View Full Version : Senate estimates and CASA

29th Oct 2009, 11:18
The Screaming Skull must have had a bad nights sleep when he went before the senate estimates last week ??

Insults and vilification cowardly - Director

John McCormick, Director of Aviation Safety
The Director of Aviation Safety has hit out at people who insult, denigrate and vilify CASA officers.
John McCormick told a Senate estimates committee hearing last week that self-serving and false attacks on CASA and its officers were wrong and unfair.
He said in some cases these types of attacks on CASA’s people were “downright cowardly”.
The Director said there is a big difference between candid and robust criticism which challenges CASA to lift its game and vindictive public disparagement of individual CASA officers by name and station.
“CASA is certainly no stranger to criticism, complaints and variably informed expressions of dissatisfaction with the things we do and the way we do them from the diverse industry we regulate, amongst others,” the Director told the Senate committee.
“I welcome this, as a responsible director of any regulatory authority should welcome balanced, reasonable and constructive advice about where we may have gone wrong, or where we may at least be seen by some to have gone wrong, or where we might do better.
“Well-meaning criticism can be helpful, even if it is wide of the mark, and it gives us a better understanding of the way our actions are perceived and experienced.
“So let me be clear: I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA’s actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government’s attention, or to the attention of the Australian public.
“As I said, I welcome and embrace this.
“At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA’s actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving and frequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual CASA officers by name and by station.
“This is wrong and unfair and, in some cases, I think it is downright cowardly.
“It does nothing to advance the interests of air safety or organisational improvement, and it almost certainly is not intended to do either.
“If left unaddressed, it impugns the reputations and integrity of committed, capable and professional individuals who are dedicated to the critical, and sometimes thankless, regulatory and other safety related tasks, and it takes a serious toll on the morale of the entire staff in ways that, I dare say, some of those who try to conceal what is often nothing more than demagogic vitriol behind the facade of a pointed revelatory critique could not begin to understand.”

Going Boeing
29th Oct 2009, 11:59
It's good that he is standing up for his staff. A display of loyalty by the boss is normally rewarded with loyalty and support by the staff.

29th Oct 2009, 12:08
Good on him I reckon. Maybe Heavy cargo will take note. More likely he wouldn't care.

29th Oct 2009, 12:11
Hi Boeing.
I actually agree buddy. As much as it pains me to post this thread,I am silently jealous that he isnt my boss, even if he reportedly flies of the handle regularly ! Could you imagine Darth sticking up for his troops at QF ?? Unlikely scenario.
JMac apparently is a little 'old school' in the sense that he calls a spade a spade and does defend his staff when the are being shat on, something that more modern day bosses are to soft to do.
Perhaps he is earning Respect with an 'R' ?? Time will tell over at the Regulator,but judging my his comments the Inspectors may have their first supportive CEO in decades.

29th Oct 2009, 12:18
Oh dear, good on ya Spike. Just when a somewhat positive thread is started you drag it down by mentioning the name Heavy Cargo !
Where is that foolish old has-been hiding out these days anyway, is he chipping away at a dodgy deal in Afghanistan somehwere ? Hiding from the creditors who have come to repossess his rusty orange 1977 Datsun 120y ? Or perhaps he is having botox injections inserted into his wrinkly old face as he seeks to hold onto his former beauty which he lost many centuries ago ?

Capn Bloggs
29th Oct 2009, 14:34
Arr, that's the Boorie I know! :ok: :D

Checklist Charlie
30th Oct 2009, 00:53
Jmc's discourse to the Senate Estimates regarding critical comment of CASA smacks of a massive 'dummy spit' that tends to reinforce the "Screaming Skull" reputation.

In todays (30 Oct) Oz page 35 under the banner headline "Critics Cowardly"the reported comments are repeated with an additional grizzle about "the internet has seen the emergence of websites allowing people operating under pseudonyms to launch angry, disparaging and sometimes defamatory attacks against each other and industry figures'.

I wonder which site or sites in particular he is referring to?:rolleyes:

It would seem as though Jmc wants it both ways, on one hand he is encouraging critical observation, comment and appraisal of CASA, yet on the other hand he refers to critics as "cowardly".

And that gives me just a little feeling of unease for the industry that I for one care about.


30th Oct 2009, 01:09
I was told not to mention the screaming scull pseudonym to anyone. :eek:

Captain Dart
30th Oct 2009, 01:18
This same individual, 'protecting his boys' was a member of the infamous Cathay Pacific management 'Star Chamber' which, early this decade, selected about 50 pilots for dismissal (the Cathay Pacific 'forty niners') 'for no particular reason' in order to intimidate the rest of the pilot group.

As I write the presiding judge is considering his verdict regarding the civiL case some 'forty niners' brought against Cathay Pacific, just completed in Hong Kong; the case finally came to fruition some 8 years after, and there is optimism that the plaintiffs may get some justice, after one of the most cowardly acts of pilot against pilot I have witnessed in my 30+ years in professional aviation.

At least he may be able to make sure his 'boys' get the next DAMP calendar right.

Capn Bloggs
30th Oct 2009, 02:02
the internet has seen the emergence of websites allowing people operating under pseudonyms to launch angry, disparaging and sometimes defamatory attacks against each other and industry figures'.
The only person that pushes that barrow is Dick Smith. Perhaps he has had a word in Boorie's ear. :=

30th Oct 2009, 03:52
some of those who try to conceal what is often nothing more than demagogic vitriol behind the facade of a pointed revelatory critique could not begin to understand

And to whom would he be referring, I wonder?

30th Oct 2009, 05:23
Precisely Dart...

Managers Perspective
30th Oct 2009, 09:25
And to whom would he be referring, I wonder?

Hows this spray for a start.

ALAEA Fed Sec wrote:

Our union have been raising countless issues with CASA in the past 18 months only to find that regardless of the evidence, they side with Qantas and allow them to do as they please in this country. Usually they don't even respond to our concerns and I understand that the atsb are having the same problem.

Although there are dozens of issues, I will raise two here and please shoot me down if our concerns are not valid.

Issue 1. Qantas 767 Bne-Cns lands in June 2008 after experiencing severe turbulence. A mandatory turbulence check is required with 25 items. 10 of them are deferred until the next a-check and the EA issued by the airline states as a reason – insufficient time and equipment are available to carry out the full AMM 05-51-04 inspections.

The deferred checks included visual inspections of engine mounts, empennage safety checks for structural security etc... Now I am no award winning aviation expert but I do think that my 24 years as an aircraft engineer tell me that a mandatory severe turbulence check cannot be deferred. To defer it for several weeks until the next a-check for the above reason makes it far worse.

So the ALAEA decides to write to CASA and what do you know; no response. It’s just one of 17 issues we have outstanding with them.

Issue 2. 747-400 leaves a HM check in Oct 08. Dec 08 on eng change it is reported that the HM facility had used only one washer in each of the 8 locations instead of two. In Jan 09 on another change it is also noticed that the engine mounts only have one washer. Additionally a number of these washers are upside down. Note that the washers are flat on one side and curved on the other to fit the curved underside of the bolt head.

Other two engines are checked and they are also found installed incorrectly. For those not technically minded, using half the washers only could lead to incorrect torque of the mounts. If one works free, load increases on the others which could lead to..... well you can work that out.

The LAMEs raise the appropriate reports and tick the SDR reportable box to ensure that this major defect is formally submitted to CASA. Qantas Quality Assurance decides to change the LAME reports and not report them under the mandatory SDR program. You can follow the link on this requirement -


During discussions with the airline, they say that they phoned CASA and told them about it immediately. So bloody what. We are angry that Qantas refuse to submit the reports formally. If submitted formally, CASA would be required to publish in their SDR monthly report and also be obliged to act to ensure other aircraft flying around don’t have this same problem.

This is a very real safety issue. 4 engines fitted incorrectly on one aircraft. Visuals on the next Qf aircraft coming from the same facility showed that they were also being installed incorrectly. No action from CASA who should have immediately advised Boeing so other airlines using this supplier could be issued the necessary AD or instruction to correct the problem.

What the hell do we have to do to get CASA to do their god damn job.

Checklist Charlie
30th Oct 2009, 09:38
Managers Perspective, don't feel bad, you are not alone.

Industry associate wrote to CASA CEO in May this year, still waiting for a response but has given up on receiving an acknowledgement.:ugh:

Be careful not to criticise or you'll be branded 'cowardly"


31st Oct 2009, 00:44
What the hell do we have to do to get CASA to do their god damn job.:ok:I think there are many of us who could ask the same question an a myriad of issues.

31st Oct 2009, 02:30
I think there are many of us who could ask the same question an a myriad of issues.

Industry associate wrote to CASA CEO in May this year, still waiting for a response but has given up on receiving an acknowledgement.

Exactly, there are many others who are still awaiting response from CASA on issues raised, etc.

Rather than use ornamental language to raise hidden issues to the Senate, (and I am sure more than a couple probably had no clue as to what he was talking about), if he believes such statements raised by individuals to be false with ulterior motives, then air them so they can be addressed.

31st Oct 2009, 05:37
I just read this.

CASA, Qantas and unanswered safety allegations – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/10/31/casa-qantas-and-unanswered-safety-allegations/)

Why don't you get your Fed Member to insist that the Fed Sec's issues with Qantas get investigated and answered. Every one of them. I'm dropping my letter on Albie Schultz my local pollie on Monday. Dead set. I can smell a full on crash in this country coming around the corner. It scares the crap out of me to read stuff like this and the questions have to be answered.

Frank Arouet
31st Oct 2009, 06:31
characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving and frequently false accusations and the vindictive disparagement of individuals is wrong and unfair and, in some cases, I think it is downright cowardly.
“It does nothing to advance the interests of air safety

Deliberately quoted out of text to highlight decades of the same behaviour toward individuals by CASA and their employees with a litany of lies, mismanagement, corruption, cronyism, a lack of public accountability, deliberate and vexatious legal proceedings, a preparedness to defend the indefensible to the last cent in the taxpayers purse, obfuscation, lack of moral integrity, etc etc etc……

This bloke seems to have a warped and jaundiced opinion of criticism and expects to have all the past ignored or whitewashed with the wave of a hand saying there is a new broom in charge. Calling people cowards is a sure way to get them to burr up.

When he / CASA prove to me they can be trusted and earn my respect they will get it, until then his outburst is arrogant and does nothing to advance the interests of air safety.

Arnold E
31st Oct 2009, 09:10
OK I am not a CASA fan, let me say that from the beginning, BUT who is at fault here? Why is CASA a hated identity? Who's fault is it? Lets talk about GA here, but I suspect the majors are the same. I would say that 99.999% (I would like to say 100% but I know that somebody, somewhere will find an aircraft that has no faults at any particular time ) of the GA fleet have some form of defect on them, some of them quite serious! I will also say that <5% of thse defects are shown up on the maintenance release, or in fact, on any other written documentation. Now who's fault is this? CASA, the pilot, the operator or the owner, or infact some other identity? We all know CASA has no relationship to saftey, but who's fault is that? Us for not reporting faults (because we may lose our employment ) or CASA for not enforcing rules that are not being followed? I dont know the answer, maybe you do, or maybe I am just full of :mad:, what do you think???????:confused::confused:

31st Oct 2009, 11:32
We all know that operators, aircraft, engineers, passengers, air traffic controllers and god-forbid pilots are not perfect so why do we expect CASA to be? If all the aforesaid were perfect we wouldn't need CASA at all.
The lesson: Don't expect too much from CASA, after all, most of them came from industry!

1st Nov 2009, 01:20
Folks, I initially posted this thred because I thought it interesting how the Skull has stood up for his staff,openly. I also thought that maybe the Regulator was turning a corner in a positive way. These were quite simply thoughts of mine.

However, with some of the responses about CASA, as well as some of the ongoing issues with the Regulator ( which is no different to some of the issues Industry faces - morale, pay structure, management etc ) I have a theory - Perhaps some of CASA's issues run deeper than the Regulator ? For example, The Screaming Skull may be the CEO/Director, but in fact he doesnt call the shots, a board does that, as well as the Federal Government. The truth is that The Skulls hands are tied by government Bureaucracy when it comes to direction. Everybody knows that CASA is short staffed, totally underfunded and has its strings pulled by the government. The former CEO did not paint a truthful picture as far as staffing issues were concerned, or the ability to manage and undertake extra projects due to continual budget restraints. And of course, nobody likes going to their boss and asking for more money and more staff.

As long as the federal government continue to run CASA like it is the Department Of Social Security and underfund it, the risk of an 'unfortunate incident' keeps growing.
Has funding and staff levels grown adequately since Lockhart River ?? Negative, they have gone backwards.

My point is that the CEO cant do what a CEO needs to do without actual authority, money and manpower. So in reality, The Skull is in between a rock and a hard place.
Secondly, whether it be CASA or Industry, each has its issues of incompetence, poor management and management decisions, dumb ass employees and wastes money in some shape or form. The most vocal opponents of CASA are the those who like to bend the rules. The most vocal opponents of Industry are those who are bitter about the kind of ludicrous salaries that CEO's and Directors are pulling, most of it being unjustified rorts.

I am not a hippy, nor an advocate of kisses and cuddles, but the sooner the Regulator and Industry start working together, and pushing accountability in some ways back on to the federal stooges, the safer the outcome will be for ALL.

1st Nov 2009, 01:29
I couldn't agree more. Well said

Frank Arouet
1st Nov 2009, 05:18

I just wrote a reply to your question and was lost in a time out on the site by the looks of things. But from memory;

Destruction of evidence- Obstruction- Delaying- Failing to answer questions correctly in Senate Estimates- Failing to accept responsibility- Failure to accept liability- Legal obfuscation- Weak and non actionable apologies- Failure to pay compensation- And the list goes on and all under the heading of cronyism over an eight year period until brought to a conclusion by Federal Government intervention and then only after they were cornered like rats.

CASA has learnt nothing from this, and other (some worse), cases except how to cover their arse better.

If John McCormick wants constructive input with the criticism perhaps he should explore or at least be aware that (as I understand it), a Bill has been presented to The House of representatives three times to include the words “FOSTER AVIATION” in text with the CASA charter and passed through only to be defeated in the Senate each time. Perhaps it’s time he encouraged someone to run this up the flagpole again to see who salutes this time.

How about include a Bill to re evaluate the liability of CASA employees so the regulatory review process can proceed without the legal misdirection / hijacking and time wasting to cover said arses while at it.

He should feel free to PM me if he needs my name for his voodoo doll

As for your education, have a read of The Phelan Papers. PM me if you need a contact to obtain a copy. It would do John McCormick well to read this also.

Dick Smith
2nd Nov 2009, 01:44
I strongly agree with John McCormick’s comment in relation to people being “downright cowardly” when they post on this or other websites attacking others by name or inference, but then insisting on remaining anonymous themselves. I believe it’s un-Australian.

If someone really believes that a person in CASA is not doing the right thing, they should have the guts to place their own name on the complaint.

2nd Nov 2009, 02:09
If he wants a military style one way communication system where everyone is told to "shut up and do as you are told. You are not paid to think", then he is not the right man for the job. It has been accepted for a long time by thinkers that a two way communication system is essential to fine tune things and detect safety problems before the accidents happen.
They did not do that with the Lockhart River accident.
I see Australian aviation as being sinilar to the way New Zealand was before the Erebus disaster.
Lockhart River was a mini Erebus, but worse.
We need CASA to become part of the team, (it was once) not just a PR agency for the major airlines.

Capn Bloggs
2nd Nov 2009, 02:27

I suggest you harden up. We are all well aware that you will have anybody's guts for garters if they step over the line here on Prune. If you can't take strident criticism then stay away. Besides, most of the posters who argue with you here put quite reasonable points of view IMO.

You are allegedly in command of a fairly high performance jet with all the pressures and intelligence that that entails but you have a meltdown because someone says your Class E airspace is no good, just because you don't know who they are? Come on.

place their own name on the complaint.
When they write to their local member or the minister, as I have done recently, they probably do.

Frank Arouet
2nd Nov 2009, 22:29
An example of how CASA has interfered with due process is the establishment of an "in house" ombudsman, (which is oxymoronic), with which you are forced to deal with before you can complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman who naturally will ask... Have you persued all other avenues of redress? At the very least they have added another tier into the due process to frustrate your efforts.

I have found dealing with CASA, and I stress, on matters pertaining to their misadventures and stuff up's, is near impossible because they are too busy absolving themselves from individual or collective guilt.

Whatever process though, you should always involve your Local Federal Member whether they are good or bad. Simply because if things get to go public, they "WILL" capitalise on the publicity.

I hope all my comments are seen as constructive. However I reserve the right to fume over past issues.

bushy makes some valid points.

Dick Smith
3rd Nov 2009, 00:25
Capn Bloggs

I think you are mixing me up with yourself in relation to having a melt down in Class E airspace. By the way, you say

your Class E airspace

Bloggs, believe it or not, it’s actually not my Class E airspace. It’s one of the most used controlled airspace classifications in the world. As I have said before, one of the reasons I have a “fairly high performance jet” is that I have asked advice and copied the success of others right around the world. Perhaps you could take a hint from this, and then you would have your own “fairly high performance jet”.

John McCormick was not referring to people who write a letter to their Local Member or Minister. He was referring to gutless cowards who defame and attack others on this and other websites whilst concealing themselves behind anonymity.

Capn Bloggs
3rd Nov 2009, 00:43
you would have your own “fairly high performance jet”.
Don't need one. My employer has given me one! :ok::}

PS: remove "fairly". :E

PPS: I'm off to defame and attack someone! :{

Disco Stu
3rd Nov 2009, 01:01
Capn Bloggs said
PPS: I'm off to defame and attack someone! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

That makes you Sir, a Coward.:=

I guess that makes me one too!:confused:

To critisize ot not to critisize, that is the question:ugh:
(Sorry Bill S)

Disco Stu

Frank Arouet
3rd Nov 2009, 03:10

CEO/Director, but in fact he doesnt call the shots, a board does that

He is on the Board-ex officio. Why? .... and what is the Board's function?

Who, ... in the first instance exactly, reports to The Minister?

Who does one direct their complaints/bile/suggestions/voodoo doll pins to other than the "in house" :( ombudsman? and where does "the buck" stop?

When CASA embrace the notion of "fostering" aviation in this country instead of antagonising it, things may begin to improve.

Some simple strokes of the pen to make this part of their charter, plus fix the corrupt stupidity surrounding the abuse of regulatory change to cover their own arse's will start this process. However I fear a repeat performance of the last two Directors intransigence perpetuated by the same Advisors/Bureacrats.

John McCormick should remember "the industry" see CASA as the "bad guy's" and themselves as the "good guy's". He won't change that overnight. Indeed if he begins a change for the better to be carried on by his successors he, and CASA may be seen as a visionary instead of being despotic.

3rd Nov 2009, 06:22
I don't pretend to know what you have been through with CASA in the past but it seems that whilst you want CASA to start anew, you want to hang onto the past. Might be time to bury the hatchet and give the bloke a call. Very hard for anybody to empathise while they are being attacked for somebody elses mistakes

3rd Nov 2009, 09:08
Frank, you asked :
He is on the Board-ex officio. Why? .... and what is the Board's function?

Who, ... in the first instance exactly, reports to The Minister?

Who does one direct their complaints/bile/suggestions/voodoo doll pins to other than the "in house" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif ombudsman? and where does "the buck" stop?

Jeez Frank. "Bile and voodoo dolls" ?? Remind me never to upset you ! You dont fly planes full of passengers around do you ??

You ask some valid questions as quoted mate. Sorry, I dont have those sort of answers for you.
In relation to the exact details 'the Boards function','who reports directly to the Minister','Ombudsmen' etc , these are questions I guess you could raise with JMac , Minister Alabanese,The Ombudsmen or your local member of parliament. I am not privvy to any top secret info, I am just a humble taxpayer much like yourself. In fact, the CASA website most likely contains the answers to some of those questions.

Frank Arouet
3rd Nov 2009, 19:25
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
(George Santayama).

When CASA embrace the notion of "fostering" aviation in this country instead of antagonising it, things may begin to improve

What is difficult to understand in that statement?


The Screaming Skull may be the CEO/Director, but in fact he doesnt call the shots,

Your quote I believe, and when I questioned you, you feigned ignorance. If he doesn't call the shots, why is he there? (with 6 posts to your credit I imagine you are either a retiree out for another run and a bit of mischief, or someone who genuinely doesn't know what is going on).

For anybode else who doesn't understand, the regulatory review process has been going on for so many years gold watches should be handed out. This fiasco has been hijacked by those doing the "reforms" to re write the rules to absolve CASA and it's employees of any action against them.

Those ignorant of this fact probably don't know it is possible to legally hold individual CASA officers responsible for their actions. In a queer twist of irony, I believe CASA employees should be protected from prosecution so they can use the "reform" process for what it was designed for. Right now, as someone once said, it is a Principality with 600 Prince's doing nothing to enhance safety or promote aviation in this country.

Changing the King hasn't altered the function or direction of the organisation in the past.

I said earlier, John McCormick is welcome to PM me if he wants to talk face to face. It serves no purpose with me to beg an audience with him.

Checklist Charlie
4th Nov 2009, 09:10

Can we quit the personal slanging and get back to the discussion about the Jmc dummy spit and its apparent relativity to CASA, that given the seemingly complimentary RAAF and CX history.

Branding anonymous critical comment as 'cowardly' is effectively discouraging 'whistleblowing' and depriving themselves of information that might not otherwise be available. Products of the military system (and reinforced at a syncophantic CX) are taught they must always be in control and never be caught out by a surprise revelation. Also anonymous contributions are harder to seek or initiate some kind of retribution from.

I am beginning to wonder whether this appointment was a wise one.

I recommend he read the Nimrod Report detailed elswhere on PPRuNe.


Joker 10
4th Nov 2009, 09:31
The appointment was not "wise" it was made in haste and now we Tollerate another ex Cathay reject.

Frank Arouet
4th Nov 2009, 21:08
My statements are based upon years of dealing with CASA at the very highest level. I have fought and beat them through bloody minded determination after they put every obstacle possible in my way, I have “lame duck” letters of apology and proof of “counselling” from the then Director, to individuals and organisations, I have the results of a 12 month Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation in hand, I have letters signed by The Deputy Prime Minister of the day, I have Hansard records debating my case in The Senate, I have offers and acceptances of Act of Grace payments, (not from CASA though). However to this day, the perpetrators of my misfortune are still in business because they were mates of the boss, and still a possible menace to you. The main CASA players may have moved on, but their replacements have done nothing by way of change to show me they have learnt anything from the experience except how to better cover their arse.

And you dare to suggest I may not know what is going on. By insulting my efforts to make things better for general aviation in this country, you insult everyone who has “had a go”. WTF have you done?

There are many who have lost their income, their future, their families, their pride and credibility but “ALL OF US” have lost “MONEY”, lot’s of it, because of CASA indifference, arrogance, a willingness to defend the indefensible, and corrupt the system you clown.

People who take all the benefits obtained by individuals who put a lot of hard work into at least attempting to fix the system, but stand idly by and rain insults down on those achievers are piss poor examples of Human Beings, and your “weasel words”, epitomise this.

John McCormick so far has shown he is a carbon copy of the last few Directors. Perhaps a bit more sensitive to criticism.

I sincerely hope I am wrong in my assessment.


tail wheel
6th Nov 2009, 09:57
Any further personal "sprays" and the thread will be gone!


Captain Dart
11th Nov 2009, 22:40
BBC NEWS | Business | Cathay in $7.6m payout to pilots (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8354851.stm)

The current head of CASA was part of the 'Star Chamber' which selected these pilots for dismissal. Justice has finally been served.

Kangaroo Court
11th Nov 2009, 22:50
The poor guy that passed away...does his estate inherit the judgement?

Frank Arouet
12th Nov 2009, 03:38
McCormick is quoted as saying he intended to regulate with a capital "R".

Nothing has changed. A continuing lack of consultation and over prescriptive regulation to suit some political need.

He should be mending fences rather than atagonising industry with demonstrative chest beating.

12th Nov 2009, 07:07
The current head of CASA was part of the 'Star Chamber' which selected these pilots for dismissal.

If this is true then he should really resign from CASA. No pilot in Australia will take the slightest notice of what he has to say after the Cathay verdict.

Kangaroo Court
12th Nov 2009, 13:25
Is the Hong Kong Court Summary available for print and posting, or do they have limited access? I can't find it.

Captain Dart
12th Nov 2009, 20:22
It's here: http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org/proceedings/CXJudgment.pdf

There is also lots of other background on the whole affair on The Cathay Pilots Union Home Page (http://www.cathaypilotsunion.org) .

McCormick was Chief Pilot (Boeing) at the time; he was a member of the 'Star Chamber' and readily recommended some of 'his boys' for termination.

my oleo is extended
13th Nov 2009, 11:19
Oh dear, the Skull seem's to be the agressive type. Perhaps it is that sort of person that CASA needs, to flush out all the trash ? Perhaps he will target 49 Inspectors ?

Dick Smith
16th Nov 2009, 22:39

You state

One interesting observation, is that CASA intend for Class D procedures at the ex-GAAP's to be different to procedures at existing Class D aerodromes

That's because the procedures at our existing Class D aerodromes will also change to US Class D.

Coral, let’s hope you are 100% correct. That’s the whole idea of the CASA Direction. All of our non-radar towers will have the same procedures – all simplified, all following common sense, and all following the proven US NAS system.

When this goes ahead it will be a great improvement for everyone. I know of even reasonably high time GA pilots who will not fly into a place like Tamworth or Coffs Harbour because of the complexity of clearance requests, clearance limits and departure calls, etc.

Checklist Charlie
18th Nov 2009, 06:03
Is it just me or would anyone else find it difficult to either keep a straight face or believe anything from the head of CASA given what is now in the public arena regarding his role in the CX Starchamber.

Listening to a number of my colleagues thoughts on the Screaming Skull would suggest that any creditibility and trust has gone out the window.

18th Nov 2009, 06:42
The method used by Cathay to instill fear in the pilot ranks by sacking a number (49) of randomly selected individuals is nothing less than social terrorism. For the government to hire someone as CASA CEO who apparantly has been actively involved in this treacherous backhanded action is a scandal of some magnitude.