Maybe Albo - along with his mate Bill(TR Zinger)Shorten - was on a high from kicking the living sh
t out of TA and his govt over the last week; or maybe he thought he could get some cheap points - after all whoever listens to the opposition spokesman's reply to ministerial statements...
Well I am afraid that I did and Jinglie - besides being a true affront to the senses of any genuine IOS member - I think you will find parts of the following self-flagellating, spin & bulldust quite revealing to why the initials you highlighted truly thought they could get away with it...
To begin Albo went through the usual spiel of how aviation safety is not a political football and how essential it is to the economy..blah..blah..blah..
But then the stropathon began:
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed. When Mr McCormick had advised me of the decision, I remember speaking to Prime Minister Gillard and informing her of what was about to occur—because, by definition, you cannot make a decision that an airline is unsafe and then say, 'we will ground them in a couple of days' time'. What it meant by definition was that people got stranded. There was a real-world impact on the travelling public, particularly given the nature of Tiger; and on many families who were able to travel by air for the first time, because it was a budget airline.
That was a courageous decision by John McCormick. The fact that Tiger has now been taken over by Virgin Australia and is now functioning in a way that satisfies all the safety concerns shows that that was not just a courageous decision but a correct decision.
Err no comment but then it just got worse and IMO makes Albo close to public (IOS) enemy number one
:
In the report, the review panel expressed concern about relations between the industry and the regulator. It said this:
In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.
The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly. I think one of the worst parts of the job of being the aviation minister in this country is the fact that you get notified in real time. Except for the minister, people are probably unaware of that. I have had phone calls at all hours telling me that a plane with two or three people on board has gone missing. When the departmental head rang, or in the case of Mr McCormick there was often direct contact, you really did not want to receive that call.
If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.
I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder.
And on the subject of the TSBC/bureau peer review - more weasel words laced with barely hidden malice & hypocrisy:
I note the minister's comment that he is considering asking the ATSB to reopen the investigation into the Pel-Air incident of 2009. This follows the findings this week of the delayed report of the inquiry that I commissioned as the minister, which was conducted by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board. I note that the TSB found that the ATSB investigation methods were best practice, but I certainly welcome, as I previously said, the principle that, if there is any doubt at all, there is a need to take that precautionary principle into consideration.
I am concerned that the government has required aviation operators to cut about $12 million from their costs as part of its push to reduce so-called red tape. I also note that the government has made a similar demand of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. You cannot have organisations like CASA and AMSA, which perform such an extraordinarily important role in this country, and continue to put pressure on them to cut costs. AMSA has a critical role to play, as we have seen with the issue of the Malaysia Airlines search and rescue. AMSA looks after about one-third of the world's surface, so it is an absolutely critical agency. I do believe that there is a real case for quarantining it from cuts for aviation safety.
This from the man who totally ignored the Senate AAI inquiry findings, while deviously & singlehandedly inflicting budgetary cuts to the bureau that has led to the loss of 200+ years of investigatory expertise:
I think we can safely say that Albo was the No1. fan for the Beaker/McSkull instigated BASR, Big R regulator philosophy for embuggerance of the GA industry....steam still ON!
MTF...
