Kharon - The board appointment is not as yet, seen to be another "Libby-gate" but, it does go someway toward making mugs of the IOS. If, that is, we sit back and naively, without questioning the appointment process, allow the Murky Machiavellian team to hand pick, within a closed process, a bored which will not rock the boat, rattle the tea cups or ask embarrassing questions. If this is so, then Boyd is indeed isolated and rendered nugatory. We know his history, credentials and attitudes toward the reform of CASA: but what is known of the others? Not much just yet, more by the BRB AGM.
If true another most disturbing revelation i.e. old pumpkin head RED at it again...FFS..
On first glance the
GFA Forsyth submission seemed quite critical of the CAsA but on 2nd & 3rd reviews it would seem that there are elements that suggest collaboration and a certain 'wet lettuce' approach when compared to say the
AAAA submission??
Concerns:
Four principle areas of concern exist:
1. CASA does not employ a transparent cost/benefit analysis of its risk management approach to justify the cost impacts that regulation imposes on the Australia’s aviation industry and its participants.
2. CASA’s recent resort to unilateral and unfair action against those having a track record of worthy performance by suddenly and without recourse, suspending critical delegations was not congruent with a just, cooperative and properly risk assessed working association.
3. Inconsistency and contradictions exist within CASA in relation to the meaning of rules and interpretation by those applying the rules. It evidences CASA's conflicting/competing functions and goals of safety outcomes, regulation and enforcement.
4. Applying administrative and bureaucratic requirements, which may be appropriate for a major airline, to sport aviation organisations which have a very low risk impact on the travelling public. CASA is resorting to a punitive approach in enforcing compliance to these administrative requirements.
What is somewhat bemusing is the last couple of paragraphs by Ms Taylor...
"...
Thank you for your consideration and appreciation of the importance of the Gliding Federation of Australia in the sport and recreational aviation sector. I and/or our staff are available to answer any specific questions of the review panel, or provide evidence to support your research.
I am hopeful that we will be given the opportunity to review your final recommendations prior to publication so that we can respond to any perceived gaps.
Yours sincerely,
Anita Taylor President..."
I and/or our staff seems to suggest preferably "
I"..
...given the opportunity to review your final recommendations prior to publication so that we can respond to any perceived gaps...
Errr...why exactly should the GFA be given any preferential treatment to any of the other 268 submitters..
Besides everyone was given the opportunity to respond after the event, so did the GFA take up this opportunity and if so can we get a copy??
Oh well time will tell but I do find it quite surprising the number of GFA members that felt the need to make their own submissions, some of which were less than conciliatory of the GFA submission...
Moving on and back to the subject of the PelAir cover-up and I thought it would be a good time to reflect on a Senator X presser & speech given back in March...
:
Government soft on Pel-Air findings
20th March 2014
The Commonwealth Government has let down the travelling public by failing to fully implement the findings of a highly critical Senate inquiry into aviation safety, Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, said today.
The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s report into aviation accident investigations (the Pel-Air Report) found serious failures on the part of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regarding the investigation of the ditching of Pel-Air VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009.
“There are very serious matters raised in this report, including how effectively aviation operators are regulated,” Nick said. “CASA and the ATSB seem more interested in protecting themselves than protecting the Australian public.”
Senator Xenophon said the Government had failed to look at the bigger picture in the report, which shows serious systemic failures in both the ATSB and CASA.
“For the most part, the Government seems to accept that the current processes and systems are enough to make sure the ATSB and CASA are working properly,” Nick said. “But the evidence in this report clearly shows that’s not happening.”
“The Government shouldn’t take assurances from the ATSB or CASA at face value.”
Senator Xenophon said he hoped the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, established by Transport Minister Warren Truss, would back up the findings of the committee. The ATSB’s investigative processes, including its report into the Pel-Air ditching, are also being reviewed by the Canadian Transport Safety Board (TSB). However, Senator Xenophon fears the TSB review could be a whitewash because of its limited terms of reference.
“I hope the committee’s report has opened the door for serious change,” Nick said. “I believe the independent review will vindicate its findings, and I hope the Government will have the courage to act on them.”
Ziggy chick, if you go to QandA site and click on contact we can ask for panel members and questions.
Contact Us | Q&A | ABC TV
Great idea Eddie D...
So a natural inclusion to the QANDA panel would have to be Senator X but who else would the IOS want to question??
While on Q&A...
..a reminder that it is only 2 weeks to estimates so now would be a good time to start lobbying your favourite Senators...
MTF...
Ps M&M mate while your busy apparently stacking the deck..
..how about getting one of your minions (in the interest of transparency & consistency) to publish the responses to the Forsyth report; & FFS can't you put a call through to the TSBC and ask them to get a wriggle on...
