PPRuNe Forums


Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th Feb 2014, 01:05   #381 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
The Tortoise and the Hare - The trouble with procrastination in air safety regulation

Kharon..“Now Nigeria has managed to slay the beast and is looking good…they can with the right crew and political will…”

Top example “K”....and how embarrassing when previous & current 3rd World countries are catching up and overhauling a former bastion of high aviation safety standards, that punched well above its weight, while proactively contributing to aviation safety risk mitigation worldwide.
While we continue to sit on our hands and contemplate our navels (or have a sleep like the Hare did..), here in short summary is what Nigeria has been able to achieve since their ICAO audit in 2006:
Quote:
ICAO Audit: Nigeria Makes List Of 14 Best In Africa — August 22, 2013

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has listed Nigeria as one of the 14 countries in Africa that have achieved effective air safety implementation above the global average of 61 per cent.

This rating is contained in the ICAO 2013 Safety Report compiled by the ICAO auditors who investigated the compliance with stipulated international safety standards by individual countries across the world, especially its 200 member countries.

The ICAO 2013 Safety Report lends credence to the Category One certification granted Nigeria in 2011 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States of America for meeting stipulated international standards and practices on safety and security.
Maybe the risk is minimal of the FAA actually knocking on our door anytime soon (let’s face it they’re only up to “I” in the alphabet) but perhaps the potential effect of such an action could be the ultimate catalyst for creating the political will for change.

The current knock-on effects reverberating from the recent Indian ICAO downgrade (to CAT 2), should provide a reasonable insight & warning to the Government/Department of what is really at risk if the current status quo is allowed to drift without any effective, ruthless & proactive change.

Lengthy but educational article worth reading: Why US' downgrade of India's safety rating threatens to send aviation sector into a tailspin

‘Actions speak louder than words’

Quote from article:
Quote:
Timely Action

For these reasons, many experts believe that the FAA action is godsend. "The one silver lining in the downgrade is that it may act as a serious wake-up call and that India may take the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive White Paper review of the state of aviation safety in the country," said the Capa note. Craig Jenks, president of Airline/Aircraft Projects Inc, a New York-based aviation consultancy, said Indian aviation at least now strives to catch up globally.
After our last ICAO audit findings came out (much like the Indians post ICAO 2009 audit) the spin doctors, bureaucrat Mandarins etc all went into hyperdrive and produced the previous government’s Aviation white paper and initiated Australia's Aviation State Safety Program (SSP), however at the end of the day these documents are only words and while the various responsible agencies only pay lipservice to those words the clock will continue to TICK..TOCK!

Ps: Heard a rumour that the FAA(ICAO) are seriously considering, due resourcing issues, sub-contracting some of their auditing duties out to the Singaporeans (due to their exemplary, some would say extreme, compliance record to ICAO SARPs/Annexures) .

The rumour also included that an arrangement may now be in place for Singaporean inspectors to up the rampings (not just the Indians) of all airlines that operate into the US...hmm better make sure all those tyre dustcaps are accounted for and secure..

Last edited by Sarcs; 20th Feb 2014 at 07:04.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 10:18   #382 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 64
Posts: 1,133
can anyone else see a glaring fault in the ICAO logic?

as I read the cut and thrust of the ICAO guff I am left with the impression that "aviation safety" is solely concerned with international commercial airline operation.

ah penny drops. I'm not involved in "aviation" wink wink.

if tomorrow is a nice day I am taking my reciprocating petrol oxidiser for a 3 dimensional translocation at a wider earth radius than the planet's surface.
NOTE one and all; it is not "aviation" in the ICAO sense and hence is not illegal.
it involves the evaporation of money for which there is no legislated objection.

see newspeak can be made to work for you. wink wink.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 12:07   #383 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,386
Quote:
and c) They were fair!!
Sometimes they were far from fair.. A piece of corporate history for those with rose coloured glasses. This story is as accurate as I can remember it. In 1969 this scribe left the RAAF (sigh..) for the security of a job as an airways surveyor in DCA Head Office in Melbourne. Having been allotted a dark and dingy office with no window, my boss a former RAAF Hudson wartime pilot (Lloyd Milne no less,) told me to attend a conference between DCA officers and reps of the British BAC One-Eleven company in Australia to try and sell their product. The DC9 had recently been approved to operate into 30 metre (100 feet) wide runways in WA and NSW. To obtain that approval flight tests were needed to ensure that in event of engine failure at V1 the aircraft could maintain within six feet of the centreline until stopped or airborne. The BAC One-Eleven reps said they were happy their aircraft could meet the same requirements.
DCA officials, including my boss, had serious misgivings about allowing the British aircraft into Australia. It was a political thing, I think at the time.
So DCA told BAC they would allow sales to Australian operators but that the crosswind limit on the 100 ft wide runways would be restricted to something like 15 knots which was a piddling figure. As far as I recall there were no sums made - just someone's gut feeling.

I was told to draft the confirming letter to BAC which would be signed by Sir Donald Anderson after passing through the desks of numerous officials up to Alan Lum, the biggest wheel under Sir Don. I penned the first draft and after reading it, my boss told me to amend the crosswind limit to five knots if the runway was wet. I knew enough about jets to know that five knots limit on a wet runway was bullshit and I said so. Just do as you are instructed, said my boss Lloyd Milne.

Why this rubbish about crosswind limits said I? The One-Eleven can take 35 knots in England. My boss says you will soon learn the game of politics. It goes like this, he said. When the Poms get the letter limiting the One-Eleven to five knots on wet 100 ft wide runways, especially when wet runways were never discussed at the meeting, they will protest and say that is unfair. And that is true. We will get their reply but we will not reply back. Now there are millions of dollars of sales at stake here, and again they will come back urgently to us asking why five knots and again we won't reply.

With that, BAC will bypass us in DCA and go straight to the Minister for Air (Civil Aviation) and bitch that his DCA officials have put ridiculous cross-wind limit restrictions on the introduction of the BAC One-Eleven into airline service in Australia when similar restrictions are not applied to the current DC9 ops in WA.

In quick time the Minister will contact us and ask what the hell is going on with you people, and why the restrictions on the One-Eleven? We reply it is a safety matter since 100 ft wide runways leave no room for error should an engine fail on take off. When hearing the magic word "Safety" the Minister is supposed to fold under. BUT, we tell the Minister, if money is available from Federal or State authorities to enable DCA to widen the runways where the One-Elevens will operate in competition to the F28 and DC9, the safety problem is overcome and we (DCA) can approve the introduction of the BAC One-Eleven. In other words DCA will screw BAC in order to get funding for wider runways in NSW and WA.

History reveals the BAC One Eleven was never ordered by Australian airlines. However, Sir Robert Menzies who was Prime Minister in that era, directed the RAAF to buy two BAC One-Elevens for the RAAF No 34 (VIP) Squadron use. These arrived in 1967 and both aircraft gave sterling service. The above tale is a generalised account of events as I remember them. But the dirty tricks did originate from DCA and in my view was unfair to BAC.
Centaurus is online now  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 19:20   #384 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
We reply it is a safety matter …. When hearing the magic word "Safety" the Minister is supposed to fold under. BUT, we tell the Minister, if money is available …
Sounds very familiar.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 20:08   #385 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,057
Blackberry bushes and Backhoes.

Chance of a second coffee and the Centaurus post above, provoked some semi lucid thoughts related to how things have and do work in the murky world of power, politics and self interest. I reckon from the moment Mr. Ugg in cave 1 discovered there were folks in cave 2 it was game on; we learned the game from the other animals, push, shove, scratch and bite. Wasn't if Freud who said something about the first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization. The refinement of process into the sort of 'politics' Centaurus mentions whilst unpleasant is, regrettably part of the price we pay for the world we live in. One of the very bad side effects is the loss, through embuggerance (cheers Sunny) of good people when the balance of good and evil is loaded toward the dark side. However, Australia's loss has been another countries gain. Some of the best aviation success stories have been writ large by 'disgruntled' former employees of our failed regulator.

The harsh treatment of some has benefited nations like Nigeria, one very fine man who could, given the opportunity, have dragged Australia into the 20th century was instrumental in the Nigerian success. But someone made a wrong call and instead of a Nigerian like story, we had the White paper and the McComic years of repression, micro management, predetermined outcome, legal skulduggery and technical incompetence. Look back at the quality of people who have declined to work for CASA or, those who have tried to work within the system only to leave; disappointed. Compare those departed folk with those who not only could stomach McComic, but have ably aided and abetted the demise of what had been a workable, if imperfect system.

You don't have to look far; IMO the loss of Hood and the rise of Campbell gives you a pretty clear indication of what's afoot. A short study of Tiger, Polar, Barrier, Quadrio, Pel Air, colour vision, maintenance, part 61, CAO 48 etc. etc, will provide a crystal clear vision of why the industry is in such a desperate state and who got it there. I have, as yet to work out the why; any luck at your end miniscule?

I wonder - Cometh the hour, cometh the man ????

Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Feb 2014 at 18:49.
Kharon is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 22:18   #386 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,057
The Minister is busy focussing on what government is really about:
Quote:
Former deputy prime minister John Anderson will don his transport hat again to lead a government-appointed group tasked with progressing the Melbourne to Brisbane inland railway project.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss appointed Anderson, a former Nationals MP and transport minister, to chair an implementation group responsible for determining construction priorities and ensuring engagement with the community and stakeholders.
Sophie Mirabella’s helping out with submarines, Tim Wilson with human rights, Peter Costello with the Future Fund, Nick Minchin with our overseas relations.

So many friends; so little time.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 01:54   #387 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Unhappy Upon reflection- Science vs Opinion vs Political will??

Excellent post Centaurus! Just goes to show it is really the un-elected bureaucrats that hold and maintain the axis (balance) of power…
Kharon:
Quote:
I have, as yet to work the why; any luck at your end miniscule?
Hippocrates once said… “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance.”

Upon reflection In the lead up to Albo very proudly releasing his beloved Labor government’s GWEP (Great White Elephant Paper ), Truss as the then Opposition shadow miniscule was very vocal and opinionated on the Rudd government and the , wet behind the ears , DoIT Miniscule (love the last two paragraphs..):
Quote:
Truss ridicules Albanese over aviation review

By: Jason Whittaker
Date: 10.04.2008

Shadow minister for transport Warren Truss has labelled his counterpart a know-nothing minister who has no grasp of the challenges

Shadow minister for transport Warren Truss has labelled his counterpart a know-nothing minister who has no grasp of the challenges facing the transport industry.

Truss ridiculed Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese as lacking the will to make tough decisions after he announced a policy review into aviation, which adds to the 73 other reviews launched by the Rudd Government since it came to office in November.

Albanese today launched an aviation issues paper which highlights significant issues affecting the industry, such as skills shortages, regulatory reform and climate change.

The aim, according to Albanese, is to create a national aviation policy. The industry is being asked to submit its views to Albanese by September.

Truss, however, sees the launch as another indication of the Government being content to steal Coalition ideas, sub-contract work out to Labor mates and other government bodies or launch reviews.

"After 11 years in opposition, you would have thought Labor might have known what it was going to do when it was elected to Government," Truss says.

"The sad truth is the Government and its very green new minister, Anthony Albanese, have no idea about transport policy and infrastructure."

Truss says the late Howard Government had implemented a number of aviation reviews while in office, which laid the groundwork for progress to be made.

"This latest aviation inquiry is yet another example of Rudd Labor governing by review and avoiding what we pay them to do, which is to make decisions," Truss says.
Dear Miniscule‘proof is always in the pudding,’ this could be your ultimate swansong where you could be remembered as the Miniscule who was prepared to put his cohunes on the line and cut through the bureaucratic red tape; dice up the trough swillers & iron ring geriatrics…

Dear Miniscule…now is your chance to prove that your government truly are the infrastructure & transport gurus...or I suggest (as the PM recently said in Parliament)…“get out of the way!”

Dear Miniscule…“Mayday..Mayday..Mayday” is fast approaching …TICK TOCK!

Ps Congrats to FedSecSteve and the ALAEA on getting MMSM coverage for their WLR submission in today’s article Engineers’ submission calls for CASA refocus, tougher penalties
Sarcs is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 04:05   #388 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 859
Angries...

Cactus, you have many brothers in anger, that's for sure.

If and when the WLR review goes off like a wet squib, the Truss bitch about Albo, a few post above could just have the names swapped around and be presented back to him.

Great pic of Miniscule Warren in todays OZ "Aviation" (sic) p26....
"Sydney plan brings second site closer " To what you might ask ?

The caption that should go with his mug shot reads "Oh sh*t, do I really have to deal with this !!!!!"

But wait, there's more..! a 20 year masterplan to consider. Oh yes, oh yes.!
...major developments will require further planning processes...etc etc

Oh Citizens,!! pineappleus extractus, Viva la revolucion !!!
aroa is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 19:42   #389 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,057
Yet more friends in need of help:
Quote:
They were appointed in the spirit of austerity to identify billions of dollars to hack from government spending.

But the Abbott government's audit commissioners have been accused of failing to walk the walk on what they are taking from the public purse.

Audit chairman Tony Shepherd has so far been paid $25,000 for the equivalent of 17 days' work.

He and his four fellow commissioners, including former Liberal senator Amanda Vanstone, are in the highest pay bracket that exists for specialist advisers to government. …
Audit commissioners earn top dollar for advising on cuts
Creampuff is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 23:11   #390 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Upon reflection – Weekend Edition

While we are waiting for the WLR panel to wade through, the reportedly, over 260 submissions and for UITA to catch up…

URWE (‘Blast from the past’): In the dying years of the Howard Government and in the eventual lead up to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the admin of Fort Fumble, Labor Senator O’Brien had this to say to his fellow Senators (cherry picked quotes)…
Senator O’BRIEN (10:29 AM)
….I must say at the start that I am disappointed that government senators are opposing this reference. I am not surprised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, is opposed to it and is calling for government senators to oppose this motion, because this reference was a test for him—a test he has failed. Mr Truss does not want Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime subjected to a detailed examination by a committee of the parliament, and the question needs to be asked: why? It is obvious that it is because he is worried what an inquiry might reveal…

… Another important change has occurred: Liberal and National Party senators no longer exercise any will of their own. They take the whip not just from their respective party rooms but straight from the executive. In this case it is a National Party minister calling the shots: the metaphorical tail wagging the dog….

…The simple fact is that many Australians have lost confidence in Australia’s aviation safety regime. In particular, they have lost confidence in CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority...

… A recent survey commissioned by CASA that measures views on aviation safety in Australia shows that many Australians have lost confidence in flying. This survey, released in January, shows that public confidence has fallen since it had last been measured, in 2002….

…CASA did, of course, report the survey results with a big dose of self-congratulation.According to CASA, public confidence is ‘sky high’ and the survey results are ‘good news for the aviation industry’. That is what they say. At the time the survey was released I urged CASA to reverse the decline in public confidence in flying by concentrating on its core activity: improving safety in Australian skies—that is, a little more action and a little less public relations, please. The reality is that if Australians lack confidence in flying the responsibility rests with the regulator….

….Mr Shane Urquhart, the father of Ms Sally Urquhart, a young Queensland policewoman who died in the crash, supports this inquiry. In fact, he has told Australian Associated Press that a move to block the inquiry would show that the government has ‘something to hide’. Mr Urquhart says a decision to block this inquiry would ‘show the government has no compassion, no concern for its citizens getting justice, and lacks the guts to question anything CASA does’

…I have no doubt that at some time in this debate a government senator will say something like: ‘Well, hang on, you can ask all the questions you like during Senate estimates hearings; you don’t need a references inquiry.’ To that I say: turn to the Hansard of May last year and you will discover that the CEO of CASA, Mr Byron, was too busy to appear to answer questions. He skipped estimates to attend a one-day aviation conference in Europe, the cost of which the government is still refusing to reveal… (sound familiar..)

….Have a close look at that Hansard and you will find CASA evidence that it conducted a full audit of Transair’s operations before the Lockhart River tragedy and gave the airline the all clear. That is evidence the regulator gave again at October and February estimates hearings, despite a finding by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that there were manifest deficiencies in the airline’s operations, including a failure to lodge load sheets at departure and a failure to ensure pilots had the training mandated in the company’s operations manual. What the Senate estimates committee has heard from CASA are excuses, not answers.

On the question of risk profiling, CASA has refused to reveal whether Transair was clearly identified near the top of its risk profile table in the months leading up to the May 2005 tragedy—the top meaning the biggest risk. That is my understanding, but CASA has obfuscated for months. First, senior officers said they could not remember. Then they told us the risk profiling was unreliable. Recently, they claimed the risk-profiling table was filled with dummy numbers just to show what it could do if they ever got it to work. None of that is good enough….

…It is not just this side of the parliament that receives complaints about CASA’s performance, either. Recently we have all heard horror stories about CASA’s handling of pilot photo IDs. We have also heard complaints about CASA’s new cost-recovery based charging regime. Senator Eggleston came into the Senate a couple of months ago and laid out a case against CASA in relation to its dealings with Polar Aviation, a company operating in his home state of Western Australia. He said at that time that the ‘claim that CASA has failed the test of an impartial regulator seems not unreasonable’. He went on:

It seems difficult not to conclude that the behaviour of CASA in this matter warrants further investigation...

…At the end of the day, if the minister wants to hide CASA from scrutiny then it is the minister who will be responsible if the system continues to break down. As Mr Urquhart said, the government needs to have the guts to give the Senate the power to look at CASA because, at the end of the day, Australians want to have confidence in the aviation safety regime. They want to have confidence in the regulator, but every time the government hides the regulator from the scrutiny of parliament, more questions will be raised in the minds of doubters in the Australian community about Australia’s aviation safety regime. More questions will be asked. The numbers in CASA’s survey will probably deteriorate further, indicating a deterioration in confidence in the safety of Australia’s aviation regime, and ultimately that is not good for any operator of an aviation service in this country.

It is certainly not good for the public. It is not good for the parliament generally. And it will not be a good thing for this minister, Mr Warren Truss, because at the end of the day it will be seen that he has obscured an authority over which he has ultimate control from the scrutiny of the parliament….

{Note: The full Hansard text for the Senator O’Brien & Senator McLucas debate speeches can be viewed here: O’Brien, Sen Kerry; McLucas, Sen Jan}

History will show that the motion from Senator O’ Brien and Senator McLucas was voted down.., however it is worth noting the post division comment from Senator Ian McDonald (witness to the infamous AMROBA meeting ):
Quote:
Senator IAN MACDONALD (11:02 AM) —by leave—I came down to participate in the debate but came a little too late. I did want to say that I was going to be voting against the motion, but I was impressed by some of the things said by Senator O’Brien and particularly Senator McLucas, who comes from an area where I fly a lot in small planes as well. Whilst I voted against the motion because I know it is something that the minister will be pursuing, having heard what was said I simply wanted to associate myself on the public record with the sentiments that were expressed by the two speakers. I would certainly urge the minister to carefully consider the matters that have been raised, and to address them forthwith. I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered.
Which comment was then acknowledged by Senator O’Brien:
Quote:
Senator O’BRIEN (11:03 AM) —by leave—I thank Senator Ian Macdonald for confirming that this is purely a decision of the minister and that the executive of the government has called the shots for the Senate chamber. I simply say: this will not be the end of this matter.
Hmm..indeed, now nearly 8 years later, it isn’t the end of the matter…

Dear Miniscule…TICK..TOCK!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2014, 03:10   #391 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,057
Land of the long, long memory.

The trusty wheat board miniscule had better cover his fundamentals; the noises in the background, identified by Willyleaks, are those of the Barnaby clan leader, (champion clock cleaner) preparing to go to work and of all the little Barnaby's sharpening their knives in anticipation of fresh meat and new salad (lettuce and pineapple) being put in their trough.

Quote:
O'Brien ...[I] must say at the start that I am disappointed that government senators are opposing this reference. I am not surprised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, is opposed to it and is calling for government senators to oppose this motion, because this reference was a test for him—a test he has failed. Mr Truss does not want Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime subjected to a detailed examination by a committee of the parliament, and the question needs to be asked: why? It is obvious that it is because he is worried what an inquiry might reveal…
Well, now he knows and this time he's betting it all on the same crew that managed the 2008 heartbreak and what with the Barnaby clan salivating at the thought of an inevitable cock-up, perhaps more time with the family would be a good idea.

Quote:
Lucas "[You] cannot simply stand by and say, ‘CASA had nothing to do with the fact that 15 people died at Lockhart River.’ Surely Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce have a responsibility to allow this inquiry to proceed. What do they have to hide? More importantly, who are they protecting? The bottom line is that Liberal Party and National Party senators are lining up today to protect Mr Truss and, before him, Mr Anderson rather than allow the proper scrutiny of the actions of CASA in the lead-up to the Lockhart River tragedy. For all of the bluster of Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce, protecting their leader is more important than allowing scrutiny of Australia’s air transport regulator.
Quote:
Macdonald " [Whilst] I voted against the motion because I know it is something that the minister will be pursuing, having heard what was said I simply wanted to associate myself on the public record with the sentiments that were expressed by the two speakers. I would certainly urge the minister to carefully consider the matters that have been raised, and to address them forthwith. I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered.
Quote:
Bartlett [I] want to speak particularly because a lot of the arguments that were made referred to the tragic accident in North Queensland, my home state, and I also want to have the Democrats’ view clearly on the record. I was intending to speak briefly in the debate and I thought I would wait until after the government speakers so I could respond to their arguments. Unfortunately, there was not a government speaker so the vote was done. But I want to put clearly that the Democrats supported that motion, as indicated by our vote. I think it is very disappointing that the government is so dismissive of the Senate’s desire to inquire into important issues that it could not even be bothered putting a case against it, let alone supporting it.
Yes miniscule you are in a very tight spot, the things denied in 2008 are home to roost, this time supported by what may be described as an avalanche of opinion proving you had very bad advice last time; it was wrong then and it is still wrong now.

As Einstein said Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Kharon is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2014, 07:48   #392 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,593
Civil disobedience will come next, you betcha!


I have tonnes of Catheads, (thanks to global warming), They should go well through the hopper of a Dromeder. Parliament House lawns could use some I reckon?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2014, 21:51   #393 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Angel WLR update: Gentry & tendentious bloggers with more IOS tautological rubbish??

It would appear that the Kelvinator fridge (safe) is well and truly full as the ASRR web page has been updated from this…

“..
The formal submission period has now closed. However the Panel will endeavour to consider late submissions.
To make a late submission please use the
Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form....”


To this…

“…The formal submission period has closed.
If you would like to provide further information to the Review Panel, please email [email protected]...”

Oh well perhaps the WLRP could get the DoIRD to set up a blog & comments page, certainly save the panel from being distracted from replying to copious IOS emails…

Here’s a thought....why not just provide a link to this thread…

Speaking of blogs & submissions, here is hoping that Phearless Phelan was able to get the updated ProAviation submission in on time:

ProAviation’s submission to the ASRR

Wow mammoth effort PP & Stan!

Warning: May require IOS members to update the Kelvinator with a fresh slab before considering reading in full!
Quote:
Executive Summary

This submission concludes that a pervading “culture” exists within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that has degraded relations between the regulator and most industry sectors to a point where it is impacting negatively on air safety in ways that we illustrate by reference to examples.

It is submitted that this culture has developed, evolved and progressively expanded and consolidated since CASA was established in July 1995 and first designated as an independent statutory authority. We believe several symptoms of the existence of this culture can be identified in the examples we cite, and that it is manifested by the interaction between CASA departments which our examples illustrate.

It is acknowledged that a number of quality employees remain employed by CASA, although their numbers are reducing and their capability to influence the way the regulator carries out its functions has been so limited that numerous key figures have voluntarily left the organisation.

A majority of the aviation stakeholders we have consulted observe that the embedded anti-reform culture still exists and thrives within the organisation. They point out that it has already survived several high-level enquiries; and that events have proven that no reform can be effective unless those influences are identified and permanently negated.

CASA has operated, and continues to operate under the notion that to be legal is to be safe. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly when the industry is forced to operate under flawed and ambiguous legislation while separate offices; and at times different officials in the same office, make differing decisions when applied to different operators requesting identical approvals.

We consider the situations we detail demonstrate that solutions cannot be developed and implemented without significant amendment to the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations.

Introductory notes

Our submission is based on current and past research, some of which has been previously published in articles that are now part of this analysis. Those articles, whilst not always identical with the original, have only been reviewed to the extent necessary to bring them up to date, in some cases by adding a “sequel.”

We note the Minister’s advice that:

[The review] will not be reopening previous air safety investigations nor will it be a forum to resolve individual complaints or grievances. It is about the future regulatory challenges and growing our industry.

In that context we respectfully submit that the case studies which we reference clearly typify both past and current regulatory processes, and that this can also aid in identifying changes that will be necessary to regularise the management of similar events into the future. Furthermore, the point must be made that some individuals are more frequently involved than others in both past and contempoary cases, and that a number of these still occupy positions that offer opportunity for continued misconduct.

We emphasise that matters we quote as examples represent only a fraction of the material that is stored in our files. Much of this material comprises matters which we submit would warrant completely independent external investigation.

Some of the regulatory adventures detailed in the case studies are related to the regulation of flight operations by flying operations officers and their supervisors. Some are related to airworthiness and principally involve airworthiness inspectors and their supervisors.

However, they all involve CASA lawyers in varying roles. Additionally reporting to the General Counsel and Executive Manager of the Office of Legal Services, are the office that attends to freedom of information applications, the investigations office which oversees the activities of CASA investigators, and the Senior Advisor, Enforcement Policy and Practice, whose responsibilities are detailed by CASA as “developing enforcement policy, strategies and procedures, coordinating enforcement and monitoring, on a centralised basis, all aspects of CASA’s enforcement related activities.”

We also draw the Panel’s attention to a major “enforcement” event which is still current; and which calls for close attention as to CASA’s decision making and conduct throughout the processes of investigation and subsequent enforcement activity. This is the process by which Barrier Aviation is currently being managed out of existence.

None of this analysis is intended to denigrate individuals or organisations. Instead we recount events and leave the Panel to form its own impressions. Our own opinions when expressed are labelled “Comment:” and represent the opinion of the author and/or the publisher.
Hmm..kind of put’s the Airborne Gentry’s submission in the shade:

RAeS Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Comment: IMO, despite a stiff upper lip, the RAES submission is very much in the ilk of the AOPAA (wet lettuce) submission I’m afraid (but that is just my opinion)..

More to follow K2…

Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Feb 2014 at 10:17.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2014, 21:44   #394 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 106
Former Avmed Director speaks out

Kharon just posted this latest submission from Dr Rob Liddell on the Empire Strikes Back thread.

He has weighed into the Avmed debacle in his submission to the WLR - published on the Pro Aviation website.

Dr Liddell speaks out for Australian pilots | Pro Aviation

Quote:
In a supplementary submission to the ASRR Panel, Dr Robert Liddell, an airline pilot who was also the regulator’s Director of Aviation Medicine for nine years, has spoken out bluntly on the flurry of medical uncertainties now affecting Australian pilots. As always, Dr Liddell identifies not only the problem, but the solution:

Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission
Dr Robert Liddell

This submission is a personal submission in relation to the medical certification of aircrew.

I am a current holder of an Australian, British and FAA Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence. I have 7000 hours of flight experience with over 3000 hours in jet operations, mainly in Boeing 727 aircraft in Europe and Australia.

Between the years of 1988 and 1997 I was employed by CASA (then CAA) as the Director of Aviation Medicine. This position has now been re-named Principal Medical Officer.

Following my resignation at Director of Aviation Medicine the position has been filled by Dr Peter Wilkins, Dr Ian Hosegood and Dr Pooshan Navathe.

The international nature of aviation and the relationship of each country’s aviation authority with the standards and recommended practices that they are signatory to in the International Civil Aviation Organisation has resulted in a safe system that most major aviation countries have seen fit to deviate from in various ways. The country with arguably the most differences from ICAO is the country with the largest aviation industry in the world, namely the USA.

In Australia we have had minor differences with the SARPs since their very inception. In some areas we are more restrictive than the SARPs and in others we are more relaxed. For example during my tenure as Director of Aviation Medicine I had occasion to be called as an expert witness in the Federal Court where a Qantas pilot was claiming discrimination on the basis of age as Qantas were requiring him to retire having reached the age of 60 years. This was done ostensibly on the grounds of medical risk. My contention has always been that age is not a good predictor of risk and many pilots are high risk at a relatively young age and many are low risk even in their 70s. The judge upheld the appeal and Qantas since then and Australia therefore became one of the few countries to allow pilots to fly heavy jets regardless of age. To achieve this it was requested by the judge that CASA Aviation Medicine develop a risk mitigation strategy.

Consequently we became the first country in the world to put a risk matrix over pilots at every medical examination, and those that are at increased risk of heart disease are required to undergo an exercise ECG to prove cardiovascular health. This is an example where Australian regulations were far more stringent than the ICAO SARPS. In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around 1990 and remained in place until recently. There are now hundreds of colour defective pilots flying commercially in all types of operations and who over 20 years will have built up thousands of hours of accident free aviation.

These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is available to other contracting states through ICAO.

Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards. This move is without any evidence that adopting more restrictive practices will have any effect on safety but rather will discriminate against some pilots.

I now have several pilots, one of whom has over 16,000 hours of operation, most of it flying night freight in command on Boeing 727 aircraft and who in mid-career are being advised that they do not meet the standard because of their colour vision and so cannot hold the required class of licence to retain their occupation.

I suspect that due to my previous role in CASA, I seem to attract many pilots who are totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine. This involves conditions such as head injury, hearing, cardio vascular disease and prostate cancer, where the opinions of the pilots own specialist doctors are ignored and stringent and expensive repetitive imaging and blood testing is required if the individual wishes to retain their medical certificate. On a weekly basis I receive requests for assistance by pilots with conditions ranging from renal stones to early type 2 diabetes where the pilots own specialist’s advice is ignored by CASA and further expensive or repetitive testing in required to obtain a medical certificate.

The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator.

In medical certification CASA appears to have lost sight of the fact that all pilots self-certify themselves fit to fly every day they take control of an aircraft. The only day in the year when a doctor has any control over their fitness to fly is the day that they have their medical examination.

Dr Robert Liddell
brissypilot is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2014, 23:02   #395 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 64
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards.

that is easy to explain. the age old "reference to a higher authority" it is used all the time to negate criticism.

CASA are nutters. just look at the volume of guff produced in the name of regulation. "ICAO" and "EASA" must be wonderful tools for the deflection of criticism.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 01:05   #396 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Questions on notice??

Quotes from RL submission:
Quote:
In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around 1990 and remained in place until recently.
Quote:
These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is available to other contracting states through ICAO.
In ICAO Annex 1 the reference for CVD is at Chapter 6 paragraph 6.2.4 and reads:
Quote:
6.2.4 Colour perception requirements


6.2.4.1 Contracting States shall use such methods of examination as will guarantee reliable testing of colour perception.

6.2.4.2 The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.

6.2.4.3 The applicant shall be tested for the ability to correctly identify a series of pseudoisochromatic plates in daylight or in artificial light of the same colour temperature such as that provided by CIE standard illuminants C or D65 as specified by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE).

6.2.4.4 An applicant obtaining a satisfactory result as prescribed by the Licensing Authority shall be assessed as fit. An applicant failing to obtain a satisfactory result in such a test shall be assessed as unfit unless able to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights. Applicants who fail to meet these criteria shall be
assessed as unfit except for Class 2 assessment with the following restriction: valid daytime only.

Note.— Guidance on suitable methods of assessing colour vision is contained in the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984).

6.2.4.4.1 Recommendation.— Sunglasses worn during the exercise of the privileges of the licence or rating held should be non-polarizing and of a neutral grey tint.
The last known list (that I can find) of Australia's notified differences can be tracked back to AIP Supp H12/11. Now if you scroll down through the list, of over 1500 differences notified.., you will eventually get to the relevant section:
Quote:
Chapter 6 Medical Provisions for Licensing

Para 6.2.4.4 Candidates for an air traffic controller licence who fail an Ishihara 24-plate test are, in practice, not employed by Australia’s ATS provider.
In other words there is currently (again as far as I can make out) no notified difference to the SARPs in regards to CVD, other than the possibly discriminatory hiring practices of the ASA..

Unless you've kept a copy of each AIP GEN 1.7 amendment dating back to 1990, it becomes very hard to track, it is however worth noting that in the 2009 & 2000 ICAO audit reports there was no mention of any notified difference issue in regards Annex 1, 6.2.4.

So my QONs 1) Was there ever really a notified difference? 2) If there was a notified difference, when was it pulled and why wasn't (as is required) industry notified?? Maybe I'm missing something...if so 'please explain'??? TIA

Ps For those of you interested in getting up to speed for this afternoon's episode of the Senate Estimates soap opera here is a video link for the last episode on the 18/11/13: Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport [Part 2]
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 07:10   #397 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
CVD DF & NX questioning..

Poohtube link already posted on Empire Strikes Back thread but well worth regurgitating here..
[YOUTUBE]
... (double clap for DF & NX today..)

Still haven't got an answer for my QONs...err anyone??

In case you've forgotten here they are..
Quote:
In other words there is currently (again as far as I can make out) no notified difference to the SARPs in regards to CVD, other than the possibly discriminatory hiring practices of the ASA..

Unless you've kept a copy of each AIP GEN 1.7 amendment dating back to 1990, it becomes very hard to track, it is however worth noting that in the 2009 & 2000 ICAO audit reports there was no mention of any notified difference issue in regards Annex 1, 6.2.4.

So my QONs 1) Was there ever really a notified difference? 2) If there was a notified difference, when was it pulled and why wasn't (as is required) industry notified?? Maybe I'm missing something if so...'please explain'??? TIA
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 09:03   #398 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,045
Ultralights is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 22:19   #399 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Fort Fumble WLR submission??

To begin Ultralights that is pure gold!

Although yet to be officially tabled, the DAS did endeavour to rush through most of the FF WLR submission (so rushed I was beginning to wonder if he would ever draw breath..) yesterday in Estimates...

[YOUTUBE]CASA Senate Estimates - 24/2/14 - Part 1 - YouTube

Although it is extremely helpful for the IOS to get a sneak peek at the FF submission, my beef is that all other submitters (who would be keen on the same exposure) will not be afforded the same opportunity to state their case and refute FF's before the Senate Committee. Hardly natural justice but then what would you expect??..
Sarcs is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2014, 22:28   #400 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,064
Cannot believe CASA are still holding up that 727 accident in the US as a reason to abolish colour blindness.....
neville_nobody is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 13:19.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1