Thank god we moved on from Gilbert and Sullivan!
So back (briefly) to Phelan’s ‘Publish and be damned – Case Study’, here’s a quote from that article;
“The allegations were based on information provided by three pilots who were all known to one another, working in unison, after one of them had been dismissed.
This analysis of the ten allegations against the operator demonstrates that the suspension of the AOC was not necessary “in the immediate interests of safety” without examining whether the unsubstantiated allegations had merit. In other words, had CASA been motivated to assure the operator was a compliant operator rather than a discredited operator, initiatives were available to its officials to achieve that assurance without exercising sanctions which had the inevitable outcome of closing down a commercial aviation operation at the peak of a business season.”
I’m with Oleo on this and agree to leave the legal shenanigans with Creamy and co. However the similarities to Barrier are quite striking and coupled with the apparent 180 with the FF handling of Pel-Air’s non-compliance issues, well the FF inconsistencies and double standards are gobsmackingly shocking!
So a couple of questions….
Were these alleged non-compliances justification (when compared to the Pel-Air ‘Special Audit’ findings) for grounding an operator?
Did Aquaflight or Barrier get offered a conference to map out a 'Management Action Plan' (like Pel-Air) to rectify non-compliance issues?
The following is quoted from the FF ‘Surveillance Procedures Manual’:
4.2.4 Special Audits
A Special Audit may be planned when:
- An STI score indicates certificate/permission holder to be a high risk. Certificate/permission holders are prioritised according to their STI score
- Follow up Safety Alerts and RCAs indicate that the certificate/permission holder is a potential safety risk.
- Other information suggests the existence of an increased safety risk.
Note: The need for a Special Audit does not necessarily imply the organisation is unfit to hold a certificate/permission.
So going off the other 'due process' requirements of the SPM;
(a) Did either company have an STI weighted score of at least ‘7’?
(b) Or did any previous audits pick up any ‘potential safety’ risk issues that would warrant a ‘Special Audit’? If so why wasn’t a ‘Special Audit’ conducted?
(c) Or did Fort Fumble just rely solely on ‘hearsay evidence’ from current/former employees? (If in doubt always pick (c)!)
Anyway enough of the thread drift…
Oleo said:
Sarcs, SAR's are usually kept out of reach, deep within the bowels of TRIM, and robustly locked away. Unless you have access to the CASA pony pooh TRIM system, or someone internal to FF leaks these reports to PAIN, or the Senators ask for copies of said reports, they will remain an integral part of the 'mystique of aviation', mysterious, hidden, guarded by Herr Skulls Rottweilers and not to be shown publicly.
Ah yes the ‘commercial in confidence’ thingy! So what or whom is the CIC clause really protecting?
Seems to me that in Pel-Air’s case they were quite willing to make certain parts of the Special Audit and the subsequent MAP progress available to the ATSB (and hence the public), which kind of makes good commercial sense if you’re wanting to regain the confidence of your current and future customers.
Note: Pel-Air would also have been asked (as per the FOI Act) and been in agreement for CAsA to release the Pel-Air ‘Special Audit Report’ and the 2008 ‘T&C Audit Report’, which were both FOI requests for documents and subsequently published on the FF FOI disclosure log.
Meanwhile Fort Fumble seemed pretty keen to shelf-ware the SAR/FRMS SAR etc, even at the risk of breaching section 24 of the TSI Act...go figure??
The amount of damning information revealed in this inquiry tests the veracity and also suggests a preconceived ‘outcome bias’ by Fort Fumble in the surveillance and enforcement process of the Pel-Air operation.
This alone should have all operators/pilots, which have ended up on the wrong side of the ledger of a FF enforcement action, reaching for their copies of the FF SAR or Part IIIA investigation reports, licence suspension letters etc (if those operators/pilots haven’t got a copy put in a FOI request for them, as the Pel-Air situation sets the precedent that you should be privy to those reports).
Oh well all ‘passing strange’…now back to my Sundy night in front of the box like a fellow 'fool' contemplating the 'dumb' and 'dumber' implications of the world's longest election campaign (outside of the US) and what it all might mean?? 
"History never repeats
I tell myself before I go to sleep
Don't say the words you might regret
I've lost before you know I can't forget"
Split Enz 1981