Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
004, I have to agree with you. The "Iron Ring" and their acolytes would eat Manning for breakfast, even if he was of a mind to reform, which I doubt.
Qantas to a certain extent has failed to modernise its procedures and tends to live in the past. No doubt Manning was inured with the good old Aussie "All the rest of the world is wrong, we are right attitude, and that will be strenuously reinforced by the iron ring.
We need a reforming DAS.
The sad thing is until there is a major hull loss in Australia it more than likely won't happen.
Qantas to a certain extent has failed to modernise its procedures and tends to live in the past. No doubt Manning was inured with the good old Aussie "All the rest of the world is wrong, we are right attitude, and that will be strenuously reinforced by the iron ring.
We need a reforming DAS.
The sad thing is until there is a major hull loss in Australia it more than likely won't happen.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need a reforming DAS.
As was discussed earlier too much focus is given to the FOI area at the expense of other areas.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beardless Beaker off to Malaysia to investigate MH17
What a farce, the Beaker flew out to the Ukraine today to assist with the investigation of MH17!!! Are you f
ing serious? What on earth could this buffoon provide by way of assistance? Perhaps he will teach the Russian separatists how to manage their budget? Is Beaker there as a 'financial adviser' and he will teach the other investigating countries how to simply not undertake the most important investigation requirements so as to save money? Perhaps he will investigate by using his 'beyond reason' methodology? Or perhaps he is there as the drinks boy and will run drinks back and forth to the real investigators?
I vote that Beaker return home immediately and go back to counting pennies, and Alan Stray be despatched immediately to the crash site. At least we would have an actual technical expert there, experienced and respected in frontline activities, rather than have that other fool over there walking around going mi mi mi mi.
P.S Has anybody warned Beaker that there will be decomposing bodies and body parts along with human effluent and other assorted nasties? I think he may be shocked at what actually lies beyond business class seats and the cushion under MrDaks desk!
ing serious? What on earth could this buffoon provide by way of assistance? Perhaps he will teach the Russian separatists how to manage their budget? Is Beaker there as a 'financial adviser' and he will teach the other investigating countries how to simply not undertake the most important investigation requirements so as to save money? Perhaps he will investigate by using his 'beyond reason' methodology? Or perhaps he is there as the drinks boy and will run drinks back and forth to the real investigators? I vote that Beaker return home immediately and go back to counting pennies, and Alan Stray be despatched immediately to the crash site. At least we would have an actual technical expert there, experienced and respected in frontline activities, rather than have that other fool over there walking around going mi mi mi mi.
P.S Has anybody warned Beaker that there will be decomposing bodies and body parts along with human effluent and other assorted nasties? I think he may be shocked at what actually lies beyond business class seats and the cushion under MrDaks desk!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good grief!! what are they thinking!
Then again they have to put on some sort of show.
The "Investigation" will be a farce anyway. The site has been sanitised and there will be very little to find, even the victims have been interfered with.
Good old Beaker will sit around the hotel sipping Lattes, maybe do a bit of sightseeing, with a bit of luck get popped by a drunken separatist, but I doubt he'll get to see a bit of road kill, let alone anything else.
Hmm, "popped by a rebel"..maybe thats why their sending him?
Better to keep our competent investigators at home, they might be needed anytime, Tick Tock and all that...
The world already knows about beaker, so he can't embarrass us much further.
Then again they have to put on some sort of show.
The "Investigation" will be a farce anyway. The site has been sanitised and there will be very little to find, even the victims have been interfered with.
Good old Beaker will sit around the hotel sipping Lattes, maybe do a bit of sightseeing, with a bit of luck get popped by a drunken separatist, but I doubt he'll get to see a bit of road kill, let alone anything else.
Hmm, "popped by a rebel"..maybe thats why their sending him?
Better to keep our competent investigators at home, they might be needed anytime, Tick Tock and all that...
The world already knows about beaker, so he can't embarrass us much further.
Last edited by thorn bird; 24th Jul 2014 at 09:06.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaker is the perfect person to send to the Ukraine. He is guaranteed to come up with the party line verdict - that the Rebels shot down the aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beakerism
Like he added an important piece to the Norfolk Ditching report.
"There was no fire"!!!!! A jet out of fuel, ditching!!! What else wasn't there??? Why the fcuk mention that???
Yes, it will piss me off completely when that idiot confirms what the world has known for 5 days!!
The ATC recordings will tell all, but that's for another thread.
RIP lost souls
"There was no fire"!!!!! A jet out of fuel, ditching!!! What else wasn't there??? Why the fcuk mention that???
Yes, it will piss me off completely when that idiot confirms what the world has known for 5 days!!
The ATC recordings will tell all, but that's for another thread.
RIP lost souls
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Air Force thread
Quote from the Air Force Media release;
"Recent media reporting on the safety of our air traffic control, has used ‘loss of separation (LOS)’ statistics from an ATSB report, and incorrectly assumed these events have a direct correlation to safety.
The ATSB report found that Moorabin and Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport had the highest LOS figures in Australia, yet the ATSB made no recommendations regarding either airspace. Similarly, the ATSB report made no recommendations regarding civil airspace, despite more than 80 percent of LOS occurring in that airspace.
More than 97 percent of LOS incidents in military airspace involved ‘Nil’ or ‘Minimal’ collision risk or were attributable to pilot error. Only three of the LOS incidents attributable to military air traffic control had ‘Elevated’ collision risk. By contrast, the report fails to address the 40 LOS incidents with ‘Some’ or ‘Elevated’ collision risk that occurred in civil tower/terminal Area airspace."
Easy one for the Air Force. The ATSB don't do anything these days just coffee and biccies! Chi anyone?????
"Recent media reporting on the safety of our air traffic control, has used ‘loss of separation (LOS)’ statistics from an ATSB report, and incorrectly assumed these events have a direct correlation to safety.
The ATSB report found that Moorabin and Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport had the highest LOS figures in Australia, yet the ATSB made no recommendations regarding either airspace. Similarly, the ATSB report made no recommendations regarding civil airspace, despite more than 80 percent of LOS occurring in that airspace.
More than 97 percent of LOS incidents in military airspace involved ‘Nil’ or ‘Minimal’ collision risk or were attributable to pilot error. Only three of the LOS incidents attributable to military air traffic control had ‘Elevated’ collision risk. By contrast, the report fails to address the 40 LOS incidents with ‘Some’ or ‘Elevated’ collision risk that occurred in civil tower/terminal Area airspace."
Easy one for the Air Force. The ATSB don't do anything these days just coffee and biccies! Chi anyone?????
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How; in the seven hells did anyone expect any other form of response from the Air Force Chief than this _HERE_.
Stone the bloody crows; someone buy a couple of bus tickets; get Civvy Hoody and Military Hoody together in a pub out in the bush and let them sort it out; probably have a working agreement by second beers; draft report sketched out by the fourth beers and have a good working relationship by the time wine was served with dinner.
Did you ever have an irrepressible urge to bang heads together. Bloody Beaker, catamite to the Machiavellian glee club.
(No offence Mach.E.)..
Stone the bloody crows; someone buy a couple of bus tickets; get Civvy Hoody and Military Hoody together in a pub out in the bush and let them sort it out; probably have a working agreement by second beers; draft report sketched out by the fourth beers and have a good working relationship by the time wine was served with dinner.
Did you ever have an irrepressible urge to bang heads together. Bloody Beaker, catamite to the Machiavellian glee club.
(No offence Mach.E.)..
Oh b..b..boys you forgot your packed lunches!
Jinglie good pick up...
I too thought the statement from the CAF was a lot more than a pushback against the (passing strange) Dick/CM alliance, to me it was a direct assault on ATsBeaker's obvious bias displayed in their LOSA research paper recommendations...
004 normally I don't question your sources as they tend to be quite reliable but take a look at the following pic, borrowed courtesy of the SMH (warning bucket maybe required..
):
Now despite the very different and stern look by the beardless Beaker, this doesn't look like a man about to depart for Kiev whereas the two Senior Transport Investigators very much do..
Here is a possible scenario for this phot...
The two bureau STSI gentleman tasked with the MH-17 investigation discretely meet up at the airport (notice no caps or high viz jackets with ATSB plastered all over them), the strategy being to get past the 24/7 media soundbite pack unnoticed and off the record. Enter stage left Beaker singing out.."Oh bbbboys your forgot your packed lunches!" One of the media scrum photographers picks up on the muppet in the suit and subsequently rounds up the (now) trio...Beaker whispers to the duo..."I'll handle this" and the following is a rough summation of what follows...
(caution bucket maybe required again):
Notice that Beaker was unable to muzzle that one small comment from his (highly credentialed) Senior coalface subordinate, a comment that displays the true professionalism of these two gentleman...
No that short article more than questions the cred of your source 004, my bet is that after that brief photo opportunity Beaker slinked off back to his office to happily play with his new (MH-370 funded) abacus, flicking a cursory email to RED effectively saying.."mi..mi..mi..job done!"
Coming back to this interesting development of the ADF taking on the integrity of the ATsB independence, perhaps there is more to this tale than meets the eye..
Consider this PM media release..:
{NB.Notice 004 there is no mention of certain muppets tagging along}
Fascinating that the PM's 'chosen one' in both Malaysian aircrash investigations is the former CAF & ADF Chief Angus Houston...
ACM (retired) Angus has more horsepower and serious cred in his little pinky than any former Comcare muppet will ever have in an entire career.
Hmm...surmising wonder if Cook and crew are part of the AH special envoy team and I bet you Senator DF can get an audience with AH with little to no effort....
Interesting times indeed...
TICK TOCK RED your taking on the big boys now!
MTF...
I too thought the statement from the CAF was a lot more than a pushback against the (passing strange) Dick/CM alliance, to me it was a direct assault on ATsBeaker's obvious bias displayed in their LOSA research paper recommendations...
004 normally I don't question your sources as they tend to be quite reliable but take a look at the following pic, borrowed courtesy of the SMH (warning bucket maybe required..
): Now despite the very different and stern look by the beardless Beaker, this doesn't look like a man about to depart for Kiev whereas the two Senior Transport Investigators very much do..
Here is a possible scenario for this phot...
The two bureau STSI gentleman tasked with the MH-17 investigation discretely meet up at the airport (notice no caps or high viz jackets with ATSB plastered all over them), the strategy being to get past the 24/7 media soundbite pack unnoticed and off the record. Enter stage left Beaker singing out.."Oh bbbboys your forgot your packed lunches!" One of the media scrum photographers picks up on the muppet in the suit and subsequently rounds up the (now) trio...Beaker whispers to the duo..."I'll handle this" and the following is a rough summation of what follows...
(caution bucket maybe required again):
MH17 investigation 'could take a year'
The head of Australia's transport safety body has warned there will be no quick answers to the downing of MH17, saying it could take up to a year to complete an investigation.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau dispatched two senior investigators to Kiev on Monday to assist an international inquiry into the disaster.
But chief commissioner Martin Dolan dampened expectations of a speedy determination.
"We normally say as investigators it can take up to a year to get a firm result," he told reporters at Canberra airport.
"It's quite possible that there will be no quick response to this."
Mr Dolan said it was "disappointing and upsetting" to see Russian-backed rebels tampering with evidence at the crash site in eastern Ukraine, which has been a target of international condemnation since last week's crash.
However, he hopes basic information will still be available to investigators, whose work will be coordinated by Ukrainian authorities.
Paul Ballard, one of the two ATSB officers deployed to the Ukraine, voiced concerns about the safety of investigators in a war zone.
But he is philosophical about the way the site has been treated by rebels.
"We've got to understand this isn't a site within Australia, so it will get treated in the manner that it does in those countries," he said.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described the scene as "more like a garden clean-up than a forensic investigation".
The head of Australia's transport safety body has warned there will be no quick answers to the downing of MH17, saying it could take up to a year to complete an investigation.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau dispatched two senior investigators to Kiev on Monday to assist an international inquiry into the disaster.
But chief commissioner Martin Dolan dampened expectations of a speedy determination.
"We normally say as investigators it can take up to a year to get a firm result," he told reporters at Canberra airport.
"It's quite possible that there will be no quick response to this."
Mr Dolan said it was "disappointing and upsetting" to see Russian-backed rebels tampering with evidence at the crash site in eastern Ukraine, which has been a target of international condemnation since last week's crash.
However, he hopes basic information will still be available to investigators, whose work will be coordinated by Ukrainian authorities.
Paul Ballard, one of the two ATSB officers deployed to the Ukraine, voiced concerns about the safety of investigators in a war zone.
But he is philosophical about the way the site has been treated by rebels.
"We've got to understand this isn't a site within Australia, so it will get treated in the manner that it does in those countries," he said.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described the scene as "more like a garden clean-up than a forensic investigation".
No that short article more than questions the cred of your source 004, my bet is that after that brief photo opportunity Beaker slinked off back to his office to happily play with his new (MH-370 funded) abacus, flicking a cursory email to RED effectively saying.."mi..mi..mi..job done!"
Coming back to this interesting development of the ADF taking on the integrity of the ATsB independence, perhaps there is more to this tale than meets the eye..
Consider this PM media release..:
Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston to lead Australia's response to MH17 investigation and recovery efforts
Monday, 21 July 2014
Prime Minister
E&OE
Air Chief Marshal (retired) Angus Houston AC AFC has been appointed the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy and will lead Australia’s efforts on the ground in Ukraine to help recover, identify and repatriate Australians killed in the MH17 crash.
He will remain in Ukraine as long as necessary to complete the task.
Once the site can be accessed by international investigators, Air Chief Marshal Houston will coordinate Australia’s consular, diplomatic, disaster and crash site investigation response in Ukraine.
He will work closely with local and international authorities on consular support for the families of the Australian victims, on disaster victim identification and on the crash investigation itself.
The first priority will be to recover the remains of the victims and to secure safe and sustained access to the MH17 site.
In close cooperation with the Ukraine government, the International Civil Aviation Organisation and other international partners, Air Chief Marshal Houston will work to ensure a comprehensive investigation into the MH17 crash is swiftly underway.
To date, the Australian Government has deployed 45 officials to assist including 20 personnel from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 Australian Federal Police Officers, two Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators and three Defence officials.
The Australian Ambassador in Warsaw (who is accredited to Ukraine), a regional consular officer and embassy officials from Moscow, London and Warsaw, have also arrived in Kiev as part of Australia’s response team.
Other specialist teams are on standby for immediate deployment when access to the site is secured. A C17 military transport aircraft is on standby to depart for Ukraine.
The recovery, identification and repatriation process will be complex and will likely take a number of weeks to complete. This will be a difficult and painful period, and the families of the victims will have the Government’s full support.
Our thoughts continue to be with the families of the victims.
21 July 2014
Monday, 21 July 2014
Prime Minister
E&OE
Air Chief Marshal (retired) Angus Houston AC AFC has been appointed the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy and will lead Australia’s efforts on the ground in Ukraine to help recover, identify and repatriate Australians killed in the MH17 crash.
He will remain in Ukraine as long as necessary to complete the task.
Once the site can be accessed by international investigators, Air Chief Marshal Houston will coordinate Australia’s consular, diplomatic, disaster and crash site investigation response in Ukraine.
He will work closely with local and international authorities on consular support for the families of the Australian victims, on disaster victim identification and on the crash investigation itself.
The first priority will be to recover the remains of the victims and to secure safe and sustained access to the MH17 site.
In close cooperation with the Ukraine government, the International Civil Aviation Organisation and other international partners, Air Chief Marshal Houston will work to ensure a comprehensive investigation into the MH17 crash is swiftly underway.
To date, the Australian Government has deployed 45 officials to assist including 20 personnel from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 Australian Federal Police Officers, two Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators and three Defence officials.
The Australian Ambassador in Warsaw (who is accredited to Ukraine), a regional consular officer and embassy officials from Moscow, London and Warsaw, have also arrived in Kiev as part of Australia’s response team.
Other specialist teams are on standby for immediate deployment when access to the site is secured. A C17 military transport aircraft is on standby to depart for Ukraine.
The recovery, identification and repatriation process will be complex and will likely take a number of weeks to complete. This will be a difficult and painful period, and the families of the victims will have the Government’s full support.
Our thoughts continue to be with the families of the victims.
21 July 2014
Fascinating that the PM's 'chosen one' in both Malaysian aircrash investigations is the former CAF & ADF Chief Angus Houston...
ACM (retired) Angus has more horsepower and serious cred in his little pinky than any former Comcare muppet will ever have in an entire career.
Hmm...surmising wonder if Cook and crew are part of the AH special envoy team and I bet you Senator DF can get an audience with AH with little to no effort....
Interesting times indeed...
TICK TOCK RED your taking on the big boys now!
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Nov 2014 at 21:08.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh where oh where could our Beaker be....
Sarcs, you could be right old friend. Keeping track of bureaucratic comings and goings as well as the depth of their troughs and following their labyrinth of bread crumbs is a difficult task and one that a single IOS member cannot keep up with, so perhaps I am incorrect. However my source insists that the beardless one did head overseas, so who knows for sure. Perhaps the Townsville refueller could provide the required piece of the puzzle? Or maybe Beaker will pop up on TV in Can'tberra today or tomorrow, on a Muppets special, and we will see where this chameleon of air travel truly is?
Either way, there is nothing that Beaker can do by way of helping the investigation. And if as he says it is only a 12 month investigation then obviously the Australian team are minimally involved as Beaker normally takes a good 3 years to massage his way through an investigation. But don't worry, his budget is under control and the spreadsheet and abacus will be front and center of his desk.
Either way, there is nothing that Beaker can do by way of helping the investigation. And if as he says it is only a 12 month investigation then obviously the Australian team are minimally involved as Beaker normally takes a good 3 years to massage his way through an investigation. But don't worry, his budget is under control and the spreadsheet and abacus will be front and center of his desk.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We normally say as investigators it can take up to a year to get a firm result,"
Is beaker putting himself in the same class as actual investigators?? I thought he was a career bureaucrat! Highly skilled in A..licking, trough dwelling and bonus development. But a "Safety Investigator"???
Does anyone who joins these Govmint corporations instantly become "Experts"??
I thought only CAsA FOI's and AWI's could do that.
Is beaker putting himself in the same class as actual investigators?? I thought he was a career bureaucrat! Highly skilled in A..licking, trough dwelling and bonus development. But a "Safety Investigator"???
Does anyone who joins these Govmint corporations instantly become "Experts"??
I thought only CAsA FOI's and AWI's could do that.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it might take a year when the cause of the prang is not known.
ffs we know what caused the accident.
a perfectly serviceable Boeing 777 was shot down by a rebel fired BUK missile.
The shamans of safety obviously haven't realised just what fools they all look.
what would set it all off is a richly tapestried pointy hat and a smoking brazier on a gold chain. they could make a really good show of blowing smoke over everyone. what a pack of fckuwits.
ffs we know what caused the accident.
a perfectly serviceable Boeing 777 was shot down by a rebel fired BUK missile.
The shamans of safety obviously haven't realised just what fools they all look.
what would set it all off is a richly tapestried pointy hat and a smoking brazier on a gold chain. they could make a really good show of blowing smoke over everyone. what a pack of fckuwits.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: No fixed address
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree, and Beaker an "investigator". What a joke. He should be dumped by Wuss just for that. Assumed designation is a serious breach in the Public Service arena. Besides that the Senate have already "outed" him, he continues to put on the show. Does he not realise that the industry, and Senate are laughing at him????
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what would set it all off is a richly tapestried pointy hat and a smoking brazier on a gold chain. they could make a really good show of blowing smoke over everyone.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Flight the Dutch authorities are to lead.
MH17: Dutch authority takes over as lead investigator - 7/23/2014 - Flight Global
I expect Professor Patrick Hudson to be involved in this with his links to Dutch CAA and ICAO.
004, I don't think 'beyond reason' will get a look in but James Reason is odds on.
MH17: Dutch authority takes over as lead investigator - 7/23/2014 - Flight Global
MH17: Dutch authority takes over as lead investigator
By: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROWLONDON Source: 4 hours ago
Dutch investigators are to assume the lead role in the inquiry into the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine.
Under normal protocols the state of incident would normally head the investigation. MH17 came down in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border.
But Ukraine’s accident investigation authority, the NBAAI, says it has prepared an agreement to “transfer” the inquiry to its counterpart in the Netherlands, the Dutch Safety Board.
Ukrainian representatives will have the right to participate, it adds.
The Dutch Safety Board confirms the handover of the investigation. Most of the 298 occupants of the Malaysian Boeing 777-200 were Dutch nationals.
Investigators are working on collecting and analysing data from various sources, says the Dutch Safety Board, even though secure access to the crash site has yet to be ensured.
"It is not possible for the investigators to visit safely," it states. It adds that, while the crash site has been disturbed, it expects to collect sufficient information for the inquiry.
Transfer of authority, it says, will give the international inquiry team, comprising 24 investigators, "more space" to co-ordinate its activities.
Both the cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders have been handed to the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch in Farnborough, which confirms it has received them from the Dutch authority.
The Dutch Safety Board says the analysis of the recorders is a "priority" but that this might take several weeks to complete.
In parallel with the international MH17 inquiry the authority will also carry out an investigation into related aspects, focused on decision-making on air routes as well as passenger list availability.
By: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROWLONDON Source: 4 hours ago
Dutch investigators are to assume the lead role in the inquiry into the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine.
Under normal protocols the state of incident would normally head the investigation. MH17 came down in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border.
But Ukraine’s accident investigation authority, the NBAAI, says it has prepared an agreement to “transfer” the inquiry to its counterpart in the Netherlands, the Dutch Safety Board.
Ukrainian representatives will have the right to participate, it adds.
The Dutch Safety Board confirms the handover of the investigation. Most of the 298 occupants of the Malaysian Boeing 777-200 were Dutch nationals.
Investigators are working on collecting and analysing data from various sources, says the Dutch Safety Board, even though secure access to the crash site has yet to be ensured.
"It is not possible for the investigators to visit safely," it states. It adds that, while the crash site has been disturbed, it expects to collect sufficient information for the inquiry.
Transfer of authority, it says, will give the international inquiry team, comprising 24 investigators, "more space" to co-ordinate its activities.
Both the cockpit-voice and flight-data recorders have been handed to the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch in Farnborough, which confirms it has received them from the Dutch authority.
The Dutch Safety Board says the analysis of the recorders is a "priority" but that this might take several weeks to complete.
In parallel with the international MH17 inquiry the authority will also carry out an investigation into related aspects, focused on decision-making on air routes as well as passenger list availability.
I expect Professor Patrick Hudson to be involved in this with his links to Dutch CAA and ICAO.
004, I don't think 'beyond reason' will get a look in but James Reason is odds on.
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 23rd Jul 2014 at 22:00. Reason: Missed a link
The BIG BOYS butting heads...TICK TOCK miniscule
Interesting article today from the Oz...
Battlelines being defined, popcorn & beer stocked up 'let the games begin!'
Also noted the following from Dougy's weekly insight...
"...Last night I attended the annual Sir Hudson Fysh lecture and dinner in Brisbane at the invitation of the Queensland branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society. The guest lecturer was David Forsyth, the chairman of the recent Aviation Safety Regulatory Review panel. It was a stellar turnout with Industry very well represented at the event. Congratulations to Cam McPhee and his team for organizing it all and for garnering such significant industry involvement.
The obvious themes to emerge from the lecture and the subsequent Q&A were industry’s satisfaction with the ASRR report itself and a growing sense of frustration that nothing has been done about any of it yet. The fact that there are still two members to be appointed to the CASA board and that we are no closer to an appointment of a new DAS is a high-profile element of the discontent. There was even talk of a high-level march on the Minister’s office to drill home the sense of frustration. The Minister should be advised that the people talking such talk are not industry lightweights.
It also appears that new Deputy Chair of the CASA board, Jeff Boyd, has not yet had an invitation to catch up with re-appointed (for the time being) Chairman Allan Hawke. Let’s hope board functionality gets better than that before there are serious matters to discuss..."
TICK...TOCK miniscule...
Oh and RED can you get your muppet to release that TSBC report...
MTF..
Too close for comfort
THE pilots of the Virgin Australia Boeing 737 with more than 100 passengers on board heard the collision alarm go off moments before they saw the business jet flash before them.
They had just taken off from Newcastle airport, climbing to 5000 feet (1524m), but the pilots were unaware that a business jet coming in to land had just been granted permission by military air traffic controllers to descend to 5000 feet.
Both jets were being handled by separate air traffic controllers as they hurtled towards one another, but these controllers were not communicating with each other — resulting, in the words of investigators, “in both aircraft being assigned the same level (altitude) and with conflicting tracks (flight paths)”. To make matters worse, an automated near-miss alert function on the controllers’ screens had been deactivated because, with military aircraft in formation also using the airport, it had set off too many false alarms.
It was only the anti-collision warning in the cockpit that led the Virgin Australia crew to take evasive action, and both jets passed with only 112m vertical separation and 1300m horizontally — one-third of the minimum safe clearance levels.
In March 2012, when the Australian Transport Safety Bureau delivered its report into this February 2011 incident, it was scathing of the training and procedures used by air force air traffic controllers at Newcastle airport.
“Overall the controllers did not resolve the situation effectively, and this was due at least in part to the Department of Defence not providing its air traffic controllers with compromised separation recovery training.”
What’s more, the ATSB noted there had been no fewer than nine so-called “breakdowns of separation’’ of aircraft at Newcastle airport in the previous 18 months.
What was going on?
Last October, when the ATSB examined the national pattern of so-called loss of separation incidents, it came to a disturbing conclusion. Three major airports in Australia that were run by military air traffic controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts. Put simply, Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville — each of which is run by military ATCs because of their proximity to air force bases — had more LOS incidents, where passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of midair collisions.
The ATSB report found that between 2008 and 2012 military controllers were involved in 36 per cent of all LOS incidents, despite controlling only 25 per cent of air traffic near terminals.
“This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of LOS incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown (Newcastle) in particular,” the ATSB said.
It was a damning finding and one quietly supported by some pilots of passenger planes using these military-controlled airports, who tell The Australian they have observed discrepancies in the handling of planes compared with civilian-controlled airports.
But when the ATSB’s findings came out, it was clear the agency had stepped on some powerful toes. Defence fired back saying it simply did not accept the ATSB’s findings and claimed that LOS incidents were not an accurate indicator of safety levels. The air safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, also challenged the report, saying that while it did not have oversight authority over Defence ATCs, it had a close relationship with Defence that the ATSB “fails to acknowledge”.
Perhaps this internal squabble over safety is why the Coalition government appears to have all but ignored the report and its implications for the safety of travelling Australians.
Which is why during the past week key aviation figures have spoken out in frustration, demanding the government set up an inquiry into Australia’s ATC system and review whether it remains a good idea for military air traffic controllers to direct passenger jets at Australian airports.
Former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning says while the three main airports operated by military ATCs are not unsafe, they are clearly less safe that the country’s other major airports.
“It is safe, but according to the ATSB report there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he tells The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes.”
Manning’s call for an independent inquiry into these safety issues carries weight. As a veteran pilot, and chief Qantas pilot from 2003 to 2008, he is well regarded in the industry. He has previously lauded Australia’s aviation safety record and, when Tiger Airways was facing safety issues in 2011, the airline turned to him for advice.
Manning says it is time the regulations were changed to allow CASA to have formal oversight of military air traffic controllers. “I would much prefer to see one standard that was audited by CASA throughout Australia,” he says.
Paul Tyrrell, head of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, is concerned there does not appear to have been any robust response to such findings. “The ATSB report was a serious report but regional airline operators haven’t seen any serious response from the military or the government, so we would ask the question, what will their response be?”
The acting chief of Air Force, Air Vice-Marshal Leo Davies, says he fundamentally disagrees with the implication in the ATSB report that military air traffic controllers are less safe than civilian ones.
“We (RAAF) control a couple of hundred thousand civil flights each year and we do that safely,” Davies says. “If I felt there was something that required immediate attention I would address that. I am a military aviator myself, I have flown in civil and military airspace in Australia, and I have no concerns with Australian military air traffic control standards.”
Former CASA chairman and aviation safety activist Dick Smith has also joined the fray, writing to Defence Minister David Johnston and Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss.
“Minister, this is a shocker,” Smith wrote to Johnston. “I am sure you do not want to be responsible for the first jet airline fatalities in Australia’s history.
“After 30 years of experience in our civil aviation industry, my view is that the military simply do not have the efficiencies of scale to be able to adequately operate an acceptably safe air traffic system for civilian aircraft.
“They also have a real problem with change; that is, it is obvious they find it nearly impossible to move forward and follow the very latest safety procedure and airspace classifications in the world.”
That civilian and military air traffic controllers direct passenger aircraft in Australia is a quirk of history, reflecting the fact airports in some locations were shared by civilian and military planes. The military planes needed military ATCs so it was decided they might as well direct civilian planes also.
Defence has about 250 controllers looking after its 11 air bases, but in Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin these controllers also direct civilian planes, including large passenger jets, some operated by Virgin Australian and Jetstar. Military controllers operate completely different computer systems to their civilian counterparts and have different skills because their jobs go beyond just directing civilian aircraft.
Defence makes the brazen argument that military airspace at these airports is tight and less predictable so it should not be judged using the same safety criteria as civilian airports.
“Defence does not agree with an implication that the number of LOS per number of aircraft movements directly correlates to safety,” a Defence spokesman tells The Australian. “Military-controlled airspace is inherently different to civilian-controlled airspace — with high traffic peaks but low overall aircraft movement statistics, diverse aircraft types and constrained airspace — which makes the statistical comparison flawed.”
Smith says this is cold comfort for civilian passengers and is not good enough when Australian aircraft movements are forecast to grow by 60 per cent across the next 20 years.
“The concern about military airspace is that the procedures and airspace classification have not been updated for many decades, and what might have been OK in 1950 can’t be accepted now because aircraft move much faster and carry more people,” he says.
Smith emphasises he is not criticising the abilities of military ATCs, just the system and procedures under which they operate.
“You simply have to have the most experienced controllers guiding passenger jets and there is no way that the small number of military controllers can get that level of experience and training.”
Defence maintains that its controllers “have common qualifications and apply the same standards and procedures”, saying while CASA does not have oversight of military ATCs, CASA has a significant input into Defence’s safety policies.
But the ATSB says this is not enough.
“A reliance on Defence sharing the same operations manual as (the civilian ATC operators) Airservices and internal auditing and oversight, including involvement, guidance and advice by CASA, will not guarantee an equivalent level of safety is provided to civilian aircraft operating in and out of Defence-operated aerodromes as for civilian aerodromes,” the ATSB says.
Most disturbing is the ATSB’s belief that the closed nature of Defence is not allowing proper scrutiny of its safety levels, despite the fact the safety of civilian passengers is at stake.
“At present there is no comprehensive and independent assessment of the levels of safety and compliance with respect to civil aircraft operations at these airports and no transparency for industry in respect to any differences in the levels of service provided or safety afforded.”
Although Defence was angered by the ATSB report and does not agree with its key findings, it is now reviewing its traffic management plans at Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown to improve its techniques for separating aircraft.
It also has stepped up training for its controllers on how to recover from an LOS situation.
CASA was also hostile to the ATSB report, believing it to be an attack on CASA’s own dealings with Defence, but it has since initiated a joint safety study of Newcastle airport due for release later this year.
Smith says these measures are too little, too late, and that if there were a mid-air accident at any of these airports today the government would have blood on its hands for failing to act despite receiving ample warning.
Smith wants a new system whereby military air traffic controllers are responsible only for military aircraft while civilians ATCs are responsible for civilian aircraft. He points out that former Defence chief Angus Houston said in 2002: “Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems.”
Both military and civilian ATCs will use the same systems by 2020 under a plan called OneSKY but there is no plan at present to limit military controllers to military aircraft.
Former Qantas chief pilot Manning simply wants an independent inquiry to reassess the manner in which Australia manages its airspace to ensure it is as safe as it can be. “My suggestion would be to have a panel of three to review the ATSB report and have a real look at the airspace requirements of the military as well as civil so that both can be accommodated as efficiently as possible,” he says.
“The panel might say the current system is the best, although somehow I doubt it.”
THE pilots of the Virgin Australia Boeing 737 with more than 100 passengers on board heard the collision alarm go off moments before they saw the business jet flash before them.
They had just taken off from Newcastle airport, climbing to 5000 feet (1524m), but the pilots were unaware that a business jet coming in to land had just been granted permission by military air traffic controllers to descend to 5000 feet.
Both jets were being handled by separate air traffic controllers as they hurtled towards one another, but these controllers were not communicating with each other — resulting, in the words of investigators, “in both aircraft being assigned the same level (altitude) and with conflicting tracks (flight paths)”. To make matters worse, an automated near-miss alert function on the controllers’ screens had been deactivated because, with military aircraft in formation also using the airport, it had set off too many false alarms.
It was only the anti-collision warning in the cockpit that led the Virgin Australia crew to take evasive action, and both jets passed with only 112m vertical separation and 1300m horizontally — one-third of the minimum safe clearance levels.
In March 2012, when the Australian Transport Safety Bureau delivered its report into this February 2011 incident, it was scathing of the training and procedures used by air force air traffic controllers at Newcastle airport.
“Overall the controllers did not resolve the situation effectively, and this was due at least in part to the Department of Defence not providing its air traffic controllers with compromised separation recovery training.”
What’s more, the ATSB noted there had been no fewer than nine so-called “breakdowns of separation’’ of aircraft at Newcastle airport in the previous 18 months.
What was going on?
Last October, when the ATSB examined the national pattern of so-called loss of separation incidents, it came to a disturbing conclusion. Three major airports in Australia that were run by military air traffic controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts. Put simply, Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville — each of which is run by military ATCs because of their proximity to air force bases — had more LOS incidents, where passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of midair collisions.
The ATSB report found that between 2008 and 2012 military controllers were involved in 36 per cent of all LOS incidents, despite controlling only 25 per cent of air traffic near terminals.
“This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of LOS incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in military terminal airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown (Newcastle) in particular,” the ATSB said.
It was a damning finding and one quietly supported by some pilots of passenger planes using these military-controlled airports, who tell The Australian they have observed discrepancies in the handling of planes compared with civilian-controlled airports.
But when the ATSB’s findings came out, it was clear the agency had stepped on some powerful toes. Defence fired back saying it simply did not accept the ATSB’s findings and claimed that LOS incidents were not an accurate indicator of safety levels. The air safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, also challenged the report, saying that while it did not have oversight authority over Defence ATCs, it had a close relationship with Defence that the ATSB “fails to acknowledge”.
Perhaps this internal squabble over safety is why the Coalition government appears to have all but ignored the report and its implications for the safety of travelling Australians.
Which is why during the past week key aviation figures have spoken out in frustration, demanding the government set up an inquiry into Australia’s ATC system and review whether it remains a good idea for military air traffic controllers to direct passenger jets at Australian airports.
Former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning says while the three main airports operated by military ATCs are not unsafe, they are clearly less safe that the country’s other major airports.
“It is safe, but according to the ATSB report there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he tells The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes.”
Manning’s call for an independent inquiry into these safety issues carries weight. As a veteran pilot, and chief Qantas pilot from 2003 to 2008, he is well regarded in the industry. He has previously lauded Australia’s aviation safety record and, when Tiger Airways was facing safety issues in 2011, the airline turned to him for advice.
Manning says it is time the regulations were changed to allow CASA to have formal oversight of military air traffic controllers. “I would much prefer to see one standard that was audited by CASA throughout Australia,” he says.
Paul Tyrrell, head of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, is concerned there does not appear to have been any robust response to such findings. “The ATSB report was a serious report but regional airline operators haven’t seen any serious response from the military or the government, so we would ask the question, what will their response be?”
The acting chief of Air Force, Air Vice-Marshal Leo Davies, says he fundamentally disagrees with the implication in the ATSB report that military air traffic controllers are less safe than civilian ones.
“We (RAAF) control a couple of hundred thousand civil flights each year and we do that safely,” Davies says. “If I felt there was something that required immediate attention I would address that. I am a military aviator myself, I have flown in civil and military airspace in Australia, and I have no concerns with Australian military air traffic control standards.”
Former CASA chairman and aviation safety activist Dick Smith has also joined the fray, writing to Defence Minister David Johnston and Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss.
“Minister, this is a shocker,” Smith wrote to Johnston. “I am sure you do not want to be responsible for the first jet airline fatalities in Australia’s history.
“After 30 years of experience in our civil aviation industry, my view is that the military simply do not have the efficiencies of scale to be able to adequately operate an acceptably safe air traffic system for civilian aircraft.
“They also have a real problem with change; that is, it is obvious they find it nearly impossible to move forward and follow the very latest safety procedure and airspace classifications in the world.”
That civilian and military air traffic controllers direct passenger aircraft in Australia is a quirk of history, reflecting the fact airports in some locations were shared by civilian and military planes. The military planes needed military ATCs so it was decided they might as well direct civilian planes also.
Defence has about 250 controllers looking after its 11 air bases, but in Newcastle, Townsville and Darwin these controllers also direct civilian planes, including large passenger jets, some operated by Virgin Australian and Jetstar. Military controllers operate completely different computer systems to their civilian counterparts and have different skills because their jobs go beyond just directing civilian aircraft.
Defence makes the brazen argument that military airspace at these airports is tight and less predictable so it should not be judged using the same safety criteria as civilian airports.
“Defence does not agree with an implication that the number of LOS per number of aircraft movements directly correlates to safety,” a Defence spokesman tells The Australian. “Military-controlled airspace is inherently different to civilian-controlled airspace — with high traffic peaks but low overall aircraft movement statistics, diverse aircraft types and constrained airspace — which makes the statistical comparison flawed.”
Smith says this is cold comfort for civilian passengers and is not good enough when Australian aircraft movements are forecast to grow by 60 per cent across the next 20 years.
“The concern about military airspace is that the procedures and airspace classification have not been updated for many decades, and what might have been OK in 1950 can’t be accepted now because aircraft move much faster and carry more people,” he says.
Smith emphasises he is not criticising the abilities of military ATCs, just the system and procedures under which they operate.
“You simply have to have the most experienced controllers guiding passenger jets and there is no way that the small number of military controllers can get that level of experience and training.”
Defence maintains that its controllers “have common qualifications and apply the same standards and procedures”, saying while CASA does not have oversight of military ATCs, CASA has a significant input into Defence’s safety policies.
But the ATSB says this is not enough.
“A reliance on Defence sharing the same operations manual as (the civilian ATC operators) Airservices and internal auditing and oversight, including involvement, guidance and advice by CASA, will not guarantee an equivalent level of safety is provided to civilian aircraft operating in and out of Defence-operated aerodromes as for civilian aerodromes,” the ATSB says.
Most disturbing is the ATSB’s belief that the closed nature of Defence is not allowing proper scrutiny of its safety levels, despite the fact the safety of civilian passengers is at stake.
“At present there is no comprehensive and independent assessment of the levels of safety and compliance with respect to civil aircraft operations at these airports and no transparency for industry in respect to any differences in the levels of service provided or safety afforded.”
Although Defence was angered by the ATSB report and does not agree with its key findings, it is now reviewing its traffic management plans at Darwin, Townsville and Williamtown to improve its techniques for separating aircraft.
It also has stepped up training for its controllers on how to recover from an LOS situation.
CASA was also hostile to the ATSB report, believing it to be an attack on CASA’s own dealings with Defence, but it has since initiated a joint safety study of Newcastle airport due for release later this year.
Smith says these measures are too little, too late, and that if there were a mid-air accident at any of these airports today the government would have blood on its hands for failing to act despite receiving ample warning.
Smith wants a new system whereby military air traffic controllers are responsible only for military aircraft while civilians ATCs are responsible for civilian aircraft. He points out that former Defence chief Angus Houston said in 2002: “Australia simply cannot justify, sustain or afford to continue operating two almost identical air traffic management systems.”
Both military and civilian ATCs will use the same systems by 2020 under a plan called OneSKY but there is no plan at present to limit military controllers to military aircraft.
Former Qantas chief pilot Manning simply wants an independent inquiry to reassess the manner in which Australia manages its airspace to ensure it is as safe as it can be. “My suggestion would be to have a panel of three to review the ATSB report and have a real look at the airspace requirements of the military as well as civil so that both can be accommodated as efficiently as possible,” he says.
“The panel might say the current system is the best, although somehow I doubt it.”
Also noted the following from Dougy's weekly insight...
"...Last night I attended the annual Sir Hudson Fysh lecture and dinner in Brisbane at the invitation of the Queensland branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society. The guest lecturer was David Forsyth, the chairman of the recent Aviation Safety Regulatory Review panel. It was a stellar turnout with Industry very well represented at the event. Congratulations to Cam McPhee and his team for organizing it all and for garnering such significant industry involvement.
The obvious themes to emerge from the lecture and the subsequent Q&A were industry’s satisfaction with the ASRR report itself and a growing sense of frustration that nothing has been done about any of it yet. The fact that there are still two members to be appointed to the CASA board and that we are no closer to an appointment of a new DAS is a high-profile element of the discontent. There was even talk of a high-level march on the Minister’s office to drill home the sense of frustration. The Minister should be advised that the people talking such talk are not industry lightweights.
It also appears that new Deputy Chair of the CASA board, Jeff Boyd, has not yet had an invitation to catch up with re-appointed (for the time being) Chairman Allan Hawke. Let’s hope board functionality gets better than that before there are serious matters to discuss..."
TICK...TOCK miniscule...
Oh and RED can you get your muppet to release that TSBC report...
MTF..
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh oh, are we close to the 'end game'?
The obvious themes to emerge from the lecture and the subsequent Q&A were industry’s satisfaction with the ASRR report itself and a growing sense of frustration that nothing has been done about any of it yet. The fact that there are still two members to be appointed to the CASA board and that we are no closer to an appointment of a new DAS is a high-profile element of the discontent. There was even talk of a high-level march on the Minister’s office to drill home the sense of frustration. The Minister should be advised that the people talking such talk are not industry lightweights.
Also;
It also appears that new Deputy Chair of the CASA board, Jeff Boyd, has not yet had an invitation to catch up with re-appointed (for the time being) Chairman Allan Hawke. Let’s hope board functionality gets better than that before there are serious matters to discuss..."
It is very obvious to most that the depth of our aviation disaster is deeper than most previously thought. It is obvious that the Miniscule, and his Master, Slugger Abbott, have another political **** storm forming above the Can'tberra hills! The ball of twine is unwinding rapidly and these nimrods have no idea how to fix things, even though the IOS which includes all level of industry, some good Senators, and even the good people in these government agencies are yelling out that the Titanics final song 'Autumn' is currently playing!
TICK TOCK
A very quick scan of Dr. Hawkes entry on Wikipedia suggests to me that he is a very experienced "safe pair of hands", a Mandarins mandarin, to put it another way, with long experience of cleaning out Augean stables.
I fail to understand why he has allowed CASA to deteriorate, in the industry's perception at least, to the point where he has had to cop the Truss review findings, it must be a shock to his system, assuming he is not a raving narcissist who rejects the entire review findings, which I doubt.
The question I would expect the Minister is still asking is exactly who wants to be part of the team to clean up this mess and if they have the qualifications for the job? No one who can read between the lines would underestimate the amount of work and risk to individual careers that the DAS role or a Board appointment would entail.
Even if the Board and DAS earnestly apply themselves to reform, they commit career suicide if there is a major accident before:
(a) A favourable FAA/ICAO review is achieved.
(b) Industry metrics show acceptable performance (note: I don't believe CASA or ASA have even signed up to any international benchmarking process).
(c) Regulatory reform is in place and hitting demonstrable targets.
(d) Industry surveys show an indisputably significant increase in the strength of relationships with the regulator.
...and (e) Ahem, regular favourable comment on Pprune and the more distinguished parts of the aviation press.
There are probably another half dozen outcomes to be added to this list.
Dr. Hawke? I expect he is stuck with the Chairmanship until it pleases the Minister to release him.
To put that another way, I think the Minister is still looking for candidates who are game to clean up the place and perhaps finding there aren't many takers.
I fail to understand why he has allowed CASA to deteriorate, in the industry's perception at least, to the point where he has had to cop the Truss review findings, it must be a shock to his system, assuming he is not a raving narcissist who rejects the entire review findings, which I doubt.
The question I would expect the Minister is still asking is exactly who wants to be part of the team to clean up this mess and if they have the qualifications for the job? No one who can read between the lines would underestimate the amount of work and risk to individual careers that the DAS role or a Board appointment would entail.
Even if the Board and DAS earnestly apply themselves to reform, they commit career suicide if there is a major accident before:
(a) A favourable FAA/ICAO review is achieved.
(b) Industry metrics show acceptable performance (note: I don't believe CASA or ASA have even signed up to any international benchmarking process).
(c) Regulatory reform is in place and hitting demonstrable targets.
(d) Industry surveys show an indisputably significant increase in the strength of relationships with the regulator.
...and (e) Ahem, regular favourable comment on Pprune and the more distinguished parts of the aviation press.
There are probably another half dozen outcomes to be added to this list.
Dr. Hawke? I expect he is stuck with the Chairmanship until it pleases the Minister to release him.
To put that another way, I think the Minister is still looking for candidates who are game to clean up the place and perhaps finding there aren't many takers.