Duration of the game has been extended.
You never know, Senator Nash might grill the Beaker about his pot plant expenses??
On a serious note, the Senators have every right to keep extending the inquiry as only the surface has been scratched. They have been overcome by the smell of rotting fish. There remains too many unanswered questions, including all the 'questions on notice' that CASA particularly like to take, and then of course either never respond or they blame Big Tony's office for being too slow. Not to mention the attitude, disregard and contempt the CASA has for anybody and everybody that isn't part of the inner sanctum.
Senator Xenophon is no ones fool, nor is Nash, Heff and Fawcett. Senator X is digging in the right places, and I think he and his steel headed shovel have a few more feet to go before they hit pay dirt, and he knows it.
The Senators angling on the potential CASA/ATSBeaker collusion is serious stuff. The 400 submissions from industry including cases of bullying, harassment and malfeasance by public servants is serious stuff. Incompetent management, persistent evasion of accountability and CASA's unbridled power to simply cut the legs off anybody who even smiles in their direction has to be brought to an end, effective immediately.
I think there are some more direct questions that should be aimed at 'he who shall not be named', 'the voodoo Doc', and especially 'he who stands in the senate not saying much'.
However, why isn't the CASA Board brought in for a round of robust questioning? Maybe they can explain a few things to the Senators, after all much of the CASA's direction is guided by these nupties, so perhaps they can help explain why there are so many fingers being pointed at their organisation? Because it would certainly appear that aviation safety has only slipped further since these apple bobbers were brought in.
I would like to see them explain that joke of a mid year CASA report card they released, the one in which they gave themselves a tick in the box for almost every single action item. What did they base the 'ticks in the boxes' on? How did they rank the scores so highly? What assessment tool did they use? How did they quantify the scores, weighted against what?
And while we are at it, the 2009 Aviation ****e Paper, you know, that couple of hundred page piece of glossy monkey poo that is meant to be the Holy Grail of Australia's aviation future, the 'paper' that contains virtually no financial commitments to improving our industry, rather it contains lots of fluffy statements, industry facts we already know, dashes of bureaucratic baloney and many robust pretty pictures with snazzy graphics!
Regardless, what is the status of this paper, what has actually been achieved to date? Are items being tracked and measured for progress? Or is it what we all know it is - A hollow non committal glossy load of ****e that sits in TRIM gathering dust? Don't answer.
P.S Where is that journalistic genius Paul Phelan? Has Fort Fumbles tentacles managed to reach him and hobble him also? Paul's articles perfectly and succinctly paint an accurate portrait of FF's naughtiness.
At least we still have Ben for the moment.
Come back Paul.
Safe skies are Xenophon skies.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 25th Feb 2013 at 12:19.
Reason: The outboard motor on the Styx houseboat broke. Don't worry, it's fixed now.