Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcs, agreed. The Pelair special audit report, along with the relevant documented observations, NCN's, obtained evidence, written notes and list of persons spoken with, along with the names list of the Inspectors who undertook the audit will be on file. The audit report will also contain references to which part of the regulations they were non compliant with. If the audit report can't be produced then CASA has breached it's own procedures and due governance. Then again it's executives are promulgators of the 'do as I say not as I do' philosophy.
I see no reason why the Senators cannot be given this full audit documentation at a moments notice, it is as simple as pressing the print or send button. Any delay or stalling tactics should be viewed as suspicious to say the least. That is my concern, the stalling game. A royal commission would remove that little ace in CASA's deck of cards. The commissioner could simply call up all who he/she wishes to the witness stand your honour!
The other option is obtaining material under FOI however that is a wasted drawn out exercise as government departments have that issue nutted out perfectly, and getting anything tangible takes years, blacked out page at a time.
So yes, lot rests on the shoulders of the good Senators.
I see no reason why the Senators cannot be given this full audit documentation at a moments notice, it is as simple as pressing the print or send button. Any delay or stalling tactics should be viewed as suspicious to say the least. That is my concern, the stalling game. A royal commission would remove that little ace in CASA's deck of cards. The commissioner could simply call up all who he/she wishes to the witness stand your honour!
The other option is obtaining material under FOI however that is a wasted drawn out exercise as government departments have that issue nutted out perfectly, and getting anything tangible takes years, blacked out page at a time.
So yes, lot rests on the shoulders of the good Senators.
Totally agree Oleo that all the information collated in the SAR and previous Pel-Air audits should be made available to the Senators and the FF auditors be made available to give evidence.
However in all due repect you kind of missed my point about the FF investigative team that was apparently headed up by the Manager of the then newly formed 'Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit', which was tasked to conduct a parallel investigation with the ATSB.
Whereas the ATSB's investigation team is governed by the the TSI Act 2003 and their own investigation procedures manual, as a Government Enforcement agency FF is totally different and are beholden to adhere to the "Australian Government Investigative Standard (2011)".
This is even quoted on page 11-4 of the CAsA enforcement manual, which reads: "The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards."
One of the team (at least) has to be a Part IIIA investigator and must manage the investigation as per the AGIS 2011 (previous version was AGIS 2003):http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtec...GIS%202011.pdf
What this means is that all the required documentation, evidence, case notes, meeting minutes etc..etc has to be filed and correctly collated as per the AGIS.
So therefore these required files should be made available for the Senators to review, or on the other hand if it hasn't been done properly (i.e. due process hasn't been followed) then the obligatory Friday afternoon pineapple insertions and beheadings will soon be a regular feature!
However in all due repect you kind of missed my point about the FF investigative team that was apparently headed up by the Manager of the then newly formed 'Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit', which was tasked to conduct a parallel investigation with the ATSB.
Whereas the ATSB's investigation team is governed by the the TSI Act 2003 and their own investigation procedures manual, as a Government Enforcement agency FF is totally different and are beholden to adhere to the "Australian Government Investigative Standard (2011)".
This is even quoted on page 11-4 of the CAsA enforcement manual, which reads: "The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards."
One of the team (at least) has to be a Part IIIA investigator and must manage the investigation as per the AGIS 2011 (previous version was AGIS 2003):http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtec...GIS%202011.pdf
What this means is that all the required documentation, evidence, case notes, meeting minutes etc..etc has to be filed and correctly collated as per the AGIS.
So therefore these required files should be made available for the Senators to review, or on the other hand if it hasn't been done properly (i.e. due process hasn't been followed) then the obligatory Friday afternoon pineapple insertions and beheadings will soon be a regular feature!
Last edited by Sarcs; 1st Feb 2013 at 04:17.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boxes that need to be ticked.
Perhaps the Senators could make sure, to be sure that all the boxes which needed to be ticked, were indeed ticked. It should not be too difficult to produce a man with one foot shot off and all of his paperwork. If not the TRIM system works just fine.
For Leadsled -
. Tootle pip.
Investigation, evidence and investigators manual references:
If the relevant manager considers that there may be evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3). It is only after discussion in this forum that a request for investigation should be made using form 333.
The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)
If a prima facie case exists and prosecution is considered, a Brief of Evidence will be compiled and submitted in accordance with the procedures set down in the Investigators Manual. Alternatively, on consideration of the investigator’s report, the Manager EPP may decide that the issue of an AIN is a more appropriate penalty. This will also be discussed as part of the CEP. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)
11.5.2 Reporting The Investigators/Coordinator Investigations make entries on AIRS, on the ASIS database and on the Enforcement Action Register on the Enforcement Action Rooms. (Note: This would be as per the AGIS 2003.)
13.6.2 Staff Responsible
Inspectors.
At any time, where inspectors may be unsure of exhibit-handling procedures, advice should be sought from EPP.
Note: Investigators are also responsible for evidence/exhibits and should refer to the Investigators’ Manual. (reference 13-7 enforcement manual).
Note: For procedures for evidence and evidence handling (for Inspectors) refer to section 13 of enforcement manual. Investigators procedures are contained within the Investigators Manual.
If the relevant manager considers that there may be evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3). It is only after discussion in this forum that a request for investigation should be made using form 333.
The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)
If a prima facie case exists and prosecution is considered, a Brief of Evidence will be compiled and submitted in accordance with the procedures set down in the Investigators Manual. Alternatively, on consideration of the investigator’s report, the Manager EPP may decide that the issue of an AIN is a more appropriate penalty. This will also be discussed as part of the CEP. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)
11.5.2 Reporting The Investigators/Coordinator Investigations make entries on AIRS, on the ASIS database and on the Enforcement Action Register on the Enforcement Action Rooms. (Note: This would be as per the AGIS 2003.)
13.6.2 Staff Responsible
Inspectors.
At any time, where inspectors may be unsure of exhibit-handling procedures, advice should be sought from EPP.
Note: Investigators are also responsible for evidence/exhibits and should refer to the Investigators’ Manual. (reference 13-7 enforcement manual).
Note: For procedures for evidence and evidence handling (for Inspectors) refer to section 13 of enforcement manual. Investigators procedures are contained within the Investigators Manual.
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Feb 2013 at 04:31. Reason: Hopping off for a good week end.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadie. The answer to your question is contained in Kharons post. See the resemblance now? It is uncanny, plus when they both speak it is an incredible likeness! Goes to show they are all muppets!
Sarcs, valid point. However the accident investigations liaison manager put a team together and told them to 'go forth and audit'. That is the most of what he did, then in the wash up he toyed with the reports wording, and a robust here and a robust there. If the holistic task was left up to him you would be left with blank pieces of paper and the odd doodling.
The nuts and bolts, the meat and veg, the bricks and mortar of the investigation was undertaken by frontline inspectors. To them I offer no criticism. However their puppet master, the go between, the man who acts as a double adaptor (so to speak) between CASA and the ATSBeaker is probably about as skilled as Beaker. A tanned man, lover of bling and proud sponsor of a topless car. If you speak to some former colleagues of his in the UK, CAA NZ or the ATSB they trip over themselves laughing at the 'beautiful mans' ability to play the system and remain afloat, skipping between lifeboats at the right time!
And don't shoot me, I'm passing on the message!
You know, I think Russell is the smartest out of the lot of these clowns. Took a parachute at the right time, made hay while the sun shined and then and went to work for the company whom supplied most of the systems he permitted into ASA! There's gold in them there hills son!
Perhaps Skull, Beaker and assorted friends will also soon search for a parachute, after all the poo bomb has well and truly exploded. Only problem is who in their right mind would employ them?
Sarcs, the pineapples are in position, the lube has been applied and deep breaths taken. Time for the Senators to do the rest!
Anyway, gotta run kids, I need to start checking the emails as it is Friday afternoon and it is 16 minutes shy of 1659 pm !
Tootle pip!
Sarcs, valid point. However the accident investigations liaison manager put a team together and told them to 'go forth and audit'. That is the most of what he did, then in the wash up he toyed with the reports wording, and a robust here and a robust there. If the holistic task was left up to him you would be left with blank pieces of paper and the odd doodling.
The nuts and bolts, the meat and veg, the bricks and mortar of the investigation was undertaken by frontline inspectors. To them I offer no criticism. However their puppet master, the go between, the man who acts as a double adaptor (so to speak) between CASA and the ATSBeaker is probably about as skilled as Beaker. A tanned man, lover of bling and proud sponsor of a topless car. If you speak to some former colleagues of his in the UK, CAA NZ or the ATSB they trip over themselves laughing at the 'beautiful mans' ability to play the system and remain afloat, skipping between lifeboats at the right time!
And don't shoot me, I'm passing on the message!
You know, I think Russell is the smartest out of the lot of these clowns. Took a parachute at the right time, made hay while the sun shined and then and went to work for the company whom supplied most of the systems he permitted into ASA! There's gold in them there hills son!
Perhaps Skull, Beaker and assorted friends will also soon search for a parachute, after all the poo bomb has well and truly exploded. Only problem is who in their right mind would employ them?
Sarcs, the pineapples are in position, the lube has been applied and deep breaths taken. Time for the Senators to do the rest!
Anyway, gotta run kids, I need to start checking the emails as it is Friday afternoon and it is 16 minutes shy of 1659 pm !
Tootle pip!
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 1st Feb 2013 at 05:38.
"K" top shot and DB good catch!
Oleo said:
Oleo what you say maybe entirely the way it happened and old mate the ALIU manager is just manipulating the situation to gain a carte blanche invitation to the esteemed trough but I believe that could be where he ultimately trips himself up.
As you seem to be in the know was said manager a Part IIIA designated investigator? If not who was? Because it would appear that one was required.
On pg 6 of CAIR 09/3 it reads;
“Synopsis
The Accident was notified to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) who in turn notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on Wednesday 18 November. The ATSB decided to conduct an investigation. The CASA Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) was tasked with conducting a parallel investigation for CASA purposes. An investigation into the circumstances of the accident was commenced the next day. CASA informed the ATSB of the investigation in accordance with sub section 4.1.2 of the joint MOU.”
So this was definitely a parallel investigation and I don’t believe FF were doing it… “to help those poor under funded ATSB boys’n’gals out”. It was most likely that they were exploring the possibility of cuffing some poor bastard under section 20A; or if that didn’t work “we’ll get him administratively under CAR 265”; or “whatever works as long as the mud doesn’t stick to our new, best pals from Singapore”!
“4.1 Parallel investigations:
4.1.1 The ATSB may undertake ‘no--blame’ safety investigations in accordance with the TSI Act and CASA may separately undertake investigations with a view to possible safety—related action pursuant to its functions under Section 9 and/or Part IIIA of the Civil Aviation Act.”
Oh in case your wondering 4.1.2 of the MOU reads:
“4.1.2 As soon as reasonably practicable after either the ATSB decides to conduct an investigation, or CASA decides to conduct an investigation in relation to a matter that would be a reportable matter to the ATSB, each organisation will notify the other organisation.”
So Oleo regardless if old mate Aliu is on the take, rogering the DAS’s missus or he is just a lazy bugger, the half assed investigation that he was tasked to do still had to comply with an “Australian Government Investigative Standard” and if for some inexplicable reason it doesn’t then his ass is definitely ripe for a pineapple rheeming courtesy of the Senators canteen.
Oleo said:
However the accident investigations liaison manager put a team together and told them to 'go forth and audit'. That is the most of what he did, then in the wash up he toyed with the reports wording, and a robust here and a robust there. If the holistic task was left up to him you would be left with blank pieces of paper and the odd doodling.
As you seem to be in the know was said manager a Part IIIA designated investigator? If not who was? Because it would appear that one was required.
On pg 6 of CAIR 09/3 it reads;
“Synopsis
The Accident was notified to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) who in turn notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on Wednesday 18 November. The ATSB decided to conduct an investigation. The CASA Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) was tasked with conducting a parallel investigation for CASA purposes. An investigation into the circumstances of the accident was commenced the next day. CASA informed the ATSB of the investigation in accordance with sub section 4.1.2 of the joint MOU.”
So this was definitely a parallel investigation and I don’t believe FF were doing it… “to help those poor under funded ATSB boys’n’gals out”. It was most likely that they were exploring the possibility of cuffing some poor bastard under section 20A; or if that didn’t work “we’ll get him administratively under CAR 265”; or “whatever works as long as the mud doesn’t stick to our new, best pals from Singapore”!
“4.1 Parallel investigations:
4.1.1 The ATSB may undertake ‘no--blame’ safety investigations in accordance with the TSI Act and CASA may separately undertake investigations with a view to possible safety—related action pursuant to its functions under Section 9 and/or Part IIIA of the Civil Aviation Act.”
Oh in case your wondering 4.1.2 of the MOU reads:
“4.1.2 As soon as reasonably practicable after either the ATSB decides to conduct an investigation, or CASA decides to conduct an investigation in relation to a matter that would be a reportable matter to the ATSB, each organisation will notify the other organisation.”
So Oleo regardless if old mate Aliu is on the take, rogering the DAS’s missus or he is just a lazy bugger, the half assed investigation that he was tasked to do still had to comply with an “Australian Government Investigative Standard” and if for some inexplicable reason it doesn’t then his ass is definitely ripe for a pineapple rheeming courtesy of the Senators canteen.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double, double toil and trouble;
"If the relevant manager considers that there maybe evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3)".
What we do need to know is the basis of an unqualified "office" manager's (admin, load control etc.) decision that part 20 A (for anything) of the Act has been breached. It's a hell of a call:
From this 'informed' decision being made, all hell is let loose, on one mans say so. It's a stock standard, catchall bluff from Sleepy Hollow; they know the impact but they also know just how hard it is to prove at law. But, none of that matters; they have a "suspected" breach, which lets the dogs out.
Now, you may suspect chemtrails, alien life forces, or the way your Grannies tea leaves fall dictate the fate of the universe. You are quite entitled to believe in Santa, the Easter bunny or even that all politicians are honest; but, you cannot prove it too easily. So why, on the whim of one man, is such a mighty pony pooh storm able to be called down? Who is this masked man?
The brakes need to applied before any such "decision" is made; that suspicion needs to be better than a whim or a 'standard departure' point for the AAT. Before a 'manager' is allowed this much horsepower a case should be presented; the cops can't get a search warrant without reasonable grounds, so how come some office wallah can decide that a serious criminal investigation can be initiated.
I refer you to Macbeth Act 4 scene 1 to discover the way in which these matters are arranged, I reckon the three witches were closer to being legally concise than the 'masked manager' and his crew. Talk about foxes in chook houses.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Feb 2013 at 22:27. Reason: Ayup, all better now, thank you.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sandilands - "In an election year it’s quite clear no-one in government or opposition really gives a damn about questionable standards in air safety investigations in this country.
This short piece by Sandilands highlights, once again the lack of service to industry from the ATSB new system of recording and reporting and the evils of the MOU. It is not the tail strike per se causing the problem, but that industry must now rely on the Aviation Herald to report the incident and make it's own decisions based against the report there.
Aviation Herald.
How are developing trends to be isolated and rectified if there is no "authoritative" voice; tail strike 1 = something nothing. Tail strike 15 from one company = a different animal; 15 tail strikes across a fleet different again. Different responses required.
No matter where the funding for service is drawn from, in the end the travelling public pay – one way or the other. They pay for a first class analysis and reporting system, which oversights accidents, in the hope of preventing a recurrence. Even the humble tail strike.
ATSB is not there to cover the CASA arse, to save a few dollars by not examining accidents, or sign off on reports which are not only sub standard, useless and flawed but could allow a repeat incident to occur. It's hard to believe that in Australia we have a size 10, million dollar bun fight in the Senate just to get these people to do the job they are asked to do.
Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Feb 2013 at 20:39. Reason: Yes Minnie, definitely out of the wrong side this morning.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The perils of a warts and all investigation
Oleo is correct, the names of the CASA members on the investigation and special audit team are freely available. A look at the list of inspectors shows that as well as the usual flying ops and airworthiness inspectors there was one of the relatively new breed of Safety Systems Inspectors. Their task is not only to look at the effectiveness of the systems that should have plugged the holes in the cheese and not only the systems of the operator but also the regulatory systems that should have plugged the holes.
Rumour has it that the latter were raised particularly in relation to the fatigue risk management system that CASA had previously approved. Being the devil's advocate and highlighting deficiencies in your employer is fraught with danger but that is the lot of a proper investigation and apparently the inspector concerned was given a pineapple previously for, when asked to examine CASA's responses to ATSB safety recommendations from the Lockhart River accident, he did not hold back on criticising those responses ( or lack of them). Admittedly the pineapple was purported to have been launched not from the person that requested the report but from the person who attracted the criticism. Or so I hear.
Rumour has it that the latter were raised particularly in relation to the fatigue risk management system that CASA had previously approved. Being the devil's advocate and highlighting deficiencies in your employer is fraught with danger but that is the lot of a proper investigation and apparently the inspector concerned was given a pineapple previously for, when asked to examine CASA's responses to ATSB safety recommendations from the Lockhart River accident, he did not hold back on criticising those responses ( or lack of them). Admittedly the pineapple was purported to have been launched not from the person that requested the report but from the person who attracted the criticism. Or so I hear.
How's it done...?
Not by the Manual that's for sure. That might be a bit of a guide to help tidy up the paperwork..AFTER the event and or "investigation"
Had a good laugh on reading 2.4.1.. Natural Justice and Accountability..2 things that CASA doesnt give a rats about, and..
2.4.2 Impartiality....Ha Ha Ha...pull the other one ! You can kiss that one adieu as well.
From direct experience CASA MO is in REVERSE of the requirements of the AGIS,and their own enforcement manual.
Penalty notice /AIN ...FIRSToff. (ie deemed GUILTY of offence)
Then an "investigation" that wasnt really/totally 1/2 arsed by an "investigator", one S Cremerius whose Part 111 appointment came a couple of weeks later. Other investigations found people in my favour, Cremerius found none. Que?? Just following the CB line,... guilty of course so
dont let the truth get in the way of the CASA agenda!
Alas,at great cost to the taxpayer it all went tits up. And a complaint to the current ICC re the MO of the Manager Compliance and Enforcement doesnt warrant any attention because my complaint was for something more than 12 months ago.!! Thats right... any old BS will do.!
Funny that, they dont give a rats if yr FOI takes 2 years to finally get SFA.
GO you good Senators, GO!!!!
Had a good laugh on reading 2.4.1.. Natural Justice and Accountability..2 things that CASA doesnt give a rats about, and..
2.4.2 Impartiality....Ha Ha Ha...pull the other one ! You can kiss that one adieu as well.
From direct experience CASA MO is in REVERSE of the requirements of the AGIS,and their own enforcement manual.
Penalty notice /AIN ...FIRSToff. (ie deemed GUILTY of offence)
Then an "investigation" that wasnt really/totally 1/2 arsed by an "investigator", one S Cremerius whose Part 111 appointment came a couple of weeks later. Other investigations found people in my favour, Cremerius found none. Que?? Just following the CB line,... guilty of course so
dont let the truth get in the way of the CASA agenda!
Alas,at great cost to the taxpayer it all went tits up. And a complaint to the current ICC re the MO of the Manager Compliance and Enforcement doesnt warrant any attention because my complaint was for something more than 12 months ago.!!
Thats right... any old BS will do.!Funny that, they dont give a rats if yr FOI takes 2 years to finally get SFA.
GO you good Senators, GO!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Spike, interesting sir, very interesting. If your sources are also correct then it certainly appears that FF are harvesting a frickin pineapple plantation?
Industry complaint to the ICC? Score a pineapple?
Industry prove that CASA are incorrect over their interpretation of an issue? Score a pineapple.
Industry disagree on an audit finding or an NCN stemming from op surveilance? Score a pineapple?
Work for CASA and do the right thing, act with fairness and integrity toward industry? Score a pineapple.
Highlight a CASA deficiency or incorrect action in regards to an internal matter? Score a pineapple?
CASA - Write some silly comments making the Senators out to be buffoons, then apologise, brown nose and eat a poo poo sandwich? Dodge a pineapple.
CASA - Trick ICAO and FAA with circus acts and amazing tricks against a darkened background? Dodge a pineapple.
Continually lie and deceive by promising completed regulations for decades then simply stall and play magic tricks until a new government is elected and then start playing the same game over again? Dodge a pineapple.
Respond to Senators questions with imbecile comments, 'take it on notice' (and never come back with an answer), and treat Senators with contempt? DESERVED PINEAPPLE.
I think Mr Spike also made an interesting but brief reference to Lockhart River? Although a different topic I interested in hearing more about this? I have always said that FF dodged a bullet on Lockhart, and the Norfolk mess as well as Canley Vale seems to be rapidly building a profile of Regulatory ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and bot bot covering. Again I believe that decades of individuals avoiding accountability has created a horrid culture of 'we shall do as we f&king please and you can all get stuffed'. A royal commission needs to be granted, there no longer is any other option.
Industry complaint to the ICC? Score a pineapple?
Industry prove that CASA are incorrect over their interpretation of an issue? Score a pineapple.
Industry disagree on an audit finding or an NCN stemming from op surveilance? Score a pineapple?
Work for CASA and do the right thing, act with fairness and integrity toward industry? Score a pineapple.
Highlight a CASA deficiency or incorrect action in regards to an internal matter? Score a pineapple?
CASA - Write some silly comments making the Senators out to be buffoons, then apologise, brown nose and eat a poo poo sandwich? Dodge a pineapple.
CASA - Trick ICAO and FAA with circus acts and amazing tricks against a darkened background? Dodge a pineapple.
Continually lie and deceive by promising completed regulations for decades then simply stall and play magic tricks until a new government is elected and then start playing the same game over again? Dodge a pineapple.
Respond to Senators questions with imbecile comments, 'take it on notice' (and never come back with an answer), and treat Senators with contempt? DESERVED PINEAPPLE.
I think Mr Spike also made an interesting but brief reference to Lockhart River? Although a different topic I interested in hearing more about this? I have always said that FF dodged a bullet on Lockhart, and the Norfolk mess as well as Canley Vale seems to be rapidly building a profile of Regulatory ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and bot bot covering. Again I believe that decades of individuals avoiding accountability has created a horrid culture of 'we shall do as we f&king please and you can all get stuffed'. A royal commission needs to be granted, there no longer is any other option.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 3rd Feb 2013 at 10:25.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depth perception.
FS #991 – and Oleo # 993. Two clear posts which bring us to a fork in the road. Both pathways forward are murky, muddy and guarded by ferocious beasts.
One path takes us down into the operational levels and to the resignations of two very well qualified safety inspectors; where to say the least, the timing is interesting. Where the Lockhart farce raises it's ugly head in the mix and there still remain questions of the RCA not signed by the well qualified individual who raised them, but signed by a person considerably less professionally qualified and regarded. It would be interesting indeed to have the two highly qualified persons in question provide their 'expert' version of the "facts and circumstances", i.e. who rogered who and who paid.
The other path takes us upwards toward departmental governance, to the ever ready legal crew who seem to manage the most extraordinary twisting, bending and shaping of the rules to suit a pre determined outcome, with an ease that beggars the imagination. This leads to the high altitude plateau of oversight and thus to management, the board and minister.
I feel a Royal Commission is a heavy, expensive blunt instrument to crack the Pel Air nut. A Judicial no holds barred enquiry into this one event will tear the lid off a can of worms. I believe the Senate is almost there; they cannot, for the sake of public credibility be fobbed off with another soft white paper. In an election year it will be interesting to see which path they take – in any event both pathways meet at the well of truth and the public safety.
It has been suggested that the Senate is, at the end of the day, powerless. It's time to take the kid gloves off and demonstrate where true power lays; and NO, it is not within the halls of Fort Fumbles.
One path takes us down into the operational levels and to the resignations of two very well qualified safety inspectors; where to say the least, the timing is interesting. Where the Lockhart farce raises it's ugly head in the mix and there still remain questions of the RCA not signed by the well qualified individual who raised them, but signed by a person considerably less professionally qualified and regarded. It would be interesting indeed to have the two highly qualified persons in question provide their 'expert' version of the "facts and circumstances", i.e. who rogered who and who paid.
The other path takes us upwards toward departmental governance, to the ever ready legal crew who seem to manage the most extraordinary twisting, bending and shaping of the rules to suit a pre determined outcome, with an ease that beggars the imagination. This leads to the high altitude plateau of oversight and thus to management, the board and minister.
I feel a Royal Commission is a heavy, expensive blunt instrument to crack the Pel Air nut. A Judicial no holds barred enquiry into this one event will tear the lid off a can of worms. I believe the Senate is almost there; they cannot, for the sake of public credibility be fobbed off with another soft white paper. In an election year it will be interesting to see which path they take – in any event both pathways meet at the well of truth and the public safety.
It has been suggested that the Senate is, at the end of the day, powerless. It's time to take the kid gloves off and demonstrate where true power lays; and NO, it is not within the halls of Fort Fumbles.
Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Feb 2013 at 20:50.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Kharon, indeed, the good Senators may only retain enough power to open the can of worms and not have the power and permission to take the matters to a higher playing field, time will tell. One thing is for certain, the way things are currently going I think there is enough coming to light to ensure that when a large smoking hole finally becomes a reality (and it will), there will have been enough evidence raised about the governments inaction and posturing to ensure some mighty big legal action is actioned against these clowns. Then again, it's you and I the taxpayer who cough up for it in the end and those in higher places that shall not be named remain fully protected and unaccountable.
Mr Chocolate biscuit, the CASA chess game contains many many processes. Written rules, unofficial rules, rules for some and rules for others, secretive and clandestine rules, no rules, supernatural occult rules and a smattering of pony poo rules. The game contains 'winner takes all' rules, 'you are the weakest link rules', rules pertaining to trough wallowing and rules about the rules. You have hypothetical rules, rules in which accountability for players actions don't exist, rules that are discussed, articulated, philosophised and excitedly discussed at round table meetings by men wearing slippers and smoking cigars while sitting on leather couches in dark libraries at secret locations where blood letting and touching each others plonkers is the norm!
Yes, Mr Biscuit, many a twist to this Chess Game. But you ain't seem nothing yet, wait till you see the game of 'Tautology' when released in full after almost 24 years under development.
Mr Chocolate biscuit, the CASA chess game contains many many processes. Written rules, unofficial rules, rules for some and rules for others, secretive and clandestine rules, no rules, supernatural occult rules and a smattering of pony poo rules. The game contains 'winner takes all' rules, 'you are the weakest link rules', rules pertaining to trough wallowing and rules about the rules. You have hypothetical rules, rules in which accountability for players actions don't exist, rules that are discussed, articulated, philosophised and excitedly discussed at round table meetings by men wearing slippers and smoking cigars while sitting on leather couches in dark libraries at secret locations where blood letting and touching each others plonkers is the norm!
Yes, Mr Biscuit, many a twist to this Chess Game. But you ain't seem nothing yet, wait till you see the game of 'Tautology' when released in full after almost 24 years under development.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 3rd Feb 2013 at 21:52.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working notes.
In response to requests for additional information, the following working notes are offered.
Please be aware these are only draft working notes and completely unverified. Whilst we cannot attest to their probity they will provide a springboard for detailed analysis, for those who enjoy the research challenge.
Download - For_Research_Only.
PAIN_Net... DO NOT track downloads. Relax troops.
P4 – AKA – Ferret.
Please be aware these are only draft working notes and completely unverified. Whilst we cannot attest to their probity they will provide a springboard for detailed analysis, for those who enjoy the research challenge.
Download - For_Research_Only.
PAIN_Net... DO NOT track downloads. Relax troops.
P4 – AKA – Ferret.
Last edited by PAIN_NET; 4th Feb 2013 at 06:36. Reason: Latest version just arrived.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon,
That seems like an odd process, for an Inspector to issue a NCN yet someone else puts their signature on it? Is that legal? How and why would somebody else sign it? Does that comply with CASA's SPM? I wonder what the Operators think of this?
Stan, good news.
Hopefully CASA will provide the Senators with a specific date for the release of the new regs?
Hopefully CASA will provide the Senators with clear and precise answers and where necessary the evidence to ALL questions that have been 'taken on notice' over the past 14 months?
PAIN,
Some robust reading indeed. I am sure that FF legal team will be busy scurrying through all this and burning the midnight candle?
Senators,
You would by now be painfully aware by way of submissions, interviews and ongoing discussions that the CASA, ATSB and ASA are in a parlours state of disrepair. The heads of the snakes need removing. The sheer scale of risk that the industry is exposed to by the actions and inactions of the over sighting bodies is beyond words and comprehension. You are intelligent men well versed in the politics, spin and deflection trotted out during inquiries of this nature. But so are many others, aware of the state of play within Australian aviation safety. The more that eeks out and the more that people are not held to account means the more unsettled industry becomes and the more accountable individuals in government shod become for choosing to turn a blind eye and ignore the warnings. The facts have been well and truly exposed, are those in power still prepared to sit on their fat a#ses and play ignorant?
That seems like an odd process, for an Inspector to issue a NCN yet someone else puts their signature on it? Is that legal? How and why would somebody else sign it? Does that comply with CASA's SPM? I wonder what the Operators think of this?
Stan, good news.
Hopefully CASA will provide the Senators with a specific date for the release of the new regs?
Hopefully CASA will provide the Senators with clear and precise answers and where necessary the evidence to ALL questions that have been 'taken on notice' over the past 14 months?
PAIN,
Some robust reading indeed. I am sure that FF legal team will be busy scurrying through all this and burning the midnight candle?
Senators,
You would by now be painfully aware by way of submissions, interviews and ongoing discussions that the CASA, ATSB and ASA are in a parlours state of disrepair. The heads of the snakes need removing. The sheer scale of risk that the industry is exposed to by the actions and inactions of the over sighting bodies is beyond words and comprehension. You are intelligent men well versed in the politics, spin and deflection trotted out during inquiries of this nature. But so are many others, aware of the state of play within Australian aviation safety. The more that eeks out and the more that people are not held to account means the more unsettled industry becomes and the more accountable individuals in government shod become for choosing to turn a blind eye and ignore the warnings. The facts have been well and truly exposed, are those in power still prepared to sit on their fat a#ses and play ignorant?
Post Valentine's Massacre??
Stan also heard from a reliable source that the next public hearing is the 15th, pity it wasn’t the 14th we could have dubbed it the ‘Valentine’s Massacre Mark II’! Anyway should be confirmed tomorrow when the Senate sits.
Going off the PAIN reference and spike’s post….
“Rumour has it that the latter were raised particularly in relation to the fatigue risk management system that CASA had previously approved. Being the devil's advocate and highlighting deficiencies in your employer is fraught with danger but that is the lot of a proper investigation and apparently the inspector concerned was given a pineapple previously for, when asked to examine CASA's responses to ATSB safety recommendations from the Lockhart River accident, he did not hold back on criticising those responses ( or lack of them). Admittedly the pineapple was purported to have been launched not from the person that requested the report but from the person who attracted the criticism. Or so I hear.”
….my money is that spike would be referring to BC rather than MC, although both gentleman have CVs that would put them in the top 2% of experts in Human Factors in aviation for Australia, if not the world!
Going off Oleo’s post maybe compiling a list of questions might help to clear some of the bull**** and corruption we’re beginning to get flooded with here!
Q1/ So why did they both jump ship(BC&MC)? And the timing is very suss, especially BC (August 2010)??
Q2/ And those countersigned RCAs WTF is that all about?
Q3/ And in a normal world should some of those RCAs have required a ‘Safety Alert’?
• Complete the Verification and Action section; this section must record objective evidence to support the decision for acquittal.
Q4/ So where is the acquittal documentation for the RCAs, hmm maybe they’ve got a stuck TRIM or no one could manage to hit the Pentana?
There’s a possible RRAT committee document request in there me thinks??
The more that is revealed the more the reeking pooh piles up!
Anyway should be confirmed tomorrow when the Senate sits.Going off the PAIN reference and spike’s post….
“Rumour has it that the latter were raised particularly in relation to the fatigue risk management system that CASA had previously approved. Being the devil's advocate and highlighting deficiencies in your employer is fraught with danger but that is the lot of a proper investigation and apparently the inspector concerned was given a pineapple previously for, when asked to examine CASA's responses to ATSB safety recommendations from the Lockhart River accident, he did not hold back on criticising those responses ( or lack of them). Admittedly the pineapple was purported to have been launched not from the person that requested the report but from the person who attracted the criticism. Or so I hear.”
….my money is that spike would be referring to BC rather than MC, although both gentleman have CVs that would put them in the top 2% of experts in Human Factors in aviation for Australia, if not the world!
Going off Oleo’s post maybe compiling a list of questions might help to clear some of the bull**** and corruption we’re beginning to get flooded with here!
Q1/ So why did they both jump ship(BC&MC)? And the timing is very suss, especially BC (August 2010)??
Q2/ And those countersigned RCAs WTF is that all about?
Q3/ And in a normal world should some of those RCAs have required a ‘Safety Alert’?
Following assessment of the response and on the Recipient Response portion of the RCA carry out the following actions:
• Complete the Verification and Action section; this section must record objective evidence to support the decision for acquittal.
• Complete the name and file reference sections.
• Acquit the audit response by signing the document.
• Notify the Auditee of the acceptance of the response in accordance with the local field office procedures.
• Forward the acquitted RCA and supporting documentation on the file to the data entry operator for entry into the support systems (see data entry Guidelines for ASSP and Pentana).
• Enter the RCA information into the relevant support systems.
• Ensure all RCA acquittal and closure documentation is filed on the appropriate audit file.
Q4/ So where is the acquittal documentation for the RCAs, hmm maybe they’ve got a stuck TRIM or no one could manage to hit the Pentana?
There’s a possible RRAT committee document request in there me thinks??
The more that is revealed the more the reeking pooh piles up!
Last edited by Sarcs; 4th Feb 2013 at 02:42.