Creamy
:
If that is the report to which Mr McCormick was referring when he said the major issue was that CASA did not have sufficient training in place for the inspectorate, I wonder whether he’s actually read all 98 pages.
Top marks there Creamy because that is exactly what I thought reading the transcript that went along with the QON from Senator Fawcett!
How could anyone make such a statement if they had actually read and deciphered the FAA audit recommendations? Or is it just that the DAS and his cronies really don’t care what the yanks found on behalf of ICAO?
I also think it is particularly interesting that Senator Fawcett asked the ICAO audit question of Fort Fumble at that particular time (12/02/2013), considering all the stunning publicly revealed revelations/evidence that was tabled/recorded at the AAI inquiry public hearing three days later (e.g. the ‘Chambers Report’ and the FRMS Special Audit Report).
After all (and as Creamy highlighted) most of the deficiencies of the bureau and FF brought to our attention in this inquiry were perfect causal examples of the risks of not properly addressing the non-compliances found in the FAA audit.
Kharon:
CASA then proceed to arrogantly handle the chance offered with a smoke and mirrors dance routine, which fools no one.
A most important point that you make Kharon and I might add that the evidence lately would suggest that not only are the RRAT Committee members no longer being 'fooled' but they also no longer trust the veracity and expert advice of FF and the bureau.
Why else would the committee be inviting, at this late stage, opinion/advice from two
fully independent (not for profit) organisations that are highly regarded and have successfully survived long enviable histories (RFDS 85 years, FSF 66 years)?
We would also be naïve to believe that the committee also stopped there or that this hasn’t got the attention of the FAA/NTSB (and by default ICAO).
Shirley it wouldn’t be a stretch for the committee to sound out these organisations to garner further expert advice on how best to handle such a self-aggrandizing, outcome biased, politically manipulated investigation/Final report into the Norfolk ditching, plus all its subsequent implications to Australia air safety as a signatory to ICAO.
Hmm Oleo I think your onto something with those numbers 16, 62. I think you could add 17 and 25...might have to change my lotto numbers but in the meantime I'm doing a Kelpie!