Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

[Sarcs]

M&M 2014 weport card - Slight dwift on ASA AQONs

Slight drift but another area currently under the Senate blowtorch which also involves a politically (M&M) selected AVM (active) and a new Hoodoo Doc (although not quite in the calibre of JA), which most definitely falls into the M&M remit...

Remember this...

You Tube

Which AVM 'Stabbed in the Dark' eventually responded with this wet lettuce, weasel, worded correction to the Hansard record:

3.) Correspondence received 25 November 2014 from Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer of Airservies Australia, clarifying evidence given on 20 October 2014.(PDF 116KB)

Then three days later we had this - An inquiry into the performance of Airservices Australia.

You Tube

Well from that session there was a number of QONs (37 in total) generated and surprise...surprise the AQONs are already released, all 184 pages of them...:

1 Answers to questions taken on notice on 28 November 2014 in Canberra, ACT.

Most of the answers are obviously designed to put the most avid readers to sleep...

However there is some of particular interest for the average nerd...

1st example and on the subject of ethics was this AQON from Dr (Duck'n'weave) Ethics:

...Dr Weaver: I have chaired that committee since March this year.

Senator STERLE: So there are three of you on that who know about that.

Dr Weaver: There are also representatives from the rest of the organisation—so the chief auditor; the manager, security and resilience is often in attendance; and other representatives from people and culture.

Senator STERLE: You can provide names. That is fine. How many are there all up?

Dr Weaver: The key members of the committee are the executive—

Senator STERLE: Who would have known—Mr Weaver, very clear, very precise—when I asked the question of Ms Staib at Senate estimates two weeks ago, that there was credit card fraud?

Dr Weaver: The people that know of credit card fraud are the members of that committee and the representatives of that committee.

Senator STERLE: You have said all that. Tell me how many people—five, 10, half the organisation, 2,000, what?

Dr Weaver: To be clear, there will be other people that would know about individual cases of credit card fraud.

Senator STERLE: So a lot of people would know?

Dr Weaver: About individual cases, it would be quite a small number that would know about each individual case.

Senator STERLE: Mr Weaver, do you know how many people?

Dr Weaver: I do not know the exact number, no.

Senator STERLE: Can you find out for me, please?

Dr Weaver: Yes.

Answer:

Instances of serious credit card misuse are reported to the Fraud and Ethics Committee which has five permanent members:

Executive General Manager, Safety, Environment and Assurance

Chief Finance Officer

Executive General Manager, People and Culture

Executive General Manager, Projects and Engineering

Chief Auditor.



The number of people who may know of an individual case will vary depending on the circumstances and may involve staff from security and resilience, human resources, employee relations, legal counsel, in-line managers or senior executive outside of the committee. Matters are always dealt with cognisant of the privacy of the individual and balanced against organisational responsibilities to effectively manage the issue.

The details of the specific case that was raised at the 20 October 2014 Estimates hearing involving a staff member that was dismissed were explained during the in-camera hearing.

Next example perked my interest in light of the recent Miniscule v Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce AAT hearings:

CHAIR: I think I will take this to public works from here. We have not had a bad day, have we? Tell me about the runway at Archerfield. Is it true that it does not comply—whatever one they are arguing about that has been shortened?

Mr Hood: I will have to take that on notice. I am not aware of any complaints in relation to any—

CHAIR: As you would know, and as Mr Murdoch is very conscious of, there is a contest of interests at airfields like Bankstown, where the developers—and they have ways and means of convincing people. It appears to me that there is a bit of pressure on in various airfields, including Archerfield and, of course, Bankstown. It appears to me that all of a sudden they have woken up to the fact that whichever runway it is is no longer compliant, even though they are using it. I am wondering, if something goes wrong, who is going to be liable for that.

Mr Hood: It is the first time it has been raised with me, but I am certainly happy to take it on notice.

It could cut across CASA as well. I am happy to take that.

Answer:
In 2008, it was identified that a building infringed one of the restrictive surfaces (the PANSOPS surface) for the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) for one of the runways at Archerfield (28 Right).

At the time, Airservices initial action was to issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) which moved the PANS-OPS surface to a position whereby the building was no longer penetrating it.

Subsequently, specific cloud and visibility requirements were put in place for use of the procedure to ensure that it could only be used in circumstances when the building could be sighted by pilots. The NOTAM was then rescinded, making the full length of the runway available again.

An ATSB report (AI-2008-038) published in April 2010 assessed the actions of Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to be adequate to address the safety issues raised.

Airservices procedures are fully compliant.

Again another example - by ASA this time - of all care and no responsibility when it comes to Secondary Airports...

Ok back to the current topic on JA & ethics...

Creamy - "...Only an extraordinarily clever person, with extraordinary chutzpah.

I remain in genuine, absolute awe, Jonathan Aleck."

Choccy frog for Creamy I reckon...

MTF...