of proof and the lack of procedural fairness and rights of appeal. At no time did CASA try to work with the operator to address their concerns. It was simply a witch-hunt to seek revenge on David Kilin. CASA has lied about evidence and padded their investigation to make Barrier into an
unsafe operator despite Barrier previously excelling in this area.
What is also unbelievable is the abuse of process. Six months after Barrier was forced to shut its doors, they still have not been able to test a single allegation in court—and at the cost of $28,000 per day in lost revenue. And to top it off, CASA has sent press release after press release with statements that have never been tested.
Around 50 people have lost their jobs, investors have lost millions of dollars, and David Kilin has lost his life's work. And even now, CASA is not content with just burying Barrier, they want to dance on the grave as well. I was disgusted to learn that CASA Cairns has been speaking to potential purchasers of Barrier aircraft, threatening that they will not approve their airworthiness.
Since Barrier's very public demise, I have had numerous calls from right across the country from people telling me that CASA Cairns has a history of destroying small businesses. The most troubling thing is that, while these callers are keen to express a huge amount of sympathy for Barrier, they are too scared to speak publicly. This industry urgently needs an independent body and rights mechanisms to hold CASA Cairns accountable for their own inadequacies and conduct. After 14 September, I will be calling for a full inquiry. I will not let Barrier be destroyed without holding those individuals who are directly responsible for this sordid business accountable for their actions.
Last edited by Sarcs; 5th Jun 2013 at 01:39.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Mr Entsch. A perfect case study for why CAsA needs overhauling. Long term employees known for their 'activities' yet in return for these actions over many years they have been dutifully rewarded with promotions. One of these gentlemen is now spreading his message further throughout CAsA whilst serving in senior role in Brisbane.
Creampuff, I share your cynicism as to whether anything will come of Mr Entsch robust desire to see justice upheld, but you have to give credit to anybody who spends time and energy fighting an axis of evil on behalf of his constituents?
In general I wouldn't give 98% of politicians the sweat of my scrotum (and that includes all the bottom dwellers who attach themselves to politicians like a sucker fish to its host), however people like Entsch and a number of independents are at least proving their worth, earning their keep and doing what they are paid to do - to represent the people.
This weeks chocolate frog award goes to Warren Entsch. He now goes into the draw for this months grand prize of two business class tickets to Montreal. However I do fear that somewhere within the bowels of CAsA there will be a voodoo doll of Mr Entsch with many pins in it!
Creampuff, I share your cynicism as to whether anything will come of Mr Entsch robust desire to see justice upheld, but you have to give credit to anybody who spends time and energy fighting an axis of evil on behalf of his constituents?
In general I wouldn't give 98% of politicians the sweat of my scrotum (and that includes all the bottom dwellers who attach themselves to politicians like a sucker fish to its host), however people like Entsch and a number of independents are at least proving their worth, earning their keep and doing what they are paid to do - to represent the people.
This weeks chocolate frog award goes to Warren Entsch. He now goes into the draw for this months grand prize of two business class tickets to Montreal. However I do fear that somewhere within the bowels of CAsA there will be a voodoo doll of Mr Entsch with many pins in it!
Last edited by 004wercras; 4th Jun 2013 at 21:25.
Mr Entsch is big on words and short on action. I’ve heard it all before from him. Lots of huffing and puffing, but never any substantial action.
Let’s see how Mr Entsch votes and acts when back in government.
CASA’s power to suspend and cancel certificates could have been taken away at the stroke a parliamentary pen, a thousand times over by successive governments (of some of which Mr Entsch was a part and likely to be a part, come September).
My prediction: At most, the CASA Board will be removed and a new CEO appointed, justified on the same specious grounds that the Board was reinstated and the current CEO appointed.
Let’s see how Mr Entsch votes and acts when back in government.
CASA’s power to suspend and cancel certificates could have been taken away at the stroke a parliamentary pen, a thousand times over by successive governments (of some of which Mr Entsch was a part and likely to be a part, come September).
My prediction: At most, the CASA Board will be removed and a new CEO appointed, justified on the same specious grounds that the Board was reinstated and the current CEO appointed.
Entsch adjournment speech!
Wazza's speech almost follows verbatim his previous media release back on the '19th of March' and also covered by 'Paul Phelan'.
Part of one of the comments from the PP article more than summarises the past and current status quo within the walls of Fort Fumble
:
Maybe Creamy is right about Wazza but I do find it interesting that he has waited this long to introduce the matter to the parliament when the original media release came out in a sitting week?
Then we have the enquiry report which Senator Heffernan emphasised was apolitical..."It weighed heavily on the minds of all members of the committee—and you will note it was a unanimous report—that we address the issues raised in the way we have. We absolutely wanted to be open and honest in that report and we did not want to have even the slightest prospect that in future there could be a calamity which would come back to haunt our conscience...."
And we had several commitments throughout the day in Senate Estimates from Mr Mrdak, example:
And we also had Senator Edwards
putting Mrdak and by default the Minister on notice:
The end of the week is fast approaching...maybe the government response will be inadequate and largely discussed behind closed doors but there is definitely more to follow!
Part of one of the comments from the PP article more than summarises the past and current status quo within the walls of Fort Fumble
:
There is no judicial process, no appeal, they have used delay as a deadly weapon. Staff are sacked, finance companies take back their aircraft and another good Australian General Aviation company is gone forever. Is it any wonder that the oil companies are de-commissioning refueling points all over Australia? General Aviation is dying because governments have allowed CASA to run amock with the millions of taxpayer funds. Waste, incompetence and dysfunction are the hallmarks of CASA, a federal body out of control.
Then we have the enquiry report which Senator Heffernan emphasised was apolitical..."It weighed heavily on the minds of all members of the committee—and you will note it was a unanimous report—that we address the issues raised in the way we have. We absolutely wanted to be open and honest in that report and we did not want to have even the slightest prospect that in future there could be a calamity which would come back to haunt our conscience...."
And we had several commitments throughout the day in Senate Estimates from Mr Mrdak, example:
Mr Mrdak: We already have officers in the department—and clearly me and senior officers—who have carefully read the report now. I have had discussions with my senior officers. We envisage being in a position to provide some initial advice to the minister, I expect, certainly within the next week to 10 days in relation to it. We have been through the process of the budget and now estimates. I envisage having conversations with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority CEO and the head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in the coming days to ascertain their views, to enable me to provide a comprehensive view to the minister, I would hope by the end of next week.
putting Mrdak and by default the Minister on notice:
Senator EDWARDS: When do you think the department will be responding to the Senate report?
Mr Mrdak: I undertook this morning to get some advice to the minister within the next week in relation to the initial piece of advice. That is the approach. I cannot comment on when the government will respond to the report, but I think, as I acknowledged to the committee this morning, the minister certainly understands the urgency of responding to the report.
Senator EDWARDS: Aviation safety and its culture cannot wait. Thanks.
Mr Mrdak: I undertook this morning to get some advice to the minister within the next week in relation to the initial piece of advice. That is the approach. I cannot comment on when the government will respond to the report, but I think, as I acknowledged to the committee this morning, the minister certainly understands the urgency of responding to the report.
Senator EDWARDS: Aviation safety and its culture cannot wait. Thanks.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike was 100% supportive AND ensured, with his impramtur, we got access to the people we needed to get there.
Yes they were asleep at the wheel at the time. But awakened pretty quick. No consolation, but at least they didn't get bored to death or back to sleep as some are wont to achieve.
BTW I and most of us have achieved more by wearing my rose colored glasses than otherwise. It doesnt get you noticed and on soapboxes but it does get things done. Being part of the solution rather part of the problem is much more satisfying.
There you go, an opportunity to have a rant. Off you go then.
Yes they were asleep at the wheel at the time. But awakened pretty quick. No consolation, but at least they didn't get bored to death or back to sleep as some are wont to achieve.
BTW I and most of us have achieved more by wearing my rose colored glasses than otherwise. It doesnt get you noticed and on soapboxes but it does get things done. Being part of the solution rather part of the problem is much more satisfying.
There you go, an opportunity to have a rant. Off you go then.
Phelan and terms of reference!
Paul Phelan has got wind of Wozzas speech, see here 'Warren Entsch challenges CASA'.
Phelan also follows up with an article called 'Has anything changed'? One look at the 'Executive Summary' of the 13 year old document it would appear to be a valid question....
Phelan also follows up with an article called 'Has anything changed'? One look at the 'Executive Summary' of the 13 year old document it would appear to be a valid question....
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s handling of its enforcement responsibilities has already seriously degraded Australia’s air safety climate by generating mounting mutual distrust and antipathy between industry and regulator. There is now more confrontation, and less mutual respect and cooperation, than has ever existed between the regulatory body and an industry which now considers itself to be under siege from its own regulator.
- Every certificate holder is continually faced with the threat that it can be shut down almost at the whim of a single CASA decision maker through the continued exploitation of apparently unintended provisions of the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations – some would describe these as loopholes:
- The confrontation has been worsened by gross and growing deficiencies in the delivery of regulatory services, which shackle the conduct of aviation businesses; and the fear that the apparent abuse of regulatory processes by CASA can shut them down immediately without recourse to due process.
- At the centre of these problems appears to be the absence of effective management, training, defined and uniform policy, guidance, and prioritisation.
- This has resulted in an appalling degradation of morale amongst operators, industry employees, and the diminishing number of individuals within CASA who still subscribe to the principles of fairness, due process, and the rule of law.
- CASA has apparently elected to circumvent normal and available legal avenues, due process, natural justice and procedural fairness in pursuit of the policy goal of reducing the number of air operator certificate holders. This is demonstrated by the application and the apparent abuse of administrative procedures available to it under the Act, as an alternative to available remedies offered by proper investigation, legal process, and prosecution.
- CASA now says it intends to apply identical treatment to major air carriers, in order to be seen to be equitable in its application of what it perceives to be its regulatory functions. This will naturally have even more serious implications for Australia’s international reputation, with a demonstrably negative impact on the industry’s safety performance and image.
- Declining to acknowledge the impropriety of its actions, CASA’s Office of Legal Counsel makes it clear that while Government allows it, CASA will continue to pursue its goals through the application of administrative decisions rather than through proper and available legal channels and the legal processes by which other regulatory bodies in Australia are bound.
- This has resulted, in an unacceptable number of cases, of air operators (and significant employers) being forced out of business by the weight of their financial burdens, without CASA’s allegations against them ever having faced the scrutiny of a court or without according the victim the opportunity to face and cross-examine its accusers.
- CASA is clearly acting contrary to legal advice it obtained from the Attorney General’s department which states that “there is a high risk of liability for defamation under current legislation.” CASA is now apparently defaming certificate holders by publishing unsubstantiated allegations against them. Its Office of Legal Counsel has asserted that he believes it has a government mandate to continue with this course of action.
- The above tactics are apparently necessary because CASA, which has a dismal record in the investigation and prosecution of alleged rule breaking, has a fear that the use of normal legal processes would expose the inadequacy of its rule structure, and its investigation and surveillance procedures.
My bet is that most on here, and despite the DAS's assurances otherwise, would already know the answer to that question??? 
But awakened pretty quick. No consolation, but at least they didn't get bored to death or back to sleep as some are wont to achieve.
But they went back to sleep rather quickly, didn't they? It might even be said that "certain people" were very brave, when it came to putting a small South Africa group back in their box, but were somewhat less enthusiastic about taking on the likes of CBA and Macquarie Bank, and some large Australian public companies.
As for the rest of your nonsense, I will leave it up to others to judge who has achieved what for the industry as a whole, as opposed to self-interested "success".
Apart from the single issue of Jandakot, remind me again, where have you been part of the solution, and not part of the problem??
The cross examination of Mr. M will be fascinating, when the AACC matter gets into the courtroom.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Jun 2013 at 04:38.
Gosh those CASA folks must be smart, brave and lucky. For years and years their nefarious activities have been publicly exposed by Mr Phelan’s articles and publicly criticised by the likes of Mr Entsch, yet….
Nothing changes.
It must be really, really frustrating for government after government to sit there, powerless to do anything in the face of CASA’s regulatory atrocities. If only governments had power to make or change laws, or close down agencies and create new ones, or appoint people to do jobs and sack people who can’t or won’t do jobs properly.
Yep. It must be really, really frustrating for governments to be unable to do anything other than wave a rhetorical fist in CASA’s direction. They’d love to help, but what else can they do?
Nothing changes.
It must be really, really frustrating for government after government to sit there, powerless to do anything in the face of CASA’s regulatory atrocities. If only governments had power to make or change laws, or close down agencies and create new ones, or appoint people to do jobs and sack people who can’t or won’t do jobs properly.
Yep. It must be really, really frustrating for governments to be unable to do anything other than wave a rhetorical fist in CASA’s direction. They’d love to help, but what else can they do?
Last edited by Creampuff; 7th Jun 2013 at 23:38. Reason: Inserted "by" before "Mr Phelan's"
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go for it Leadie, good work!
Creampuff, indeed CAsA are unafraid of the 'fist' you mention, on several fronts
As for Phelans article mentioned by sarcs, well put. 13 years you say? Hmmm some members of the 'iron ring' have had much influence over that period of time! Oh management come and go, yet the 'iron ring' remain tighter than a star chamber.
Creampuff, indeed CAsA are unafraid of the 'fist' you mention, on several fronts
As for Phelans article mentioned by sarcs, well put. 13 years you say? Hmmm some members of the 'iron ring' have had much influence over that period of time! Oh management come and go, yet the 'iron ring' remain tighter than a star chamber.
Last edited by 004wercras; 5th Jun 2013 at 05:23.
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
gaunty: A legend in your own lunchbox.
Careful nobody brings up "strict liability and disallowance motions mate. It may leave the gate open.
remind me again, where have you been part of the solution, and not part of the problem??
Long Post and thread drift on the matter of Airports and Dept spin!
Leadie:
Ever since Senator Fawcett first arrived on the scene at Senate Estimates in 2011 Mr Mrdak and co have been obfuscating the issue of Airports and controlled development…“oh the answers are all in the Great White Elephant Act and that is the script we are working off Senator!”
Meanwhile Senator Fawcett keeps highlighting deficiencies and safety issues in the apparently uncontrolled development around airports.
Maybe there is some truth in what Sunny says:
But if you read the following Q&A from Senate Estimates 08/11/2011 I don’t think the good Senator is going to leave the issue alone anytime soon…
Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing what those comments are. I do not believe that those comments are in any way reflective of the regulatory arrangements and the actual situation at a number of airports, particularly those. I am aware of recent criticism of decisions, but I do not think that some of the media commentary reflects the facts.
In essence our role is set out in the act and also under the airport leases, which provide for the way in which we go about ensuring that the airport master plan provides for growth at the airports for aeronautical and non-aeronautical activity and to make sure that demand is being met. We also have a range of statutory requirements in relation to building control, environmental regimes and operations of the airport that we administer. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority obviously has responsibility for safety at the airports.
In relation to particular planning matters there are obviously differences of views at times between those of the airport operators in relation to development and those of some of the customers at that airport, particularly general aviation customers. I would characterise that at times as being robust, but I do not believe I would agree at any time that the act, the regs and the statutory requirements have not been met.
Senator FAWCETT: You mentioned that one of your requirements it to ensure the potential for growth. Are you referring there to growth in the aviation use of the airport or growth in the commercial use of the airport?
Mr Mrdak: Both. Our primary focus is to make sure the airports are available to provide facilities for aviation growth. That is the primary focus of the master planning process and the way in which we regulate the airports.
Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if we go to a couple of examples that might help to unpack some of the concerns of industry. We will start with Archerfield and runway 28 right in particular. There have been some concerns in terms of the new corporate hangars and warbird hangars that have been built very close to runway 28 right and the impact that has in terms of instrument flight rules departures from that runway. One of the initial actions when that was raised was that the runway take-off distance available was shortened. If you look at the on-route supplement in the annexe at the rear, that restriction is still there. That starts to limit the type of aircraft that you can operate. If you are looking to operate a business jet or even something like a King Air or a 350, for example—which in Archerfield's case would need a weight exemption—that starts limiting rather than enhancing the growth of the airport. Can you explain that inconsistency for me?
Mr Mrdak: I am not sure there is. I will ask Mr Doherty to comment. I am certainly not aware that there has been any restriction on anyone's ability to operate from that field.
Senator FAWCETT: Shortening the runway is one heck of a restriction.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing whether that has actually in practice impacted on any operation, but I will ask Mr Doherty to comment on the specifics.
Mr Doherty: Certainly the intention would not be to allow a development which was going to restrict the nature of the operation. I am aware that there has been controversy over a couple of buildings at Archerfield and I understand that there was basically disagreement between experts as to the extent to which that may or may not affect the operations of some aircraft at that airport. My understanding was that the most recent exercise on that was a study by the ATSB that indicated that those structures were, in fact, not an issue, so there was not an ongoing program. I am interested to hear you say that the restriction is still reflected in the documentation. The way the process should work would be that, if the airport lessee proposes a development, if would go through a building control process and would be referred to the expert agencies—in this case particularly, Air Services and CASA—for them to comment on any possible interference with aviation operations. As I understand in that case, it must have been around the interpretation at that stage. While it was given the clearance at the time, I think there are others who felt subsequently that it should not have been. But as I said, I thought the latest on that episode was that the ATSB had had a close look at it and advised that they did not see this as a problem.
Senator FAWCETT: You are correct that the ATSB did do an investigation and you are correct that there was a difference of opinion; but, interestingly, the ATSB investigation appears to have made the same error of interpretation of the Manual of Standards part 139, which looks at obstacle clearances, in that there are actually two tables in the back of that chapter which determine clearance gradients required. They took table 7.1, which applies to approach and landing clearances, and table 7.1-2 applies to the take-off requirement and expands the runway width requirement from 150 to 180 metres. With that, the splay that then goes out puts those two buildings well and truly in the zone where it impacts on the capability to use that for departures.
Mr Doherty: I am not able to comment that—that is not an area within my expertise—but it may be a matter that you can take up with ATSB.
CHAIR: Rather than spending the next 20 minutes inquiring, is this the place for Senator Fawcett to ask the questions about his concerns or is it ATSB?
Senator FAWCETT: If I can continue, all I am doing is highlighting an example. We have had the secretary tell us that everything is rosy. I have three or four examples where quite clearly the process of checking, verification and independent audit of the advice, whether it is given by the airport operator, by a consultant or by CASA in some cases has not been taken up and acted on appropriately by the department. That is the issue at hand, so all that detail was merely an example where due diligence has not been applied to a process and the end result is operational restrictions on people at the airport, which flies directly in the face of the stated intention of providing paths for growth for the airport.
CHAIR: Okay. This is fantastic. From a truckie to a test pilot, I do not mind what you do. What I am trying to say is we are not going to sit here all night if there is a quicker way of you getting answers. I am just going to put it to you that way. So I go back to my original question: are we in the right area?
Mr Mrdak: I think there are a range of issues Mr Doherty has been discussing with the senator. I think we need to have a look at what the senator wishes to put forward.
Mr Wolfe: I may add something. With regard to those particular claims that you have indicated in relation to the ATSB advice, my understanding is that the ATSB has responded to those claims, so I would definitely suggest you take it up with the ATSB.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, let us have a look at the runway and safety area at the end of runway 28 right. You talked about the fact that there is a building inspector who works for the federal government, who is supposed to be involved as part of that development process. In fact the Archerfield Airport Corporation on their website when they talk about developments, very clearly lay out the criteria that should trigger the involvement of a federal agency, and the auction site which has been built in that safety area—or just over the road but still in the area concerned—was not referred—and please correct me if I am wrong—to the building inspector. The airport made their own determination that the site, which was a hardstand for the purpose of auctioning and selling large trucks and machinery and those sorts of things, did not constitute something that they needed to actually involve the federal government in.
Speaking as a professional pilot—and, thankfully, most of my aviation experience in single-engine aircraft means that I have had an ejection seat—if I have a large obstacle in front of me and the engine fails, I can leave the aircraft. The people on the ground will suffer the consequences. In this case part of the requirement in place is that the Queensland government has identified public safety areas around the runway ends.
CHAIR: If there is a question, Senator Fawcett, I would urge you to get to it, please.
Senator FAWCETT: My question is: why are the checks and balances not in place to make sure that when things occur that impact operations on airports which still come under Commonwealth or, where by lease, Commonwealth control, that the airport operator does actually refer things? And, if the subsequent activities on that land break state regulations, why are the checks and balances not there to make sure that we are supporting safe operations at airports? The Commonwealth has said that it wants to work with the state, and the minister has said in his recent speeches that he wishes to integrate more with the state and make sure we work with them. Clearly, the system has broken down in this case.
Mr Doherty: We may need to look more closely at the particular case, but my understanding is that, yes, there is a Queensland policy relating to public safety zones, and certainly in the white paper and beyond we are keen to have that reflected in planning particularly on the airport but also off-airport to the extent that it can. Those policies operate in different ways to define an area within which activity should be restricted because of the risk of exposing either the aircraft or persons on the ground to the risk of damage and, while it might be slight, it becomes a problem.
It does not work as a complete prohibition, however. There may be a range of activities which are still permissible in that area if they do not involve bringing a large concentration of people. So while it might be inappropriate to have a large shopping centre or something like that which involves congregating large groups of people, it may be quite appropriate to have a longstay car park or something which does not involve having large groups of people there at one time.
My understanding of that case is that it has been looked at and that the nature of the activity conducted there does not infringe the public safety zone policy. But it is something that we can take further advice on.
Senator FAWCETT: I would ask you to, and to take that on notice. Certainly what is there, and there is photographic evidence of it being there—large pieces of plant as well as many members of the public attending auctions at that location—is problematical. As you read both the Queensland legislation and the federal, the obligation is a two-way street. One is to protect people on the ground—and there was an accident adjacent to that location a number of years ago when the pilot, and four people working in a factory, were killed when an aircraft crashed. There is also the obligation to the aircraft and its pilot and passengers to provide safety in a zone which is one of the most critical areas. US studies show that about 80 per cent of accidents occur in that area on takeoff, or landing when there is an undershoot, if you have an engine failure. The obligation is on your department to make sure that we provide a safe area around airports so that in the event of an emergency the pilots do have somewhere to land. It is not like military aircraft with ejection seats and the options to try and turn back. Civilians are constrained—
CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, I will remind you that if there is a question would you please come to it. The questions are very important, but I do not honestly believe we need all the preamble. You have the call and I urge you to get to the question.
Mr Wilson: We will take the issue with regard to the end zone at Archerfield on notice and provide the committee with a detailed response.
Senator FAWCETT: About the process: there was a repcon in Flight Safety Australia recently, which looked at the issue of building approvals again, this time well away from the airport. But things that affect what are called the PANS-OPS clearance requirements for aircraft that are in IFR—so they cannot see. What became very clear in that repcon was that as the redacted report went to different agencies the airport operators said, 'It is up to CASA'. And CASA said, 'We can't, actually—it's up to the department'. The department came back and said, 'Look, processes are in place'. But we have seen over the years that rather than saying, 'No, you can't build a building, because that actually infringes the requirements,' the building has gone ahead and instead there has been a reactive approach where the gradients and flight settings increase.
Senator Carr: Be fair. The minister put out a white paper on these issues, the first that had ever actually been produced by the Commonwealth. It outlined the procedures with regard to planning for development around airports. You have raised some issues with regard to one site, which the department has undertaken to have a look at. But I do think we have to get this in context; none of this work was ever done before.
Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
Mr Doherty: There is work on foot on this. We do take the protection of those services very seriously. There is the OLS relating to visual flight and the PANS-OPS relating to instrument flight. The PANS-OPS is seen as non-negotiable; there is no scope for an intrusion into the PANS-OPS for any particular time.
We have provisions in the Commonwealth legislation which are designed to provide notice of proposed buildings which would go close to the controlled surface, to allow those to be assessed and to make a judgement. We are currently working with a group of state officials to try to do a couple of things. One is to make sure that those sorts of controls are expanded properly into airports which are not controlled under the Commonwealth's Airports Act provisions. And secondly, to make sure that we have robust arrangements in place for how they are administered. So we are keen to work on making sure that we have the right arrangements in place to make sure those are given effect to. We agree with you: those are extremely important.
Senator FAWCETT: I think if you look into it—and again, I am happy to be corrected—I believe that there are at least two examples in Brisbane and Sydney where the PANS-OPS base has been increased as a result of buildings that have gone up and have not been blocked, even though under our ICAO obligations we are supposed to. I encourage you to look into that and, if I could put that on notice to come back to me—
Mr Wilson: If you could put those two examples on notice that would be helpful.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly.
....It is a drift but the subject still revolves around the Senate and department spin doctors…..
Yep, Mr. M did a great job in the public interest on airports, particularly the secondary airports --- that is why those of us who are left are so ecstatically happy about the airports and aerodromes in Australia, that's why we're all 100% in support of what Mr. M did in allowing local councils to abrogate their duties under the ALOP contracts.
Meanwhile Senator Fawcett keeps highlighting deficiencies and safety issues in the apparently uncontrolled development around airports.
Maybe there is some truth in what Sunny says:
My guess is that the public service will be lobbying Liberal party powerbrokers and anyone else who will listen that anyone but Sen. Fawcett should be the Minister.
Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing what those comments are. I do not believe that those comments are in any way reflective of the regulatory arrangements and the actual situation at a number of airports, particularly those. I am aware of recent criticism of decisions, but I do not think that some of the media commentary reflects the facts.
In essence our role is set out in the act and also under the airport leases, which provide for the way in which we go about ensuring that the airport master plan provides for growth at the airports for aeronautical and non-aeronautical activity and to make sure that demand is being met. We also have a range of statutory requirements in relation to building control, environmental regimes and operations of the airport that we administer. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority obviously has responsibility for safety at the airports.
In relation to particular planning matters there are obviously differences of views at times between those of the airport operators in relation to development and those of some of the customers at that airport, particularly general aviation customers. I would characterise that at times as being robust, but I do not believe I would agree at any time that the act, the regs and the statutory requirements have not been met.
Senator FAWCETT: You mentioned that one of your requirements it to ensure the potential for growth. Are you referring there to growth in the aviation use of the airport or growth in the commercial use of the airport?
Mr Mrdak: Both. Our primary focus is to make sure the airports are available to provide facilities for aviation growth. That is the primary focus of the master planning process and the way in which we regulate the airports.
Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if we go to a couple of examples that might help to unpack some of the concerns of industry. We will start with Archerfield and runway 28 right in particular. There have been some concerns in terms of the new corporate hangars and warbird hangars that have been built very close to runway 28 right and the impact that has in terms of instrument flight rules departures from that runway. One of the initial actions when that was raised was that the runway take-off distance available was shortened. If you look at the on-route supplement in the annexe at the rear, that restriction is still there. That starts to limit the type of aircraft that you can operate. If you are looking to operate a business jet or even something like a King Air or a 350, for example—which in Archerfield's case would need a weight exemption—that starts limiting rather than enhancing the growth of the airport. Can you explain that inconsistency for me?
Mr Mrdak: I am not sure there is. I will ask Mr Doherty to comment. I am certainly not aware that there has been any restriction on anyone's ability to operate from that field.
Senator FAWCETT: Shortening the runway is one heck of a restriction.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing whether that has actually in practice impacted on any operation, but I will ask Mr Doherty to comment on the specifics.
Mr Doherty: Certainly the intention would not be to allow a development which was going to restrict the nature of the operation. I am aware that there has been controversy over a couple of buildings at Archerfield and I understand that there was basically disagreement between experts as to the extent to which that may or may not affect the operations of some aircraft at that airport. My understanding was that the most recent exercise on that was a study by the ATSB that indicated that those structures were, in fact, not an issue, so there was not an ongoing program. I am interested to hear you say that the restriction is still reflected in the documentation. The way the process should work would be that, if the airport lessee proposes a development, if would go through a building control process and would be referred to the expert agencies—in this case particularly, Air Services and CASA—for them to comment on any possible interference with aviation operations. As I understand in that case, it must have been around the interpretation at that stage. While it was given the clearance at the time, I think there are others who felt subsequently that it should not have been. But as I said, I thought the latest on that episode was that the ATSB had had a close look at it and advised that they did not see this as a problem.
Senator FAWCETT: You are correct that the ATSB did do an investigation and you are correct that there was a difference of opinion; but, interestingly, the ATSB investigation appears to have made the same error of interpretation of the Manual of Standards part 139, which looks at obstacle clearances, in that there are actually two tables in the back of that chapter which determine clearance gradients required. They took table 7.1, which applies to approach and landing clearances, and table 7.1-2 applies to the take-off requirement and expands the runway width requirement from 150 to 180 metres. With that, the splay that then goes out puts those two buildings well and truly in the zone where it impacts on the capability to use that for departures.
Mr Doherty: I am not able to comment that—that is not an area within my expertise—but it may be a matter that you can take up with ATSB.
CHAIR: Rather than spending the next 20 minutes inquiring, is this the place for Senator Fawcett to ask the questions about his concerns or is it ATSB?
Senator FAWCETT: If I can continue, all I am doing is highlighting an example. We have had the secretary tell us that everything is rosy. I have three or four examples where quite clearly the process of checking, verification and independent audit of the advice, whether it is given by the airport operator, by a consultant or by CASA in some cases has not been taken up and acted on appropriately by the department. That is the issue at hand, so all that detail was merely an example where due diligence has not been applied to a process and the end result is operational restrictions on people at the airport, which flies directly in the face of the stated intention of providing paths for growth for the airport.
CHAIR: Okay. This is fantastic. From a truckie to a test pilot, I do not mind what you do. What I am trying to say is we are not going to sit here all night if there is a quicker way of you getting answers. I am just going to put it to you that way. So I go back to my original question: are we in the right area?
Mr Mrdak: I think there are a range of issues Mr Doherty has been discussing with the senator. I think we need to have a look at what the senator wishes to put forward.
Mr Wolfe: I may add something. With regard to those particular claims that you have indicated in relation to the ATSB advice, my understanding is that the ATSB has responded to those claims, so I would definitely suggest you take it up with the ATSB.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, let us have a look at the runway and safety area at the end of runway 28 right. You talked about the fact that there is a building inspector who works for the federal government, who is supposed to be involved as part of that development process. In fact the Archerfield Airport Corporation on their website when they talk about developments, very clearly lay out the criteria that should trigger the involvement of a federal agency, and the auction site which has been built in that safety area—or just over the road but still in the area concerned—was not referred—and please correct me if I am wrong—to the building inspector. The airport made their own determination that the site, which was a hardstand for the purpose of auctioning and selling large trucks and machinery and those sorts of things, did not constitute something that they needed to actually involve the federal government in.
Speaking as a professional pilot—and, thankfully, most of my aviation experience in single-engine aircraft means that I have had an ejection seat—if I have a large obstacle in front of me and the engine fails, I can leave the aircraft. The people on the ground will suffer the consequences. In this case part of the requirement in place is that the Queensland government has identified public safety areas around the runway ends.
CHAIR: If there is a question, Senator Fawcett, I would urge you to get to it, please.
Senator FAWCETT: My question is: why are the checks and balances not in place to make sure that when things occur that impact operations on airports which still come under Commonwealth or, where by lease, Commonwealth control, that the airport operator does actually refer things? And, if the subsequent activities on that land break state regulations, why are the checks and balances not there to make sure that we are supporting safe operations at airports? The Commonwealth has said that it wants to work with the state, and the minister has said in his recent speeches that he wishes to integrate more with the state and make sure we work with them. Clearly, the system has broken down in this case.
Mr Doherty: We may need to look more closely at the particular case, but my understanding is that, yes, there is a Queensland policy relating to public safety zones, and certainly in the white paper and beyond we are keen to have that reflected in planning particularly on the airport but also off-airport to the extent that it can. Those policies operate in different ways to define an area within which activity should be restricted because of the risk of exposing either the aircraft or persons on the ground to the risk of damage and, while it might be slight, it becomes a problem.
It does not work as a complete prohibition, however. There may be a range of activities which are still permissible in that area if they do not involve bringing a large concentration of people. So while it might be inappropriate to have a large shopping centre or something like that which involves congregating large groups of people, it may be quite appropriate to have a longstay car park or something which does not involve having large groups of people there at one time.
My understanding of that case is that it has been looked at and that the nature of the activity conducted there does not infringe the public safety zone policy. But it is something that we can take further advice on.
Senator FAWCETT: I would ask you to, and to take that on notice. Certainly what is there, and there is photographic evidence of it being there—large pieces of plant as well as many members of the public attending auctions at that location—is problematical. As you read both the Queensland legislation and the federal, the obligation is a two-way street. One is to protect people on the ground—and there was an accident adjacent to that location a number of years ago when the pilot, and four people working in a factory, were killed when an aircraft crashed. There is also the obligation to the aircraft and its pilot and passengers to provide safety in a zone which is one of the most critical areas. US studies show that about 80 per cent of accidents occur in that area on takeoff, or landing when there is an undershoot, if you have an engine failure. The obligation is on your department to make sure that we provide a safe area around airports so that in the event of an emergency the pilots do have somewhere to land. It is not like military aircraft with ejection seats and the options to try and turn back. Civilians are constrained—
CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, I will remind you that if there is a question would you please come to it. The questions are very important, but I do not honestly believe we need all the preamble. You have the call and I urge you to get to the question.
Mr Wilson: We will take the issue with regard to the end zone at Archerfield on notice and provide the committee with a detailed response.
Senator FAWCETT: About the process: there was a repcon in Flight Safety Australia recently, which looked at the issue of building approvals again, this time well away from the airport. But things that affect what are called the PANS-OPS clearance requirements for aircraft that are in IFR—so they cannot see. What became very clear in that repcon was that as the redacted report went to different agencies the airport operators said, 'It is up to CASA'. And CASA said, 'We can't, actually—it's up to the department'. The department came back and said, 'Look, processes are in place'. But we have seen over the years that rather than saying, 'No, you can't build a building, because that actually infringes the requirements,' the building has gone ahead and instead there has been a reactive approach where the gradients and flight settings increase.
Senator Carr: Be fair. The minister put out a white paper on these issues, the first that had ever actually been produced by the Commonwealth. It outlined the procedures with regard to planning for development around airports. You have raised some issues with regard to one site, which the department has undertaken to have a look at. But I do think we have to get this in context; none of this work was ever done before.
Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
Mr Doherty: There is work on foot on this. We do take the protection of those services very seriously. There is the OLS relating to visual flight and the PANS-OPS relating to instrument flight. The PANS-OPS is seen as non-negotiable; there is no scope for an intrusion into the PANS-OPS for any particular time.
We have provisions in the Commonwealth legislation which are designed to provide notice of proposed buildings which would go close to the controlled surface, to allow those to be assessed and to make a judgement. We are currently working with a group of state officials to try to do a couple of things. One is to make sure that those sorts of controls are expanded properly into airports which are not controlled under the Commonwealth's Airports Act provisions. And secondly, to make sure that we have robust arrangements in place for how they are administered. So we are keen to work on making sure that we have the right arrangements in place to make sure those are given effect to. We agree with you: those are extremely important.
Senator FAWCETT: I think if you look into it—and again, I am happy to be corrected—I believe that there are at least two examples in Brisbane and Sydney where the PANS-OPS base has been increased as a result of buildings that have gone up and have not been blocked, even though under our ICAO obligations we are supposed to. I encourage you to look into that and, if I could put that on notice to come back to me—
Mr Wilson: If you could put those two examples on notice that would be helpful.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly.
....It is a drift but the subject still revolves around the Senate and department spin doctors…..
Mr Gaunt:
Yes Gaunty, it is much more satisfying - "being part of the solution" however that requires a unique ingredient to be added to the deliberations. More about that later.
WIthout that ingredeint "being part of the solution" wearing rose coloured glasses, is justpart of a dress up game designed to stroke egos and mollify critics while changing absolutely nothing. I think we have all seen the firebrands who come face to face with Government with real grievances who suddenly become good little puppies and start licking the hand of the one they were going to bite.
Its very easy to do, set up a Committee of Government and industry people chaired by someone like Mr. Mrdak to "work through the issues". Invite some industry "celebrities" to join the Committee as well. Hold committee meetings in Canberra, preferably in Parliament House. Organise some good lunches, Parliament and the National Press Club used to be good venues, the High Court Cafe was good too. Arrange for the Minister to attend a meeting and deliver a speech, or failing that a letter each member from the Minister thanking them for giving their time to this important venture, etc. Pay for a few airfares and voila! Susceptible committee members will start boasting to their friends about their new found importance and completely forget their prior anger and motivations.
Six months to a year later, a vacuous report is presented to the Minister who thanks the Committee for their hard work and off they go..............and nothing changes except perhaps a few titles on the doors.
The missing ingredient, Gaunty, is Good Faith. According to Pprune and Phelan, nobody now believes that CASA, ATSB, and perhaps the Department, itself possess any good faith at all, and without that your proposed solution is worthless, even counter productive because it strings thing s out.
We are in a race against time. Not the one involving electoral politics, but the one involving a smoking hole in the ground with hundreds of body parts around it.
Mike was 100% supportive AND ensured, with his impramtur, we got access to the people we needed to get there.
Yes they were asleep at the wheel at the time. But awakened pretty quick. No consolation, but at least they didn't get bored to death or back to sleep as some are wont to achieve.
BTW I and most of us have achieved more by wearing my rose colored glasses than otherwise. It doesnt get you noticed and on soapboxes but it does get things done. Being part of the solution rather part of the problem is much more satisfying.
There you go, an opportunity to have a rant. Off you go then.
Yes they were asleep at the wheel at the time. But awakened pretty quick. No consolation, but at least they didn't get bored to death or back to sleep as some are wont to achieve.
BTW I and most of us have achieved more by wearing my rose colored glasses than otherwise. It doesnt get you noticed and on soapboxes but it does get things done. Being part of the solution rather part of the problem is much more satisfying.
There you go, an opportunity to have a rant. Off you go then.
WIthout that ingredeint "being part of the solution" wearing rose coloured glasses, is justpart of a dress up game designed to stroke egos and mollify critics while changing absolutely nothing. I think we have all seen the firebrands who come face to face with Government with real grievances who suddenly become good little puppies and start licking the hand of the one they were going to bite.
Its very easy to do, set up a Committee of Government and industry people chaired by someone like Mr. Mrdak to "work through the issues". Invite some industry "celebrities" to join the Committee as well. Hold committee meetings in Canberra, preferably in Parliament House. Organise some good lunches, Parliament and the National Press Club used to be good venues, the High Court Cafe was good too. Arrange for the Minister to attend a meeting and deliver a speech, or failing that a letter each member from the Minister thanking them for giving their time to this important venture, etc. Pay for a few airfares and voila! Susceptible committee members will start boasting to their friends about their new found importance and completely forget their prior anger and motivations.
Six months to a year later, a vacuous report is presented to the Minister who thanks the Committee for their hard work and off they go..............and nothing changes except perhaps a few titles on the doors.
The missing ingredient, Gaunty, is Good Faith. According to Pprune and Phelan, nobody now believes that CASA, ATSB, and perhaps the Department, itself possess any good faith at all, and without that your proposed solution is worthless, even counter productive because it strings thing s out.
We are in a race against time. Not the one involving electoral politics, but the one involving a smoking hole in the ground with hundreds of body parts around it.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Jun 2013 at 23:11.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs 'long' post goes to show; you can run, but you just can't hide. The DOiT and by extension Albanese are in some hot water over airports right now and would probably much prefer to let it all slide quietly by. Somehow though, I just can't see any of the 'big' issues going away; not this time - . There may not be a wind of change blowing through the corridors of power, but it's breezy by golly. What with Wazza huffing, Heffernan puffing and the other boys taking deep breathes; the house of straw may yet topple about the ears of the three little pigs. We shall see...
I believe there is a thread running which discusses airport issues – Here – and with the AAT hearing coming up on Archerfield, perhaps the airport debate could continue there. Just a thought.
I believe there is a thread running which discusses airport issues – Here – and with the AAT hearing coming up on Archerfield, perhaps the airport debate could continue there. Just a thought.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Politics... is the art of devising temporary remedies for recurring evils. It is a series of expedients, not a project of salvation.”
-- John N Gray
-- John N Gray
Must be a full moon or one due, brings out the usual blowhards and lunartics.
Get your hands of it boys.
Get your hands of it boys.
So droll, so original, and it adds so much to the debate.
Just a quick question, what are "lunartics" --- is that something to do with the full moon you mentioned??
I will leave Frank A to expand on one of your efforts that he alluded to in his post.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Apropos Frank A's cryptic comment, maybe we should run a guessing competition as to what activity of Gaunty Frank was referring to??
First prize -- one choc. frog, past its use by date.
Last edited by LeadSled; 6th Jun 2013 at 15:03.