View Single Post
Old 21st Nov 2013, 18:55
  #94 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053

To understand the Barrier 2012 audit it is essential to examine the 2009 audit, conducted in YYYY by Agent X. The syntax has varied little throughout, the 'stretch' of black letter law and liberal applications of subjective opinion have provided 'conclusions' and 'summary' which have been used to frame the case.

It is noteworthy that Agent X was under severe pressure at the time, both he and Agent Y were subject to a very serious operator challenge to have Agent X removed. Several operators fully intended to sue CASA for exactly the same reasons as those demonstrated throughout the Barrier 2009 audit. Happily, the complaining operators won the day and Agent X was demoted and sent South; ostensibly to sharpen the pencils.

It is also worth contemplating the curious responses from CASA to NCN and the repetition of acquitted NCN. It is passing strange that CASA accepted 95% of the proposed remedies, but rejected 100% of the identified 'root cause'. Subjective opinion stridently denies logic; if an identified problem has been accepted as cured, it must follow that the root cause has been correctly identified. Not so for Barrier.

For an example: there is much made of CAO 48 issues, the word 'intent' is freely used. Had there been 'intent' then the industry exemption, freely offered could have been applied for. Application of SIE 5 latitude negates any 'grave concern' over the very few, minor technical breaches alleged to be serious Barrier FDP control issues. Barrier FDP records demonstrate compliance with SIE 5. Had there been operations outside of the standard industry exemption latitude, then perhaps a safety case could be brought. But it could only be against one, isolated, disputed 'rest period' allowance, with the pilot at fault. This is not the provable, chronic, systemic aberration of CAO 48, claimed to be enforced by the operator.

It gets worse, when the dust settles perhaps some of the NCN can be released for peer review. Perhaps between Wazza and the Senate committee, some of this can be brought out into the open.

Last edited by Kharon; 21st Nov 2013 at 23:52. Reason: Extract Chapter 6. Bankstown chronicles.
Kharon is offline