Merged: Senate Inquiry

[Kharon]

Slats there has never, not ever been any disagreement that there were errors of judgement, James admits he made errors, the Senate agreed he made errors, the accident, apart from the appalling treatment of Karen Casey has, for a very long while now been history. No one is remotely interested.

What has become exposed is the absolutely dreadful performance of the 'authority' and the attempts made to manipulate the reports, misdirect the inquiry and abrogate all responsibility to a pitiful, meaningless 'pilot error' call. Back in the 2000+ posts on this thread stand alone; this has been discussed. To revisit that old, stale argument about fuel and fool, is pointless. However, if you wish to research and reinvent the wheel, do so. But please be sure of the facts you use to back the assertions. Be aware that a very clever lawyer or two and various assorted experts took the argument well beyond the James admitted errors of judgement, for which he paid and still, today pays a stiff price for. The same people delved deeply into what CASA and the ATSB did, before and after the incident and found them wanting. You need to think it through. For instance:-
I wonder if it possible the AOC specified charter but the company manual (approved by CASA) specified aerial work.

The manual, including fatigue, flight planning and fuel policy would be 'accepted' by CASA, not approved. The line between the two conditions being a seriously 'grey' area; the old merry go round of endlessly amending and adding 'twiddles' to an operations manual to satisfy the peculiar tastes of the individual FOI, so that the FOI 'accepts' the manual as part of the certification process. There exists a mountain of tales and stories about getting CASA to 'tick the box' and even Raffety's rule book would be handy; ask any CP who has had the simple pleasure of adding a 'new' type to an AOC, ask his boss how the bank balance held out and then, for kicks, have a read of some of the mind bending dribble written in support. It's a sad indictment and cautionary tale.

Slats - "Had the flight been charter then there would have been alternate fuel."
When McComic stated that R206 was a "good example of bad law", you must understand the statement was made with relish, not in condemnation. It really is a buggers muddle which suits a big "R" regulator very well; the more complex the more exemption etc. and so it rolls on. To a practical man does it matter a bean if the flight was classed as charter, farter or martyr: during the 'acceptance' process the fuel policy, the recommendations, process, calculations and the rationale for the policy edicts should have been in place and thoroughly tested. The simple fact is, they were not and the company was allowed to continue operations without, for many years. That does not get young James completely off the hook, but had there been more 'situational awareness' of the fuel critical nature of the proposed flight and he better educated as to how to 'step around' the traps and pit falls, perhaps there may have been a better outcome. Perhaps not.

Lefty – I know mate, I know. But what's a girl to do?. One must at least learn to ask for dinner and dancing, before the fateful, inevitable event; there is no guarantee of course, that you'll get it.. :D..:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

I understand fuel was further limited by commercial limitations placed upon take up at obvious alternates. Been canvassed previously and still doesn't abrogate CAsA or ATSB's duty to provide a measured and accurate response.

[Up-into-the-air]

Of course!!! .

[Sarcs]

From a Ferryman post from the 'Wuss asleep at the wheel' thread...:ugh:

The subjects may be found –HERE (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ae-2013-223.aspx) - and – HERE (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-018.aspx) - . The thing that drew my attention and earned some admiration was the quality of work which the ATSB is capable of producing – when playing away from home. Some cynics would say – far away from malign influences; I reckon it's pure frustration from our well qualified, competent troops at the coal face. Released and given a chance to shine – they do. Bravo..:D
Some interesting and shameful parallels are highlighted in those two 'request assistance' investigations...:{

For the first point of interest (POI) refer to the interim report for AE-2013-223, see here (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/N254F-interim.pdf). Under Abstract it says...

"...Later that day, search and rescue personnel located parts of aircraft wreckage floating on the ocean surface.

The New Zealand Navy located the main aircraft wreckage on the seabed at a depth of approximately 59 metres. On 6 April 2013, Navy divers located and retrieved the body of the passenger. The following day the aircraft wreckage and the pilot’s body were recovered by the Navy onto its specialist dive vessel, the HMNZS Manawanui..."

As a result of these can do, prompt actions the CAA investigators were very quickly able to make a number of important observations:
...Once recovered, initial examination of the wreckage indicated that the aircraft had impacted the water with a slight nose down attitude its wings almost level and with a slight yawing movement.

Examination of the aircraft’s propellers indicated that the propellers were under little or no power at the time the aircraft impacted the water. The propeller angles were in a position usually associated with a cruise setting. Neither propeller was feathered.

Examination of the flight controls and control surfaces showed that the flap and gear selectors were in the fully retracted position. Aileron and rudder trim were in a near neutral position, however, the elevator trim was trimmed 21 units nose up.
Although only a short factual interim report the extremely divergent parallels to the PelAir & Hempel cover-up investigations are quite remarkable. And from the tail-end of the report:
The CAA safety investigation is being conducted in accordance with the New Zealand Civil Aviation Act. The objective of the safety investigation is the prevention of accidents by determining the contributing factors or causes and establishing what lessons can be taken for the improvement of the NZ aviation system.

The focus of the investigation is to establish the cause of the accident on the balance of probability. Safety investigations do not always identify one dominant or ‘proximate’ cause.

Often, an aviation accident is the last event in a chain of several events or factors, each of which may contribute to a greater or lesser degree, to the final outcome.
Unlike our current domestic ATSBeaker there is no doubting the intent, integrity & transparency of the above statement from the CAANZ...:D

You are automatically left with the impression that the Kiwis will leave no stone un-turned to get to the cause of this tragedy. This is further highlighted by the fact that the Kiwis realise they don't have the necessary resources to properly analyse the ATC recordings. They then have no compunctions or reservations in automatically referring to our bureau for assistance. After all, under ICAO Annex 13, that is the way the system is supposed to work...FFS!:ugh:

PelAir & beyond (BASR).

"K" also makes the point that left un-embuggered by our BASR domestic situation (& the apparently uncontrollable CAsA behemoth) our bureau coalface boys'n'gals still do stirling work...:D

Just before the PelAir cover-up debacle the bureau put out a glossy paper titled - PAST PRESENT FUTURE (http://atsb.gov.au/media/788554/past_present_future.pdf). Under the section - The International Dimension (page 65) - it highlights the many positive contributions internationally that the bureau has made, example:
On 31 January 2003, an Ilyushin 76TD aircraft impacted terrain during a landing approach to Baucau, Timor-Leste. The six aircraft occupants were fatally injured by the impact forces. At the request of the government of Timor-Leste, the ATSB conducted the investigation into the accident. The investigation report highlighted that deviations from recommended practice during the approach and landing phase of flight significantly increase the risk of a CFIT event.
The paper then goes on to praise the positive contributions of Alan Stray in overseeing the ATSB involvement in the Indonesia
Transport Safety Assistance Package (ITSAP): The ATSB appointed Alan Stray, PSM, Director International, to oversee and coordinate the ATSB’s involvement in this important regional transport safety initiative.

The main elements of the ATSB’s contribution to ITSAP are to deliver training and support for NTSC investigators. This includes the ATSB providing staff dedicated to various capacity building projects, funding ATSB training courses in Indonesia and Australia, and expand opportunities for aviation, marine, and rail investigators to work with ATSB counterparts for extended periods. Support is also being provided on individual transport safety investigations.
Alan's efforts led to him being awarded a Public Service Medal (PSM) :D:D:http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_092114_104146_AM.jpg
In January 2009, Alan Stray was awarded the Public Service Medal “For outstanding public service improving aviation safety in Australia and Indonesia”.
Upon reflection how he must now cringe when he reads these words from earlier in the bureau glossy...

"...As a founding member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Australia has played a prominent role in the Council and the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). Since 1974, Australia has consistently been
elected to the council as a Category One State of Chief Importance in Air Transport, and plays a major part in the activities of ICAO. Australia’s role has been underpinned by its perceived integrity and lack of bias, and excellent safety record..."

{Comment: Some of the weasel words in the Albo message & Beaker intro are also, upon reflection, positively vomitus..:yuk:}

Hmm...SOB..:{..& BRING BACK ALAN! :ok:

MTF...:E

{NB - Part two on the positive NZed Aviation Safety system, where the NAA is uniquely also the AAI. Versus our BASR system with a seemingly uncontrollable big "R" NAA slowly but surely regulating the GA industry out of existence; while our bureau (domestically at least) is a mere hand muppet helping facilitate the CAsA agenda of GA annihilation :{}

PAST PRESENT FUTURE

[Kharon]

Ever wonder why the All Blacks keep winning – and manage to maintain a seriously formidable record. Their blokes are no bigger, fitter, smarter or any more skilled than our fellahin but they win; even when the score line shows otherwise. I believe the difference is in freedom; the Kiwi's simply have the freedom to improvise and keep the ball alive to obtain the end result – a try. The Australian teams seem hidebound; constrained by complex 'set piece' strategy, beaten into a mentality which depends on complex, stylised micro rule sets; which, once upset lead to confusion, excuses and denial. Individual brilliance is subjugated and improvisation sacrificed to 'herd discipline'. Which is fine, until a size 24 prop has gleefully grabbed you by the ears and is not going to let go; the set piece collapses and no one is looking to recover; just for who's to blame. “No battle plan,” he sagely noted, “survives contact with the enemy.” – Moltke (http://lexician.com/lexblog/2010/11/no-battle-plan-survives-contact-with-the-enemy/)

NZ aviation reflects the All Blacks 'spirit' – sure there is a game plan and rules; but with the shackles of micro management removed and simple, clear cut instructions assist a free running game. It's not only how to win at rugger we should learn from the Kiwi's. Aircraft down in the water – now, who would have ever imagined using the NZ navy to recover the aircraft, quickly, cheaply, effectively, give the troops some real training and a chance to shine. Beaker sure as hell didn't; did he now. Purblind bloody fool.

What's this twiddle got to do with aviation? – well: if Sarcs has headed down the research path I believe he'll take, the thinking man may glean some insight into why the NZ CAA is light years ahead of not only Australia, but of many other enlightened countries in the way they have progressed aviation, not just 'safety'; but in the regulatory and fiscal fields, resulting in increased efficiency naturally leading to improved safety outcomes.. Can't wait for Sarcs, part two – nice catch and bravo for having the patience to tease out the data...:ok:

Toot toot..;)

[Frank Arouet]

I'm unsure who the NZ Minister for Aviation is, if in fact there is one, but whoever, he and his lot have just been given a resounding pat on the back for a job well done in the weekend elections.


Says something about the Kiwi mindset as well.

[Sarcs]

Kharon - Sarcs has headed down the research path I believe he'll take, the thinking man may glean some insight into why the NZ CAA is light years ahead of not only Australia, but of many other enlightened countries in the way they have progressed aviation, not just 'safety'; but in the regulatory and fiscal fields, resulting in increased efficiency naturally leading to improved safety outcomes.. It is not much of a research path really, merely some observations made along the way to enlightenment perhaps...:E

For a small nation geographically & population wise NZed certainly punches above it's weight..:ok:


Comparisons can not only be made in Rugby, the Kiwis also excel in aviation, just take a look at the financials for Air NZ v our majors; or in GA versus our slowly but surely suffocation of a once thriving industry (pre 1990s)...:{


So what is the difference??

It cannot simply be about a better written, more easily read and understood rule set; there has to be a lot more to it than that??:rolleyes:

Part of the problem for Oz aviation is we have drifted, over now a good many years, into a third world mentality of complacency living off the fat of the land and extreme mineral wealth, none of which the Kiwis had in the first place. We are also encumbered by several extra layers of bureaucracy that the Kiwis simply don't have to deal with...:ugh:

It was pointed out in the Forsyth report that Performance Based Regulation (PBR) is the new mantra for NAA world’s best practice in aviation regulation, a philosophy that best fosters & nurtures an essential industry for any nation’s economic benefit.:D

From executive summary ASRR report:
Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.

A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.This PBR philosophy has been very quickly adopted by the UK and is currently a work in progress. Which brings about a strange dichotomy because we like the UK have a conservative government with a policy of cutting red tape, yet our government seems loathe to implement a PBR approach to our aviation rule set?? Perhaps the AMROBA news article - Delays and International Practices (http://amroba.org.au/AMROBA/Breaking-News/) - best tries to fathom this disconnection:
Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.

CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.

The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.

CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).

CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”

The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.

PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.

Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system…

The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.

To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected…None of which seems to be a problem for the Kiwis who, from all reports, has an industry that is going gang-busters and has been doing so long before EASA & ICAO started singing the praises of PBR.

And that is where the two requests for assistance from CAANZ to our very own ATSB comes in, so here goes my follow the links...;)

To begin from those reports the NZed system for AAI is very unique in that the CAA also holds the responsibility for the receiving of incident/accident reports, while also being responsible for overseeing the investigation according to ICAO Annex 13. Sometimes they delegate the carriage of the investigation to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) but not always, as is evident in the Baron tragedy.

From AE-2013-023:
Further information on the CAA investigation, including an interim factual report on the occurrence can be found on the CAA website, at
www.caa.govt.nz (http://www.caa.govt.nz/), and
www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/N254F-interim.pdf (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/N254F-interim.pdf)
Click on the top link, then click on Accidents and Incidents (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/accidents_and_incidents.htm).

Next go to the RHS index of links & click on Policy and Rules (http://www.caa.govt.nz/policy_rules/policy_rules.html) and go down to the heading Government Support and click on Civil Aviation Act Review (http://www.transport.govt.nz/legislation/acts/civilaviationactreviewqanda/).

This brings up a Ministry Transport webpage which is well worth reading and begins to paint the picture on how & why NZed, like the ALL BLACKs, are light years ahead of us and most of the world when it comes to State aviation safety oversight & regulation.

Finally click on the link in the middle of this extremely refreshing text:
In addition, over the past 20 years, significant change has occurred within government and throughout the international aviation industry. Some of the changes are:
· the flourishing of New Zealand’s aviation business. About $9.7 billion of revenue is now earned by the aviation industry each year – almost as much as the $10.4 billion earned from the country’s dairy industry . The government expects the industry to continue to be a major contributor to economic growth. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the Act is not unnecessarily constraining aviation business in New Zealand and across the globe
· the government’s ‘Better Regulation, Less Regulation’ (external link) (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/regulation/statement)initiative. The review is a response to finding new ways of tackling transport regulation to ensure it is of high quality and implemented in a cost-effective manner
· the Civil Aviation Authority has moved to a more proactive, risk-based approach to aviation regulation. It is implementing a change programme to improve regulatory quality, service delivery, and efficiency and effectiveness. The review provides an opportunity to ensure the Act can support the Civil Aviation Authority to achieve its change programme
· the international aviation industry is changing rapidly due to increased demand for services, improved technology, the increasing cost of jet fuel and environmental concerns. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework supports the needs of a dynamic sectorYou can see from this government treasury webpage that the Kiwis had adopted a PBR & red tape reduction policy long before it even hit the radar of most progressive first world countries…:D

Hmm…meanwhile in our world the out of control big “R” regulator continues to dictate & rule the roost with an archaic, draconian mind-set that threatens to decimate our once proud GA industry…

TICK..TOCK miniscule time to wake up or shove off!:=

ps miniscule Ben has some questions for you that the IOS think you should answer ASAP...:E: Pel-Air: Is 2nd rate crash report good enough for Australia? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/09/22/pel-air-is-2nd-rate-crash-report-good-enough-for-australia/)

pps This comment says it all really...:ugh:
Minister Truss writes in the Courier-Mail (Letters to Editor, 22/9/14) this morning about CASA and Angel Flight. Amongst other things he writes that “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”

ATSB has similar status so I assume that his advice is that he cannot direct it on safety matters either.MTF…:ok:

[Kharon]

Or, T&P if you like. The sterling effort from brother Sarcs above took lots of both; a good job well done and thank you. After reading that, I'm left to wonder how CASA is going to deal with the sniggers and snide remarks made at those expensive international shin-digs.

I can imagine the worlds best, nudging each other as the 'entertainment' shows up; laughing quietly up its collective sleeve at the posturing and pretence exhibited when team Australia stands up, beating its chest and claiming to be a well respected member of the NAA club. It's a very good thing they have Truss conned; for no one else will believe them.

Same-same Beaker – a trend setter, with his very own Beyond Reason approach; listened to politely in public and the subject of derision and ridicule in private. How long before the world NAA begin to publicly humiliate this country? and how long before they start to think that perhaps, with Australia doggedly clinging to a stone age mentality, there may be an accident with some of their nationals on board and take steps to protect their people; even if it's just from the insurance companies.

I find I have neither time nor patience for this bloody awful creature; who claims to be a concerned member of parliament, a champion of the bush and dare even appear in public, claiming to be the final authority on transport. I find it hard to believe that a fully paid minister of the crown can stand up, in public and declare 'he' has no control of CASA. He's the minister for crying out loud; not some gutless, puling clerk in the back office, wringing his sweaty hands, trying to explain to his boss there is a better way.

Truss - “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”

BOLLOCKS !! - Then who can, you painted, decrepit clown? What a deceitful, despicable, back sliding road to take; and this to further disadvantage the disadvantaged, who can't fight back. Further empowering an organisation the minister freely admits, he can't control. Porridge for brains and the backbone of an amoeba. What's next then, hit squads in bush to exterminate those who inconveniently get sick and cannot travel to hospital? or will the minuscule now pay for 'free' RFDS services; or, subsidised air fares? Yeah, right. You may still drink the water here, but don't get sick or be poor; not in Warren's version of the bush anyway.

Ben (Q) - Pel-Air: Is 2nd rate crash report good enough for Australia?

(A) – Well the minuscule, Beaker and their Canadian side kicks seem to think so; I guess we must accept the rulings, made by 'experts', in their own best interest.

That this caricature, this cardboard cut-out of a man with almost unlimited power, will not lift so much a well groomed eyebrow to help anything or anyone is a national disgrace. It's a bigger disgrace that we – the people – allow it.

Meanwhile, we sit back and watch the rest of the worlds aviation counties rules mature and grow, helping industry to be useful, employment and revenue generators, contributing to the national wealth. Shame on you minister and well done America, Britain and New Zealand – yet again.

Selah..

I love a scorched earth country, a land of acid rain, where aircraft plough the paddocks, again and again and again. etc. etc..

[Soteria]

Sarcs, excellent post. Whilst reading it and around two thirds of the way though it I had a lightbulb moment - the reason we Australians are so over regulated, not trusted, micro managed and all treated as being guilty of breaking some kind of aviation rule is because of this - our heritage! We are Convicts!!! You see there is most likely two types of Australians (in the eyes of the idiots responsible for creating our Stasi like existence) - there is the general Aviator, whose ancestry can be traced back to Convicts deported to Australia for minor rule infractions such as stealing a loaf of bread or breaking wind in public (the equivalent today of forgetting to fill in your log book the instant you finish taxiing to the gate, or exceeding flight duty time by 18 seconds, or being colour blind according to CASA standards and Dr Pooshan's interpretation of the rules). Then you have those whose bloodline dates back to those who implemented these Nazi like rules in the first place. Sadly they too live among us today and work in positions of authority where they still believe we are all guilty of a crime before committing it, and as such must be bound and hog tied with red tape, rules and even more rules and add a few more rules on top of that, to ensure that we are not given enough space to even breathe the air that surrounds us.

CASA really just don't get it do they. Suppress the people enough (in this case our aviation industry) and eventually the whole system implodes and scenes of chaos ensue, with the people taking back their streets so to speak. Unfortunately there are signs of this occurring as most of us have had enough of being treated like third rate criminals when in fact we are honest, hard working citizens merely trying to eek out a living from an industry we love. CASA - this is 2014, not 1750. Wake the hell up, get over it, join the real world, please.

[Kharon]

The embuggerance is really starting to be felt at grass roots level. Our PPL and recreational flying folk rarely have to deal with the CASA, in any meaningful way. It's as I said to Quadrio – tell your tale in the pub, people will listen but, as it don't affect them and the yarn will soon be forgotten. If industry does not get a grip, unites and force some sort of meaningful response from Truss, the post below will become so common place as to be unremarkable.

Last chance folks, the clock is ticking and don't ask for whom the bell tolls.
Icon (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/547826-medical-cert-issues-2.html#post8665783)-I have been lurking here for quite some time (look at my join date) and have seen all the CASA bashing statements coming from everyone. Up until 2 weeks ago I though they were all a bunch whiners with nothing better to do, hey I was just a PPL who never had any issues with CASA so what was everyone's problem. Then I got my letter, then I did some research, now I am scared!

[Frank Arouet]

The concept of medical examinations was the RAAF method of weeding out. If they didn't like your family heritage for example, you were washed out for lacking leadership potential or having no demonstrable moral fortitude. This continued into civilian life with DCA and was generationally refined. A pity this wasn't applied to members of parliament.


An aside, I finally bothered to read my RA-Aus magazine for June 2014. Such is my enthusiasm for recreational flying these days. I noted a photo of 2 CAsA Dudes looking "benign". I wonder what that was supposed to portray? I was also sad to read the following financial summary;


2014 2013 2012
Revenue. $1,588,162 $2,369,483 $2,521,951
Expenses. $1,834,202 $2,495,678 $2,302,026
Surplus/Deficit. $ 246,040- $ 126,195- $ 219,925+


It would appear, (but I'm not an accountant), they have lost somewhere near $1Million in revenue in 2 years.


I wonder how the other alphabet soup associations are faring? I wonder if they all have "benign" CAsA dudes hanging about?

[Kharon]

February 15, 2013, Nick Xenophon was on a roll and had his questions all lined up, like good little soldiers. The video - 'man at the back of the room' - posted by Sarcs is an end play of an elaborate dance, at the very end of an interesting passage of play – to wit; the stoic, albeit nervous denial of collusion. Farq-u-hardson was the anointed maestro of smoke and mirrors, with his two willing aides (White loading the wagon and Chambers shovelling the 'data') to make sure of a smooth passage. Then Nick poses the questions – to the maestro - and McComic steams to the rescue.

5. HANSARD PG 18 – 19.

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Farquharson, do you have the minutes of the accident investigation committee of 18 November 2011 handy?

Mr McCormick: Can you give us a couple of minutes in which to look? We have got substantial amounts of paperwork.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure.

Mr McCormick: Sorry, what was the date again?

Senator XENOPHON: 18 November 2011.

Mr McCormick: I sincerely doubt it. That is not something which we considered. But we could have a look.

Senator XENOPHON: I have only got my note of it.

Mr Farquharson: No.

Senator XENOPHON: You don't have it?

Mr Farquharson: Not the 18th.

Senator XENOPHON: My understanding is that the minutes show, Mr Farquharson, that you were to meet with ATSB to see if ATSB had changed its position. Would that ring a bell?

Mr McCormick: We will have to take that on notice, sorry. We have to refer to the minutes.

Senator XENOPHON: If I can put it to you in those terms that, if that is the case, it shows that there is an element of influence on the part of CASA with respect to the ATSB?

McCormick [We] did not provide that report to anyone. We did not provide the report outside—I am talking about the CASA accident report—we did not provide that report as we naturally would not do until the ATSB demanded it of us under section 32. Refers CAIR 093. (My bold)

These questions, amongst other were taken on notice by McComic. Then we have a wait, until March 01, 2013 for the second supplementary submission to be presented, which runs about the houses and provides some very entertaining, artistic, creative paragraphs; even manages to laud the Chambers knock off of Messrs Cook, Christie and Watson definitive reports while having a slap at the "so called" Cook report. Not a bad effort – if you like that sort of twaddle. But the answers to the questions (QON) must be provided, so March 24, 2013 the response to QON arrives.

• Question 5: Hansard, pages 18-19, from Senator Xenophon ( CASA influence over ATSB) is covered in Sections 2 and 4 of CASA's Second Supplementary Submission.

Now then, if patience, constitution and fortitude allows it; you must read parts 2 and 4 of the CASA supplementary to winnow your answers.

Out of human kindness; I'll tell you the answer to the riddle of the missing minutes. There ain't one; and the missing minutes remain concealed from public view. Nick and his team may have a copy saved from the shredder; but no one else has seen those precious minutes, which may just contain the vital clue to the great mystery of why a safety recommendation was diminished. I for one would like to see them; but better still, now that Terry is the 'guv'nor' for him bring in the missing minutes in and to answer directly, under oath, those questions posed to him by Xenophon, taken on notice by McComic and explain why the non-answers were returned, buried under a pile of twaddle.

Could it be someone is having a lend of Xenophon; or is he just playing possum – I wonder? Perhaps shy sentinel can provide the answers – who knows. Life's little puzzles eh??

Research data – ONE (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees/commsen/c39d0215-da6b-4552-8460-3d9c98401d9f/0001;query=Id:%22committees/commsen/c39d0215-da6b-4552-8460-3d9c98401d9f/0000%22)– TWO (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=11acb754-8001-4605-a7be-23ae867932cd) – THREE (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=6e93bbd1-a72b-4233-bbd3-17d67fcd6a1c).

Toot toot..

[Sarcs]

For the benefit of those amongst us more inclined to moving pictures and the many nuances therein; here is the vid passage for your entertainment...;)

Senate AAI Inquiry 15 February 2013 - CASA obfuscation of ATSB CSI - YouTube

Kharon - I for one would like to see them; but better still, now that Terry is the 'guv'nor' for him bring in the missing minutes in and to answer directly, under oath, those questions posed to him by Xenophon, taken on notice by McComic and explain why the non-answers were returned, buried under a pile of twaddle.
Hmmm...perfect opportunity for the Ag (currently carrying the can) DAS to clear the air on the missing minutes, when he presents before the committee on 20 October at Supp Estimates...:E

Here I was thinking that on the PelAir - Timeline of Embuggerance (TOE) - the cupboard was pretty bare after 22 July 2010 where the AgDAS emailed to the DAS, quote from my post - TOE (P3.5) cont/- (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-111.html#post8617665) :However the next email reply (4 days later) from the (obfuscating) DDAS seems to be where everything went South for the next two years??

“…is comfortable with the report's content, to the extent that it correlates with the AAT material to be submitted shortly and that there are no differences that can be highlighted by the opposing legal team…”

People can fill in the blanks but basically the report (CAIR 09/3) matched the evidence (ducks in a row) intended to be presented at the AAT, except the opposing legal team did fervently contest this evidence. Hmm…wonder if the opposing legal team were privy to CAIR 09/3 in its entirety?
After this statement from the former DAS...

"....We did not provide that report to anyone. We did not provide the report outside—I am talking about the CASA accident report—we did not provide that report as we naturally would not do until the ATSB demanded it of us under section 32..."

I now wonder if the CAIR 09/3 was indeed requested by the bureau under s32 and if so when was this request made?? It would appear from the AgDAS (then DDAS) email that he was never going to freely give it up...

“…When (redacted) has confirmed the fuel calculations, would like to discuss in general the report with ATSB. In any discussions (redacted) would not provide the ATSB with a copy of the report but would talk about the salient points. This is in keeping with the spirit of the MOU…”

I also question the veracity of a statement from the AgDAS a bit further along in the Hansard (approx. 05:30 in the vid): Senator XENOPHON: Yes, but there was a lead-up to that. The downgrading occurred as a result of a number of representations. How many times did you meet with the ATSB to discuss CASA's views about whether it should be a critical safety issue or not? It was clearly the view of CASA that it should not be a critical safety issue. Is that right?

Mr Farquharson : The CASA view was that the legislative approach the ATSB were proposing at the time could not be achieved and in our responses we pointed out to them an amount of information and that these decisions come down to airmanship and the responsibilities of the captain when airborne. They were the two positions taken.
Beyond that the next we heard, that I am aware of, was when the safety issue was formally downgraded by the commission on 16 August 2012— Especially when you consider this part of my previous (in particular the Annex A link) post above: Which says to me that the DAS (at least) was expecting the bureau (as is normal procedure) to soon publish an interim report on at least the CSI. It was just a matter of whether that would be in the form of a SR or an SI. This assumption by the DAS was also reinforced by the fact that a month before his ‘white hats’ had drafted NPRM 1003 OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os.pdf) and he had personally endorsed the proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 (Annex A (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os.pdf)).
Nah surely it can't be that our now (acting or not) fearless leader would dare to mislead the good Senators and indeed the IOS, hmm maybe he just had a forgettery moment...:E

Maybe in the interest of probity the AgDAS, along with being armed with the minutes, could also clear this strange conundrum up at the Sup Estimates, after all the buck currently stops with the AgDAS...:rolleyes:

Addendum - AQON links

By the way for those interested the AQONs for the last Budget Estimates have finally been released...:D

Here are the relevant links of most interest:

229 - 240 Aviation and Airports (AAA)(PDF 180KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/AAA.pdf))QoN230A-B (PDF 106KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/attachments/QoN230A_B.pdf))

241 - 257 Airservices Australia (AA)(PDF 256KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/Airservices.pdf))

258 - 262 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)(PDF 92KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/ATSB.pdf))

263 - 273 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)(PDF 157KB (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/CASA.pdf))

From the ATsB AQONs in regards to TSBC peer review Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: Was this committee's report into the Pel-Air incident provided to the TSB? Is that one of the documents that the TSB is looking at?

Mr Dolan: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: I take it, Chair, we have not been contacted by the TSB. No, we have not. Was any view proffered as to whether the Senate committee should be contacted in respect of their report and in respect of the incident?

Mr Dolan: We provided the report to the TSB and left it to them.

Senator XENOPHON: Are you able to provide the committee on notice a list of the material, documents and any correspondence in respect to the matters that the committee was considering?

Mr Dolan: Yes. I can give you a list of all material that was provided by us to the TSB.
Answer:
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) of its own initiative obtained a copy of the committee’s report. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) provided the following material to the TSB:
• ATSB Safety Investigation Quality System Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigation Policy and Procedures Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigation Guidelines Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigations Tools Manual;
• ATSB Safety Investigation Information Management System access;
• ATSB organisation chart;
• Final Report of the Safety Oversight Audit of the Civil Aviation System of Australia (February 2008);
• Summary of ATSB actions in response to the International Civil Aviation Organization Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program 2008 Audit Findings;
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Post-occurrence Special Audit of PelAir;
• Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (February 2010);
• International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 13 – Electronic Filing of Differences (July 2010);
• The Chambers Report: Oversight Deficiencies – PelAir and Beyond (August 2010);
• Memorandum of Understanding between the ATSB and the Department of Defence Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety for Cooperation relating to Transport Safety Investigation (February 2013); and
• Government Response to the Report into Aviation Accident Investigations (March 2014).MTF...:ok:

[PAIN_NET]

'K' as requested – an un shredded version.

P4. a.k.a. The Ferret.....:ok:

http://www51.zippyshare.com/scaled/22543981/file.html

[Kharon]

- Like selective deafness, is an acquired art; learned at the teat by 'crats and perfected over the years. Once the Canucks have gotten past the stultifying 'manual and protocol suite' and get onto the juicy stuff; will the beauty be in the eye of the beholder. It's a question of view point; that which abhorrent to one man, may easily be seen as the very quintessence of elegance to another. As our safety 'bodies' view their output as 'perfection', is it reasonable to assume that like minded Canuck 'crats will find the same perfection in the dissembling, obfuscated ramblings our 'crats hold up for scrutiny? Because if they do, dismiss any notion of an independent, constructive return report being provided. The reading list includes:-

• Final Report of the Safety Oversight Audit of the Civil Aviation System of Australia (February 2008);

• Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Post-occurrence Special Audit of PelAir;

• The Chambers Report: Oversight Deficiencies – PelAir and Beyond (August 2010);

• Government Response to the Report into Aviation Accident Investigations (March 2014).

The not so subtle influence to take the line of least resistance is apparent throughout the reading set and you can see how it will be worked. From the CASA supplementary (my bold):-

2.6 The two Human Factors experts contributing to the work of the Special Audit team were Mr Ben Cook, then Manager of CASA's Human Factors Section, and Mr Malcolm Christie, another CASA Human Factors Specialist. Like other members of the Special Audit team, their role was to examine and analyse those aspects of Pel-Air's operations in respect of which they had particular expertise, and to provide input into the final audit report on that basis.

You will note the Canadian omission of expert reports and interviews; it is reasonable to ask why. The answers follow shortly, if you ignore 'selective' reading.

2.8 In this case, the so-called 'Cook Report' was a subordinate contributory piece of evaluative work from which the Coordinator of the Pel-Air Special Audit team, Mr Roger Chambers, then Area Manager of CASA's Bankstown Office, could, (and did) draw on, in his preparation of the final authoritative Pel-Air Special Audit Report.

Read paragraph 2.8 again, properly. The dismissive ("so called") attitude to the report of a qualified expert was to be reduced to only the 'elements' selected by the acting area manager who was free, even encouraged to plagiarise and cherry pick to achieve the desired outcome. Cook's missive, in full is a crucial report to anyone remotely interested in operational safety. Is Wodger qualified to be 'selective'; not on your Nelly. You may also note that there is no mention, whatsoever of Christie, which of it's self is 'passing strange'.

2.9 As he quite properly did with the submissions of all members of the Audit Team, Mr Chambers included in the final Pel-Air Special Audit Report those elements of Mr Cook's assessment that were germane to the audit. Material was excluded only on that basis and in accordance with generally applicable audit protocols. Accordingly, relevant FRMS-related findings in Mr Cook's assessment appear consistently in the corresponding sections of the Special Audit Report.

Try again – same-same – hand picked 'elements', 'germane' why carve up the report, when, standing alone the whole would be beneficial. But no, once again selective reading is influenced by selected parts.

4.9 Of course, at the time there was no 'Chambers Report' to which Mr McCormick might have referred. However, having advised the Chief Commissioner of CASA's intentions, the existence of information-and the likelihood that there would be further information of a kind that could be said to fall within the broad scope of paragraph 4.4.6 of the MoU-was conveyed to the ATSB on 26 May 2010.

Interesting – Cook gets bundled out after producing a 'so called' report; but the Chambers missive is granted the accolade of being 'a report'. This is a canny ploy; the expert rendered nugatory, the plagiarist nudged forward as the 'ultimate' expert. Read that selectively.

You know, I could, possibly care less about the Canuck report – if I tried. My Grand Mamma was a whiz at card games and a naturally gifted amateur magician who delighted us children with card tricks and sleight of hand (some say this was due to a forbidden liaison with a vaudeville stage magician). Grand carefully educated those who were interested in how to spot a stacked deck, a marked card and many of the card sharps tricks of trade.

Some say – "there's one born every minute, Hallelujah".

Some sources claim the quote is most likely from famous con-man Joseph ("Paper Collar Joe") Bessimer, and other sources say it was actually uttered by David Hannum, spoken in reference to Barnum's part in the Cardiff Giant hoax. Hannum, who was exhibiting the "original" giant and had unsuccessfully sued Barnum for exhibiting a copy and claiming it was the original, was referring to the crowds continuing to pay to see Barnum's exhibit even after both it and the original had been proven to be fakes.

Toot toot...;)

[thorn bird]

Why would we be surprised kharon, anyone who joins CAsA is automatically anointed as "Expert".

Look through a few AAT proceedings.

Real experts, with real qualifications and real experience from industry, are largely ignored, in favour of CAsA experts made up of people who couldn't be employed by industry because they require competent people, or RAAF failures who's progression in the RAAF had stalled because they also needed competent people.

Same same the way they selectively massage statistics to promote the Myth that Australian aviation, because of CAsA oversight, is the safest in the world.

[Kharon]

Thorny – "Real experts, with real qualifications and real experience from industry, are largely ignored, in favour of CAsA experts"

Sadly, very true in many instances, but not all. It's the white hats v black hats war. From where you sit Thorny, you don't need to look very far to see two classic examples of the war in action. The quality of service and advice is very variable. If we ever manage to establish a board and anoint a new CEO and enter the phase of 'reform' as recommended by Senate and Rev. Forsyth, that will only impact the 'soft' top layer. The real issue, for me at least, is in addressing the very real mess in the lower layers.

Real reform needs to be generated from the top and made to penetrate all the way down to the very bottom. Strong, honest leadership from the top must encourage the 'white hats'; (those who have not resigned and left feeling dirty and disgusted), to step up to the mark and start 'persuading' the black hats to "return to industry", then the deadwood needs to be lopped and coppiced. Little rats nests of vermin need to be excised along with their 'leader'. The new boss of CASA will, as a matter of urgency, need to address the small issues first, if and it's a big IF, any sort of regulatory reform is to be effective. Mostly the howls for – regulatory reform – are used as a convenient cover for reform of the regulator. We have limped along with the old regulations for a long while and, in the right hands, they could remain serviceable for a few more years; provided those 'administering' the regulation were competent, honest folk. Regrettably, those are in the minority..

Take Part 61 for example or 145 if you prefer and see 'who' was the significant draftsman at the base, who drove the 'philosophy' on which the regulation is based, that research will answer many of your questions. Particularly the "who dreamt up this crock" one.

Back in the day, some of the very best rule sets we have were rooted in a 'sound' philosophy, the actual drafting of the rules reflected that intelligence, expertise and honesty. Some of the 'modern' stuff is not based on such expertise but on whimsy, 'personal' preference and the sort of bollocks junior pilots espouse in the mess room. Read the Australian 61 again against the NZ 61 and you shall see the benefit of researching the radical cause of the 61 catastrophe.

If you can spare the time and patience – try a little experiment – ask two of the most junior, least experienced (life and aviation) pilots to draft a part to go into the COM; say for routine, on line proficiency checks, tell them it must be 'black letter legal'. When you get the thing back, you shall see exactly how the part 61 abomination was cobbled together; true dat..

Anyway – I doubt any of us will live long enough to even see a response to the Senate effort, let alone anything more recent. We'll; just keep bumping along the bottom, trying to survive and find a way to avoid the garbage thrown into the once clear stream. Unless of course someone steps up and calls for a clean up drive. We may live in hope, but with little certainty and bugger all faith. Anyone in NZ need a slightly battered driver – airframe; will work for beer, baccy and a new pair of boots at Christmas???

Selah.

PS – TB. The pub wants it's lampshade back. Mrs Pub is miffed..:D

[Greedy]

Kharon,
Mr Wodger Wabbit is indeed a manipulator of information to suit his own agenda. One of my little experiences with him recently was his denial of an investigation into a Check Captain who threatened to alter the result of a Line Check from a pass to a fail after the successful conclusion of the check.Form already filled in and everything! He did this after I made complaint to him concerning the inconsistency of the company Training and Checking system.
Mr Wabbit denied investigation because "all CASA could do is ask the Check Captain for his version of events".
I then complained to the CASA ICC providing a copy of the company report which stated the Check Captain made "inappropriate comments".
The CASA ICC response was "I cannot help you".
This is not a "buggers muddle" but the deliberate concealment of inconvenient truths to suit a predetermined outcome.
Greedy

[Frank Arouet]

Unfortunately the ICC was intended to be used as another hurdle that had to be jumped before you could make a complaint to The Commonwealth Ombudsman who required all other avenues of redress be explored prior. Mr Hart was one Commissioner who took his job seriously and learnt that CAsA didn't want any negative outcomes. I'd be surprised if his departure was for any other reason than he was thus compromised. The subsequent positions have, in my opinion, been filled (pardon the pun), by "suitable appointments.


The ICC should be treated as a joke and ridiculed accordingly. Further, I am of the opinion, The Commonwealth Ombudsman has been compromised via cronyism from within LSD.

[thorn bird]

By "suitable" you don't mean someone to share a toothbrush with do you Frank?

[Soteria]

The ICC is a crock of ****. It became 'compromised' after Mr Hart left. He was a decent, honest, transparent Commissioner. Just the type of Commissioner that industry needs, but not the type of Commissioner a despicable corrupt government wants. Hart saw the light and bolted. It was a sad day for anyone who has ever fronted the ICC since. After Hart left, the foul tempered Skull along with Dr Voodoo and the A380 pensioner finally got to tinker with the structure and stack it in their favour. All with the backing of the equally culpable and palpable Board. The biggest joke of all to anybody with an 'inside understanding of Australia's finest Regulator' was the 'working relationship' between Herr Skull and Hampton. So CASA, it's Directors, the CASA Board, the ICC, MrDak, Truss, and a host of other CASA Managers, a handful of the PMC spin doctors, the lot of them, are a bad joke who make honesty, integrity and transparency look like something that only belongs to a Disney fantasy film. The entire Australian version of the Westminster system has been manipulated, twisted, diverted and corrupted from what it's core purpose was. This is not new. This has been a century in the making and what we now have is a hybrid beast which has morphed from something with integrity to an untouchable and indestructible corrupt system that well serves this lands Masters but treats its citizens like 18th century criminals, even when innocent. It is legalised bullying and buggery, accepted and embraced by the highest office in our land. As Frank would say, it's time for civil disobedience, it's the only way.

[thorn bird]

Soteria,

I gather you are a tad pissed off?

Speaking of Hampton, how would she be addressed, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mistress??

[Soteria]

Thorny, pissed off with corruption and incompetence mate. I've touched on corruption mostly in my previous post, but Part 61 is another clusterf#ck of incompetence that is set to add tens of thousands of dollars worth of unnecessary burden onto helicopter operators, regardless of what that bearded CASA fool Gibson has to say.

Speaking of Hampton, how would she be addressed, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mistress?? :E

[thorn bird]

Same same for fixed wing mate, I think you are understating the costs but, hundreds of thousands would be closer to the mark. Part 61 as another sage has said will be the devils playground for FOI's.

I always thought the point was to "Standardise"

Part 61 will drive the "Opinion" of the FOI to stratospheric heights of absurdity.

We are already having to operate with unsafe procedures according to the script we must follow.

I really dread whats next.

[Frank Arouet]

WW2 aircraft, Handley Page: also manufacturer of Bicycle. A vehicle with a "tubularish" frame mounted sometimes upright on two points of usually circumferential dimension one behind the other or horizontally if not in immediate use. The rider sits on the saddle, propels the vehicle by means of pedals that drive the rear chain gear through foot motion and steers with handlebars on the front of the vehicle sometimes cushioned for comfort. (Also known as bike). Flying version subject to CAsA interpretation of the definition and not subject to DAMP testing.

[Soteria]

Frank,
mounted sometimes upright on two points of usually circumferential dimension one behind the other or horizontally if not in immediate use. The rider sits on the saddle The Skull at the ICC?

[ROTOR BLAST]

Elizabeth (aka Libby) Hampton came from the Conflict Resolution Deparment at Telstra. Became the ICC stroking her pearl necklace wondering what to do about more than 60% of the complaints she had on her rosewood desk from CASA people complaining about each other. She now is making her mark at Customs and Excise.
Where is J Mac now? Comfortably ensconced in Montreal. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

And that may explain the missing Canadian TSB report.

[Kharon]

Frank I doubt the Canucks will "report", be more like the whimpering, mewling noises one of those wet, almost silent farts makes, in an attempt to beat the SF separator check system.
Greedy –"Mr Wodger Wabbit is indeed a manipulator of information to suit his own agenda.
That particular McComic devotee, one of the really willing accomplices, has had a metaphorical 'red dot' on his forehead for a number of years in the form of a paper trail about five mile wide; more of a swathe really. There are internal and external queues waiting for a suitable platform or venue to present one of the most sordid stories, amongst the many from the McComic years. Standing alone our Wodger and some of his 'mates' are worthy candidates for investigation by Royal Commission; or, better yet a Fawcett led Senate inquiry.

This is not a "buggers muddle" but the deliberate concealment of inconvenient truths to suit a predetermined outcome. Greedy
Amen to that – buts it's only one of the very many grubby little tales emanating from the McComic era; rushed, pre prepared paper work, with many 'errors' made by our happy little band. Perhaps Wodgers next 'expert' speech to the RAeS could be dedicated to how to manipulate both system and law to obtain the 'desired result'.

TB "Speaking of Hampertop, how would she be addressed, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mistress??"
Another willing accomplice. I reckon the Sunday papers would have a field day asking that question; with photographs, one taken in each outfit accompanying the racy, ribald expose. (BRB voted favourite is the all leather 'Mistress' one).

Sot –"[unnecessary] burden onto helicopter operators, regardless of what that bearded CASA fool Gobson has to say."
Easy one for a good barrister, public statement, documented and recorded for posterity. Another willing accomplice, happily doing deals with the devil, enchanted by dreams of the fortune and glory, gifted by enslavement to the McComic system.

There are several others worthy of mention, they are a little smarter than our protagonists here, not so easily traceable and astute enough to realise that one day, the whole mess would be exposed to public scrutiny and covered their tracks. The big question for them is of course, has the covering been good enough to fool an expert tracker?

Time will tell and we shall see, I expect; but it is all rather disgusting, ain't it?

Aye well – better clean up the decks, if we are to have guests that is: the last lot left a hellish mess behind...Toot toot.

[Ziggychick]

So...

Seeing with my own eyes, from may last year, Sharp and Truss have been working together, enhancing REX, whilst under investigation is reasonably questionable.
Knowing that REX donated 250k to the Political parties, just before the release of the ATSB report on Pel-Air. There had been NO DONATIONS since 2004. Long absence, timing is questionable.
The cutting of a REX Aircraft cake with a shiny knife, holding hands and smiling, close to the same place NGA broke in two is sickening and insensitive.
Your welcome REX/Pel-Air!
Pel-Air glorified by Sharp until realisation of "oh ****" this is not good. Questionable
Pel-Air are found to be FACTUALLY well and truly an incompetent operator. Historically and in November 2009. No more gloating from Sharp. Questionable
CASAs own report, again, "oh ****" this reflect poorly on CASAs oversight.
ATSB report. A deflection of the truth. Questionable
Senate. Once again, kept quiet, apart from the aviation audience really.
No recommendations to date. FIRST RECOMMENDATION, No. Questionable
Truss commissioned report. ASRR. Final release, with comments. Not yet. Questionable
Canucks invited to do "INDEPENDENT" report on methodologies, blah blah. Over a year ago. Before commencement, dialogue personally with Canuck Boss. Told when team assembled, and on Oz ground, they will contact us. We (occupants of NGA) were to be interviewed, initially. March, 2014 I ask, where are you, have you been and gone? Dialogue swift change to the versed MoU between Canuck and ATSB. Refer any questions to the ATSB. Yeah right.
Asked recently about the release date. Editing needs to be completed. By whom. Canuck replies, ATSB, CASA. Canuck then said..."speak with ATSB if you have any concerns. Report will hopefully be ready by Canucky Autumn. Geez, thanks.
Had hope with the NTSB. What lies beneath.
This is NOT an independent review!!
Accidentally put through to NTSB Media. Spoke with fellow, he had no idea about the investigation. Told him and he asked for an email. Send, send, send.
Every avenue needs to be explored if we want to continue to have the truth.
Aviation Safety, needs special attention. Industry input required.

Truss may not be able to change regulation, CASA should have a postcode like the Vatican. Protected by their own written laws. Which can change as they please. Distorted how they wish. Absent as they were and still are. Enter insurance companies. This is one hell of a sick game.

Exit McSkull. Leaving a trail of destructive lies whilst he sits comfortably, no conscious, job well done. Enjoy your retirement. Pat on the back by the blinded mass media. Not informed of the Aviation situation, therefore not concerned.

Good one MM. Spoke to you too. Confirmed twice verbally, no protection prior to ditching, no law protection post. Montreal, Common, Jurisdiction. Insurers for P/A are having a fine time playing the Insurance Aviation Game of Shame. To me it feels like a Slow, painful punishment. I believe (as do many others in the same situation) that their tactics are to make the matter so drawn out in time, financially cripple, handcuff your life, with the intent of beating down, a snail pace of murdering. Greedy lot. Bring it!

Shadow Albo, turned his back on us. Whilst in office, didn't even have the report on his desk. True. Have proof in FOI.

ShaTruss are entwined for the benefit of an airline involved in an International Crash. First of its kind in the country. REX/Pel-Air get there **** together, with the little helping hand. Once again, your welcome! Sharps history as Minister for Tpt would certainly help dampen the "incident".

The creation of ShaTruss begins. On ya REX. Glad to see you are doing well. Keep drowning the voices that lived. Long ago and insignificant now.
My voice will soon boom. The Aviation Industry's Voices are booming. The voices needs to be heard. Not ignored. Learning, advancement, keeping large and small Aviation business alive, not creating Monopolies that influence our Gov'Mutts and Guv'Mutes. It can be done, safely.

As DP, Truss may not be able to break through to the CASA Castle with the Bureaucrats lazy, unaccountable laws regarding regulation...BUT...

He has the authority to release reports. Its in his job description.
Push and shove us, we push shove back!
Mr Truss HAS the authority to release reports. He just has to say it!

Simple Request from your concerned citizens. Just do it. Release and rectify with transparency. Unedited please Mr Truss. Mrdak, pointless even trying to get through to you. Please keep your hands off the Canucks report. The MrDak stamp of approved crap is not required.

Unfriggin believable, all of this. What is going on?

EH- you are next to explain this mess. Start reading! Long, complex and disturbing.
Contact you soon.


Stay safe in those magnificent flying machines all.

Ziggy

[Frank Arouet]

This post highlights what many have been fighting for so long without much to show for the effort. It's too simplistic to say CAsA is running a protection racket for "compliant" organizations who have been shown to be unsafe to the very real and tangible wellbeing of the travelling public. Indeed too many lives have been wasted by waxing over one accident so that nothing is learnt to prevent the next. We can highlight this concept with a time line starting, (just for example), with Seaview, progressing to Monarch, progressing to Whyalla, progressing to Lockhart River, progressing to Pel Air...etc.. etc..


The real problem is cronyism at all levels of government and industry. We will possibly see and confirm this if someone from Kowloon gets the DAS job. We probably see this now with the Canadian report and we can say with a degree of accuracy that the mix of characters across the spectrum with Rex is a valid observation. Politicians won't help you obviously. They are thin on loyalty excepting only if you are powerful enough to keep them in power.


It's nothing to do with mates rates, more like a secret society with funny handshakes and this needs to be addressed by someone outside of Australia. The UN sticks out like a sore thumb and specifically the convention on human rights. Tim Wilson at Australian Human Rights Commission is probably the best start point. He has yet to be tarnished and has instant UN access. If that fails, cc the complaint to head office in Geneva or wherever is home these days for that lot.


It simply needs someone with enough real person signatures and identities to make the complaint.


Even Slater and Gordon will take this on if the complainants agree on a common theme and there's a quid in it for them. Past approaches have failed because the Australian aviation industry is full of "alpha" male and female players who, if locked in a room by themselves would all agree the system is crooked but wouldn't in a million years come up with a common goal. They would end up killing each other after the third drink.


I've seen it all before. the last time about 3 months was wasted fighting over the acronym that best suited the purpose. Christ! No wonder I gave up.


In my Army days an appreciation was simple;


1) Situation.. Well we know about that.
2) Mission.. This is tricky. It should be one sentence.
3) Execution.. How do we go about achieving the mission. UN perhaps.
4) Admin and logistics.. Well, book keepers and note takers are needed.
5) Command and control.. Faaark! "alpha" males (and females). This is where you loose me.


When you lot can agree to a mission statement and commander, let me know. Until then, I'll just hang around for therapy.


BTW. I have no case that CAsA needs answer to me. My matter was settled years ago. Indeed I could say I had a win of sorts, (only cost me money. I retained my sense of humor) and still talk with some from the factory. However I can see what the problem is, and although many ask my opinion personally, few take notice to act on my advice. I can only support your efforts and urge you to maintain the impetus. You are, what we call in the Army, divided, and as such you will be conquered.


Kick some arse Ziggy, they need a job and a leader.

[Kharon]

The answer to a question asked of a minister in the house of reps caught my attention -

Small business Minister Bruce Billson QWN :

Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, will you inform the House of the action you are taking to cut the red-tape burden for the 13,000 small businesses in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast and how you are also assisting hardworking small businesses right across Australia?

Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:08): It is great to get a question from the member for Fisher. Isn't it great to have him back in this parliament? What a great representative. The member for Fisher would know that we are well on our way to implementing an election commitment—a crucial election commitment to cut $1 billion worth of— red tape and compliance costs out of the economy, as a central part of our Economic Action Strategy.

There can be no contest about the need for this red-tape reduction task. You might remember, Madam Speaker, when the Labor government was initially elected, they promised one in, one out. That was the commitment. But after spectacularly failing to achieve that ambition, they thought they would change the goal posts. And then it was about a regulation count. When we reminded the previous government that they had implemented 21,000 new and amended regulations, they then said, 'We don't like that way of measuring the red-tape burden either.'

But who could argue with The World Economic Forum's assessment? Who could forget that, after six years of Labor, the Australian economy is 128th in the world in terms of the burden of government regulation. There are only 127 other economies that have less gummed-up impact of government regulation than our own. This is why this red-tape reduction task is a whole-of-government obligation, where every minister is making a contribution and where every portfolio is making a contribution. Regulatory burdens land no more heavily than on small businesses. The small businesses of Fisher, as we travel around and talk with them, describe this overwhelming compliance obligation that takes them away from growing their business and nurturing opportunities in their electorate.

This is why Labor contributed so much in its red-tape overreach to 519,000 jobs lost in small business under Labor. We have started well: We have more than $700 million worth of compliance savings already announced and already booked, but we have to keep that momentum going. We have seen 300,000 small businesses relieved of unnecessary PAYG and also BAS reporting obligations. We have seen the need to improve and fix the overreach in the Personal Property Security Register. We have seen changes in the area of franchising—all of these aimed at reducing the red tape burden.

We have in the Senate another opportunity to end the burden on business being the double-handler of paid parental leave payments. There is another $48 million worth of red-tape savings to be had there for businesses big and small for the not-for-profit obligations. We are evangelical about our work in relieving small businesses of that red-tape burden and re-energising enterprise, realising that these businesses need to be world-class every day to thrive and prosper. That is the discipline we should apply to our task, and not do what Labor did—whenever there was a problem, after spending all the money that was left from Howard government, just go and add some more regulation to it and hope it goes away. We are the only friends small business has in this chamber. (My bold)
The statement "We are the only friends small business has in this chamber." set the old wheels in motion, why is Truss not addressing some of the burden for aviation along the same lines as the minister for small business?.

Apart from the 'heavies' a high percentage of aviation businesses could be seen as 'small' – in the strict sense. No doubt the benefits of the 'red-tape' reform will be passed along and will assist but 'small aviation' needs an additional layer of protection.

The industry is capital intensive, the commercial risks are high, the returns relatively low. Industry accepts that as a given and continues – anyway. But, there is no similar rhetoric from Truss relating to removing the additional onerous burdens and stresses CASA force upon industry. No other small business is as ruthlessly persecuted to maintain absolute blind, unchallenging obedience to an arcane, becoming ridiculous rule set – without recourse. No other industry is 'self funding' to degree demanded of aviation. Imagine trying to sell that to 'small business' while telling them that if and when it pleases the 'regulator', they fund, chooses to close them down, they will.

I am uncertain of the number of jobs lost and the taxable revenue now unavailable to government due to forced closure of aviation business during the McComic era, when a scourge akin to Ebola swept through; but it was plenty. The accident rates have nor reduced due to this philosophy, the skies are no safer, the red tape mounts, the regulation more manically determined on micro management – for why?? and where is the minuscule ? and what is it doing?

'Our' minuscule, unlike Mr Billson, continues to sit, snoozing or staring into space and will not, unlike like Billson raise a finger to help a dying industry. At least Billson acknowledges the value of 'small business'. It was refreshing to hear a little heat, just a few words from a minister; even if it's all hot air, at least Billson is 'seen' to be having a go – with some passion.

I just wonder if the ostrich like Truss hopes the Senate will, once again, dig his chestnuts out of the fire. There are a few in the flames:-

The medical issues, not just the CVD troops, but an entire range of incompetence, embuggerance and ineptitude managed by an unaccountable megalomaniac. A CASA in miniature.

The regulatory issues: parts 61 and 145 for example. Gods alone know what the true, total cost to industry is as it struggles to (a) comprehend the rubbish and (b) try to find a way of compliance which will ensure the commercial viability and legal safety of their businesses.

There are outstanding, serious matters related to the manner in which industry is managed and regulated, which have not been acknowledged for almost a twelve month now, let alone addressed.

There are grave concerns regarding the quality and value of our accident investigating; not only ignored, but wilfully disregarded.

There are huge problems in the manner and method in which aerodrome matters are managed and manipulated, with only the thickness of a cigarette paper between a major, damaging scandal exploding all over the government.

Well Bravo Mr. Billson, you set a fine example for our own shiftless, lazy, dithering inutile Minister to follow; and, you publicly shame him by that example. Would you consider accepting a charge to take one more branch of the small business tree under your umbrella? Then we could just step around the Truss roadblock and appeal to a Minister who seems to take his job seriously; for we certainly do need a friend, in deed, in the Australian parliament.

Truss and Australia have got it very, very wrong and before you call Bull-pooh; just have a look across the Tasman and see the difference.

Selah...

[thorn bird]

Kharon,


don't suppose you have a page count of OZ Part 61 compared with the kiwi's and the FAR's do you? I believe that alone will show how over regulated we are.

[Kharon]

Thorny - Last I looked 79 (80 ish) about one tenth 1/10 the Australian super version of over 800 pages (excluding the 800 odd pages of MOS, to explain, the inexplicable). Thank you John and the boys for a national embarrassment.

[Soteria]

Ziggy chick, I agree, the relationship between Sharp and government is disgusting, and 'interesting'.
As for the almost impossible task of closing out a handful of NCN's in a handful of days, well it defies belief and is simply not possible. CASA will not/do not act that fast, I can assure you of this. It would never occur in a day or two of receiving an operators response. It simply does not happen, ever. The Inspector/Team Leader has to, at a minimum, review the operator response, share this with his audit team, discuss, then agree to close it out and pass that closure recommendation on to his Field Office Manager or equivalent, for approval. It all has to be 'trimmed', an admin officer drafts up a letter of response to the operator and then that letter is signed at a high level in CASA prior to being sent to the operator! All this in perhaps 2 to 3 days????? Yeah right. I think the Royal Commission should start now!

Also Ziggy, here is the link to Albo's famous Great White Elephant 2009, the collectors addition. To save you from boredom and being nauseated just skip to Page 87-88, the section 'Air Operators Liabilty Insurance'. The Governments weasel like wording and dribble is truly infuriating and pathetic. Not surprisingly people such as yourself cop the pineapple while the government, the airline, and the insurer are protected.

WARNING! This policy contains no real actions, no substance, no commitments and no value. It does however contain pages of pretty pictures, lots of colours and fancy photography - a hit with preschoolers and public servants;

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/publications/pdf/Aviation_White_Paper_final.pdf

Footnote: This 'paper', once printed, makes for a very hardy, robust and soft toilet paper. Especially after one has read the Great White Paper back to front and is feeling ill, or one has a damaged rectum from repetitive CASA pineapples!

[Kharon]

Sot –"Also Ziggy, here is the link to Albo's famous Great White Elephant 2009, the collectors addition."

Way I heard it was Wuss is enamoured of Albo's great white elephant and wants to keep it, warm and safe. His minions all think this is a splendid idea; but the grown-ups are being difficult. Like any other spoiled child, he's sulking and keeping his toys to himself.

Someone needs a smack bottom.

[Kharon]

I have managed to persuade the PAIN associates to release part of an unedited 'Draft' version of their submission made to the ASRR. The final edited version was completed from the draft version released – HERE (http://www50.zippyshare.com/v/1205797/file.html) - with various supportive attachments and two 'confidential' supplementary submissions. There is no parliamentary privilege covering the final version, however, detailed submissions by associates were considered sensitive.

I believe the ASRR has been emasculated, this notion supported by the lack of meaningful response to Forsyth and there being no publication of industry response to the ASRR report. I hoped that offering the draft submission to those interested, may rekindle industry determination to demand that the recommendations made by the Senate and the Forsyth review be implemented and fully supported by the Abbott government, as a matter of urgency.

I had to do some plain and fancy talking to get this document released, the slave time due will be willingly provided along with the midnight oil, ink, quills and parchment.

P7 a.k.a. TOM expects me to remind those downloading the document to only click once on the -http://www50.zippyshare.com/images/download.png-.

Thanks guys.

P9 a.k.a K9.

[Sarcs]

Thank you Ferryman (K9) the PAIN (part) submission and your previous post...A friend indeed..gives me a perfect launching pad for a long weekend recognition of some of the small business players who contributed to the ASRR in the way of submissions.

While the miniscule malaise hangs, like a 'pea souper', over the whole Forsyth report a lot of the small business (MP) submitters must now be wondering if it was worth the risk to make a contribution..:( After all they have now effectively outed themselves to an historically vindictive big "R" regulator...:{ However throughout human evolution in times of conflict there is only two decisions that naturally present themselves; that is to 'fight' or 'flight' and in this case, for future self-preservation reasons, now is the time to 'fight' or face future oblivion.

Reflecting on the Billson small business speech and the apparent non-conformance our miniscule has to the Coalition red tape reduction policy; I thought I would give a plug to a little known QLD backbench Senator speech (given earlier in the week):Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (19:16): ...Tonight, however, I want to talk about red tape and the growing need to further reduce red tape in order to support small businesses and the economy. As I have travelled throughout Queensland, I have spoken often about the burden of red tape and have had many occasions to listen to people's concerns about red tape. Just a few weeks ago in Gympie, at a Gympie First forum with Tony Perrett, our Liberal-National Party candidate, I heard firsthand further examples of the damage that red tape and green tape are doing to local businesses and farmers in the Gympie district. Gympie is in my home region of the beautiful Sunshine Coast, and local businesses, community groups and community leaders there are calling for further action on red tape. They acknowledge that the state government has done some sterling work in reducing red and green tape. They also acknowledge that the federal government has also done some fantastic work—which I will come to later—in this area.

But red tape and overregulation are destroying confidence. In a region that needs jobs and economic growth, I—like my fellow Liberal and National Party senators—have a very strong interest in ensuring that these unnecessary barriers are removed. Sadly, it is a big task. The Australian economy is drowning under the weight of red and green tape. The volume, complexity and duplication of red-tape requirements are stifling innovation, investment and productivity. This overwhelming regulatory burden is exacerbating cost-of-living pressures on Australian families and increasing uncertainty about job security and job creation. Australians can no longer afford to waste thousands of hours on pointless paperwork, compliance and regulation. This applies to almost every sector—from small business to big business, from aged care to education, from the not-for-profit sector to agriculture.

Just last year, the Queensland Chamber of Commerce estimated (1) that red-tape compliance costs are equal to 10 per cent of a local independent supermarket's daily takings, (2) that red tape adds an additional $20 to $30 per head to the cost of a wedding at a function centre, (3) that red tape adds approximately five per cent to the average cost of a meal at a restaurant, and (4) that red tape and government fees and charges represent approximately a quarter, 25 per cent, of the ticket price for a regional tourist attraction. A report by Jobs Australia found there were over 3,000 pages of Job Services Australia rules. Indeed, these rules required paper records to be kept of all applications made through Job Services Australia. This left one provider requiring over 330 filing cabinets.

With universal support for a reduction in red tape, the previous Labor government left an appalling legacy of inaction. Kevin Rudd and Labor promised before the 2007 election that, for every regulation they brought in, they would abolish one regulation. You might think, 'That sounds promising'—and Labor did abolish over 220 regulations. You might think, 'That's pretty good; they probably get a gold star for that.' But, in little more than 5½ years, Labor introduced 975 new or amending pieces of legislation and over 21,000 additional regulations. A current secretary of state in the UK, Eric Pickles—whom everyone here should know I have a bit of man love for—does not have a one-in one-out policy. At the moment his record is that, for every regulation he brings in, he is getting rid of eight regulations. I think that sets the benchmark this government should be aiming for in getting rid of red tape.

On Labor's watch, Australia's ranking in the World Competitiveness Yearbook declined from seventh in 2008 to 15th in 2012, and ABS data showed that the country's productivity fell by three percent between July 2007 to June 2012.

In contrast to Labor's record of all talk and no action, the coalition government is ready to deliver a paradigm shift in Australia's approach to regulation. Already, this government removed over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation during its first-ever repeal day in March this year. This historic event alone has delivered savings of over $700 million in compliance costs.

Pull out your diaries, get very excited about this, tell your kids and your grandkids and tell your staff: another very exciting repeal day is coming up, scheduled for 29 October. Josh Frydenberg, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, is leading the charge on this. I think he deserves a lot of praise and a proper gold star for the work that he is doing to reduce regulation and red tape. This is just one part of the coalition government's red tape reduction program.

The government is committed to cutting over $1 billion in red and green tape each year. To do this, the government will focus on five key areas. Firstly, we are going to tackle the volume of regulation, which is clearly already too high. Secondly, we are going to work to eliminate the extensive duplication and regulatory overlap that exists between the different levels of government. Thirdly, we are going to improve the quality of consultation between government and those to be affected by any new regulations. Fourthly, we will ensure that there are rigorous and mandatory post-implementation reviews to determine how effective new regulations have been. Fifthly, we are going to ensure that regulators are at all times transparent, accountable and efficient in administering regulations.

Regulators are at the front line of this debate and it is our strong view that we have to bring them along as part of any sweeping new cultural change. Australia is home to over two million businesses, many of them family-run operations that create jobs and opportunities in our communities. I, like my coalition colleagues, want to see a strong and prosperous Australia. These important measures to reduce red tape will deliver unprecedented changes to the regulatory landscape in Australia. They will help those over two million businesses and help create jobs.

I have previously made a commitment to personally monitor our progress of red tape reduction to keep the government, which I am a proud member of, and my party, the Liberal Party, on track. I repeat that commitment today. I will be doing an annual red tape report. I will further update the Senate on this progress at a later date. This area of reform is critical for Australia's future. Done correctly, the government will support growth, build confidence and create an environment full of opportunity. This is certainly an outcome that I hope all of those who dislike red and green tape—those on the other side might like it—would agree with. Perhaps those IOS members presiding in QLD should give the good Senator some input for his annual red tape report...:D

Moving on and for those owner/operators (a Small/Medium Enterprise {SME}) the stats quoted by Billson are contained in the following: The Australian Industry Group - NATIONAL CEO SURVEY - Burden of Government Regulation (http://www.aigroup.com.au/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServ let/LIVE_CONTENT/Publications/Reports/2014/Burden_of_Government_Regulation_Mar_2014.pdf)

A quote & table from page 13 of the AIG survey document:
The Commission included in its report the results of a Council of Small Businesses of Australia (COSBOA) survey of 87 SMEs, which showed that 82% of the respondents felt that SMEs face disproportionately high compliance costs, while 44% indicated that they do not have the skills or capacity to understand their compliance obligations (Chart 13). These results agree with the findings in Ai Group’s surveys that suggest that some regulatory arrangements (e.g. payroll tax, GST as noted above) are more likely to place a medium to high cost burden on SMEs than on larger businesses. In addition, the Commission noted that;
“Australian studies have found that small businesses [alone] spend, on average, up to five hours per week on compliance with government regulatory requirements and deal with an average of six regulators per year”.

Chart 13: Small businesses supporting different treatment, percentage by reason

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_100414_111349_AM.jpg
Probably something we all know but basically put the regulatory burden imposed by CAsA's RRP has had (& continues to have) a far greater impact on Small/Medium owner/operators than on the larger airline operators. Perhaps this impact could be one of the causal chain of factors that has seen the demise of 16 regional airlines in recent years...:ugh:

So to the ASRR MP submissions and starting with #sub220 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/220_m_tucker_2_feb_2014.pdf) - Michael Tucker. Mr Tucker's sub was largely in support of the AOPA submission but had some salient points worthy of consideration...:D:D:

Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review by Michael Tucker
I wish to add my support to the submission by AOPA and expand on 2 points

1. I think we all agree that one of the major problems of the current regulations is the content of Reg 206 defining commercial operations and that the fix is the new regulations.

I quote from CASA website on CASR Part 135 Australian air transport operations - Small Aeroplanes

" In 1999, CASA was directed to "minimise the distinction between charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators". To address this, Part 135 will set in place a common level of safety for operators who are authorised to provide 'Air transport operations' - an amalgamation of current charter and RPT operations and standards - in order to carry Passengers in small aeroplanes. The safety level applies irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled as described by the International Civil Aviation Organization in Part I of Annex 6.''

and we agree that the same level of safety should apply irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled or is a closed charter or open to the public - BUT for a given aircraft size.

we note that no amount of over regulation will make a flight in a 4 seat single engine aircraft or a 10 seat twin as safe as one in a 30 seater or a 737

We believe that CASR 135 with the associated maintenance regulations are over the top, too onerous, too complex for small aircraft and would be unworkable for the smaller operators and remote operations
We believe that we should adopt/copy the New Zealand system and regulations of
 CAA Part 135 - Small Aircraft & helicopters - < 9 seat & < 5700kgs MTOW - safe
 CAA Part 125 - Medium Aircraft - 10 - 30 seats or SEIFR ops Safer
 CAA Part 121 - Large Aircraft - > 30 seats Safest
 CAA Part 119 - Air Operator - Certification
with no distinction between scheduled or non-scheduled or whether it is a closed charter or open to the public.

2. We would also like to reiterate the concerns raised about CASA's enforcement approach and methods. Their handling of Barrier aviation AOC suspension and others was unconscionable, the timings of their actions seem to occur when they will do most harm and without notice.

 For justice to be seen to be done we believe Sect 30DC of the ACT should be amended to enable CASA to give a direction that will stop that part of an operation that is a "Serious and imminent risks to air safety" and a "show cause notice" should have to be issued before the AOC is suspended

The possibility that a company can be closed down unjustly without a chance to rectify the problem is just "un Australian" and does nothing to encourage investment in Aviation.

I support AOPA's call for an effective ombudsman reportable to the Minister and the CASA Board.
Yours sincerely

Michael Tucker

MD Tasfast Airfreight, 33 years aviation experience inc RPT ops, own & operate 6 x PA31-350
[email protected], 0359444375, 0412365397
Good start Mr Tucker anyone else care to contribute???:D:D

MTF...:ok:

[thorn bird]

"Just last year, the Queensland Chamber of Commerce estimated (1) that red-tape compliance costs are equal to 10 per cent of a local independent supermarket's daily takings, (2) that red tape adds an additional $20 to $30 per head to the cost of a wedding at a function centre, (3) that red tape adds approximately five per cent to the average cost of a meal at a restaurant, and (4) that red tape and government fees and charges represent approximately a quarter, 25 per cent, of the ticket price for a regional tourist attraction. A report by Jobs Australia found there were over 3,000 pages of Job Services Australia rules. Indeed, these rules required paper records to be kept of all applications made through Job Services Australia. This left one provider requiring over 330 filing cabinets."

Sarcs, the lot above are lucky,

How bout $100K to include a light jet on your AOC,

How bout $20K just to provide a job for someone on a light piston twin,

How bout $60K to obtain an international endorsement on your AOC which includes a long weekend for an FOI and his AWI mate business class to Darwin.

Three nights at the Casino and of course the "Joy Flight"...err sorry "Proving Flight" to an international destination of their choice in a "Luxury" corporate jet.

If Miniscule WUSS cant see what is blatant Corruption on a very high level then he's a bigger fool than I though he was.

In the end, after expending all that Cash, those poor buggers got an International AOC that they cant use.

Unless they do a "Joy Flight"...errr sorry "Proving Flight" to each destination they want to operate to.

Heard of Local councils begging AOC holders to operate RPT to their airports. The answer being No unless you can find someone to toss half a million into our account to cover the cost of "Compliance"

What the Wuss doesn't realize is he could get on the gravy train and get his GA Flights for free if he hooked up CAsA to require "Proving Flights" to wherever he wants to go, that is if CAsA can find anyone still in business to persecute.

CAsA has taken the finest traditions of British Bureaucracy and refined them into an art form, even the Indians pale into insignificance compared with CAsA.

[Frank Arouet]

CORRUPTION CORRUPTION CORRUPTION!

[Kharon]

National aviation authorities (NAA) face a dilemma. Aviation is getting much safer, implying big NAAs are not so necessary, but the industry is also getting larger and more technically and operationally complex, which seems to imply a need for more oversight.

The one certainty is that NAAs will not get more resources in the future, arid may get less, despite industry growth. There is an argument that aviation safety has got to where it is through traditional compliance based regulation, but the evidence suggests otherwise: technology has improved safety more than any other single factor, and many existing regulations were made for a different era, so are losing their relevance. It has always been a problem for regulators to stay up to date with advancing technology. The technology experts work for the manufacturers, and the experts in how best to use it work for the airlines.

Giancarlo Buono, lATA's director of safety and operations, .Europe, wants to see a partnership, rather than a "Tom and Jerry" relationship between regulator and operator. John Clark, the UK Civil Aviation Authority's safety programme manager, is pushing for safety performance outcomes to be specified and overseen, rather than prescribing the means by which they must be achieved. This performance-based regulation would require partnership between the regulators and regulated, but with the former still retaining enforcement powers

Courtesy - Flight International – September, 2014.

I can smell the coffee – anyone else awake. Part 61 – redundant; by world best thinking anyway; and, the bloody home grown fools still want to blame the IOS.

Toot, toot.

[thorn bird]

Kharon,

What was the old fly spray add "When your on a good thing, stick to it"?

Why on earth would anyone in CAsA want to change the status quo?.

When your snout is up to your eyeballs in the trough, you tend not to see what's going on around you, the death of the industry will ultimately mean the end of your trough.

When corruption and incompetence is positively condoned by your government, who apparently has no control over you anyway, why on earth would you give a damn about the industry you regulate?

How could industry consider a partnership and deal with the devil that has caused so much grief by devious, immoral and dishonest oversight?.

What on earth sort of partnership could you forge with an organization you know is utterly corrupt and hell bent on destroying you?

Nothing will change until there is a complete overhaul of CAsA and that cant happen unless there is a complete overhaul of the Act.

Aviation in New Zealand is rapidly growing to be their primary industry.

There's the example of what good regulation can do, which contrary to all the evidence our head Numpie denied.

Unlike CVD pilots our Numpies are blind.

[Soteria]

Thorny, I don't have the time to go into each CASA rort, but four things stick out.

1. 'Regulation by Accumulation' - An old Inspector trick is to make sure any audits you do are a long way from your field office and make sure you fly only the carriers that give you flyer points for the reason that yes, you do keep those points personally, despite what other people may have been told.

2. An Inspector once told me - 'It's not what you can do for CASA it's what CASA can do for you'. In other words bleed the organisation and the taxpayer for all you can get.

3. Overseas conferences/working trips - Use your imagination boys, if it exists then CASA has done it. Tens of thousands are spent on just one person travelling abroad for a conference.

4. Education - CASA fund individual staffers every education whim including Diplomas and Masters degrees. (And on occasion a 70 year olds A380 endorsement!)

Oink oink

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

5. Casa's version of westside story. Two gangs small r regulator led by former CEO Bruce Byron and the big R regulator led by acting DAS after DAS retires. ( prefers the DAS title to CEO). Love interests !

6. Sneakily robbing trips from others.

7. Becoming a big R regulator as the world moves in the opposite direction. Trips to Europe and US needed.

[Kharon]

Wouldn't you love to see the Auditor General and CDPP, backed by the AFP go through the joint. Followed by an open, independent inquiry; Lordy – how the feathers would fly then.

If I had a master plan, it won't start in the USA; but at home with local talent, leadership and plain, old fashioned Oz honesty and a love of a 'fair go'. Fat chance – right..

Did you hear the one about the two testicles and the scrotum?....:D

[Frank Arouet]

I know when a mosquito lands on a testicle one develops a sense that not every problem can be solved with violence. If that's any help.

[Ziggychick]

...could be both. Can Harmony & Unity be the adopted approach to a "new culture" (buzz word of the year) between the Aviation Industry and the Gov. Sure it can.
Tell 'em they're dreamin'. So far seems to have worked. But as an important, integral part of our countrys' function, Aviation is a massive clog in the wheel of momentum, which sadly, in my humble opinion, has been kicked in the guts. Too many times it seems.

With Fair Comment as my intent and no motivation for harm to another's name or title.
Just a plea. Voices to be heard, justice, fairness and harmony to be the catalyst that creates the cultural change so desperately needed within an incredibly important industry for our country.

The voices can be heard, the minds have submitted, committees reviewed, Senate Recommendations ignored.
The "Independent" review the Canadians did. Which I was told, needs to be edited and I was referred to the ATSB.
Albos white paper
Etc

Aviation is LINKED to so very much.
Such as:
Transport of the travelling public
Agriculture
Aeromedical
Small business
Postal/Cargo
Investigation

Almost everyone is affected with aviation. Safety and a portal between industry and Gov needs to be established.
A unity of dedicated, competent people striving for the best possible outcome of safety and business success. Standing by moral ethics.
Having the ICC within the same department as CASA, makes no sense. No offence intended.
Perhaps just a thought to thy one in thy fort???

Observation, reading facts, conversations and comprehending the enormity of the problem regarding Australian Aviation Safety, Regulation, Investigation and cost to the smaller businesses, takes my breath away.
If I can see so clearly the issues, I must ask the question. Why hasn't my own Government addressed this?
Especially as I have pleaded with them numerous times with the same rehearsed response. The coldness in the voices that were suppose to protect us has been frosty. The concern afterwards, puppetry, thunderbird style. Assistance. Zip. Just five years of many, many unanswered questions.
I didn't vote because I pondered and thought "why"? I lay here in pain after surgery from the crash. From what I've absorbed within and outside the walls of the house, is drowned out by incompetence. Paid the fine though. Your welcome.
The Statutory Rights for CASA in 96. Catch up time maybe? Compare your phone and the technology. Compare small business and overseas takeovers constructing Monopolies from 96. Big difference. Yep, thought so.

Another call, most recent, to DP dept. Oct 14.

Usual blurb. Canadian autumn, end of year...

I ask something along the lines of...

That is too long for a report, why?
Why is the Canadian report being edited by CASA and ATSB?
Is that Independent?
You are the department of the skies. Can't you hear the Industry?
I'm a Nurse. I can hear them.

Along the lines of:
Oh, how are you
Not good
Who is the insurer
Don't know. It's not about that.
When is your matter?
Who cares? I have not fought just for money, but for this to never happen again.
What stabs me in the stomach each day is the injustice and nil assistance from my own Government. When I see the photo of Truss and Sharp (ex-Tpt Mini) CEO REX/Pel-Air, holding hands cutting a cake in the shape of an aeroplane, near where NGA (yes, Pel-Air Jet) broke on impact. Churns my stomach every day. This should never happen to another. (As man in the back of the room clears throat, no really!)
Why aren't you listening to the Industry?
This is so unAustralian, it makes me sad.

Ok, well, like we said, the reports will be out. Roger that. Blah-static. Out.


If this continues, the era will be known as so close, yet the fort of Aviation held up by those that choose to ignore facts triumph.
That, my dear friends here, fellow nurses, pilots, doctors, paramedics, agricultural, small aviation business, passenger transport.
Royal Attention needed maybe?
Who knows?

Oh yeah, the Aviation Industry Does.

Q&abc: Interested? WT, TA, MM, AA, MD, JM & just to add some spice, EH.
An audience with industry.

Compromise, awareness and facing the cyclic and added current issues is a challenge needed. Scrap the statutory "rights". Listen to the industry and learn from the bloody mistakes made.

It's an embarrassment.

As today is/was Labor Day. Which represents the essence of why impetus momentum can create change, calmly. I thought a gentle reminder to this side necessary, or maybe the other side of the middle could challenge.

Aviation safety and regulation needs experts with integrity as such a specialised field, connects to so many other variables. As mentioned.

I believe, at least some very important questions need to be asked?

Zig

[Kharon]

There is a question or two scheduled for the upcoming BRB - AGM (which believe it or not is quite a serious affair).

5) What criteria and selection process has been used to select the new CASA board members?

6) Who was involved in that selection process?

These are important questions, to which accurate answers must be provided – if Truss is to maintain credibility. Because even a hint of 'cronyism' or board stacking will blow the few remaining shreds of the Abbott government credibility on red and green tape reduction and regulatory reform -a la Truss - anyway. For example
GFA AGM – "The big news is the resignation of our President Anita Taylor."

That statement can be read two ways;

Eyrie "To get back to the discussion at hand I'll re-iterate that the GFA operates under a self ADMINISTRATION not self regulation model. While the GFA may make the rules CASA reserves the right to approve them or otherwise. To make the relationship quite clear the GFA receives currently about $150,000 per year from CASA to administer gliding on CASA's behalf. The GFA is a bought and paid for sub-contractor."

Eyrie "Over the last 10 years or so the GFA and CASA have colluded to make flying gliders or motorgliders on a PPL, impossible. It helps to know that some of the CASA people involved in this were enthusiastic GFA supporters.

IF; for example, the appointment of Ms. Taylor to the board had been a 'sponsored' event, a Murky Machiavellian Masterstroke, designed to load the board with those who had 'worked harmoniously' with CASA before coming to the board, it throws a big spanner into the industry works.

Now, no one is saying, as yet, that Taylor is a complete Casaphile. BUT a look through the GFA 'paper-work', performance and track record suggests a 'good' working relationship with the regulator. There is a fairly disgruntled, disunited organisation, heaving a sigh of relief and struggling to deal with the daemons left behind; such as licensing issues, reduced safety culture, and a disillusioned, diminishing membership. Enough smoke to legitimately ask, is there a fire?.

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.

Acquiring the answers should provide an 'interesting' debate; there are only six slots on the bored, the MM crew have at least two, solidly covered - Hawke and Danos, if either Taylor, Cox or Smith are 'hand picked' then the voting is at least tied. A best result of MM 3 – IOS 3, of course essentially neuters the democratic process. Have we been gulled - again; I rather think so. It's a very wicked world we live in. Mugs – the lot of us.

For example, would the coppers investigating a crime send their case against a known villain to that villain and say – "Have a look at this mate; then tell us the bits you don't agree with and we'll take them out, OK". No, of course they wouldn't. So why is it that our 'independent' tax payer funded report into the ATSB has been sent 'for technical' editing to the ATSB – before being eventually published??.

Aside - Have you noticed the mutt running the Canuck TSB never uses a 'date'; not ever. It's always "early Spring" or "late Autumn" or "mid Winter". It's fast becoming a Midsummer Nights Dream, which is of course, a fantasy comedy...

Toot toot

[Eddie Dean]

Following on from the PAIN reference I did some research on the CASA board.
Citizen Advocacy (http://www.citizenadvocacysa.com.au/pages/become-a-casa-board-member)
Ziggy chick, if you go to QandA site and click on contact we can ask for panel members and questions.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm

[thorn bird]

Have to admit Kharon I had my suspicions.

If what you allude to is correct, then once again the tail wags the dog.

Makes a complete mockery of what a board is for, and perhaps could be a fair indication of just how corrupt the bureaucrats have become.

May as well appoint monkeys to the board, at least then it would only cost peanuts.

At what point does the Miniscule declare, due to the collapse of aviation activity in Australia, that because there is no longer an industry to oversee CAsA will be disbanded, CAsA staff made redundant except for a small office at Mascot for oversight of foreign carriers.


DUHH!!...was that the reason Terry was given an A380 endo???

[Sarcs]

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..:ugh::ugh:

On first glance the GFA Forsyth submission (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/180_gfa_31_jan_2014.pdf) 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 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/039_aaaa_20_jan_2014_redacted.pdf) 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...:rolleyes:

"...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"..:rolleyes:

...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..:confused: 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...:rolleyes:

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.”

Government Response to AAI report 20/03/14 - Senator Xenophon not happy! - YouTube

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 (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm) Great idea Eddie D...: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...:E..a reminder that it is only 2 weeks to estimates so now would be a good time to start lobbying your favourite Senators...;)

MTF...:ok:

Ps M&M mate while your busy apparently stacking the deck..:ugh:..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...:zzz:

[Lookleft]

a reminder that it is only 2 weeks to estimates so now would be a good time to start lobbying your favourite Senators...

For what purpose? This thread always seems to be about the next great thing that will finally get CASA sorted out..Senate Inquiries (plural) Estimates,Truss review,TSB reports now more estimates.

There is ample evidence of CASA incompetence Part 61 being just the latest example. The ATSB has been put into its bureaucratic place by its Commissioner and his competency has been questioned by the Senate. The independent review by the TSB has been neutered.

I don't have any answers, just concerns about what will be required to have this situation changed. I once thought that the Senate was the solution but the limits of the power of the Senate have been successfully exposed by those who know how to play the game.

Nobody in the political sphere or the public domain, outside of the aviation
industry, could care less. As long as they get their cheap flights or Qantas Club membership they don't consider that a problem exists.

[thorn bird]

So Leftie are you saying, "Move along, move along, nothing to see here."?

Might as well pack up boys and girls, aviation is cancelled.

[Lookleft]

Yep TB your primary school reading levels are holding you in good stead.

Take your rose coloured group think glasses off and reread the last 5 years or so of this thread and point to the time that anything has changed after an Inquiry, Estimates etc etc etc.....My original question was in response to Sarcs a reminder that it is only 2 weeks to estimates so now would be a good time to start lobbying your favourite Senators...

Again I ask it, and you can answer it or ignore it, but for what purpose should we start lobbying? If you think progress is being made I applaud your optimism, if you think asking the question is a form of acquiescence to the way CASA operates then even accusing you of a Year 3 reading level is generous.

[Frank Arouet]

So everyone. Give up, continued effort to pressure the regulator is futile. It upsets them.

[Lookleft]

continued effort to pressure the regulator is futile.

Is that what this thread is Frank? Good to see its working so well given that the introduction of Part 61 demonstrated CASA's ability to listen to constructive criticism.

Then again I know you have the memory span of a Pacific regal blue tang so you probably think that all this estimates stuff is all brand new.

[thorn bird]

So Leftie, your contribution to the debate is there's no point lobbying for change.

Thanks for that, your contribution noted.

[Lookleft]

As opposed to your lobbying which to me just looks like whinging:

When corruption and incompetence is positively condoned by your government, who apparently has no control over you anyway, why on earth would you give a damn about the industry you regulate?

From what I can tell most of the commentary ranges from mild indignation to lets tear down the system. Even UITA has given up counting the number of hits on the thread. My commentary was on the purpose of lobbying a politician prior to another Estimates hearing. If you think that pages and pages of the same thing being stated is lobbying then I suggest that you and Frank start a lobbying consultancy and see how far you get.

[thorn bird]

So what do you suggest leftie? anything? or give it away.

[Kharon]

OI ! – Knock it off; Lefty was only expressing what many in industry think: defining the sense of helplessness when much needed change seemed within strike; that now is being not only denied, but wilfully withheld. CASA are Toast, they know it, we know it. ATSB is basket case; they know it, we know it. Every fool in the market place knows it; except the flamin' minuscule responsible for it.

Truss is sitting in a 'Budda' like trance, fiddling (with the gods only know what) while Rome burns.

It was never, not ever, going to be easy to get a government to admit it was wrong, hired the wrong man and then threw great wads of money at the 'problem - to try and fix it; and lost the bet, big time (with big industry bucks; bye the bye).

Minuscule – not every one wants "government money" : we will be shortly witnessing a holocaust – and YOU Sir, pressed the button.

Sack the Murky Machiavellian crew; hire an "administrator" to clean up the unholy mess CASA is in; appoint an experienced deputy for "Airline" and an expert deputy for "GA" (bless Mike Smith, poor sod), remove the artificial, self serving barricades and be known as the man who saved Australian aviation.

It's a piece of cake – just stop buggering about with the clerical staff and start listening to those with blood, sweat and years of tears invested in the industry. Believe me, there is more wisdom in a country aero club about 'matters aeronautical' than you will find in the self serving "department" of smoke and mirrors.

Good first post Lefty – you nicely capture industry 'angst', next step resistance. Tell 'em stick 61 where the sun don't shine, take it away and only bring it back when it is acceptable and comprehensible to industry. We did, when all said and done; pay for the wretched thing.

Now then Wodger 2 – bugger off and fix it, IT IS (as are all current antics) UNACCEPTABLE.

Selah...

[Lookleft]

Thankyou Kharon for actually taking the time to read my post. We don't always see eye to eye but a critical and unbiased assessment of a post is always a civilized way to proceed the discussion. I was among the many who thought that an inquiry by the Senate would resolve many issues facing the aviation industry. I thought that the Senate would be listened to and that at the very least any recommendations put forward by them would be acted upon. That was in 2010 (or 2009) and we are still facing the same system, no changes, no compromise by both sides of the political fence.

The various industry associations are starting to get a bit more vocal, so like Obi Wan they are our only hope. The only other vehicle for change is too unpleasant to contemplate but historically, the likely path.

[thorn bird]

Done good Kharon!!

[Frank Arouet]

Make no mistake, our regulatory authority and it's political and bureaucratic minions are a cancer on the aviation industry. It appears it can't be cut out so it is terminal. Dick once said, before you can fix CAsA it has to be destroyed first. Just like cancer. So when we have a patient with a terminal illness, caused by incompetence and corruption of power, at the highest level, the best accepted medical therapy is to keep the patient positive, give hope where it's possible, and pray for a miracle. Nobody but the callous, (yes they live amongst us), would suggest to the patient, get over it, that he just accept the diagnosis, don't explore every avenue of cure, don't attempt to stop others from suffering the same fate and prepare himself for death. And God help us if the patient has to rely upon some organization that should have been looking after his interests in the first place to fight for him in his dying days. Some of these irritating individual splinters of the original compromised representative body's hold no aces that will help anybody in this game and pandering to them gives them faux credibility that eventually comes back as their ideas.


A pox on them all.

[Eddie Dean]

I contacted QandA:
Asked for Minister Truss and various senators to be on Panel to discuss senate inquiry recommendations.
Contact Us | Q&A | ABC TV (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm)
We need many people to request the same or they won't consider it topical

[Lookleft]

You are beneath contempt Frank to use the analogy of a dying cancer patient to have a cheap shot.

[Frank Arouet]

Get over it.

[Kharon]

I just wonder, how our minuscule is going to 'manage' the united Senate committee estimates. There is a seriously long list of 'sticky' issues for the committee to play with. The sheer diversity of topic for discussion places Truss in the centre of an almost indefensible position with a dozen or more pathways to that position. If it were a chess game – it would be check mate in three moves. The 'airports' fiasco and the subtle, but effective 'tinkering' with the rules is a major issue. Then there is the whiff of smoke surrounding the indecent speed with which the Pel-Air Humpty-Dumpty was repaired, combined with the atrocious treatment of both Casey and James. In the mix is the MoP, CASA being haunted by AFP involvement in 'several' matters of interest.

That's all before the main course is served and it's an extensive menu offered to the Senators. That's before they get down to the brass tacks issues of why their report and expert, considered recommendations, provided at some considerable expense and effort, has been treated with contempt and indifference. They may also wonder why the ASRR was treated in the same fashion, why the industry response to the ASRR have not been published; and, for $64,000 why the initial report from the Canadian 'revue' (can't call it a review) is so very different from the one being 'translated' (transmogrified) into French before eventually being 'published'. There'll be hell to pay if the original hits the streets, through 'Wikileaks'. Can you imagine the fuss, the ATSB report card (Autumn version) released with a big 'no problemo' ticket, the same day as the original (Summer version) is put out on WL. Now that is a thing I'd love to see – laugh?; Oh, you betchya socks..:E..I digress.

Not many sleeps now and we shall see, be interesting to note how much horse trading has gone on; although I can't quite see what Truss has to trade with. He's sitting in the middle of an artillery target, lets hope Barnaby or even Abbott can see the potential collateral damage and move this fragile, exposed piece to a safe square on the chess board.

Then again – it could all fizzle and dribble away, leaving another steaming pile of elephant dung, cooling in it's wake. We shall see..

I know, but they are my metaphors; mangle them as much as me like –:D

Toot toot

[Creampuff]

I just wonder, how our minuscule is going to 'manage' the united Senate committee estimates.Wonder no more.

The Minister and his Departmental and agency officials will continue to treat the Senate with: contempt and indifference.The Laborial Senate committee members obviously don't have the moral fibre to put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their AAI Inquiry mouth is. The committee may therefore be safely (and deservedly) ignored.

[Sarcs]

Courtesy of the AA magazine...:E:

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/forsythe2.jpg

Yesterday the Rev gave his eulogy to the converted, not so converted & presumably some heathens (FF iron ring)..:D:D

Although we are not yet privy to the full transcript some of the quotes & text from the AA article are worth repeating: Forsyth suggests two-year timeline to restore industry’s relationship with CASA (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/forsyth-suggests-two-year-timeline-to-restore-industrys-relationship-with-casa/)
...British Airways and Easyjet freely sent the majority of their operational safety data through to their national regulator, something that would be unheard of here...

“I would never have done it in Qantas 10-12 years ago and you can be damn sure no one is going to do it in this country now,”...

...Overseas, operators share some and in some cases operators share all of that in-house data with the regulator.”

“That’s not happening in Australia. In fact, the reverse is true.”..

Forsyth said the industry’s view that the relationship with CASA was both inappropriate and unhealthy centred on the availability and use of safety data.

Technological advancements in aircraft design and production meant safety systems had evolved, making operations more reliable and eliminating the likes of fixed interval overhauls and “over-the-shoulder” inspection and quality assurance roles. As a result, regulators needed to know more than what was available from incident reports, such as information from airlines’ increasingly sophisticated data and analytical tools within their safety management systems.

However, Australian carriers were increasingly reluctant to share any more than was legally required to CASA.

“There was even some evidence that some people were actually not even reporting the mandatory data to CASA,” Forsyth said.

While airlines in some countries sent their safety data directly to the regulator, Forsyth noted Australian operators sent their information to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), where it was “de-identified” before a summary was produced for CASA. He described that process as “clearly out of step with best practice”.

“This issue revolves around trust...” Interestingly enough, not long before the Rev delivered his eulogy, Steve C from the Oz put out this article on an announced Flight Safety Foundation project:Push to share global safety data: leading role for Australia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/push-to-share-global-safety-data-leading-role-for-australia/story-e6frg95x-1227085526056)

AUSTRALIA is taking a leading role in a Flight Safety Foundation project to study ways of setting up a global system of sharing safety information.

Australian Greg Marshall, who has taken up the position of vice-president global programs at the foundation’s headquarters in the US, said the project would focus initially on the Asia-Pacific and pan-American regions.

He said it would seek to find a way of capturing the wealth of information collected across the globe by regulators, air safety investigators, airlines, other aircraft operators and navigation service providers.

“They’re collecting that information and they’re collecting it in various forms,’’ Mr Marshall said. “Some of it’s been shared and some of it’s not.
“I guess the secret is that if we can actually capture all of that data in a common form where it can be used, that would be extremely valuable to a number of organisations.’’

Mr Marshall said the foundation would initially survey what sort of information was available in the two regions, who has the data and what protections it was afforded. “We’re looking at what data is actually out there,’’ he said. “It could be from flight data monitoring, it could be flight track data, but probably more importantly the data streams that come from both the operators and the government safety reporting systems.

“We want to see what we can do with those to basically consolidate them and then eventually report them so everybody can share that information.

“That way you can see how a region is performing against certain safety measures and find where they can best focus their resources in improving areas of safety that might differ from region to region.’’ From a practical sense, Mr Marshall said the study would also look at the different systems being used by various bodies and operators, what architecture they used and whether they could talk to each other.

It would also look at whether information could be funnelled through a third-party system.

He believed Australia and New Zealand could take a lead in such a project because of the wealth of knowledge in both countries in managing and capturing data.

“And I think that organisations within Australia can certainly take a role in helping other regions in the development and implementation of a system that allows the sharing of that de-identified data for the betterment of everyone,’’ he said. Mr Marshall said de-identifying the data would be an important issue because of cases in some jurisdictions where safety has been used for judicial purposes or subpoenaed for civil cases.

While there were good systems in Australia and the US, there was still “a long way to go” in some other parts of the world.

“Once we identify where those deficiencies are, I think there’s scope … for a separate study to be done on data protection and how various jurisdictions can establish legislation to essentially protect that safety data,” he said.

“The story with submitting voluntarily is that if the data is suddenly then used in a punitive matter, it dries up the source of voluntary reporting. This is against the principles of capture and analysis for safety purposes.’’

The global data sharing study is one of several projects the FSF has under way. Others include a look at go-rounds with European air navigation organisation Eurocontrol and research firm Presage and, in the Asia-Pacific, work on upset recovery training.

“The intent there is to increase the awareness of upset recovery training and its effectiveness in unusual attitudes, loss-of-control states,’’ Mr Marshall said.

“So it’s being raised at that regional level, at least within the Asia-Pacific, and probably more broadly thereafter.”
Good luck with that Mr Marshall when it comes to dealing with FF (the King of troughs, obfuscation & embuggerance of the weak) & the ATsBeaker (who was complicit in the PelAir cover-up)...:ugh:

Moving on and not long before the Forsyth speech Beaker also stepped up to the podium...:zzz: Here is a wrap of mi..mi..mi..Beaker's dribble where apparently, as is typical lately, he avoided all other aviation safety relevant topics except his pride & joy MH370..:yuk:: Dolan optimistic on finding MH370 (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/dolan-optimistic-on-finding-mh370/)

OK no surprises there I guess...:rolleyes:

However one wonders if the miniscule, M&M & co will be having 2nd thoughts on whether they have picked the right man for the job...:sad: Especially when you have international aviation heavy weights such as Sir Tim questioning the veracity of the ATsB search assumptions & the Malaysian investigation so far...:ooh: : Emirates chief Tim Clark reveals suspicions over true fate of missing flight MH370 (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/emirates-chief-tim-clark-reveals-suspicions-over-true-fate-of-missing-flight-mh370/story-fnizu68q-1227086741053)

TIM Clark is no MH370 conspiracy theory crackpot.
As the recently knighted Emirates president and CEO told Aviation Week in July: “Something is not right here and we need to get to the bottom of it.”

Now, seven months after the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 vanished en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, Sir Tim has cast doubt on the official version of events.

In an extraordinary interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, he challenges the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s conclusion this week (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh370-missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-search-might-be-in-wrong-spot-investigators-say/story-fnizu68q-1227084277721)that MH370 flew south over the Indian Ocean on autopilot for five hours until it ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky, forcing 239 passengers into a watery grave.

Instead, Sir Tim believes it is far more likely that “MH370 was under control, probably until the very end”, questions the veracity of the “so-called electronic satellite ‘handshake’” used by analysts to pinpoint the probable crash site and insists the mysterious cargo in the hold (removed from the manifest by Malaysian authorities) (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/malaysias-unwillingness-to-release-the-full-cargo-manifest-from-missing-flight-mh370-will-hamper-the-search-effort/story-fnizu68q-1226863022091) is a crucial clue to the puzzle.
That an aircraft the size of MH370 can simply disappear without a trace, “not even a seat cushion” was downright “suspicious”, he said.

The executive has vowed that he will not rest until the truth is known, declaring: “I will continue to ask questions and make a nuisance of myself, even as others would like to bury it.”

And as the head of the largest operator of the Boeing 777 in the world (Emirates has a fleet of 127), “I need to know how anybody could interdict our systems”.

Investigators have said the plane’s tracking systems were deliberately disabled (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDkQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.news.com.au%2Fworld%2Fflight-into-horror-the-mystery-of-flight-mh370%2Fstory-fndir2ev-1226856947010&ei=HGU3VIKiHNXe8AXwvoCwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEZDfDeZtr1gcf9nhrtxltrv4yf0g&bvm=bv.77161500,d.dGc)by somebody with extensive aviation knowledge in order to take it off radar. {Ps It is well worth reading the Highlights from the Sir Tim interview transcript}

Hmm...me thinks there is a lot riding on the eventual outcome of the MH370 search/investigation for Beaker & CO...:E

MTF...:ok:

[Soteria]

Sir Tim is an intelligent man with a high I.Q. He speaks what is on his mind, which coincidentally is what is on many peoples minds.
Perhaps he is suspecting something untoward, something the conspiracy theorists have been promulgating yet something the narrow minded dismiss instantly? I would suggest (just my opinion) the following connection in this accident is of interest, in relation to who was on the passenger manifest, some of those pax belonged to Freescale Semiconductor Ltd, primarily owned by the Blackstone Group (Lord Jacob Rothschild) and the Carlyle Group are listed as a secondary investor.....

If you research the above companies and the apparent complexity of the loss of this aircraft you can see how this 'tragedy' could be of a nature much bigger than the average punter can imagine. As for choosing the ATSB and mi mi Beaker to investigate, it is the logical choice should a high level coverup be the order of the day - the investigating authority is seperate from the Anglo American powers, therefore, in essence, remain at arms length from those doing the covering, plus Beaker is the perfect pawn as he is a complete nupty, devoid of any brain matter, easily manipulated and soft in the crotch! The perfect pawn or fallguy for such a mission.

At the end of the day mechanical failure is always possible, and the notion of pilot suicide cannot be discounted. But a higher level reason behind this occurrence can't be discounted either. No government or powerful corporation is beyond the capability of causing such an event, and anybody who thinks these people are open books and just couldn't pull this off is naive and wishful. This planet is covered from head to ass with satellite systems, seismic tracking and recording technology and other tools of the trade that we probably don't even know exists. To say that nobody, and I mean nobody saw a thing is stupidity of the highest order. Somebody knows exact what happenned, and how, when and where. Hopefully, time will tell.....

[Sarcs]

Timely article from Planetalking:

Emirates chief Clark repeats doubts over MH370 official narrative (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/11/emirates-chief-clark-repeats-doubts-over-mh370-official-narrative/)

"...The only real problem some might have with his interview in Der Spiegel is that it implies the ATSB has a serious role to play in the actual investigation of the causes of the disappearance, while it is in fact it is wrestling for PR kudos with the Joint Agency Coordination Centre over the management of the deep ocean search on the advice of the international search strategy team.

The ATSB couldn’t even be trusted to honestly and competently investigate the crash of a small Pel-Air operated corporate jet performing a medi-vac flight near Norfolk Island in 2009. It couldn’t even retrieve a flight data recorder from a known location in shallow water, and the government of Australia, to its serious discredit, hasn’t even taken actions to remove and correct a wilfully misleading and incomplete accident report issued by its so called air safety investigator.

But apart from inferring that the ATSB is important, Mr Clark’s contribution in terms of scepticism over the official line on MH370 is one that his peers and rivals in the airline game seem very happy to see publicised..."

Cheers Ben...:ok:

[Lookleft]

Once again lets read what has actually been quoted. Tim Clark is expressing doubt about the Malaysian Government's statements about the incident:

While his doubts about the southerly track flown by MH370 are probably not widely held anymore, the integrity of the Malaysian Government, its state owned carrier, and its aviation authorities, in relation to the statements they made and the actions they took from day one ( 8 March) of the disappearance of the Kuala Lumpur-Beijing flight and its 239 passengers have already been destroyed from within.

It seems to be suggesting that he has accepted that it flew the southerly route. If, as the worlds largest operator of B777's, had any concern about the ability of the 777 and its crew to cope with a cargo fire and not disappear then why doesn't he ground the fleet until hard evidence of what happened is available?

[Sarcs]

Yesterday Peter Strong the CEO of COSBOA (Council of Small Business) put out an excellent article titled - Helping Regulators Regulate Themselves (https://au.smallbusiness.yahoo.com/news/a/-/25246404/helping-regulators-regulate-themselves/) - which many on here will truly be able to relate to...:D:D

A couple of quotes..
For some time we at COSBOA (http://www.cosboa.org.au/) have highlighted the attitude of regulators as one of the biggest red tape problems that we have, or perhaps had.

In the past, the approach from many regulators was based on an attitude among their staff and their management that small business people were the enemy. It seemed the prevailing belief was that the small business person was inadequate, we were always in the wrong, we were basically dishonest and untrustworthy as well as being poor business operators.
Unsurprisingly the small business community and its supporters had much the same view of regulators and many still do. All of this was of course not productive or conducive to good business or good regulation.

Then in 2012 the Productivity Commission (PC), mainly at the request of COSBOA, was tasked to investigate regulator engagement with small business. The report was released (http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/small-business/report) in October last year and had an immediate impact.

One significant outcome of the report has seen the current Government task the PC to do a paper on a Regulator Audit Framework and this was released (http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/134780/regulator-audit-framework.pdf) on 19 March this year.

A new framework for assessment of regulator performance, a first for Australia, is under development by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with strong advocacy and political leadership being provided by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Josh Frydenberg.

A draft (http://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/DRAFT_Regulator_Performance_Framework.pdf) was released in early September.

The regulators will now be regulated. Excellent. This won’t get headlines as it doesn’t have much to do with big business but it is a game changer.
We in business have deep experience in dealing with compliance demands and we can help to make sure that the regulators themselves do not face over regulation and unnecessary demands.

We do not want the staff of the regulators just ticking boxes and following process for the sake of it, we also do not want regulators passing on extra costs from extra regulation to industry. What we need is cooperation between industry and regulators and a better understanding of each other’s needs.

If we can agree on what is good behaviour and process then we should be in a position to agree on how to best deal with those who flaunt the rules (and give the rest of us a bad name) and at the same time not unduly impact upon those, the majority, who are compliant.

This will be a game changer. The regulators will have no right to criticise all and sundry for the sake of a few.
The other change is on our side, the side of industry, with this framework in place the days of attacking regulators without facts will be gone. Constructive dialogue has to be both ways.

In the end the behaviour of regulators is a key issue for small business. It is not such an issue for big business as they have the resources to deal with the regulators and complex compliance.

The other great benefit will hopefully be the improved interaction between regulators and the policy makers. Policy and processes have to be achievable by regulators and by small business people alike.

If policy isn't developed properly then it can’t be professionally dealt with by the small business person or by the regulator.

This new framework is a constructive approach to better interaction between industry and government and the designers are to be congratulated.

Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Josh Frydenberg is making sure this gets through to a final product and more power to him. We know that Bruce Billson, the Minister for Small Business, is there as always advocating hard for small business. Nice. As part of the Govt RTRP regulators are required to undertake an audit of all regulations and estimate the compliance cost for a cross section of those regulations. Apparently Fort Fumble (with absolutely no fanfare) have completed this (see here (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102201)) task and have now put their self-audit out for industry stakeholder comment...:ooh: This self-assessment process, with public scrutiny, is in accordance with the options as outlined in the Productivity Commission's - Regulator Audit Framework (http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/134780/regulator-audit-framework.pdf) (reference page 34).

However given that the 'trust factor' (as highlighted by the Reverend Forsyth) between FF & industry is at the lowest point in history; why should the IOS now be accepting of the veracity of the FF self-assessment and why should the IOS now believe that FF will in fact act on industry comment/review of this so called self-assessment audit??

The PC themselves highlight the risks involved with this option:Regulator self-assessments

...As with the first model, a limitation of this approach is that there may be reduced impartiality and objectiveness, notwithstanding the fact that all vested interests should have been consulted on the indicators and metrics used to assess performance and the reports subject to their scrutiny. An external audit process to randomly check the reliability of the self-assessment would reduce the incentives for bias in self-assessment, as can the publication of the report... And on the public scrutiny oversight option:A complement to formal oversight responsibilities is exposure to public scrutiny. By publishing the audit plans and audit reports and providing an opportunity for public comment, such scrutiny can provide incentives for honest self-assessment. This form of quality assurance requires activist stakeholders, and can be subject to abuse by disgruntled people. However, if major costs are being imposed that could be reduced by better performance, businesses should have an incentive to monitor the audit plans and reports and to report when they perceive that the plans are inadequate or the audit falls short of an accurate reflection of regulator behaviour. Hmm..it seems to me that there is still ample opportunity for FF to bury or water down this complement to oversight, the signs are already there when comment is being sent to an internal email address...:ugh: Perhaps a way around this would be to forward to one of the applicable contacts from the RTRP crew, see here: Cutting Red Tape (http://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/)
Moving on and while on the RTRP crew I note that Josh Frydenberg released a joint MR with PM Tony today that should also be of particular interest to many on here..:D:Further Measures to Cut Red Tape - Accepting Trusted International Standards

Published: Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Joint Press Release
Hon Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister
Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

As part of the Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, the Government will examine opportunities for greater acceptance of international standards and risk assessments.

This is an important part of the Government’s plan to cut red tape and foster a lower cost, business friendly environment with less regulation.

Businesses often have to undertake a regulatory approvals process to use or sell products in Australia that duplicates a process that has already occurred in other developed countries. This adds to costs and provides little or no additional protection.

The Government will adopt a new principle that if a system, service or product has been approved under a trusted international standard or risk assessment, then our regulators should not impose any additional requirements for approval in Australia, unless it can be demonstrated that there is a good reason to do so.

This will remove regulatory duplication, reduce costs and delays for businesses and consumers, increase the supply of products into the Australian market and allow regulatory authorities to focus on higher priorities.

As an important first step, the Government will enable Australian manufacturers of medical devices the option of using European Union certification in place of TGA certification. This will place Australian manufacturers on the same footing as overseas competitors.

The Government will also require the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) to increase its acceptance of international risk assessments of industrial chemicals made by reputable international regulatory authorities such as the European Union regulator.

To ensure a thorough review of all regulations, ministers will write to regulators in their portfolio and work with stakeholder groups to develop criteria for assessing opportunities for the acceptance or adoption of trusted standards and assessments.

Examples of unnecessary divergence from international standards can be submitted at the cuttingredtape.gov.au website.

Any changes will be subject the Government’s regulation impact statement processes and progress will be reported at the twice yearly repeal days and in the annual deregulation report.

These reforms build on the Government’s $700 million cut to red and green tape since coming to office including the removal of around 10,000 pieces of unnecessary legislation and regulations. MTF..:ok:

[thorn bird]

All sounds fine and bewt Sarc's,

But an examination of some other cost analysis conducted by CAsA would indicate they live in La La land if they imagine they even got close to the real cost.

For example, cost per hour for a chief Pilots time..$35 and hour
They charge their incompetent FOI's out at way way more than that.

I don't believe they have any idea of what the cost burden of regulation is, neither do I believe they give a damn.

As long as the trough is full, the perks are available, and the fiddles are ignored they will continue on their destructive path.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Examples of unnecessary divergence from international standards can be submitted at the cuttingredtape.gov.au website.

I take it the casrs fall into that category. Or is it everyone else that has divurged from casa's robust regulations. Report your casaisms.

[Sarcs]

Recently there was an FOI review decision, made by the soon to be defunct OAIC, that went against FF...:D

This decision would seem to be at odds with previous similar review decisions that involves CAsA , normally made by the commissioner himself - Prof MacMillan - or his delegated minions. The Prof is on some sort of sabbatical, perhaps looking for a new job, consequently Karen Toohey is in the acting role. Here is the background to this review case (Veronica Bijl and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] AICmr 108 - 3 October 2014 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AICmr/2014/108.html)) :

Background
Ms Bijl purchased an aircraft VH-FLR from the affected third party in November 2008. The third party continued to operate and maintain the helicopter.
On 1 July 2013, Ms Bijl applied to CASA for access to:

(1) CASA’s audit findings or a result in relation to aircraft VH-FLR from the years 2009 to 2011, including but not limited to:

(a) Maintenance& servicing;
(b) Training;
(c) Operational; and

(2) Any action taken upon [the third party] (and all associated company names) by CASA between 2009 and 2011.

On 9 September 2013, the CASA made a decision on the FOI request. CASA identified 55 pages of documents as falling within the scope of the FOI request. CASA refused access to all the documents. In making its decision, CASA relied on the business exemption (s 47G(1)(a)) and certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E(d)).
On 8 October 2013, Ms Bijl applied for internal review of CASA’s decision.
On 11 November 2013, CASA varied its original decision. CASA refused access to some documents and granted access to others. In making its internal review decision, CASA relied on ss 47G(1)(a), 47G(1)(b) and 47E(d).
On 6 January 2014, the applicant sought IC review of this decision under s 54L of the FOI Act.
The review decision is not a laborious read and I recommend reading it in full but to cut to the chase here is Ms Toohey's final decision:
Decision

Under s 55K of the FOI Act, I set aside the Department’s decision of 11 November 2013 and decide, in substitution for that decision, that:
the Audit Report falls within the scope of the FOI request
the Request Form and Audit Report contain the name, position and contact details of individuals connected with the third party and this personal information is exempt under s 47F

the Request Form and Audit Report are not conditionally exempt under ss 47E or 47G and the Audit Report is not exempt under s 47

an edited copy of the Request Form and Audit Report should be prepared under s 22 and released to the applicant.

Karen Toohey
Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner
3 October 2014 Love it and definitely a win for the girls...;)

MTF...:ok:

Ps Here is the program for Senate Estimates on Mundy...


SENATE RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - Supplementary Budget Estimates for 2014-15 ( (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/25%20Senate%20Estimates/supp1415/rrat.pdf)Monday 20 October 2014) (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/25%20Senate%20Estimates/supp1415/rrat.pdf)

...wonder how Tezza will stay alert as the hearing is way..way past his bedtime..:zzz:
Oh well I guess it's port & stogies all round...:E

[Eddie Dean]

Sarcs, Are you happy with details of an audit rport being released publicaly?

[Kharon]

How very, very cheering the Toohey decision is. Not only has she set a clear precedent for those trudging along the weary pathway to FOiA Nirvana, but she has, in no uncertain terms told CASA to play nice and respect the system. Love it: Bijl only wanted most of it – Toohey penalised them and made them cough it all up. Lets hope the information is used wisely and well.

Bravo Ms. Toohey, well done indeed......:D

Sarcs - Make that two.

Toot tooee.

[Sarcs]

...or two!" Now that is what I'm talking about - love it "K"...:D:D

Eddie - "Are you happy with details of an audit rport being released publicaly"

Ah yes the old CIC argument that revealing disturbing findings (or not) in a Fort Fumble audit will be the straw that broke the camel's back and lead to severe financial hardship and ultimately closure is simply a crock...:ugh::ugh:

If we lived in a world where the playing field was level and the game was played where the umpire's (instead of a judge, jury & executioner) primary role was to promote & foster the game, I made tend to agree with the concept of protecting potentially defamatory information on the principles of CIC. However sadly here in Oz that is not the case...:{

Classic examples are the Transair & PelAir cover-ups where past audits were attempted to be withheld (under the excuse of CIC) but ultimately revealed under FOI or under AAI investigation. In the 1st case the breaching of CIC may have contributed to that company's demise but in the 2nd?? Well did it lead to that company shutting shop, or losing contracts, or even affecting the profit by one iota of it's much more highly valued sister company??

Then there is the other side of the coin where CIC has been deployed but an AOC transgressor has been placed in the FF 'show cause' enforcement (embuggerance) process.

Barrier was a classic, where the operator did not or could not afford to continue to his/her penultimate day in Court/AAT hearing - i.e. done by the process. In the course of this long embuggerance the poor operator find themselves constantly being white anted by rumour & innuendo about what is contained in past routine audits. However due to the now legal process the AOC holder cannot reveal the true content of past audits to defend their previous & possibly good, solid, unblemished operating record...:ugh:

No Eddie personally I have no issue with past audit reports being revealed, after all a good AOC holder should have nothing to hide and the bad ones...well???

IMO (and it is just my opinion) 'CIC immunity' is much like 'Diplomatic immunity' and should be revoked...;)

LETHAL WEAPON II - DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY- REVOKED - YouTube

{Rumour on the Prof: The good Professor is reportedly now under some sort of conflict of interest cloud from his previous job as the Commonwealth Ombudsman..:rolleyes:..apparently it is related to a complaint that had its origins in the FF ICC office..:ooh:}

[Kharon]

Second the Sarcs motion – IF our regulator was transparent, honest and a straight shooter; the conversation on Pprune may be a little different. There are those who 'bark' about "dodgy" operators not being closed down, then there are those who complain about decent companies being hammered out of existence.

The truth, I believe, lays somewhere in between, the problem is that where we should be able to unanimously applaud a 'sound' decision and a safe verdict – at appeal – 'we' cannot. There are far too many inconsistencies. Pel-Air is a classic, as is Airtex and Barrier. Any reasonable comparison of NCN (RCA in old money) and the CASA response to the noted, audited and published results indicates only one thing – the regulator plays with a seriously stacked deck.

This is no position to start to build 'trust'; not where it can be proven that the regulator lied – 'through it's teeth'. It may well be painful, but publish the CASA audit, plus both the company and CASA response to 'NCN'. Publishing the follow up action from both parties may go some way toward clarity, transparency, probity and the prevention of repeated breaches and incidents which are 'borderline' or 'accidental'. The more complex the regulation, the more chance of breach. Closed loop, open system - Hell, it may even improve safety – who knows: lest we tries it.

Ask the FAA if you can't take my word. The FAA will decimate – completely – an operation that, after a reasonable warning of NC, fail to 'fix it'. But the chance to fix up proven breaches of regulation, with expert support is always the first option. Which beats the CASA lottery system (Rafferty's rules) into a cocked hat.

Aye, it's a wicked old world...

[Lookleft]

There are those who 'bark' about "dodgy" operators not being closed down, then there are those who complain about decent companies being hammered out of existence.

So by inference "those who bark" are dogs and "those who complain" are gentlemen? I take it that you did catch a glimpse of HL's post before it was deleted otherwise your reference is a bizarre coincidence.

It never ceases to amaze me that the behavior of the Regulator in shutting down dissent has been replicated to perfection by the most vehement critics of the Regulator's behavior! Not for the first time has the angry mob responded to the mantra that "If you are not for us then you are against us".:yuk:

[Sarcs]

Hot off the cyber-net the Heff opens up with...

"...I've has some enquiries in recent days about the future of General Aviation.."

Senate Estimates RRAT Committee (20 October 2014) - Secondary Airports & leases - YouTube

At about 08:01 when the Heff mentions Bankstown & 'flood plains' - draws an almost indiscernible "gulp" from M&M...:E

Hmm...this session (this evening) could be well worth watching...:rolleyes::
8.40–9.00 pm - 13. Aviation and Airports Division
20 mins

9.00–9.15 pm
[Tea Break]

9.15–9.30 pm - Aviation and Airports Division (cont.)
15 mins
MTF...:ok:

Ps That statement that Heff reads out - from the doc he waves around - sounds strangely familiar?? ;)

[Sarcs]

The following video segment, from this mornings Estimates, shows Labor firebrand Senator Conroy questioning on Dept (& agencies) projected savings across over 160 regulations, as part of the Govt RTRP.

In this case the regulations under scrutiny were from CASR Part 21 & Part 61..:D

Sen Conroy 20/10/14 - questions on savings in the CASRs (RTRP) - YouTube

You will note that Senator Conroy mentions a new standing order in relation to questions that in a Senator's opinion are yet to be adequately answered or that the Senator does not yet want to be put on notice...:D

Here is that addition to Senate SO26 para(4):26 Estimates
At the end of paragraph (4), add:

If a senator has further explanations to seek, items of expenditure shall not be closed for examination unless the senator has agreed to submit written questions or the committee has agreed to schedule additional hearings for that purpose.

(Agreed to 25 June 2014.) Certainly changes the dynamic..:D.. when before a Dept/Agency officer could simply defer (obfuscate) a probing question for months and months...:zzz: By which time the original QON has lost its impact and many of the AQONs are less than satisfactory in reply and merely more bureaucrat spin...:ugh::ugh:

MTF...:ok:

[thorn bird]

" Projected savings"??? for who??

Aint no savings in Part 61, just massive costs, Oh sorry industry pays that.

Of course "Safety" will be dramatically improved because of the decrease in aviation activity.

Reduction in aviation activity???...Now I see where the "Savings" are.

What are CAsA's projections on savings for all their Staff that will be made redundant because they are surplus to requirements?

[Creampuff]

Gosh, the lettuce wasn't even wet this evening!

Yawns all 'round. :zzz:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The leaf was imaginary too. About as convincing as wrestling.

The bit about part 21 I think they were claiming something pre 2005 regarding acceptance of overseas approvals in the earlier bit with mr mrdak. Remember part 21 is based on FAA too not EASA like more recent parts.

[busdriver007]

Where is Senator David Fawcett? He is the Subject Matter Expert in the Senator ranks. Has he been silenced? Bill is an amateur, as is Senator Conroy.

[Creampuff]

Senator Fawcett was there. Most of his and other Senators' questions were put on notice.

The single biggest issue that got a number of Senators agitated was misuse of credit cards.

Poor Ms Staib did a good impression of a rabbit in the spotlight.

The excuse reported by the CASA finance guy as the usual excuse for improper transactions on CASA credit cards was laughable.

All zephyrs in thimbles of course.

[Kharon]

Oh, I don't know, there were some pretty penetrating questions about curbing kerbside smokers outside airports. That is an important issue and well worth the committee time – definitely of national importance. I am amazed at the insight of some of our highly paid Senators....

But, I did feel that the theme song for the evening was - "Run, Rabbit, Run!". (Harry Bidgood, 1939). I did stumble across an interesting article on Chesney Allen, (http://voices-of-variety.com/chesney-allen/) which gave an insight into the times when the song was "Churchill's favourite Blitz-Time song, by many accounts". (From the Noel Gay, Ralph Butler show "The Little Dog Laughed"--the original 1939 version features British comedy team Flanagan & Allen).

F&A-Rabbits.

Jokes aside – there was some pretty heavy lifting done last evening and some fascinating little sidebars (e.g. The Muppet show version of MH 370) - perhaps the video and Hansard will assist to turn Creamy's zephyrs into the genuine tea cup version. To quote the indefatigable Kelpie – more to follow.

Added – Estimates – Link. (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=240671&operation_mode=parlview) For those who missed it. The fun starts at about 02:25, and the ATSB/ CASA show is towards the end over the last 90 minutes.

[Frank Arouet]

Terry doesn't like being up late these days.

[Sarcs]

Have now reviewed and copied several segments of interest from last night's evening session of Estimates...;)

Before I post these (for those interested) I would like to make an observation from the evenings festivities that IMO was quite striking.

Just prior to the aviation safety bureaucrats stepping up to the plate we had the crew from AMSA and I have to say the comparison was quite remarkable, I truly wish we could bottle what AMSA have got going on...:D:D

The AMSA understated, unflappable and disciplined professionalism was totally on display. It was obvious that the CEO was comfortable he was in charge of a strong, cohesive team committed to their area of remit. The stark contrast with the rabble that followed just makes you want to cry in despair...:{

Oh well onto Airports & Archerfield where earlier in the day the Heff asked this about the upcoming AAT hearing...

Senator Heffernan question to Dept 20/10/14 - Upcoming Archerfield AAT hearing - YouTube

Then in the evening Senator Fawcett questioned Mr Docherty in regards to Archerfield and runway length (shortening) proposed in the airport master plan...

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - Airports - YouTube

Here is the 1st part of the AQON from CAsA to which Senator Fawcett refers:
Answer:

An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.
Okay so CAsA effectively wipe their hands of the matter..:ugh:.. as the runway length is solely a matter for the airport operator to determine and the responsibility of the PIC to comply with the restrictions that a proposed runway shortening may have in regards to aircraft performance (or in some cases useability)...:hmm:

However although the good Senator mentions some light to medium weight and performance twins in his questioning he forgot to point out that CAsA (seemingly blindly) accepted the Archerfield Airport Limited opinion that the most critical aircraft for calculation was...

"..CASA advised Archerfield Airport Limited (AAL) that in their report "Archerfield Airport Planning Issues" they calculated the required minimum runway lengths correctly. The recommendations of the report found the most critical aircraft for calculation of minimum runway take-off length, being the Cessna 208B Caravan 1 Super Cargomaster, would only require a minimum 890 metres and AAL allocated a minimum of 900 metres. There was no requirement to factor in the AFM data into the determination of runway length..."

I would have thought it was in the interest of CAsA (& the Dept) if they had also consulted with the industry stakeholders at Archerfield, to whether the Cessna 208B Caravan was a true representation of the most critical aircraft currently being operated or planned to operate out of Archerfield.

But why am I not surprised that in the grand scheme of things that the operator/pilot always comes an insignificant last in consultation...:ugh:

Next the mi..mi..mi..Beaker segment which was hardly worth mentioning - especially with Senator Milne trying to politicise the MH370 search..:yuk: - but we do get a firm date from Beaker for the release of the TSBC report. We also establish that, since last Estimates, there has been no 30,000ft death plunges that may have been causal to a CVD pilot...:rolleyes:

Oh and Senator Wacka does bring up the issue of the higher incidence of ADF CTA LOSA events...;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAbCFmZhr-8


MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Sarcs – "The AMSA understated, unflappable and disciplined professionalism was totally on display. It was obvious that the CEO was comfortable he was in charge of a strong, cohesive team committed to their area of remit. The stark contrast with the rabble that followed just makes you want to cry in despair."

It's worth repeating that the differences are stark. There is a lot of content in the video; lots, but like Sarcs I have made a habit of seeing the AMSA sections, when on offer, first. The calm, professional, competent AMSA crew reassure, by the simple clarity of answers – where they know, they say so, where a problem is identified they seem to have the tools for solution and the relaxing effect of a "we don't know" statement is balm to troubled ears. Can we not persuade them to manage 'air safety investigation' at least – if not CASA as well.

Poor old Beaker – Milne on a mission to get any sort of cheap, free shot at Abbott yarded the hapless Muppet. Normally I don't mind seeing Beaker roughed up – in the name of air safety – but the low blows and pure political malice of the Senator for Tasmania made me feel just a little sympathy. If that pure political malice is representative of the type of gutter politics Tassie can expect the heaven help them. It is utterly despicable to use the 'honest' search for some 200 odd souls and a lost aircraft in that manner. Does this woman kick kittens, torment dogs and throw rocks at kids on her days off, I wonder?.

Well, seems it's study of the crimes Act next; Heff seemed to be giving it some air time and some not so subtle hints about using it. Loved the bit at the end when the CASA counter lunch voucher minder is invited to "have a quiet word" with Heff after stumps.

I just wonder if Creamy's dry lettuce leaf has become a nettle (for the grasping of) and the zephyr to become a full gale force wind of change. More reading to do after first impressions – whether to take ASA, ATSB or CASA apart next is the puzzle.

Colour me spoiled for choice...:ok:

[mightyauster]

The stench of corruption emanating from the answers to the Archerfield questions is overwhelming!!! I want to know who is getting paid off and how much. Disgraceful!!:*

[Sarcs]

MA - The stench of corruption emanating from the answers to the Archerfield questions is overwhelming!!! I want to know who is getting paid off and how much. Disgraceful!!:*
I'd suggest that the 'stench of corruption', cronyism & embuggerance is equally emanating from the landfill site...err airport at Bankstown...:=

Senate Estimates RRAT Committee (20 October 2014) - Secondary Airports & leases - YouTube

CHAIR: I now welcome the honourable David Johnston, Minister for Defence, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and Mr Mike Mrdak, long-serving Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and officers of the department. Minister, or Mr Mrdak, would you like to make an opening statement?

Senator Johnston: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F00AON%22;query type=;rec=0)Thank you. I have no opening words.

Mr Mrdak : I am happy to go straight to questions; thank you.

CHAIR: I have had some inquiries, Mr Mrdak, in recent days about the future of general aviation. I will probably be putting some questions on notice or asking them today. But just as a guide, the concern of a lot of people in general aviation—helicopter services, private light planes, et cetera—is the likes of Archerfield airport. What guarantees can we give the Australian general aviation industry that they will have airports at which they can land planes in the future, given the pressure on the land space surrounding airports by developers getting a quid by putting up high rise and aerials on top, et cetera? Do you see a risk from the power of developers cooperating with state governments to the future of general aviation operating out of the likes of Archerfield, Bankstown and other airports?

Mr Mrdak : I think some concern is warranted in relation to the development pressures around our general aviation airports and our major capital city airports in a number of our cities. Quite clearly, as state planning policies come into effect seeking to increase the density of development in our urban areas, there is pressure to build right up to the boundaries, including in some high noise areas around our airports. There is also pressure to increasingly look at high rise developments which start to impinge on the PANS-OPS and OLS services of the airports. There are two critical areas. Firstly, the Australian government is very firm in its view that these sites will be and must be retained for aviation usage as the primary purpose. Hence the master planning process for airports such as Archerfield is very much driven to making sure that sufficient aerodevelopment takes place on the site for continuation and there is no reduction of access for aviation. Secondly, as you would be aware, over the last few years under successive governments we have sought to work with the state planning agencies under a process called NASAG—National Aviation Safeguarding Advisory Group—where we have sought to get planning arrangements agreed with the states that mean we can protect the approaches to those aerodromes and we do not have development pressure which impinges on the safe operation. That process has been ongoing and it continues to be ongoing. Mr Wilson may wish to give you some more detail on the next steps on that. We remain positive that the master planning process will provide for continued access, but we remain concerned about the development policies in a number of jurisdictions which may result in increasing encroachment of development into airway services.

Mr Wilson : As Mr Mrdak rightly indicated, we have been working quite closely with our state colleagues in regard to protection of aviation facilities in Australia. It would be fair to say that there is a strong recognition within state jurisdictions of the importance of aviation facilities, but it would also be fair to say that that recognition is more focused on the major airports than the secondary airports that you indicated in terms of Bankstown, Moorabbin, Archerfield and the like. The importance of general aviation in regard to the development of the overall industry is not as well understood at a state and territory jurisdictional level. We have been working with them through the NASAG arrangements in a very cooperative approach. But, as Mr Mrdak indicated, there is continuing pressure between the balance of development in our urban areas and the requirements of the aviation industry.

CHAIR: I have a brief here on what has happened since World War II, when Commonwealth—only development was on airfields. That has given way now to a lot of private development. What generally are the lease arrangements for those private developments for the land?

Mr Wilson : We hold the lease arrangements for 21 of the airports in Australia. The ones you indicated before are ours: Moorabbin, Bankstown, Archerfield and the like. So we both regulate and are the lessee. The private sector leases that land from the Commonwealth.

CHAIR: What is the tenure on those subleases to the private developer?

Mr Wilson : It is 49 years, with an option for 50.

CHAIR: What is the protection for the aviation industry if some of those developments impinge on the safe operating capacity of an airfield? It happens by increments. Do you have the capacity to knock the building down without compensation?

Mr Mrdak : We control the development through the master plans and also the development plans. We are the building regulator on airport. In relation to developments on airport that may impinge on safety, then clearly we and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have a role. With developments off airport, we are reliant on the powers of the state and local planning authorities in relation to developments that may intrude on some of the surfaces. There are some powers that CASA has in relation to immediate safety risks of certain structures. But largely we are dependent upon the planning and development powers of the state and local governments off airport sites.

Mr Wilson : We do have additional powers that enable us to ensure that developments around the airport do not impinge on the OLS or on PANS-OPS—so that they do not impinge on the safe operation of aviation around those airports. That provides us with the capacity to restrict developments. The responsibility for undertaking the process in regard to that development sits with the individual airport operator; so they would start the process. We at the end of the day, however, hold the delegation and the decision-making in terms of a development that would impact on aviation services.

CHAIR: It is suggested here in my information that we need a full Senate inquiry into the airports, as the aviation industry is beyond tipping point. The loss of the purview of parliament—a department that acts merely as a post office—in no way is in the interests of users, and the lack of transparency in relation to the leased airports has set in train an environment conducive to corruption. So I suggest to you that I might be putting some questions on notice. I am also suggesting that perhaps we should have a briefing of this committee on issues surrounding the complexity of—

Mr Wilson : We are more than happy to run through those issues.

CHAIR: This document has some serious propositions. Obviously it is a temptation for people; it is a lot of land. As long as it is done with maintaining a viable airport, okay; but, where that becomes blurred, it becomes a danger.

Mr Mrdak : We would be happy to provide a briefing to the committee. The on airport planning is a very transparent process, through the master plan process and the building control process. But I am happy to provide further details to the committee.

CHAIR: So the building up of a floodplain at Bankstown for a development purpose without an environmental plan was okay?

Mr Mrdak : That was assessed by our building and environmental assessment officers and was found to be consistent with the floodplain management requirements that—

CHAIR: This is the first time in history I have known of where, if you build up a floodplain, you do not flood someone who would not have got flooded, because you have pushed the water further out. They did not think that?
Mr Mrdak : My advice is that it was worked through and it was found to be an acceptable development.

CHAIR: That does not really answer the question. It is a known fact that, when you put a levee bank around north Wagga, the flood that goes through Wagga is higher because it has less route to go through. Bankstown airport will be precisely the same—we have blocked some of the floodplains, so obviously someone else is going to get a bigger flood. Anyhow, we will come to that in the briefing.

Mr Mrdak : We will come to that. We are happy to provide information.

CHAIR: We will be grateful for your time. We will now go to general questions.

...judging by subsequent performances throughout the day I'd say that the Heff has got a strong whiff of it..:ooh:.. and the Chair, much like a cadaver dog on the scent, will be relentless in his pursuit to hunt the stench down..:E

Which brings me to the ASA segment which has to be said was not one of Ms Staib's finer moments, shame really cause it started off so well in tandem with Hoody...:D

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - AirServices Part 1 - YouTube

The dismissive body language from MS while being quizzed by Senator Gallacher is quite remarkable - as if to say that the accountability for the spending of $96 million is simply trivial - after all it is only monies gouged from airline fare paying pax and not directly attributable to the taxpayer...:ugh:

But how the body language changes not long after...:{

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - AirServices Part 2 - YouTube

One would have thought that after the questionable credit card expenses racked up by her predecessor, that MS would have been overly anal in due diligence to proactively and transparently stamping out any whiff of such behaviour from her executive or middle management team...:=:=

One wonders how Ms Staib's position could still be tenable after such an insipid performance but then again we still have Beaker in position don't we?? :yuk::yuk:

MTF...:ok:

Ps Usual obligatory choccy frog for Hoody..;)

[thorn bird]

Oh Gawd, senator milne believes in Chemtrails!!!

[slats11]

Dolan appeared very uncomfortable when he was referring to the Canadian TSB report. His fidgeting and his tone were very defensive. Look at the way he looks away and pauses when he tries to recall when he first saw the draft. It's strange he doesn't know exactly when he saw such an important thing.

My guess is he has a pretty good idea what will be in the final report. He must surely. Perhaps he is not that comfortable with it.

So December eh. Wonder if the end of the year is a good time to change career.

This isn't over yet. Perhaps the Senators are sick of bashing away and trying to reason people out of an untenable position they didn't ever reason themselves into. Perhaps they have a hint the Canadian report will add significant leverage and are simply biding their time.

If the decision has been to get an independent report, then you do have to wait for the report. And it is pretty easy to sit back and wait if you are confident. And pretty hard if you feel it isn't going to go your way.

[Sarcs]

Agree slats Beaker looked far more fidgety than usual...:rolleyes:

Heard a rumour that not only has the bureau kept the IOS in the dark (on the progress of the TSBC report) but also the miniscule's office has only recently been updated with where it is at...:ugh:

Anyway here is part 1-3 of Fort Fumble's rudderless attempt to placate the Senators with spin & bulldust that no-one any longer believes (including the man at the back of the room..:E)

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - CASA Part 1 - YouTube

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - CASA Part 2 - YouTube

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - CASA Part 3 - YouTube

MTF...:ok:

Ps Passing strange..:rolleyes: ..the Hansard from Monday is still yet to be released yet the RRAT Ag sitting (yesterday) has already been published, see here (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Estimates_Transcript_Schedule).

Pps Ok all good Hansard out now, see here (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Fb2ac266 9-3dee-4a38-960a-1a82388dccaa%2F0010;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Fb2 ac2669-3dee-4a38-960a-1a82388dccaa%2F0000%22).

The following was one part that some maybe missed (from 2nd vid above) but in light of the endless supply chain to Executive trough it is IMO most revealing: Senator FAWCETT: All those costs flow on to the industry. It was only a couple of years ago that a fuel excise increase was levied—can we keep the noise down, please, because the witness cannot even hear the question {DF it could be more the fact that the arrogant **** did not want to hear the question}. A fuel levy was indexed on the industry to pay for, amongst other things, increased staff at CASA. And yet, when I look at the changes in staff categories from 2010 to 2013, I see that your corporate services are now 441, which is an increase of 91, but your flying operations inspectors are down to 70, which is a decrease of 15. So you are levying industry for supposed safety outcomes, yet it is your corporate services area that is growing, not your flying operations inspectors. In net terms, have you done modelling to ascertain that you will have sufficient people to do the testing that part 61 requires, without an undue cost on industry?

Mr Farquharson : Not to my knowledge. {WTF...is this bloke for real??:ugh::ugh:}

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Is that a satisfactory condition, given that part 61 is now going to influence the operations of the entire aviation industry—to not know if you are going to have enough examiners to meet the legal requirements?

Mr Farquharson : The indications that we are seeing from the people uptaking the transition is that there will be, and we are facilitating people to move into that environment.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So you are hoping that there will be enough people. You have not actually done any modelling to give yourself some comfort—before designing the whole part 61—that you would have enough workforce to do this crucial function? If you wanted anymore a perfect example of how totally f:mad:d up and ill-considered Part 61 is you've got it all there in black & white, just a pity it was (almost) lost in all the other shenanigans going on...:ugh:

[Sunfish]

The release dates for the bad news - the Government response to the review, the announcement of the New DAS and the Canadian report into the ATSB are either Melbourne Cup Day or between Christmas and new year.

You can bank on it.

[Kharon]

The video at SARCS post 2345 caught my attention. - Seems to be a lot of selective forgetfulness when it come to airports, particularly those of the secondary variety. It's a pretty sordid little story and the whole saga would have slipped from the collective memory, to be covered in houses and shopping malls had it not been for a few good folk, some hard work, first class research, hefty donations and a lot of sacrifice. The continuing efforts of the non chem-trail Senators are to be applauded, as they 'refresh' the departmental memory of those responsible.

No one has as yet mentioned the 'redefining' of what constitutes 'air-transport'; you notice the Mrdak careful selection of 'words', for the devil is in the detail of 'his version' of the translation, he did after all redefine the meaning to exclude pretty much any class of operation bar 'heavy' RPT. The video at Sarcs post 2345 misses the very important, carefully enunciated Mrdak words, which glibly state 'his' defining parameters. I shall hunt it down in Hansard, I believe the Senators are talking about one thing not realising that a home spun redefinition of the meaning of 'air transport' has been accomplished, which renders the debate nugatory – they ain't talking about the same thing.

Then we have the CASA 'support' for the AF master plan – which, while stating nothing but the truth – carefully steps around the real issues of the spirit and intent of the lease agreement for the aerodrome. It may well be that an airport can build a runway and that the PIC is responsible for the final analysis – however; if AF reduce the runway length to say 500 meters; then clearly, no one can 'safely' use it for practical purposes; and, as the existing operations are not 'air transport' ala Mrdak, the airport become useless – welcome to Westfields.

Then there are calculations floating about the place based on certification data and performance data, which conveniently omit many of the 'peripheral' legally required performance requirements, focusing purely on the absolute minimum runway length required for a take-off roll. The safely go – or safely stop logic is erased; the notion of landing straight ahead is erased. The assumption that a FAR 23 aircraft can climb out, OEI on a warm day and not hit anything is left standing along with the notion that if, IF the aircraft can achieve some form of climb performance, that it requires no distance at all to accelerate to that speed. Bollocks..

Back of a stamp calculations – Accelerate Stop Distance (ASD) for a PA 31 at MTOW - ::1300 meters, Accelerate Go Distance (AGD) :: 1800 meters. The calculations being bandied about to support runway length reduction rely on the manufacturer AFM data which indicate that at MTOW the Chieftain can get airborne within as little as 870 meters. So our unfortunate passengers in a Chieftain with OEI are to launch off a 900 meter strip, live on their luck for the first 500 feet (10-12 miles straight ahead), pray that height can be maintained, the weather allows the aircraft to be returned to the departure airport and that the pilot can neatly place them back on the threshold and manage to stop the aircraft within the confines of an un factored, nice dry landing distance.

They know that no sane pilot or operator would allow such and operation; thus, despite the rhetoric – welcome to Westfields – because the bloody airport is, to all intent and purpose, useless, only of value to the birds, busking for chips from the shopping fraternity.

There are lots of weasel words floating about and some very selective mathematical and legal definitions being touted, but (IMO) if you want to keep the secondary airports – you'll have to fight for them. Big bucks, affordable housing and 'jobs' is a powerful argument to beat down. Can you operate from 900 meters – sure; but can you, under all conditions guarantee that safety – No, is the short answer.

Selah.

[Creampuff]

This is where I fell off my chair laughing:Mr Jordan [CASA's Chief Financial Officer]: [W]hat typically happens, with new technology, with credit cards—if you have heard of payWave, which is where people swipe the credit card at the supermarket—we have found, is that in a number of cases people have put their wallet up to the machine to swipe and, rather than using their own personal credit card, it has inadvertently used the CASA credit card.Of course CASA would issue staff with credit cards that have the PayWave function enabled, and of course CASA staff would simply wave their wallets in front of the sensor, knowing that only their personal credit card and not the CASA credit card would respond.

It all makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile, the Corporate Services division increases by 91 to 441, while FOI numbers drop from 15 to 70.

A stroke of genius!

Fewer FOIs will mean fewer CASA credit cards in carelessly waved wallets. More Corporate Services staff will be able to chase up and arrange repayment of all those grocery and fuel bills 'accidentally' paid on the CASA credit card.

441 people in Corporate Services? That's gotta be a joke.

[Kharon]

Is the great 'credit card' scam being repeated, in a new guise ? – wasn't' there a great to-do about CASA cards being used to pay 'recurrent' flight training – two hours paid for and only one flown and a couple of collective junkets for the 'lads'. Thought the great credit card rort was stopped years ago. All transparent and above board now -.....:rolleyes:...:=

Life at the trough eh – Bill Heffernan and Greg Sterle seem to be onto it, Crimes Act and all; but it pales into insignificance against Ms. Staibs big 97 million whoopsee, which is apparently – just tea money, from the petty cash and don't signify in the grand scheme.

Amusing – if expensive entertainment.

Edit – just picked up the TB quip – re chemtrails. The new, Tasmanian version 'Chemilnecal Trails, so much beloved of the green, loony, loopy left make it to the Senate in parliament – Oh joy.

[Sarcs]

You will remember that early in the day's proceedings that Sen Conroy was waiting for some answers to be forth coming from the Dept under standing order.. 26 Estimates
At the end of paragraph (4), add:

If a senator has further explanations to seek, items of expenditure shall not be closed for examination unless the senator has agreed to submit written questions or the committee has agreed to schedule additional hearings for that purpose.

(Agreed to 25 June 2014.) ...well for those interested here was the eventual answer given...:E
Mr Mrdak : If I can just provide one answer to a question raised by Senator Conroy this morning that he was anxious to get an answer on?
ACTING CHAIR: Yes.
Mr Mrdak : Mr Wilson has an answer to that, which should not delay the committee too long from afternoon tea.
Mr Wilson : In regard to the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 21), the countries that it applies to are Brazil, China, Republic of Korea, Singapore and the United States. In regard to Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing and Other Matters), which is what we believe you were discussing this morning, what it does is it makes a number of amendments to changes that have measurable cost impacts on the industry. These include removing the requirement for a student pilot licence and replacing it with provisions that achieve the same safety outcomes consistent with ICAO standards and recommended practices, and streamlines and simplifies the flight review and proficiency check provisions without diminishing safety outcomes.
Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I will not torture you any further by asking you any more detailed questions, because I appreciate the work you have done in chasing this up.
Mr Wilson : The detailed questions would be questions to CASA.
Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)As I said, I will not torture you further. Thank you for that.
Okay back to the main game...where were we?? Oh yes credit card fraud and ASA obfuscating the parliamentary public works committee...:=

MTF...:ok:

[Bill Smith]

Oh dear it really is as bad as all this

[thorn bird]

Yeah Bill, even worse.

Just chatting to someone who for three years has been trying to get a CAsA "legislative Instrument", whatever that is? only to be told CAsA don't have anyone qualified to issue it!!...ie we took your money under false pretenses!!

If anyone is under any allusion that Part 61 can work in its present form is deluding themselves.


$90 Million robbed from the Industry, 90 odd new managers....minus 15 operational staff!!

[Sarcs]

AirServices CEO queried over knowledge of Crimes Act (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/23/airservices-ceo-queried-over-knowledge-of-crimes-act/)

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Oct 23, 2014 3:46PM | EMAIL | PRINT (http://javascript<b></b>:window.print();)

Early this week during Senate Estimates hearings the CEO of AirServices Australia, Margaret Staib, was questioned as to why she didn’t refer a manager who stole up to $20,000 from the Commonwealth to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This is what is reported in Hansard, but was apparently too hot for the general media to handle.
Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Ms Staib, you indicated that an employee was dismissed for credit-card misuse in the last few months. Could you tell us the employee’s level and how much was involved?
Ms Staib : There was an employee dismissed in the last couple of months for credit-card abuse. The level of that person was middle management, but I do not have the figure at hand for the amount involved.
Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)It is a pretty serious issue, because they were dismissed. Does anyone else have the amount? Gentlemen, you have that blank look on your faces—it is not so hard. How many people get dismissed the credit-card misuse? Someone must have the figure. I do not believe that you do not have it.
CHAIR: While you are thinking about that, given that the Crimes Act has a misprision felony, has it been reported to the police?
Ms Staib : This incident had not been reported to the police.
CHAIR: Then whoever who knew about it but did not report it is a criminal under the Crimes Act. Do you understand the Crimes Act and a misprision felony? I am putting you on notice.
Ms Staib : I am sorry but I do not have the figure at hand. I simply cannot recall it.
Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Chair, through you, the next time they come to estimates, can they do their homework?
Ms Staib : It is in the order of about 10,000 to 20,000 dollars and it was around travel, if my memory serves me correctly.
Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Ms Staib, for future estimates, if you can just come out with it, rather than saying, ‘We don’t have a clue.’ It would make life a lot easier.
Senator WILLIAMS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FI0V%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Will you be doing a referral to the DPP on this issue? Surely, embezzlement—or whatever you want to call it—of 10 to 20 thousand dollars should face criminal charges.
Ms Staib : This matter will not be referred, but on another matter—
Senator WILLIAMS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FI0V%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Why?
Ms Staib : as soon as we discovered that issue, we referred it directly to the Australian Federal Police. In fact, that matter is before the courts as we speak.
Senator WILLIAMS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FI0V%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)This person was sacked for putting items on a credit card that they were not allowed and it involved $10,000 to $20,000, but it does not get referred to the DPP. Why not?
Ms Staib : We have not done that, Senator.
Senator WILLIAMS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FI0V%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You say the matter will not be referred to the DPP. I am asking you: why not? I strike this all the time with ASIC and financial planners who forge things. They do such white collar crime and walk away scot-free. It is totally unacceptable. Will you refer this to the DPP, please?
Ms Staib : I will have a look at that.
CHAIR: Can I carefully remind you of the Crimes Act and obligation. Not if you are sure but if you have ‘reasonable knowledge’ of an act like fraud, you yourself become a felon under the Crimes Act if you do not report it.
The chair was Senator Bill Heffernan, coalition, NSW, Glenn Sterle is a Labor Senator from, Western Australia and John Williams is a coalition Senator from NSW.

If that Hansard transcript reads as incredible, given the pursuit of disgraced Labor figure Craig Thomson, who spend $28,449 on prostitutes, porn, and upper end ice creams taken from union funds, or ex House of Reps Speaker, Peter Slipper, who was found guilty of misusing $1194 worth of Commonwealth Cabcharge dockets, then enjoy the following two You Tubes.

They capture the entire live videocast of the hearings last Monday, capturing Ms Staibs performance as well as other matters, starting with this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p73nOD0ZGoc), and finishing with the sequel here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIz9NR0AANo).

There are some reasonable points of fairness and competency in public administration that arise from that Estimates hearing.

Was Ms Staib ignorant of her obligations under the Crimes Act, or did she knowingly choose to ignore them? The hearing didn’t clear up that question.

Should public servants in general feel they are exempt from the application of the criminal law of Australia, without specifically engaging the question as to what Ms Staib thinks or does, since this is an issue about how our public service should be run, not what the head of AirServices might believe to be the case or the correct course of action?

Ms Staib has a difficult job to do, and deserves respect for trying to do it to the best of her ability. But whether her attitudes to or knowledge of the law, and the Crimes Act in particular, are up to the required standard is another matter.

The worst thing that can happen to Government is to become distrusted or despised by ordinary people, and to a large extent, how well or poorly a Government may come to be perceived, such perceptions will be significantly formed by the culture and competency of its public administration.

In might be said, in the most general of contexts, that a public service culture that thinks it is immune from rthe criminal law of Australia is a culture than can destroy respect for Government. Whoever allegedly stole up to $20,000 from the vital government owned and controlled entity that is AirServices Australia needs to be identified and prosecuted, and if necessary punished in addition to having the value of any such proceeds of crime recovered from their assets.

[thorn bird]

"In might be said, in the most general of contexts, that a public service culture that thinks it is immune from rthe criminal law of Australia is a culture than can destroy respect for Government."


Hate to point this out Sarc's, CAsA KNOWS it is immune from the criminal law of Australia.


That has has been demonstrated so many times, John Quadrio comes to mind.


An ordinary citizen, just doing his job to the best of his ability, safely, and as far as anyone in this screwed up system we call aviation oversight (dependent on the FOI of the day), compliant with the law, when suddenly a capricious, malicious, regulator turns up, manufactures evidence, intimidates witnesses and when the proper authority declines to prosecute, takes it upon itself to destroy this citizen, his dreams, his plans his financial wellbeing and his health, because they can never be wrong.
Unmitigated bastardization and a shame on our government.

[4dogs]

After Sarc's hint I went reading. I found this interesting:

w......

Posted October 23, 2014 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

Do we think the Heff was referring to s6 of the Crimes Act 1914:

“6 Accessory after the fact

Any person who receives or assists another person, who is, to his or her knowledge, guilty of any offence against a law of the Commonwealth, in order to enable him or her to escape punishment or to dispose of the proceeds of the offence shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.”

Unsurprisingly, the Crimes Act 1914 does not mention “misprision (of)felony”. According to John Menadue The Revival of Misprision of Felony. Guest blogger: Kieran Tapsell | Pearls and Irritations (http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=1105)

“The crime, according to Lord Denning in the 1962 House of Lords case, Sykes v The Director of Public Prosecutions, was more than 700 years old. It is so old that the word “misprision”, meaning “concealment” has disappeared from everyday use.

…

Misprision of felony was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1967, and all Australian States followed suit. New South Wales abolished it in 1990, and replaced it with a statutory form in S.316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), making it an offence not to report a “serious” crime (one with a penalty of 5 years or more in prison) unless there was a reasonable excuse. The other States replaced it with a provision that made the concealment of a crime an offence only if the concealment was in return for some gain.”

Unfortunately for the Heff, the Criminal Code Act 1995 also fails to mention “misprision of felony” and only mentions “accessory after the fact” in the context of s6 of the Crimes Act 1914.

Perhaps Margie needed to say that there are many issues under corporate codes of conduct on integrity issues that will get you fired, but that the context of the breaches may be such that there is no certainty of successful prosecution for fraud.

Yet again, not enough information prior to sending out the lynch mob for mine.

As Kharon would say: passing strange that little interchange.

Stay Alive,

[Kharon]

Good on Alex Gallacher, foxed MM out of his hole, even if the smug retort was "not me – I've got top cover – Staib is on her Pat Malone, so there" (smirk).

Mr Mrdak : No. The governance of the organisation rests with the board and the CEO. They are accountable to the minister.

Senator GALLACHER: So where do they get their money?

Mr Mrdak : They are funded from industry charges.

Senator GALLACHER: Which are passed on to the travelling public as airfares.

Mr Mrdak : That is correct. The organisation is industry funded.

Senator GALLACHER: So it is a government business enterprise which does not know the rules in accordance with the public works committee, which is the longest-standing committee of the federal parliament. It has nothing to do with you. Is that what you are telling me?

Mr Mrdak : The chief executive has outlined to you the way in which this has been identified and the rectification steps taken. I do not think I can add anything further to that.

Ms Staib : Through the pricing arrangements there is—through the ACCC—but we do not have to seek approval of the Department of Finance, because it is all revenue derived from airline charges. It is not a government appropriation. (my bold)
Then; after the Gallacher jabs, but before the sweaty top lip of Staib is mopped dry – Sterle throws in a credit card right cross:- of course collective amnesia sets in; then coyly, like a Victorian virgin, daringly uncovering her ankle; the mighty intellect of Staib fires up and a dim, vague, small recollection creeps into the forebrain. What a load of Bollocks; unless it's an almost daily occurrence – sacking one of gods chosen for ripping off industry funds – I think the whole department would know who, when, where and how much was 'misused' and in which cathouse the money was spent.

IMO a decent manager would go for a very public prosecution, just to stop the rest of the troops thinking they could get away with similar, set the tone by making an example. But the witless Staib can only pray – "if my memory serves me correctly". Bollocks. I'm more offended by the arrogant assumption that everyone is dumb enough to swallow that crap and bad play acting than the loss of AUD$20, 000; or that we are expected to believe it was an isolated event. While I'm at it – (steam on) can someone please teach her to read out-loud from a script; it is after all, a basic skill learned at the teat and a must for anyone who presumes to do a lot of 'speechifying'. (Steam off).

Sterle : It is a pretty serious issue, because they were dismissed. Does anyone else have the amount? Gentlemen, you have that blank look on your faces—it is not so hard. How many people get dismissed the credit-card misuse? Someone must have the figure. I do not believe that you do not have it.

Ms Staib : I am sorry but I do not have the figure at hand. I simply cannot recall it.

Mind you, when your'e busy gouging AUD $96.3 MILLIONS – out of the travelling public – a $20,000 oversight may well be – insignificant.

CHAIR: Did the person who defrauded with the credit card make good the fraud amount? Or did you just say, 'You're sacked. See you later'?

Ms Staib : He has left the organisation. I will have to check whether we have pursued the repayment of the money.

CHAIR: Unbelievable.

Senator STERLE: On that, Chair, perhaps we could let Ms Staib know that at the next round of Senate estimates I want her to come prepared with all the information on the credit card misuse, and with any other examples of credit card misuse, travel misuse or anything that has been in the structure of Airservices Australia in the last three to five years, so we will not have play charades.

CHAIR: I will be consulting with the secretary, because now I know about it, and under the Crimes Act I am going to act, with the assistance of the secretary. Thank you very much. I will now call the ATSB. (My bold)
CHAIR:"Did someone get the bullet?" Is a bloody good question and places Staib in the same group as Dolan. If this committee was to get any more angry, they could, quite rightfully be howling for a minimum of two resignations, if not three from this tawdry passage of play.

4 Dogs – nice catch; it is indeed an intriguing notion and the "W" quote you provided has been at the core of a semi-furious, unresolved discussion at the BRB.

Yet again, not enough information prior to sending out the lynch mob for mine.

One thing the BRB never disagreed on was that whatever happens – will be behind closed doors, it will be swift, ruthless and never exposed to public view. This committee have good lines of contact and are trusted. There is little disagreement that if they do need additional 'information', it will be provided. Plenty of it available.

Sarcs –"One wonders how Ms Staib's position could still be tenable after such an insipid performance; but, then again, we still have Beaker in position don't we??"

We are becoming a tribe which seems to accept accident investigation reports which are "aberrations" and $96, 000,000 "oversights" as the norm. Perhaps it's time we asked the same question as Heff did, with a rider – Did someone get the bullet? – If not why not??

Second the motion for Hood's choccy frog – but, only one though, the little blighter is getting addicted and using the wrappers for 'bling'. Which, of it's self, is no bad thing, however we must control the excesses of our public officials....:D

Toot toot.

4D – the infamous "passing strange" comment came from one of McComic's more disgusting rants during the Pel-Air fiasco when he attempted to denigrate and belittle one of the witnesses; went down like a well trimmed manhole cover – but delighted me; so, I 'wodgered' it......;)

[Lookleft]

Why was Ms Staib wearing wings on her clothing? Is that part of the Airservices uniform?

I was also interested in Sen. Fawcett's questions on the RK NDB approach and why it can't be performed when the Tower is operating. It really is Alice in Wonderland if it is unsafe to do an NDB at RK with the Tower because the procedure goes OCTA but perfectly safe to do an NDB at SU where the procedure goes OCTA with the Tower open. :ugh:

At least I now know why they are putting in an RFF station at Ballina! Finally there is some recognition that the most likely place for a Cat 1 accident will have the rescue services on the spot. I think Sen Serle's head will explode if he witnesses another performance like that one.

[Creampuff]

Just so there's no room for confusion, please note that CASA and ATSB have effectively told the Senate Committee that it can go and get f*cked.

CASA and ATSB have done that because they know they have the blessing of the Secretary and Minister, and they know Laborial Senate Committee members won't put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their Committee mouth is.

Is there anyone still confused, or hoping against hope all the theatrics at Senate Committee or Estimates hearings are anything other than that: theatrics?

I'm happy to walk you through the relevant concepts and facts as often as is necessary. :ok:

[thorn bird]

Awww. C'mon Creamie you have to admit it is entertaining watching the scumbags who are destroying our industry squirm.
Small satisfaction I know, but what else do we have?

[Creampuff]

True: The entertainment is some consolation.

I'd far prefer competent and honest government at all levels, though. :(

[gerry111]

Senate Estimates? Sadly, they surely are only ever dramatic theatre!

NSW's ICAC also.

But both are rather expensive but ineffective theatre. For taxpayers. :sad:

[Kharon]

Buy your 'corporate services T shirt here and support the system. Fair dinkum, I thought that beyond even the looking glass for fantasy; but wait, there's more fantasy.
Mr Mrdak : There has been an extensive search process, both nationally and internationally. It has taken some time to seek a candidate of suitable quality.

Mr Mrdak : I can only comment that since the departure of Mr McCormick in August I think the organisation has been in very good hands with Mr Farquharson.

The scary part is that by extension – Mrdak makes it clear that "a candidate of suitable quality" would be a Farq-u-hardson look-alike. I'd have to agree – you would indeed have to scour the world to find a replicant; which may explain the lengthy delay. It seems the delay is not due to the MM crew having their schemes to get 'their' man into the job upset; or their inability to find a suitably malleable candidate who can be moulded to their will; or, sod all to do with minuscule inability to decide if he even wants milk in his tea, let alone what to do with 'aviation'. I am very relieved to have had that explained to me; I was a bit suspicious at first, but now I can relax.

Can't be bothered weeding out the whole passage of play – the paragraphs below; from yet another Wodger: he of Weasel Words (WOW), came after the glutinous logic relating to ATO numbers. What no one has told Fawcett is that there will lots of FOI 'returning to industry' all with Flight Test Examiner qualifications, who will charge their victims about $750 per test flight twice each year and a premium to cover the insurance – a nice little earner for the lobotomised, W2 trained, X-casa crowd. Don't worry folks– there will be plenty of them, they have after all just spent the last little while removing as many ATO as possible from the market place. This also helps explain where the FOI are going and why corporate services are expanding, CASA don't have to pay them any longer, they can gouge fees from industry and still do their dirty work. Great scheme to save money methinks.

If that is not enough to provide velvet trough cushions, there is always the Part 61 rort which has been suitably tailored to accommodate the 'brown envelope' clauses. See below, WOW explains the thing in simple terms, not bothering to even hide the grim truth contained within the system.

Mr Crosthwaite : We are talking about the flight reviews, flight tests and proficiency checks for industry pilots. There are a couple of points there. The first one is that, as the acting director said, the industry ATOs, or approved testing officers, have continued. We have provided opportunities for concurrent flight review and proficiency checks. Also, in the latest amendment to the regulations, before they commenced on 1 September, we reduced the number of checks required—for example, for instructors and examiners.

Blah, blah, blah, but for the nice little earner – see here:-

Also we have a mechanism within the regulations that allows CASA to grant an approval to conduct proficiency checks and flight tests. The examples of those were in the four-year transition period. We were able to manage the flow or the demand of flight examiners. (my bold)

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting to a point where I think we should be demanding Geoff Boyd 'go public' and spill the beans. It is becoming more and more obvious that nothing is going to improve under this captive, manipulated minuscule and if the charade goes on much longer – Boyd will become tainted - guilty by association, which would be a waste of talent and a squandered opportunity. Can the Bored at least let industry know they are still breathing, have a pulse and that apart from the 'whisper' that industry will be 'pleasantly surprised' with the new DAS. Just say something – anything positive would do.

It's a waste of wind – screaming in space – but this pathetic, embarrassing pantomime has to stop...:ugh:

Toot toot (Mk 2).

[Sarcs]

CASA and ATSB have done that because they know they have the blessing of the Secretary and Minister, and they know Laborial Senate Committee members won't put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their Committee mouth is.
Yes Creamy largely due to you we - the great unwashed and biggest risk to public safety in this country - the IOS are now very much educated in the fact that these - so called - safety agencies are merely taking the mickey bliss every time they front up to Estimates.
Awww. C'mon Creamie you have to admit it is entertaining watching the scumbags who are destroying our industry squirm.
Small satisfaction I know, but what else do we have? True: The entertainment is some consolation.

I'd far prefer competent and honest government at all levels, though. Hear..hear to that Creamy...:D

What I note Creamy is that every time Estimates do rock-on-round is that you never fail to put your two bob's worth in and even go to the trouble of finding your own favourite Hansard quote etc. Is this a perverse source of entertainment?? Or do you - like many others on here - hold out a faint candle of hope that one day...just one day we may get a true sign from above that our bastardised version of a plural democracy is not absolutely rooted (with a capital R) - sadly I think we live in false hope - although one only need look across the ditch to see that it is possible to do good things in government with not much more than a beautiful country. Of course NZed does not have to deal with an extra layer or two of bureaucracy - layers of bureaucracy that all have different, diverging & interweaving self-interests to protect...:ugh:

However what really mystifies me is that in all the spin, bulldust, lies, deception & obfuscation on display in RRAT Estimates there is always at least one clear example - contrary to the rest of the inept, corrupt mob - that appears to be quietly and efficiently getting on with business underneath the Senators radar or personal interest. Although there is no doubt there is indeed friction somewhere within - appearances can be deceptive - the good discipline & united front displayed by AMSA in Estimates - but you have to say it is a truly remarkable POD...:ok:

For perhaps the morbid amusement of those watching the slowly but surely strangulation of a once small but flourishing GA industry here is my POD example for the weekend:

AMSA Hansard grab 20/10/14 is from a section where questioning went to Regs and the agency attempts to reduce compliance costs and simplify/reduce regulatory burden (i.e. RTRP):Senator STERLE: What portion of the $60 million in portfolio savings to industry is AMSA responsible for?

Mr Kinley : I think it was around $10 million or $12 million.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)How much of the target has been achieved so far?

Mr Kinley : I would have to say that at the moment we probably have not achieved much at all, apart from with Marine Orders part 54, which is about marine pilotage, where we think we have saved about $0.04 million for marine pilots, pilotage providers and training providers {fancy that a PS being full & frank not shirking/ducking/weaving/obfuscating the responsibilities just telling it as it is...I am an instant fan}
...From our National Standard for Commercial Vessels part C1, about accommodation arrangements and personal safety, we calculate there have been savings of around $5.85 million to industry. From Marine Orders part 42 we believe we have achieved savings of about $0.01 million. From National Standard for Commercial Vessels Part C7A, on safety equipment, we believe there is about $1.99 million.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Given that many of the savings are via regulatory adjustments, how does AMSA ensure that these savings do not impact on safety?

Mr Kinley : Because in all of our development of standards, it is all about managing risk. It is about looking at what these standards are meant to address and how they are administered, as well. In many cases it is about how these standards are administered—what paperwork people need to do and what sort of plan approval they need to do. It is also looking at, to be frank, a lot of standards which have not been reviewed in a long time and looking at what the contemporary risks are and how we can better achieve an equivalent level of safety with less cost to industry.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Can you tell us then how AMSA would assure itself that you would minimise any environmental damage through these savings, like damage to the reef?

Mr Kinley : Certainly the only one of those standards which is relevant to the reef standard is Marine Orders part 54 for marine pilotage. We have been continually working to improve safety in the reef, so we have certainly not lessened any of the standards about how pilotage is done. We have been enhancing training requirements and competency requirements there. Those savings are about reporting, from the pilot providers for example, to us and requiring fewer forms to be filled in. It is about administrative savings.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I want to talk about consultation and regulatory change. Can you tell us what stakeholder consultation AMSA undertakes when it proposes changes.

Mr Kinley : With all of our marine orders, again, and with all of our standards, we have consultations which, for the marine orders in particular, are quite generally targeted to the specific industry that is involved. For example, with Marine Orders part 54, about coastal pilotage, a lot of the consultation was with the pilotage providers in particular, who were being regulated; the pilots who were involved; and ship owners and shipping associations. We also, of course, consult with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and other partner organisations.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Sorry to cut you off, Mr Kinley. Because you are so far away, you cannot feel the chair's breath on your neck like I can! I am going to throw three questions at you, and if you could answer them very quickly I would appreciate it. Will AMSA respond to stakeholder comments publicly and publish justifications for changes you make—including, where appropriate, cost-benefit analysis—in future?

Mr Kinley : Yes, we do where we are able to as people give us submissions.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Is it the case that AMSA must consult with social partners when making changes to international conventions like the IMO International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and of course the ILO labour convention?

Mr Kinley : It is only the ILO that talks about social partners.
Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Okay—not the IMO.

Mr Kinley : But we certainly do consult with industry and with employees. We certainly consult with the maritime unions when we do amend marine orders.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Okay—so that happens every time. AMSA takes it upon itself not to worry, that you are forced into it—you will do it with the IMO as well as the ILO. My last question—who are the social partners?

Mr Kinley : Under the terms of the International Labour Organisation, the social partner in Australia for the ship owners is the Australian Shipowners Association. Generally, I think, the Maritime Union of Australia is considered the employee social partner, and I understand that the arrangement is to consult with the other two maritime unions.

Senator WILLIAMS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FI0V%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)In the AMSA streamlining review that has been carried out, have you identified any areas that need attention?

Mr Kinley : The streamlining review is about the domestic commercial vessel standards, and there have been quite a few concepts which have been published on our website. We have been very transparent about what they are. There have been a number of areas which have been identified.
Senator WILLIAMS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FI0V%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Will these feed into the government's red tape reduction agenda?

Mr Kinley : We started the process before that agenda started because, again, a lot of these requirements have been in place since time immemorial, and we thought it was well timed to examine what the contemporary safety needs are for a lot of these standards.

Senator WILLIAMS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FI0V%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)The government has to simply look at your website and they can see those red tape reductions.

Mr Kinley : We certainly do report upon the streamlining process on our website. The highlighted part will help with my POD comparison to CAsA later on but for now here is part of the AMSA Estimates segment in pictures...;) {Minus the silly Green's Senator dressed like a canary..:D..unfortunately with the other silly political point scoring Green's Senator - ChemtrailMilne...:yuk:}

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - AMSA - YouTube

Now we fast fwd to the CAsA segment which focusses again on part 1 of the captured video footage...

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - CASA Part 1 - YouTube

...and this part where Senator Conroy questions various inept, obstructive members of the current (441) FF executive team in regards to the projected RTR savings in Part 21...:yuk: :yuk::Senator CONROY: Is it still the case that CASA has been asked to identify the $12 million dollars in savings to industry within your portfolio?

Mr Farquharson : That is correct.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Can I refer to the one saving identified by CASA—and you may have heard it mentioned already today—part 21: which additional countries—and I think we may have got some information earlier today, Mr Mrdak?

Mr Mrdak : We did.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)But for the purpose of mutual recognition in relation to aircraft airworthiness, I think we got that list earlier. Do you have it handy, Mr Farquharson?

Mr Farquharson : Mr Boyd will be able to assist us.

Mr Boyd : I do not have the list in front of me, but I think your question referred to some savings that were identified—

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I am asking which countries under a particular one—21?
Mr Boyd : That are listed as preferred countries, we have—

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)That are now recognised by Australia for the purposes of mutual recognition, which has been done as a saving?

Mr Boyd : Years. That particular exercise was not part of the savings for that particular point you are making. That part 21 provision that claimed the savings was actually against defects that were being assessed against various defects within aircraft. In fact, the saving was not against the provisions for the recognised countries; it was actually another part of 21.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Okay. Could you explain to the committee how those savings have been calculated? Are you finding fewer defects or are you looking for fewer defects?

Mr Boyd : No, it was a mechanism allowing operators and maintenance control organisations to be able to manage the defects in a manner that was both safe but also more effective.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)And what was that process change?

Mr Boyd : Perhaps I could call on our executive manager standards to give you more technical details.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Yes, that would be great.

Mr Ward : In relation to the cost saving that you are inquiring about, the amendment was made to part 21 to provide the operators with greater opportunity and flexibility to manage the deferral of defects on their aircraft. The deferral of those defects in all cases needs to be assessed against the appropriate design and certification standards for the aircraft.
It introduced some additional flexibility that the operators did not have and would, in other circumstances, have required them to revert to CASA to get that approval.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So they do not have to tell you anymore that they have done it?

Mr Ward : No, what they have to do is defer the defect in accordance with a process and procedure and make the engineering assessment to the design standard that is applicable to the deferral of that defect.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Unfortunately, it is late at night so I am not just quite following exactly what that means in English.

Mr Ward : Okay. There are a number of mechanisms that allow an operator to defer a defect on an aircraft.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)What does 'defer a defect' mean? A defect is still a defect; what you mean is defer the repairs to a defect?

Mr Ward : That is correct—defer the repair of the defect. In some cases, the manufacturer will provide pre-approved documentation that will allow you to defer the repair of the defect to a later point in time. In other cases, the deferral of the defect to a later point in time can be justified through engineering analysis of the defect to the design standard for the aircraft.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Okay. So this is a paperwork issue that allows you to defer repairs to defects?

Mr Ward : That is correct.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So currently, you require them to repair the defect? They do not have access to this pre-approved paperwork?

Mr Ward : They have access to some of the pre-approved paperwork, but what the change to the legislation did was to introduce or allow another mechanism that they previously did not have access to. So it gave them greater flexibility.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So what was the other mechanism?
Mr Ward : That was to allow them to do the assessment against the design standard. Previously they would have had to approach CASA for an exemption to operate the aircraft.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Right. Okay—I might come back to that in a second. I just want to come back to your answer, Mr Boyd. Did you provide us with the answer to question 74 from the last estimates?

My reading of that answer is the exact opposite to the answer you have just given us, which is that it was not part of the savings. My reading of this answer is that it is part of the savings.

Dr Aleck : We do not appear to have question 234 in our packs. Could you read it to me?

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)It says:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority … is progressing initiatives to change a number of regulatory and service delivery processes to minimise the regulatory compliance and/or administrative burden …

These initiatives include:
- amendments to Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations … to reduce the complexity of flight training organisation approvals;
- amendments to CASR Part 61 …
… … …
- amending CASR Part 21 …

You state that this is part of this and then you just told the committee a moment ago that it was not part of this.

Mr Boyd : The part that we did amend, that was part 21, as Mr Ward just explained, to do with the defect referral process. That is part of part 21.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Maybe it is late and I am still a bit slower than I should be. You are saying that this is not part of a savings-to-industry measure?
Mr Boyd : What I am saying is that CASA part 21 was part of the industry savings measures, but the provision within part 21 was the provision that Mr Ward has just explained.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So it is part of the savings measures?
Mr Boyd : Yes.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Which was the part that was not part of the savings measures?

Mr Boyd : The part to do with the recognition of other approvals from overseas.

Senator CONROY: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F3L6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)That was done and has nothing to do with this?

Mr Boyd : No, it had nothing to do with the savings measures. Now if Senator Conroy came out of that exchange with a clearer picture on where the RTR savings are and what they are, then he is a far superior being than I would have ever given him credit for...:bored:

OK (POD) now compare the above nearly 40 paragraph dialogue with multiple identities to AMSA's CEO Mr Kinley open & frank dialogue which included the example of MO Part 54...:E

This POD says to me that within the current morass of bureaucratic & political self-interest/preservation it is possible - with the right people and mindset - to have an acceptable level of trust & consultation between the regulator and industry that will help to encourage future investment & growth within that industry...:ok:

The solution is obvious there is just no political/bureaucratic will - or a miniscule with the balls who is not mesmerised by the MOAS - to change the current status quo...:{

MTF...:ok:

Ps While on AMSA congrats to Cobham for being rewarded the next AMSA SAR tier one fixed wing contract, looks like a good future gig - Challenger 604 "Nemo II" - for those interested...:D Cobham wins $640m AMSA search and rescue contract (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/cobham-wins-640m-amsa-search-and-rescue-contract/)

[Kharon]

What, exactly is Corporate Services? Watching Part 3 of the Sarcs provided – video (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-118.html#post8707958) - (thanks mate) is a bit like watching grid-iron football. Where they change the entire team every five minutes depending on what they are trying to achieve.

I am always amused by and enjoy the bits where a question is asked – looks left and right are exchanged – then someone calls on a 'colleague' to come and explain away, I won't say answer, the issue at hand. It is intriguing that the 'exec' can't ever quite 'recollect' the details but, can always, without fail, name and summon another talking head who has an almost perfect memory of part of the story – with 'from memory' lapses, but can identify another with precision; one who has yet another part of the yarn. More like servicing corporate, than corporate services. Marvellous to behold, should be made into a television soap opera.

For example – Sterle brings up 'credit cards' – (blank looks, WOW out of his seat like it was biting him) team change. It always intrigues me that the likes of WOW instinctively know when its 'all change' time; they must practice for hours, like those synchronised swimmers. Amazing stuff – if you like that kind of thing.

Enter the Executive manager – corporate services; who kicks off the segment and carries the ball until the opposition forwards challenge – flick pass – enter the chief financial officer, who has slithered into the still warm WOW seat, to beguile the Senators. You'd think that with hundreds of credit cards floating about the place, the CFO would have the normal system in place where monthly 'expenses' have to be submitted and money returned to the spender against receipts; rather than checking every card transaction, just in case someone slipped the odd sandwich and Coke onto the gifted credit card. It must be impossible to pick up the dodgy "between $5 and $90" transactions.

Almost all the 'good', undetected FRAUD schemes rely on a steady flow of small, insignificant amounts being 'milked' from a much larger money stream. $50 here, $90 there it's not very long before the 'beer and baccy' bill is paid; and or , junior's Ukulele lessons; and or, Mum's yoga class is being fully supported from the massive amounts of industry funds floating about. Hell, ASA chewed up $90,000,000 collected from the long suffering travelling public without so much as a belch. Perhaps that corporate giant the Auditor General could take a little look-see; just to be sure that the biccy tin donations paid for the Tim Tams and the Guide dog collection tin actually got to the dogs home (bless 'em – every last one).

No matter, there are 441 staff employed in corporate services to supervise the activities of 70 field operatives. The Jordan 'super market' fairy tale typifies how the scam works – he expects us to believe that the average CASA employee can't differentiate between the company card and their personal card. That notion, stand alone begs many questions

Layer upon layer of corporate top cover. It's like trying to pin a fart to the wall. But I'm certain that eventually we shall find one of the 441 employees of 'corporate services' who is essential to the safety of the Australian travelling public, one with some idea of which end of the aircraft emits the smoke and noise.

Can't support the Creampuff notion of it being a joke though; perhaps I've lost my sense of humour – I shall check. Pinch me Minnie – wake me up from this 'Pay-Wave' nightmare.

"With the sleep of dreams comes nightmares".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Sunday indulgence.
To die, to sleep.
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

The sleep of reason produces monsters.

Wiki – "Goya imagines himself asleep amidst his drawing tools, his reason dulled by slumber and bedeviled by creatures that prowl in the dark. The work includes owls that may be symbols of folly and bats symbolising ignorance. The artist's nightmare reflected his view of Spanish society, which he portrayed in the Caprichos as demented, corrupt, and ripe for ridicule."

The full epigraph for capricho No. 43 reads; "Fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters: united with her, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of their marvels.

End Sunday ramble.

[Creampuff]

[D]o you - like many others on here - hold out a faint candle of hope that one day...just one day we may get a true sign from above that our bastardised version of a plural democracy is not absolutely rooted (with a capital R)[?]You answered that for me:[S]adly I think we live in false hope.Two epiphanies led me to that conclusion.

First, after about 40 years of watching, very closely, the machinations of government, I realised that when one 'side' wins, both 'sides' win. They do almost exactly the same things: It's just the mates who get the favours that change.

Neither 'side' has an interest in changing the phony competition because, sooner or later, each 'side' will get its turn at taxing like robber barons and spending like drunken sailors. Both 'sides' have put a lot of work into building a 'pliable' administration to passionately dedicate itself to protecting this system.

Secondly, and related to the first, I realised that there are lots of people prepared to work for organisations for which the people have no respect, or even have active disdain, and prepared to contribute to the achievement of outcomes to which those people have personal or moral objections. I don't know how they do it, but there are lots and lots of them doing the politicians' dirty work. I might be naive, because that was quite a revelation to me. :(

[Soteria]

Firstly, there should be a royal commission into Australia's government agencies - CASA, ATSB, ASA. A look into the corruption, incompetence and systemic bullying and malfeasance.

Secondly, there should be holistic independent audits of each alphabet soup organisations finances by a third party such as KPMG or someone similar.

Thirdly, the CASA generated crock of steaming ****e excuse for 'suspect' credit card transactions being due to 'staff walking past pay wave machines' etc is one of the lamest, deceptive, hilarious responses I think I have ever heard! How unfortunate that this particularly only occurs with government employees, oh my how unusual?

Fourth, Frau Staib - Oh you naughty girl. To start with she would have known every intimate detail about the $20k credit card fraud. Anything, and I mean anything that could blow up into an issue that affects the departments reputation and in turn that of the Minister, is a serious concern, and I can assure you that this is one of those issues. Staib would have been across every inch of this issue. Then she covers it over with the old classic 'I don't recall'. All pollies and bureaucrats are taught that trick. It's a fool proof way of lying about an issue without perjuring yourself, it's how you don't say yes or no and therefore can't get done for lying if the truth comes out, 'you simply say I don't recall, I don't remember, or something like 'not to my recollection'!

It has become more transparently obvious that these government department are staffed and run like a Mafia. Monies (vast amounts) come in via the taxpayer, get filtered through the organisation and then spent on individuals in any way they can spend it to further their own self interests. Study trips, corporate meals, furniture, 5 star accomodation, business travel, A380 endorsements, computer software and flight training schools!! The list is endless thanks to the amount of taxpayer money that is milked so as to fund such decadence.
Now how do I get me one of these jobs? Because if I do get one I can assure you that I too will be raping the public purse and hoovering these taxpayer troughs until my stomach and wallet are exploding at the seams. It is part and parcel of each government employees position description, is it not?

Oink oink

[Frank Arouet]

QUOTE Now how do I get me one of these jobs? QUOTE.


You first need to know the secret handshake. (am I close).

[Lookleft]

So if Ms Staib was one of the best and the brightest that the airforce could produce its no wonder Defence procurement is in the mess that it is. Wasn't she an AVM?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

$20,000 on tap and is a minimum of 200 transactions assuming the $100 limit and all transactions were around that figure. Really! Surely they would have spotted that number of unreconciled transactions?

[Soteria]

Biccy, it all depends on how big the fish was. If it was a senior player at ASA they could have a very high monthly allowance and therefore racked up the bill rather quickly, without raising to much suspicion. However if they were purchasing $2k per night call girls, Versace handbags, big screen TV's from Harvey Normans or gold bullion from the Perth mint you might think it would have been picked up sooner? It could have also been done on a smaller scale with smaller amounts over a long period of time. It's a tad hard not having all the details on hand to make a totally accurate summation. It also could have been a more lowly ranked minion who has enjoyed splurging a little on some of life's finer trappings - fuel for the 182, KFC for the family, inflatable balls to take to the MCG for the cricket or 'interesting attire' for the next Hellfire party at Hoody's place!
Either way, the rorter was obviously a thorough buffoon. It's not hard when you are a public servant to use taxpayers money to further your own personal advantage and make it all appear 'legitimate' and 'above board'. Then again maybe the ASA person will use the CASA excuse and say that the $20k of transactions was due to his wallet accidentally brushing past pay wave machines and somehow charging up said items?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

One thing that is clear is that it is very easy to bamboozle on safety issues and people and the media not being too interested it isn't the same with finances and tax payers money.

I hadn't picked up on it being Asa and casa. With the leaky chips paying for other transactions they should have stopped accepting those cards?

I know your right soteria depends who you are. The bullied will be over scrutinized every dollar and cent poured over.

Mr Mrdak praising Terry is he on for the DAS job proper as Sunny predicts? I think so.

[Kharon]

Against my better judgement, I had a another, final, look at the Beaker show; just in case there was anything of value in it.

Dolan - "Clarification of the 'factual' content would be useful" – means what?

The facts are simple – and were clearly identified by the Senate committee in their report. Waiting for this now compromised Canadian report and asking questions about it at estimates is just not worth the time. The original will never see the light of day and the tight, tight focus on ToR along with the 'factual' contents being edited by the people the report is auditing, makes the whole thing farcical.

At least the MH 370 investigation has the right man at the helm; can't have Houston he is not so obliging when it comes to the cover up of the duck up, whereas Beaker has had all the practice he'll ever need and necessary experience in estimates questioning to deflect, delay and dilute the 'factual' content.

Nope, the Canucks can put their 'factually' edited report where the sun never shines; it is disappointing to think that they would stoop to the Beaker level of obfuscation. We should just pay the bill and bury the report off Norfolk, under the Westwind along with our national integrity, pride and any hope of ever holding up our heads as aviators. That will at least give us the time to closely observe how the study of Chemilnecal Trails are a subject worthy of Senate time.

I'm thinking of signing up with Soteria – get me one of these jobs; the ones that come with a credit card, iron clad top cover, no responsibility, school teachers hours and a chance to hammer my peers (with impunity). All I'd have to do is sell my soul – fair trade some would say. But then, I'd miss the sunshine, the fresh air and the ability to sleep each night and shave each morning.

Aye – it's a puzzle.

[Sarcs]

Ms Staib's performance in last week's Estimates: The strange mixed & inconsistent message from MS between one potential case of credit card fraud (in the courts) & another (up to 20k) abuse of credit card (dismissal)..:uhoh:..was certainly quite bizarre..:rolleyes: But what I found most disturbing was the (almost dismissive) attitude of MS when questioned on the spending of literally 10s of millions of (96 of them) public funded monies by ASA...:ugh:

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - AirServices Part 1 - YouTube

Although that only calls into question Ms Staib's performance & suitability for her position as CEO of ASA - because ASA are only really applying due process for the funds once pax numbers pass a certain threshold (i.e. 350k) for upgrading fire fighting services at an airport.

My question is that in terms of 'in the public interest' is the ASA CEO ineptitude & incompetence - on display at Estimates - any worse than Beaker's aiding & abetting the CAsA attempted cover-up of PelAir?? In particular the Beaker decision not to spend the extra taxpayer funds required to recover VH-NGA & it's blackbox - after all they did have the bloody thing roped off...:= :=

Non-retrieval of CVR/FDR - Dolan obfuscation 22/10/12 hearing - YouTube

Beaker - MH370 search perfect muppet for the job?? Kharon - At least the MH 370 investigation has the right man at the helm; can't have Houston he is not so obliging when it comes to the cover up of the duck up, whereas Beaker has had all the practice he'll ever need and necessary experience in estimates questioning to deflect, delay and dilute the 'factual' content.
Interesting point you make "K"...:ooh:

Came across an article from IBT (International Business Times) which would give credence to your summation: MH370 Search Update: Expert Highlights Cover Up Of Malaysia And Australia In Withholding Plane’s Recordings (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/570747/20141026/mh370-missing-search-update.htm#.VE1tvkhxnIX)

By Athena Yenko (http://au.ibtimes.com/archives/articles/reporters/athena-yenko/)| October 26, 2014 1:32 AM EST

The first four hours into the disappearance of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was crucial to the investigation. What transpired during this critical period were surely documented by different audio recording contained in recorders and hard disks that up until now are not being released in public and being withheld from the families of the passengers. Neither Malaysia nor Australia (http://au.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/389/australia/) is releasing such recordings and hard disks; therefore, these two nations could be guilty of a cover up for something that remains convoluted and unknown today, an aviation expert alleged.


.ads_rectangle_img_content_left {background-color: #FFFFFF;font-size: 1px;line-height: 1px;margin: 0;padding: 0;}#content #left_tool{width:300px !important;}#content #left_tool_1{display: inline;float: left;margin-right: 15px;width:180px !important;}Des Ross, a pilot and air traffic management specialist with more than 35 years in aviation industry, wants to know "what secret was there and what were" Malaysia and Australia (http://au.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/389/australia/) "so protective about." An aviation advisor in South Sudan (http://au.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/442/sudan/), he wants to understand "what needed to be kept secret from the world even when 239 people were lost?"

Ross highlighted the very known and given fact that Malaysian Air Force has the capacity to intercept an unidentified aircraft; that it could instruct its military pilot to track a plane that its radar found to be flying out to the Andaman Sea. But it had chosen and is continuing to withhold the information.


"What is the secret they were guarding? Why is there still no information in the public domain about what happened that night during the first four hours?" Ross asked. He highlighted that answers to these questions are contained somewhere but are being hidden.

He said the pilot/air traffic controller recording contains the answers to his questions. A separate recording of the voice coordination between the air traffic controllers in Kuala Lumpur and Ho Chi Minh City - done via a voice/ data link and kept for 30 days - has the information. A recorded communications between military air defence officer and the civil air traffic controller in Kuala Lumpur control centre also holds information - assuming that they talked with each other in tracking the "unidentified" plane; if they did not, then they commit criminal negligence. Moreover, all telephone conversations between military centre and the civil ATC centre are recorded.

"Nobody can tell us that the recordings do not exist." Ross argued (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/expert-challenges-mh370-story). Malaysia and Australia "could be accused of covering up vital information which would help the families and independent investigators to work out what happened," he upheld.
Meanwhile, Transport Ministry Secretary-General Datuk Ruhaizah Mohamed Rashid said that Indonesia has yet to report of any spotted debris from MH370.

Any time that debris turns up in Indonesia, it will be brought to Australia for analysis. Australian authorities will then send its report to Boeing for verification, Rashid told a press briefing conducted by Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) chief coordinator Judith Zielke and Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Peter Forley.

To contact the editor, e-mail: [email protected] ([email protected]?Subject=FEEDBACK: [570747] MH370 Search Update: Expert Highlights Cover Up Of Malaysia And Australia In Withholding Plane’s Recordings&body=%0A%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fau.ibtimes.com%2Farticles%2F570747%2 F20141026%2Fmh370-missing-search-update.htm)


{Comment: Des Ross also published in ABAP online - Expert challenges MH370 story (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/expert-challenges-mh370-story)}.

Mr Ross certainly raises some questions that test the veracity & credibility of the Malaysian (& by association ATsB) assumptions for basing their search for MH370 in the Southern Indian Ocean...:rolleyes:

Moral of the story: If indeed the whole search mission does go sour (i.e. cock-up) and needs to be stonewalled - always pick a muppet with no cred over an Air Marshal (retired or active) every time...:E

MTF...:ok:

[Lookleft]

So do you think Sarcs that she has been coached on how to respond to the questions? I thought that Sterle was going to throw something at her and her lack of understanding about the role of the PWC suggests that she has not been put in that job for outstanding administrative abilities. Another fall person for Mrdak I think.

[Soteria]

Lookleft,

So do you think Sarcs that she has been coached on how to respond to the questions?
Yes. That is all part of the game. She may not have known the exact wording of each question, but she would have mostly known what was coming. And for anything 'surprising' or out of left field she well knows that 'I will take that on notice' or 'I don't recall' is the get out of jail free card.

I thought that Sterle was going to throw something at her and her lack of understanding about the role of the PWC suggests that she has not been put in that job for outstanding administrative abilities.
She was hired because she knows how to play the political bureaucratic game. Her career history is testament to that. However, those roles are always a poison chalice and usually only last a few years. Most people take these positions toward the end of their career, earn big dollars for 3 to 5 years then retire on that nice taxpayer funded superannuation nest egg. (And maybe dabble in some consulting or lobbying)

Another fall person for Mrdak I think.
You think correct. She is expendable, and she knows it. These people are and will always be the fallguy (in Staibs case, fallgirl) for the Minister. But nothing will happen, after all, Russell signed off on a $900 million contract and when the kitchen got too hot he resigned and went to work for that very contractor :=

[Creampuff]

Random thought: Are there any other female two stars about to pull the pin and leave the ADF?

The CASA Frankenstein has yet to feast on female flesh at the DAS level.

[Sarcs]

Creamy DAS prediction?? :ooh: Creamy it seems you nailed the former two star prediction but got the gender wrong...:D

Mark Skidmore is the new DAS (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/mark-skidmore-is-the-new-das)

29 Oct 2014
Doug Nancarrow


AVM Mark Skidmore AM is the new head of CASA. Expect a formal announcement before the end of this week.

Wikipedia link - Mark Skidmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore)
Early life and career[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Skidmore&action=edit&section=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro)]

Skidmore was born in Kowloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon), Hong Kong on 15 March 1959, and joined the Royal Australian Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Australian_Air_Force) (RAAF) as an Officer Cadet in 1977.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore#cite_note-airpower-2) He completed Number 113 Pilots Course and was posted to No. 1 Squadron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1_Squadron_RAAF), RAAF Base Amberley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Amberley) to fly the General Dynamics F-111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark).

Following his tour on F-111s, Skidmore undertook the United States Naval Test Pilot School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Test_Pilot_School) Fixed Wing course in 1985. At the completion of the course he was posted to the Aircraft Research and Development Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Research_and_Development_Unit_RAAF), RAAF Base Edinburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Edinburgh), where he flew F-111, Dassault Mirage III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_III), Macchi MB-326H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_MB-326), AESL CT/4A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_CT/4_Airtrainer) and Douglas C-47 Dakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-47_Skytrain) aircraft.

In 1989, Skidmore returned to RAAF Base Amberley and completed tours at No. 1 Squadron as the Operational Flight Commander and No. 82 Wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._82_Wing_RAAF) as the Operations Officer. This was followed by a posting as the Flight Test Director on the F-111C Avionics Update Program in California, USA. Returning to Australia in 1996, he served as the Staff Officer Operational Systems at Headquarters Air Command, RAAF Base Glenbrook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Base_Glenbrook), before resigning from the RAAF in March 1998. Skidmore joined Aerospace Technical Services in 1998 as the Senior Test Pilot and Business Development Executive, positions he maintained following the company's acquisition in 1999 by Raytheon Systems Company.

Skidmore rejoined the RAAF in 2000 and completed the Defence Staff Course at Weston Creek before being posted again to the Aircraft Research and Development Unit, this time as the Commanding Officer. From 2003 he was Director of Operational Requirements for the New Air Combat Capability project.

Prior to assuming the position of Joint Force Air Component Commander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Force_Air_Component_Commander) in 2005 he attended the Defence and Strategic Studies Course at the Australian Defence College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_College), Weston Creek. During 2005 he was deployed to the Middle East Area of Operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Area_of_Operations) where he served as the Director Combined Air Operations Centre. For this service he was awarded a Commendation for Distinguished Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_for_Distinguished_Service) in the 2007 Australia Day Honours List.

Skidmore was promoted to the rank of Air Vice Marshal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Vice_Marshal_(Australia)) and appointed as the Air Commander Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Air_Command) on 27 June 2008.

In 2013 Skidmore test flew the RAAF Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF_Museum) replica Bristol Boxkite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Boxkite) at Point Cook, Victoria for about 1000 metres and reached a speed of 42 mph.
[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore#cite_note-Military_aviation_history_takes_flight_at_RAAF_Museum-3) Skidmore was quoted as saying "It was an exhilarating and humbling experience, I am honoured and proud to follow those aviators who pioneered military aviation in this country" and "I now also have the honour of being the only RAAF pilot who has flown both the fastest and slowest aircraft in the Air Force."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skidmore#cite_note-4) MTF...:ok:

[Soteria]

Correct Sarcs. The announcement is imminent and Herr Skidmore is the new DAS, my source confirmed this last night. I've been saying for some time that it wouldn't be Wake UP Terry, even though the rumour for some time has been that he would get the permanent gig.
So another RAAF/test pilot it shall be. A trusted government comrade, like Staib, who knows how the game is played...

Fun fun fun

[Creampuff]

They failed to mention ‘his’ gender reassignment… :E

Another patsy for the Frankenstein to consume.

I’m sure he’ll be extraordinarily well advised by a loyal team who’ll be behind him all the way. :ok:

The dynamic 2 star duo are going to be a lot of fun to watch at Estimates. :D

(PS: RIP GA in Australia.)

[Bill Smith]

Management: "What do you mean there is no one with any experience to recruit?"

Chief Pilot: "Well Sir we don't have any GA airports, or Industry, so people are not learning to fly anymore."

Management: "We will just start an MPL program, no one needs those bug smasher flying skills anymore. After all it's just a big computer game!"

The new generation. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Lets hope we are all pleasantly surprised

[Lookleft]

It doesn't seem that anyone else has made the point about the new DAS having been a former test pilot. So what? Glad you asked. What it means is that the only Senator with any aviation experience has just been trumped by the new DAS with equivalent if not greater aviation experience. From my experience with former military pilots they tend to hang on to their deference of the senior rank even in civvie life. Those with greater knowledge may correct me but I'm sure an AVM outranks an LC. Mrdak has once again demonstrated why he is the master of manipulation when it comes to the PS versus the Parliament. I'm sure AVM Skidmore has dealt with PS Mandarins before but of course now he is working for one. An interesting contest.

[Creampuff]

No contest.

Like McCormick, Skidmore's stuffed. Wouldn't have a clue how to fix regulatory reform, and will be smart enough to pretend it's on track for completion 'soon'.

A lucrative public sector job prior to moving on, and that's it.

[Soteria]

Gotta hand it to you Lookleft, an astute post. I hadn't really thought about the "Skidmore vs Fawcett knowledge and experience"side of things :ok:
This could indeed be a stroke of genius by MrDak. Very interesting potential twist, having a new DAS that could use that experience and knowledge to challenge the Senators.
'Wake Up Terry' is also a former test pilot however he is flat out staying awake for his midday Bonox or managing to get through his hourly bladder test these days! Never mind, I'm sure he will get along well with Skidmore, swap a few test pilot stories, just hope the DAS doesn't find a horse head in his bed :=

And Creamy, you are ever so naughty. I had already thought what you just said, but I said to self 'self, do I post these thoughts, or do I let the new DAS commence his new role (January?) before I pass comment on how he is settling in'. But just like a Brisbane FOI at 'The Pink' on a Friday afternoon I didn't want to fire off too early! But you beat me to it.....

[Up-into-the-air]

A quick browse on the zoo:

The Pilot's Course - # 113 and Mr. Skidmore
(http://vocasupport.com/who-was-in-the-113-pilots-course-raaf/)

[Kharon]

The interest now is in who will be appointed to hold his jacket and do the heavy lifting. We must pray to our pagan gods of choice that no one 'internal' gets promoted. Skidmore (temptation resisted) will need a Paul Tyrell and a Mike Smith "type" to back him up; as he will have precious little knowledge of what makes an airline tick and sweet bugger all idea of how GA lives on the razors edge. He will have Fawcett – Semper Fidelis and all that. (Nice one Lefty, Choc frog standard....:ok:). Mark you, Cosgrove (as a military example) never cut the mustard on the Qantas board, rolled about in the clover with the rest of them. Anyway there is a meeting Friday, 'we' apparently need to convince the new boy that Part 61 is a crock and perhaps he'll throw it back down the cesspit it came from, where it belongs: we must do this for free after CASA spent gods know what producing a crippled beast, to harmonise with the Frankenstein choir.

We (IOS) will soon see if the new boy has any bollocks, brains, integrity and resolve. The first thing; as a gift to a badly mauled, disillusioned, cynical industry should be to put the brakes on this 800 page Part 61 aberration; scale it down to a NZ sensible size (with slight modifications) and have an indaba with industry, to see how best 'we' manage the monster. Mind you, if he can't work it out for himself what, I ask, is the point in hiring the blighter, at great expense to industry? But, my expertise is also valuable. To have me donate it to the DAS cause, he will need to earn my respect in the first instance and convince me; beyond a shadow of doubt, that his heart, mind and soul are dedicated to restoring the industry. Homework before examination is the go, not to rely on cribbing from other folks notes and hard work, that's cheating, dontcha know...

Then initiate every single Senate recommendation – without delay: then initiate every single recommendation the Rev. Forsyth made; fire the top three layers of management, have a no holds barred credit card audit, sort out the despicable MoU and start legal proceedings against those who 'disturbed' the TSI act and humiliated this industry by being involved in the Pel Air debacle – all of them.

Then, after morning tea; we can get down to real issues and clean out the vermin droppings gifted to him from the last residents of the Sleepy Hollow. The LSD needs to be seriously looked at, some of their 'stunts' beggar belief. Which should take us through to lunch. It's not hard; not with the all encompassing executive horsepower, as set up by Aleck (whispering death) to be above the law and all; – that will help steer it through. Save the new boy some time (hint) - get the 'white hats' working; all spoils go to Caesar.

Yup, six phone calls before lunch must be within the competence of the "new" DAS; else why was the 'position' (and the dough) gifted to him?: does his credit card get scrutinised by the "executive" manager of the 440 strong 'corporate' team, or just by the chief financial officer? No matter – all will be well when managing the 'rental agreement' for corporate (self owned) housing and first class seats on multiple flights. Big trough, no wukkers.

I shall pay attention, failure will be easily detected – temptation will not be resisted. The game is rolling, the new boy has entered the arena – it would be better if he hit the ground running (just saying). Probably better to have the Sleepy Hollow worm farm rewired, best do the pot plants as well – just in case.

Bonne chance – "Ave, Imperator, morituri (we, of the IOS) te salutant".

Selah...

[Eddie Dean]

Kharon, Having dealt with RAAF officers,I am somewhat in agreement with others here that Mr Skidmore will not be the answer to CASA's problems.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

No shortage of people here rushing to pass judgement on a bloke they know essentially nothing about.

We (IOS) will soon see if the new boy has any bollocks, brains, integrity and resolve.
I'd suggest he has all of the above. Whether he can run CASA in a way that makes everyone here happy is another thing altogether - he's probably got more chance of sorting out the Middle East. At least give the bloke a couple of hours in the job before crucifying him. :rolleyes:

[Creampuff]

I'm certain he has all of the above.

I'm also certain that he doesn't have any real experience in the dark arts of real government. Even if he wanted to, his chances of killing the regulatory reform Frankenstein are therefore nil.

You will be able to tell if I'm right, if his first official comment on the regulatory reform program is to the effect that it is on track to be completed soon.

[Kharon]

No judgement has been passed, as yet. However the meter is running and we are paying the freight. Running a bunch of people trained and willing to follow orders is a piece of cake. This (as suggested) messiah of the middle east has no 'real life' experience, absolutely none. He will need help and cooperation (lots of) if he is to succeed. As a 'leader of men' he should know the first rule is gain the respect and trust of those he commands. This is not a simple matter of drafting a few orders and standing back to watch the fun – there are careers, millions of dollars (peoples own dollars, not government dollars) invested, often against the mortgage and kids school fees. It matters.

This is real life aviation and with the best will in the world, without him knowing what's at stake and how the system really works – he had better get his skates on, do his homework and surround himself with 'sound' advice. Until I see different, to me it's just another talking head stuffed in the trough, a valid moving target. No one I know is in the mood for another McComic go around or any more plain and fancy pony pooh. He has accepted the job, the meter is running – now he has to knuckle down and get on with it. Industry works hard to pay the inflated salary and trimmings, takes all the legal and fiscal hits and IMO has every right, particularly after the last little episode to carefully and closely scrutinise every stitch in this mans knitting.

We shall see; but first we test, then we trust. I work for a living, lots to do before smoko, best crack on then.

Toot toot.

[Sarcs]

Gotta hand it to you Lookleft, an astute post. I hadn't really thought about the "Skidmore vs Fawcett knowledge and experience"side of things :ok:
This could indeed be a stroke of genius by MrDak. Very interesting potential twist, having a new DAS that could use that experience and knowledge to challenge the Senators.
No contest.

Like McCormick, Skidmore's stuffed. Wouldn't have a clue how to fix regulatory reform, and will be smart enough to pretend it's on track for completion 'soon'.

A lucrative public sector job prior to moving on, and that's it. Speculation is a wonderful, fascinating past time but the proof (& truth) is always in the pudding..:rolleyes:

Time will tell if indeed (reserve active) AVM Skidmore is an M&M plant to foil LC (retired) Senator Fawcett but it is interesting that they both come from a similar pedigree.

However perhaps we should look at this apparent connection (both former ADF & test pilots) from a different perspective and also consider where both these gents went after leaving the ADF..:cool:

Mark Skidmore -
Director Flight Operations (http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Director+Flight+Operations&trk=prof-exp-title)
Raytheon Australia (http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=Raytheon+Australia&trk=prof-exp-company-name)

December 2012 – November 2013 (1 year)Canberra, Australia
Casual position providing specialist aerospace advice in support of flight operations for Raytheon Australia.

{Interesting interview when MS 1st took up the position at Raytheon: Interview with Mark Skidmore - Raytheon Australia's Director of Flight Operations (http://www.raytheon.com.au/newsroom/features_archive/Interview_flightops/index.html)}
Director (http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Director&trk=prof-exp-title)

Swift Aerospace Consulting (http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=Swift+Aerospace+Consulting&trk=prof-exp-company-name)

February 2013 – Present (1 year 9 months)Canberra
Swift Aerospace is a small consulting company that provides consulting services to the defence and civil aerospace community. These consulting services are based on the knowledge and experience of the Director who has 33 years service in the Royal Australian Air Force as a pilot and commander of aerospace units and several years in Defence Industry providing airworthiness and flight safety leadership. The primary market foci for Swift Aerospace are the defence aerospace industries that support the ADF and are in need of the skill sets provided by a retired senior member of the RAAF. However, given the scope and experience of the director, his airworthiness and flight safety knowledge is also applicable across the civil aerospace community.
So not much experience in the private sector but at least he wasn't lured to any major airlines and given his lengthy career (33 years) to a high rank in the RAAF he certainly would have had extensive dealings with the PS Mandarins.

Senator Fawcett -
Career
David served in the Australian Defence Force for over 22 years. An Army pilot, he flew helicopters and fixed wing aircraft and was the Senior Flying Instructor at the School of Army Aviation in Queensland. Graduating as an experimental test pilot from the Empire Test Pilots’ School (UK), he finished his full time career in Defence as the Commanding Officer of the RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit. Elected to the House of Representatives as the Member for Wakefield (SA) in 2004, he served in the Parliament until 2007. David continued to fly as a test pilot and ran a small business working in the Defence and Aviation sectors prior to being elected to the Senate.

Read David’s full biography here. (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/DJF%20Bio%2014.pdf) The part in bold is interesting and there is a further reference from the Phelan - Fawcett Profile (http://proaviation.com.au/2013/07/25/profile-senator-david-fawcett/):
He then attended Navy Command and Staff College before returning to serve as ARDU‘s first (and only) Army Commanding Officer from 2001 to 2003. Fawcett reports that RAAF responded well to him occupying a post that had been more traditionally considered an RAAF appointment:
“As I used to point out to people, it’s really just sort of taking things back to the way they used to be. I think back to my great-uncle Bob Fawcett, who flew with No 1 Squadron of the Australian Flying Corps in 1918, when the Army had all the aircraft, before the Air Force even came into existence.” If we then go to the same point in time on the MS CV:Commander, Aircraft Research and Development Unit (http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Commander%2C+Aircraft+Research+and+Development+Unit&trk=prof-exp-title)
RAAF (http://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=RAAF&trk=prof-exp-company-name)

January 2001 – December 2002 (2 years)RAAF Edinburgh, SA
Provide command and leadership for ARDU. ARDU was a diverse organisation of about 400 personnel providing T&E, EW and Range operations. So it would seem that for at least a year LC (retired) Fawcett was in fact AVM Skidmore's commanding officer - do you think these two gents would never have rubbed shoulders in the occasional operational staff meeting or two?? :rolleyes:

Finally the following article from the Strategist (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/minister-mandarins-and-the-military/) (which I'm reliably informed is avidly read by most former/current high ranking officers of the ADF) was written by Senator Fawcett back in 2012:Minister, mandarins and the military (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/minister-mandarins-and-the-military/)

Who is really in charge of the Defence Department? Many would guess the military chiefs, which is logical enough. Some would even say the Minister—civil control and all that. Or perhaps, given the recent discussion about the influence of Ministerial advisers over the public service (http://www.bca.com.au/Content/102030.aspx), others would suggest we should be looking to the Secretary—Sir Humprey always did seem to get his way.

Another way to ask the question would be to consider who got the blame when reviews such as Rizzo, Black and Coles highlighted a lack of accountability, confused responsibilities and dysfunctional linkages between levels of authority across the Department? No clear answers there.

There is something even more telling, however, than the inability to identify who is really in charge of Defence. How is it that so many commentators can describe what has gone wrong, but so few ask why, or attempt to suggest a better way? It’s said that a fish rots from the head. If we accept that organisational dysfunction stems from problems at the head of Defence, perhaps that’s where we need to start—at the top. But just what is the relationship between executive Government and the Department?

Distant could be one way to describe the relationship. The Defence Minister sits on one side of Lake Burley Griffin and the Department on the other—literally and figuratively. Even those Ministers who choose to engage with Defence in a more proactive way don’t actually get much formal insight into ‘the process’ that leads to the briefs they receive. For example, how much ‘re-drafting’ by the many layers of review has the brief received in the time between leaving the subject matter expert and being delivered to the Minister? Does the brief still say the same thing, or have the priorities and agendas of other groups (or the central agencies) transformed the message? The Minister would seldom know, because Defence has a policy to ‘speak with one voice’, which limits the ability of the Minister to hear dissenting views where they exist.

On the other side of the equation, the brief the Minister takes to the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSCC) may not actually reflect recommendations made by Defence. Think of the Super Hornet acquisition by Minister Nelson (http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/51tpl.cfm?CurrentId=6442), a decision made without the recommendation of Defence. While the Minister was happy to own that particular decision, not all such Ministerial interventions are quite so transparent. The point is that accountability has to flow both ways in a functional relationship. Changes to submissions instigated by the Minister, or by Ministerial advisers, should always be formally captured in an auditable process. The Government also needs to be aware of the true opportunity cost of decisions it makes. Decisions to approve additional operational commitments or even to defer an acquisition have flow-on effects for planned training, maintenance activities, logistics contracts, personnel and defence industry.

Is there a better way? Certainly most successful public, not-for-profit, and even private companies seem to think so. Most of them adopt the construct of a governing board. This provides a proven framework for structured engagement between key elected stakeholders (directors) and the executives who have operational control. Through the board, the Chair is able to provide strategic guidance to the organisation, and hold executives to account for performance, and compliance with relevant regulations. The board doesn’t run the organisation on a day-to-day basis, but it has insight into the internal and external environments that shape the CEO’s challenges and decisions. Some private companies also choose to have a board of reference, which provides a structured means of retaining corporate memory, as well as obtaining a broader perspective on current issues and strategic direction.

The 2011 review by Lord Levene (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B4BA14C0-0F2E-4B92-BCC7-8ABFCFE7E000/0/defence_reform_report_struct_mgt_mod_27june2011.pdf) (PDF) for the UK Ministry of Defence confirmed that the model of a board can work for Defence. The Secretary of State (Minister) chairs the Board and is advised by the Chief of Defence Staff, the Permanent Secretary, the Procurement Executive, as well as non-executive directors who bring broader perspective and experience to the table.

In the Australian context, a Defence Board wouldn’t replace the role of the NSCC. The Board would provide a structured, regular forum for the Minister to engage with, and be informed by, a range of voices within Defence. It would enable him to be a more effective decision maker when dealing with the Department, and speak with more confidence and authority in NSCC when advocating for the Department.

For the Board concept to be effective in Australia, we’d need to redefine the roles of some senior appointments. This would include empowering the Service Chiefs to have command and control over all the resources they need to do their job—a pre-requisite for accountability to the Minister as Chair of the Board. A consequence of the increased control for the Service Chiefs would be a corresponding decrease in the number of groups within the Defence Organisation. This would be balanced by making the Secretary responsible for overseeing compliance both with strategic guidance and with policies relevant to achieving best-practice in non-operational matters across the three services. The Minister would then be in a position to make informed decisions on what should be done, to hold Service Chiefs accountable for subsequent outcomes, and to judge their efficacy in the task. Where exigencies require changes, trade-offs or exceptions to guidance, the Board provides a framework for these issues and the related flow-on effects to be assessed, debated and implementation coordinated.

The structured framework of the Board would also provide some degree of quality assurance for the taxpayer when the personalities, interests, or competence of the Chief of Defence Force (CDF), Secretary and Minister did not align as well as we might hope or expect. To return the rotting fish analogy, the Defence Board and the associated changes in senior roles would see the head of the organisation model the approach that must be adopted at all levels within Defence: informed decisions by accountable individuals.

The Defence Board in and of itself would not be a silver bullet to address the oft-lamented failures in the Defence Organisation. It is, however, the right place to start fixing the rot—at the heady interface of Minister, Mandarins and Military.

Senator David Fawcett is a Liberal Party representative for South Australia. He was a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade enquiry into Defence Acquisition. His additional comments to the report (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/FADT%20Additional%20Comments.pdf)(PDF) argue that the changes to Governance discussed above are just one aspect of the suite of reforms to the Australian Defence Organisation required to achieve effective and sustainable change. Image courtesy of Department of Defence (http://images.defence.gov.au/20090510DPS8434824-S031-027.jpg).
Then there was this article back in the July edition of AA magazine: A turning point-The Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/DJF%20ASRR%20Article.pdf) :D:D

Maybe the AVM (active reserve) Skidmore appointment is a master stroke by M&M, however I think he should be careful of the Boyd (Fawcett) 2 card play...:E

MTF...:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

This DAS will get a short probation period. The last lot spoilt it for the future. He has enough time before he takes up the role to get across it, and he needs to do something akin to Kharon's suggestions or he will drop the grenade.


Then it'll be...."he'd like to find the Sergeant who forgot to hook him up, 'cause he ain't gonna jump no more". Strawberry jam etc....

[Lookleft]

ARDU‘s first (and only) Army Commanding Officer from 2001 to 2003.

January 2001 – December 2002 (2 years)RAAF Edinburgh, SA

They can't both have been the CO of ARDU Sarcs! As both articles allude to though Army pilots and RAAF pilots don't generally have much regard for each other.

[Frank Arouet]

Wind up alert!

[Sarcs]

Stand corrected Lefty DF was apparently CO after Skidmore in 2003: Aircraft Research and Development Unit RAAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Research_and_Development_Unit_RAAF)

MTF...:ok:

[Turbine Overheat]

According to your Wikipedia link.
MS was a Group Captain in 2000
DF was a Lieutenant Colonel in 2003

A Group Captain is equivalent to a Full Colonel.
A LT colonel is one rank below.

DF never outranked MS

Download the ADF badges of rank if you prefer.

[Sarcs]

Former Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore named director of air safety (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/former-air-vice-marshal-mark-skidmore-named-director-of-air-safety/story-e6frg95x-1227107623428)

FORMER Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore says he has taken on one of aviation’s most controversial jobs because he is keen to get involved in supporting Australia’s aviation industry and sees the regulator’s role as critical.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Allan Hawke yesterday confirmed Mr Skidmore’s appointment as director of aviation safety, the regulatory hot seat recently vacated by John McCormick.

The appointment comes at a pivotal time for the air safety regulator, which has been under fire from industry players for its handling of regulatory reform and approach to policing.

The industry is still waiting for a response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which called for sweeping reforms at the regulator, saying its “hard-line ­approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to
a lack of trust between it and ­operators.

As an aviation military and industry veteran who has connections with general aviation though his monoplane 1946 Globe Swift, Mr Skidmore is aware of the discontent simmering in sections of the industry.

“I think initially for me it’s going to be waiting for the government’s response to the ASRR and seeing how that’s going to shape CASA into the future,’’ he said. “So I’m keen to see that, I look forward to getting that response.

“Really in the regards to the rest, yes, I’ve heard murmurings and mumblings out there. Obviously, being a pilot myself you run into those type of things.

“I’ve got to get my feet under the desk and get an opportunity to find out what’s going on and talk to people.’’

Mr Skidmore has experience in the private sector, working with Aerospace Technical Services, which was acquired by Raytheon Australia.
He said this gave an opportunity to get a feel for the industry as business development manager working on projects, bids and tenders as well as a test pilot.

He left in 2012 to set up his own consultancy, which worked with his old employer and other companies. “I’ve had an opportunity to talk and understand and find out what’s happening out there in the industry,’’ he said.

The new DAS also believes his RAAF background will help him in the new job. He started in the RAAF as an officer cadet in the late 1970s and became a pilot in the 1980s on F-111s.

He led RAAF research and development squadrons and was promoted to Air Commander Australia, holding oversight for Australia’s air operations, and reached the rank of Air Vice Marshal before retiring in 2012.

He says as air force Commander he was in charge of a big ­organisation and lots of staff, but it was not just a case of ordering people around; much of it involved negotiations, discussion and working with people to set up and achieve an agenda for the ­future.

“I see this much the same way,’’ he said. “I’m going to take that forward, I want to work with people, I want to listen, I want to set up teams and be able to achieve our strategic objectives.’’

Asked about the biggest challenge he saw so far, he said this would be getting the opportunity to grow CASA’s reputation and rebuild trust with the industry.

He believed CASA was a good organisation that had done a lot of good work but acknowledged there was a perception it did not listen and this needed to be ­addressed.

However, CASA was also a regulator and there were rules and regulations it had to apply.

“Sometimes there’s going to have be tough decisions and we’re going to have to do that,’’ he added.

Mr Skidmore’s appointment produced a positive response from industry figures ready to beat a path to his door with demands for their sectors.
Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the association looked forward to an end to “ the rudderless ship that is CASA, the implementation of the industry supported recommendations of the ASRR, and the addressing of the CASA-created Part 61 crisis’’.

Mr Hurst said Mr Skidmore had “a massive task” turning around the culture of CASA, adding it must work with industry to identify real safety risks and “improve the safety, economic and growth outcomes for all stakeholders”.

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell described Mr Skidmore as “a very sound aviation professional’’ with whom the RAAA looked forward to working with as it attempted to reinvigorate Australian aviation and aerospace “at all levels’’.

“There are particular and pressing challenges in regional aviation that we will be discussing with the new DAS as soon as possible,’’ he said.

Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said Mr Skidmore’s managerial experience would be invaluable in his CASA role. “We look forward to working with the new director with particular focus on the urgent need for airport regulatory reform, which is long overdue,’’ she said.

[Kharon]

Under starters orders and -

“I think initially for me it’s going to be waiting for the government’s response to the ASRR and seeing how that’s going to shape CASA into the future,’’ he said. “So I’m keen to see that, I look forward to getting that response.

Racing – the first half mile at a sedate pace; tea and biccy's while the 'department' decides what the response to one of the three outstanding reports will be. Not an auspicious beginning. You will note that the director is going 'wait' before becoming involved and elects to use the well trained, toothless "Australian", the 'official' spin publisher for his first waffle.

Re hashed - "I think initially for me I'll get the office refurnished, comfy like; then I can have a sit down and see which way I am supposed to spin the Senate, Forsyth and Canadian reports to keep my masters happy, Uncle Beaker can help. I can't just barge in and take over, tell the government what my vision is and how I want to address the "mumblings", I'm only the director – I don't run the joint. Oh no; I'll wait-a-bit more, make some friends and then wait until I'm ordered to do 'stuff". Can't act without orders dontcha know – now, would you like a Tim Tam with your tea?". "Then, some time next year after my six weeks of Christmas leave and two weeks off for stress (decorating is hell) I shall entertain some of the 'mumblers', that'll get things moving along nicely".

Better polish up the mirrors and service the smoke machine; Oh and tell the Wodgers they have a job for life. –

Well chaps (and chapettes) seems we are no longer the Ills of Society

“Really in the regards to the rest, yes, I’ve heard murmurings and mumblings out there. Obviously, being a pilot myself you run into those type of things.

IOS is out, the first cheap shot is fired, dismissed – we are to become mutterers, mumble's murmurers. Yup, sweeping change is on the way. Why must we be constantly reminded he is a pilot?, "being a pilot myself I have also 'run' into those type of things"; I think we got the message – he's not not just a pilot, but THE pilot – Oh my giddy Aunt, it's stellar stuff; you can feel the impact from space – hell, I got so underwhelming engrossed I let my cornflakes get soggy. No matter, the dogs like 'em better that way.

Toot toot.

[Sunfish]

Game over; Mr. Mrdak has found what the British insurers at Lloyds once called a "Nodding Donkey" - underwriters who could be persuaded to take on almost any risk after a long lunch and a glass of port. The nodding donkeys led their insurance syndicate members into insuring horrendous risks like Piper Alpha, which claimed Malcolm Frasers fortune.

AVM. Skidmore might be playing with a dead bat, but I doubt it - nodding donkey. Pass the port.

"Skidmore acknowledged that some in the aviation community had concerns about CASA, but was positive about the general relationship between industry and the regulator.

“My impression is CASA has a good relationship with industry,” Skidmore said.

“There’s obviously mumblings and murmurings around the edges but one of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

Skidmore, who flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said that as a general aviation private pilot he had “never had concerns about CASA or where it was going”.

“One of the reasons I applied for the position and I am very happy to be taking up the position is because I see an opportunity to lead an organisation that is so critical in regards to the safety of aviation in Australia,” he said."

Now just wait till a CASA minion finds an arithmetic mistake in his aircraft’s maintenance release and he gets the same treatment as Toller.

[Soteria]

That's quite an amusing post Kharon, very heavy handed for this hour of the morning and so early into Skidmores reign, but you make some valid points :ok:
At the very least I am confident that Fawcett and Skates will enjoy the odd beer in Can'tberra and share the odd war story. To be honest I wouldn't mind sitting with these two guys in some dark smoke filled den and drinking copious amounts of Guinness stout while sucking back a few cigars (Hockey/Mathias style). Would make for an entertaining night. It doesn't improve safety or prevent the death of GA, but it is one of those little taxpayer funded perks that comes with being a Public Servant!

I think the biggest challenge for Skidmore will be when the reality sets in that he may be the Captain but on this ship he does not steer it :eek:

The IOS becomes MAM - murmurers and mutterers? Interesting concept. I guess I will have to reprint the t-shirts!

[tipsy2]

I've got to wonder how the relationship will pan out between the new DAS and the current acting but previously deputy DAS given their similar career paths.

That is going to be an interesting challenge for the new boy.

Tipsy:E

[Sarcs]

The piece by MMSM Steve, with a few editorial tweaks, is almost a complete regurgitation of the AA article, both of which appear to have a PG spin on the content i.e. what the iron ring, M&M and Hawke want to portray for their new 'nodding donkey' (thanks Sunny).

AA article: Mark Skidmore says he will make listening a priority as he prepares to start a five-year term as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) new director of aviation safety (DAS).

The retired RAAF Air Vice-Marshal was named as the new head of CASA (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/ex-raaf-air-commander-new-casa-boss/) on Thursday and expects to take his seat in the chair some time before the end of 2014, once some existing commitments are out of the way.

Skidmore says his experience leading the RAAF”s Aircraft Research and Development Unit and its diverse fight test, engineering and electronic warfare elements will stand him in good stead in his new role.

“Leadership in the military has changed a lot from the old days, it is not just ordering people around it is actually establishing relationships and working with people to set goals and achieve those goals,” Skidmore told Australian Aviation on Thursday.

“I took that from ARDU and followed that through to Air Commander Australia and I still believe that is the way to do things.

“Sometimes you can’t always get consensus but at least if people can understand what you are trying to achieve and why, then hopefully they will come along with you on that journey and you can all go forward.”
One of Skidmore’s immediate tasks was expected to be implementing the federal government’s response to the Australian Safety Regulatory Review, (ASRR) which was expected to come out before the end of the year (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/09/truss-says-govt-to-respond-to-forsyth-report-by-end-of-2014/).

The ASRR report, released in June (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/06/asrr-calls-for-cultural-and-structural-change-at-casa/), described the relationship between CASA and the industry as at times adversarial and said the appointment of a new DAS would be an opportunity for cultural and structural change at the regulator.

Skidmore acknowledged that some in the aviation community had concerns about CASA, but was positive about the general relationship between industry and the regulator.

“My impression is CASA has a good relationship with industry,” Skidmore said.

“There’s obviously mumblings and murmurings around the edges but one of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are.

“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”

Skidmore, who flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said that as a general aviation private pilot he had “never had concerns about CASA or where it was going”.

“One of the reasons I applied for the position and I am very happy to be taking up the position is because I see an opportunity to lead an organisation that is so critical in regards to the safety of aviation in Australia,” he said. Okay OpsnormalI guess...:yuk::yuk: However IMO what really exposes this crafted media manipulation (as highlighted in the "K" post) - for the bollocks and middle finger salute that it is - from the above mentioned crats is the title and first line of the AA article...

"..Skidmore to make listening a priority..."

Isn't that almost verbatim what the Skull said when he first took up the reigns of the DAS job?? However the big difference this time is there is 269 submissions - representing literally thousands of industry stakeholders - outlining a majority consensus that the current regime at CAsA will simply no longer be accepted or trusted by industry..:=:=

So 'Skates' before you get "your feet (comfortably) under the desk" I suggest you get your reading glasses on mate and refer to the 269 (mostly publicly available) submissions here (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/index.aspx). I think you may find those murmurings & mumblings is in fact a pretty loud ROAR! :ooh: And as for listening...mate the alphabet soup associations may have to negotiate; state their case; and then wait for a response but for the IOS the time for being listened to - & subsequently ignored - ended decades ago.

Hmm..after such an insipid; wet lettuce first media statement the former Commander now needs to get his skates on...:E

TICK..TOCK! MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Sarcs – "However IMO what really exposes this crafted media manipulation for the bollocks and middle finger salute that it is - from the above mentioned crats is the title and first line of the AA article."..

Hmm.. after such an insipid; wet lettuce first media statement the former Commander now needs to get his skates on...

No Sarcs – he needs to learn the bloody game – Rule 1: sack the media mouthpiece spin doctor, that article was 'massaged' to a fare-thee-well, the first lick of the vulture and hyena cohorts of the whispering death. A reputation pissed up the wall because they want to write and manage his media statements – just "until it all settles down", in that way industry is told, this is our man – THE pilot.

We shall, as a professional courtesy, assist: write your own releases, find a journalist and a vehicle of your choice to publish in, be your own man and do not allow anyone with zero credibility to manage your public image. FFS man, the Iron Ring plays for keeps, from minute 1; just ask Mick or Byron or Quinn or Vaughan or Cook etc. etc.

~:mad: ~:mad: ~:mad:

[Frank Arouet]

Dear Director;


There is a problem. Can you please read the Truss review and findings?


As there is proof of a problem can you admit there's a problem and address it for me?


If you believe that there is no problem, you become on record of stating there is no problem and thus fail test #1 and I'll know where I stand.


PS. Can you immediately sack the media manipulators who keep telling me you want to build on CAsA's already enviable world wide record.


Thank you for your time in reading this.

[Soteria]

Boys, what the bearded bull**** artist and Wake Up Terry were trying to say is this - "People are envious of CASA and how they pay their executives absurd salaries, generous study allowances, the highest superannuation in the land, pay for international jollies endlessly and they enjoy full immunity from liability, don't have to work hard and they remain fully unaccountable for actions undertaken, plus they get to stick their snouts in endless troughs all funded by us, the Murmurers and Mumblers (MAM)".

[thorn bird]

"Isn't that almost verbatim what the Skull said when he first took up the reigns of the DAS job?? However the big difference this time is there is 269 submissions - representing literally thousands of industry stakeholders - outlining a majority consensus that the current regime at CAsA will simply no longer be accepted or trusted by industry."

YUP,
Time for the industry to pull together methinks, those of the "I'm all right Jack" self interest brigade should understand that their own survival is also at risk if the rampant regulator continues down this path.

There is some very interesting reading on another post regarding the laws of diminishing return.

If the industry withdraws from CAsA as a whole, other than what is required by law, then CAsA become irrelevant.
If nobody attends their "Seminars".
If they are positively excluded from attending any Industry seminars.
If their people are not talked to, other than what is required by law.
If their employees are made to feel unwelcome anywhere the industry may congregate, other than what is required by law.
If the self serving RPT operators withdraw the privileges they extend to CAsA personnel.

Then perhaps the message will get through that all is not well, and changes must be made.

The new DAS says he wants to talk, sorry old mate talk is cheap, we found out the hard way with the Skull, and what did that get us?

Thousands of pages of indecipherable gobbledygook that now make up our maintenance regulations that align with???.... nobody.

Our engineers no longer qualified internationally, workshops closing every month, voluntarily on top of those who ran afoul of CAsA expert AWI's.

1500 odd pages of indecipherable gobbledygook in Part 61, 141,142, that nobody, with the best will in the world could ever be expected to comply with.

Is CAsA so incompetent that it takes them 1500 pages to enunciate what the New Zealanders can do in 80 pages??, clearly, precisely with no doubt what they mean or intend, or the Americans, and god forbid even EASA with much the same...., well okay, okay, EASA has a few more but they have realized that certain sections of their industry collapsed because of that and are now actively rewriting them, and in any case any resemblance our regulations have to EASA is entirely coincidental.

We hear the CAsA spin doctors spruiking how respected and envied Australia is in the world of aviation, when from my own experience internationally, mention CAsA and eyes roll upwards with a lot of sympathetic Tut Tutting, its downright embarrassing!

Can anyone name a single country who have adopted Australia's world class internationally respected regulatory suit?? aww... come on, has to be one??.Nope, Oh good grief!!not even PNG!! bloody Traitors!!

How many countries have adopted New Zealand's regulatory suit or used it as a model???..errr??...HOW MANY!!! Your kidding?? Bloody Kiwi's, cant even beat them at rugby.

Let the new DAS explain to us exactly what Part 61 means, because his own employee's cant, I'm prepared to give him a week.
I'm on my fourth read and I'm still no closer to figuring out what they require and I'm yet to find anyone who does.


RIP IOS, long live the MAMaries!!

[Kharon]

The time for talk was over when the Senate crew tore the lid off a can of rotten worms. It's not just the little end of town under the wheel, the heavies have had enough of the uncertainty, constant threats, bullying and their procedures being monkey'd about with – to suit some esoteric 'lay' interpretation of how things must be done, according to policy not law.

This new fellah has never, in a privileged, cosseted life had to deal with the likes of the top layers of Golden West Mafia (GWM) {just for Sunny}. He simply will not believe, how could he? The loosing of virginity or immortality are important mile stones along the road to growing up; perhaps by the time he realises he's been 'graped' (Aye, there'll be a bunch of them) it will be too late.

Instead of loafing about at 'seminars' and pandering to special interest groups maybe the place to start would be with treatment of Pel Air, compared to that of Barrier, Polar, Tiger, Airtex etc. Or, perhaps even more 'germane' the treatment of the scapegoats who still carry the scars resulting from their own graping in the interests of meeting the preordained outcomes, so beloved of McComic and his catamites.

Only the minuscule believes CASA are world class, honest and dedicated to improving regulatory safety. No one else who has been marked by the beast does and those who have not are too afraid to speak – lest it be their turn next. To lay sound foundations, first you must dig, dig deep through the layers of faecal detritus, weeds, top soil and tree roots – if you want your castle to stand the test of time. Sure you'll get dirty but that will wash off: the question is – do you want to just look pretty or do the job properly?

Aye well, it was my two bob, spent it as best pleased me...;)

Toot toot. MkII

Ben Sandilands – Journalist version in - Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/10/31/casas-new-director-of-safety-faces-multiple-public-safety-threats/)– not the regurgitated pap from t'other (now unread rag).

(My bold) If the legacy of disrespect and distrust of CASA caused by these and other events isn’t addressed (including the withdrawal of the second rate accident report) Skidmore has no chance of fulfilling his commendable ambitions for the regulator under his direction.

Other bloody incidents that hang over CASA are the 2008 Barry Hempel crash and the 2005 Lockhardt River crash. It is respectfully suggested that DAS Skidmore not read any of the media coverage reported on Plane Talking or mainstream publications on these matters, but the actual coronial documents and testimonies that are covered by legal or parliamentary privilege.

These are serious matters. They cannot be forgiven, ever, given the deep harm done to the public by CASA’s inability or reluctance to carry out its obligations, but the culture that tried to defend and bury these scandals can be broken by a strong and determined DAS.

To remake CASA, Skidmore will need to risk his own appointment. He will need to say and do things that the Minister won’t like, and he will need to take the public, as well as the industry, with him.


Selah...

[Frank Arouet]

If the new DAS is a "listener" then he needs to know the industry includes people who are described variously as the Ill's of society" (IOS), and they should be listened to and not dismissed as a periphery group of malcontents. Dialogue needs to be with everybody otherwise a one sided and probably jaundiced view will emerge.


Two jaundiced views need be listened to, so one can draw a conclusion based on facts, gut feeling, but not spin. There are precedents to guide him.


If he fails to implement this, it's a case of "same horse-different jockey" and the betting ring already knows what the odds are. To firm into a favorite, better performance is needed than the last bloke who's still running.

[Kharon]

There are a series of posts – starting here (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-72.html#post8723214) – offered by Nkosi which are worthy of consideration by the Senate committee; not so much as they provide a perfectly balanced, sane sensible answer to the MaM pagan prayer, but because they define the gap. More a gulf really, between what has happened in grown up countries where industry is still able to work with the regulator to achieve better compliance, economy and as a result, improved safety outcomes in the realisation that they are intricately linked and inseparable.

Until the ASIR and ASRR recommendations are fully integrated and the industry-regulator relationship fully reconciled; this admirable way forward cannot be contemplated by Australia.

It's a crying shame, which needs to assuaged.

Choc Frog Nkosi...:ok:

[Sunfish]

The recommendations will not be actioned. It will get worse before it can possibly get better. The new DAS will prove impotent. The screws will be turned even tighter on GA in order to "transform" it into disappearing. Two interesting conversations this weekend, one with a former public servant senior enough to hob nob with PMs and Ministers. Your only hope is rebellion, to go on strike and then make a case in the media. More to follow.

[Sarcs]

Kharon (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-73.html#post8724018) - ...have deeply annoyed a Senate, almost endangered two minuscules, embarrassed an industry and now, through association the ATSB is set to compromise the government; as any shadow passing over the MH 370 situation will be closely examined by the world.
Well said Ferryman...:D

From the Transport Safety Investigation Act:
12AB Independence of the ATSB and Chief Commissioner

(1) Subject to section 21, the ATSB is not subject to direction from anyone in relation to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers.
(2) The Chief Commissioner is not subject to direction from anyone in relation to the exercise of his or her powers. However, when exercising his or her powers, the Chief Commissioner must act consistently with the ATSB in the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers.

Note: This means that the ATSB and the Chief Commissioner would not, for example, be subject to direction from anyone in relation to:
(a) how a particular investigation will be carried out; or
(b) the content of a public report on a particular investigation.
From the PelAir (attempted) cover-up we now all know that s12AB is effectively & severely compromised (merely weasel words). As a consequence anytime CC Beaker is trotted out to make a statement on any matter to do with air safety (including MH370 or MH17), will forever more be treated with extreme prejudice & scepticism...:=

This situation maybe acceptable & not questioned in our ignorant, insular down-under world of aviation but will it be swallowed by the grown ups internationally??

Since time immemorial ICAO, through Article 26, have also recognised the fundamental importance of maintaining the independence (& therefore integrity) of the State Aviation Accident Investigator.

Example from Annex 13:
General
5.4 The accident investigation authority shall have
independence in the conduct of the investigation and have
unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the
provisions of this Annex. The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available
information on that accident or incident;
b) if appropriate, the issuance of safety recommendations;
c) if possible, the determination of the causes; and
d) the completion of the final report.
When possible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the
wreckage examined and statements taken from witnesses.
And now from Annex 19 Attachment A para 1.3:

1.3 Accident and incident investigation
The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State. In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations.
Point of difference & the TSBC - Also from Annex 13 CH5 para 5.1 it states:
5.1 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation
into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible
for the conduct of the investigation, but it may delegate
the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation
to another State by mutual arrangement and consent. In any
event the State of Occurrence shall use every means to
facilitate the investigation.
OK..again we all now know that any remote possibility of the Canucks reopening, on our behalf, the PelAir investigation (as is possible under Annex 13 para 5.13) was effectively nullified by the Beaker/Mrdak influenced ToR. In turn the ToR manipulation will no doubt ultimately compromise any positive outcomes that could of have come from the TSBC peer review...:ugh:

However in passing I came across an interesting blogpiece from the TSBC that puts forward an interesting comparison to the PelAir embuggerance and an investigation conducted by the TSBC on behalf of the NTSB under para 5.1:What are the chances? (http://www.bloguebst-tsbblog.com/2013/03/07/what-are-the-chances/#.VFV4kEhxnIU)
March 7th, 2013 Posted by: Brad Vardy

The phrase “What are the chances of that happening?” is a common one, often heard when random events produce astonishing outcomes. It is not a phrase that I use much, if at all. In my 30+ years in aviation, I had come to the point where nothing really surprised me anymore. That was until the evening of May 28, 2012, when I received a call from the TSB’s Director of Air Investigations, Mark Clitsome.

“There’s been a mid-air collision in the United States, near Warrenton, Virginia, involving two general aviation aircraft: one flown by an NTSB employee, and the other by an FAA inspector. There are fatalities. They’ve asked us to do the investigation.”

In the aviation world, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is the TSB’s counterpart in the United States; in other words, they are the independent agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the aviation regulator, equivalent to Transport Canada in this country. An accident involving both the regulator and the safety board was certainly unprecedented anywhere, and investigating an occurrence in which one of their own employees was involved put the NTSB in a potential conflict of interest. So they turned to their northern neighbour for help.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. Through the Convention on International Civil Aviation (also known as Chicago Convention), it sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity between the 191 member states. Annex 13 to this document stipulates how member states interact with respect to accident investigation, and it was under Section 5.1 of this annex that the investigation was delegated to Canada.

One of my responsibilities as Manager, Head Office Operations, is to oversee the TSB’s international activities and obligations in aviation, so this occurrence fell under my purview. I called the NTSB Director of Aviation Safety in Washington, offered our sympathies, and asked how we could help. He indicated to me that when they became aware of the specifics of the situation, they ceased all investigation activities and called the TSB.

Would we be able to come down to Virginia and conduct the investigation? Absolutely. The rest of the evening was spent building the team that would deploy for the field phase of the investigation. Western Regional Manager Jon Lee was appointed Investigator in Charge, accompanied by Randy Vitt, Senior Technical Investigator from the Central regional office in Winnipeg. They were to travel the next day, arriving in the evening. I caught the 6 am flight from Ottawa to the Washington Dulles Airport to start figuring out exactly how we would proceed, what the team would be facing when they arrived, and to sort out the details of conducting a TSB investigation on U.S. soil under the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTAISB) (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.4/index.html).

The TSB has conducted investigations in foreign jurisdictions in the past, but these were usually in countries that did not have an accident investigation board of their own, or whose board lacked the resources or experience required. The scenario facing us was unprecedented and complex.

I stepped off the plane in Dulles and was met by Paul Cox, the NTSB investigator who was originally assigned to the occurrence, and the manager for the region. They briefed me on what they had done and learned so far, and confirmed that both sites were secured by police. We then went to the FAA Washington (Dulles) Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), office to speak with FAA officials and NTSB senior management.

The NTSB confirmed that the investigation had been delegated to Canada, and offered full access to all of their investigative resources and facilities. To ensure independence of the investigation, we discussed the limitations to their involvement. Paul was appointed as the U.S. Accredited Representative to the investigation under ICAO Annex 13. With initial ground rules in place, Paul and I left for the accident area.

I spent the rest of the day working the two main accident sites, taking notes and photographs, and gathering as much data as I could before Jon and Randy arrived. During that time, Paul and I discussed potential challenges, especially with respect to investigating on U.S. soil. This would require a special Memorandum of Understanding between the TSB and the NTSB specific to this investigation. That document was negotiated and signed by the Chairs of both organisations within two days. Under the Memorandum and the provisions in ICAO Annex 13, the authority and independence of the investigation was assured.

When Jon and Randy arrived that evening I briefed them on what I’d learned so far. Jon took the reins, and we developed a plan for the next day. We decided that Lothar Hopp, a Senior Air Traffic Services Investigator from my group at Head Office should join us to help with air traffic, airspace and communications aspects of the investigation. With the full team in place, the field phase of the investigation was completed in four days.

The outstanding cooperation of the NTSB and FAA continued through the examination and analysis phase, and the report into this tragic occurrence should be released to the public later this year.

Along the way there have been many challenges, but the professionalism and dedication of all involved—at all levels, on both sides of the border—has turned this investigation into a shining example of international cooperation. It is a testament to the integrity of those who choose to serve in this way, those for whom advancing safety for the industry and the travelling public is in their DNA.

We all wait for that next phone call, when the skills and expertise of our organization will again be called upon to reduce the number of times we ask: “What are the chances of that happening?” Fascinating recollection & true story by an on the coalface TSBC investigator...:D :D

However there is an irony as I have been reliably informed that this very same investigator was the man tasked to oversight, manage and help author the ATsB peer review report that has been delayed - beyond the pale - for nearly 6 months...:=:yuk::yuk:

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

More quality research from the inestimable Sarcs, emphasising the imperative. A clear need (Reason) for truly independent accident investigation..:ok:

Along with the disturbance of our Transport Safety Investigation Act (TSI), the diminishing chances of either the Senate or Forsyth recommendations being implemented with regard to the ATSB are pretty slim (skeletal); this demonstrated not only by the reappointment of Dolan, but by he being made the guiding light on the MH 370 event. Even with the great work being done by our 'troops' on the ground assisting the Dutch in the MH 17 event and the hard, coal face work on MH 370; anything mentioned by ATSB, no matter how vaguely related to underwater recovery of aircraft is going to be 'suspect', raise eyebrows and questions.

There is much evidence that neither the Senate nor industry fully trust the system, under it's current management, due to the close association and cooperation with both the regulator and the departmental administration. There is even a suspicion that Murky Machiavellian crew may even own and operate the system, through the swings and roundabouts, who would know?. However, no amount of stone god indifference, flipping the bird at the Senators or even an unlimited supply of self administered, deodorising spin can provide remedy for the burgeoning question. Is the Australian Transport Safety Board truly 'independent' of it's political masters?

The political influence has spread, like influenza; even the Canadians, who Vardy claims as the doyens of fair play and 'independence' have been besmirched, their motive brought into question. In the USA investigation, they must, forced by a powerful industry voice, be seen to be 'free'; Vardy claims top honours and brags of their response speed, willingness to assist, technical expertise and fearless independence.

Would we be able to come down to Virginia and conduct the investigation? Absolutely. The rest of the evening was spent building the team that would deploy for the field phase of the investigation. Western Regional Manager Jon Lee was appointed Investigator in Charge, accompanied by Randy Vitt, Senior Technical Investigator from the Central regional office in Winnipeg. They were to travel the next day, arriving in the evening.
then:-

That document was negotiated and signed by the Chairs of both organisations within two days. Under the Memorandum and the provisions in ICAO Annex 13, the authority and independence of the investigation was assured.
and despite the many 'challenges' the honourable TSBC team members soared to meet the needs of their cousins, as Vardy modestly states.
Along the way there have been many challenges, but the professionalism and dedication of all involved—at all levels, on both sides of the border—has turned this investigation into a shining example of international cooperation. It is a testament to the integrity of those who choose to serve in this way, those for whom advancing safety for the industry and the travelling public is in their DNA.

Furry muff, says the world, good job and thank you Canada.

Suitably buoyed, Vardy adds:-
We all wait for that next phone call, when the skills and expertise of our organization will again be called upon to reduce the number of times we ask: “What are the chances of that happening?”

Well, the next 'call' on the Bat phone came from Down-under; the Aussie's transport safety board - in the pooh. The blasted, interfering Senate have called foul and want the third umpire to adjudicate. So, the Canucks eventually saddle up and move out, after agreeing to carefully work within a very narrow set of benchmarks and promising faithfully not to go within a bulls roar of the topic which caused the imbroglio – to wit, the ditching off Norfolk Island of a West-wind medivac flight. "Only the paperwork system then? – yes Sir".

Now then, the good little injuns played nice, took their sweet time looking through the paperwork, then toddled off home to write the confidential 'first draft' and dutifully sent it back to those being audited for confidential technical and "factual" editing. Eventually, the second draft went back to the land of the Maple leaf, there to be further massaged (time passes) then to be translated, (time passes) then, the translation must be edited (time passes) and then, only under pressure, are we informed that the report will be released "some time in the late Autumn". Perhaps we could buy them a calendar to throw a dart at, just the months of the year mind you, nothing too demanding, then; maybe, we could get closer to a time line than just a season of the year. A current, popular opinion getting some oxygen, is that the Canucks are 'sitting' on the audit until their political masters are told by our political masters that it's 'safe' to release it. And that's just for a small, non fatal, no mystery, out of fuel in bad weather ditching; essentially, a very 'private' prang.

"Politically naive" - I'm told to expect true, transparent independence of investigation. Probably I am: but,

Is this then the system and people we must rely on to discover what happened when our own are injured, crippled or killed in accidents?

Is this then the system and people we must rely on to explain 'why' an accident has occurred and importantly, provide the tools to allow us to reduce the risk of a similar event occurring?

What - no answers ?; well, why I am not surprised.

According to ICAO, the state is responsible for ensuring the independence of 'the accident investigator'. Perhaps it's time to ask the question; what guarantee do we, as the people funding the system, have that it is, in fact, a 'truly' independent, closed loop system, free of all political 'interference?. Perhaps, one day, we shall know. But I'm not holding my breath.

Toot toot.

[Frank Arouet]

We can only hope our old DAS is not in line for a ICAO position, which rumor has it he is, as it could further enhance the look of a cover up.

[Prince Niccolo M]

Ah boys, boys, boys...

Why are we getting our pantyhose in a knot about an accident investigation which the national body devolved to an independent body under arrangements established by ICAO in comparison to an administrative "benchmarking" activity requested by an agency that had nothing to do with ICAO or the investigation devolution arrangements?

The circumstances are not even remotely similar. The final product is sure to disappoint those who misunderstand its purpose.

[Up-into-the-air]

PROTECTION:



Miniscule;
MrDAK;
Beaker;
Fort Fumble

AND of Course:



Previous Minister Sharpe, now Director PelAir and the Defence contracts;
Insurance agencies overseas.

[Kharon]

PNM – "The final product is sure to disappoint those who misunderstand its purpose."

.:ok:..Thanks Nick – I'll be smiling all day now, laughter, the best of all medicine from a top post...:D...:D

[Sarcs]

PNM - Why are we getting our pantyhose in a knot about an accident investigation which the national body devolved to an independent body under arrangements established by ICAO in comparison to an administrative "benchmarking" activity requested by an agency that had nothing to do with ICAO or the investigation devolution arrangements?

The circumstances are not even remotely similar. The final product is sure to disappoint those who misunderstand its purpose. Agree with "K" pure gold Princester...:E

Although I do wonder if the Dutch will be quite as distracted by the subjectively edited (smoke'n'mirrors); politically & commercially corrected ATsB report which the DSB will eventually receive in response to their request :ooh:: Assistance to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) in the conduct of its investigation 'Decision-making regarding safety of flight routes' (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-159.aspx)

Summary
Together with the investigation agencies of a number of other countries, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has received a request from the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) for assistance in the conduct of its investigation titled Decision-making regarding safety of flight routes. The DSB request seeks to provide a global context to its own investigation findings. The ATSB has agreed to this request and, in order to protect the information gathered as part of this process, has initiated an external investigation under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

The results of the ATSB’s investigation will be passed to the DSB for inclusion in their investigation report. Not to mention how our two Senior Transport Safety Investigators will feel when Beaker & the other two (no nothing, yes-men) Commissioners executively correct the report for factual inaccuracies...:rolleyes:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/art-850568720-620x349.jpg


Oh b..b..boys you forgot your packed lunches! (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-53.html#post8575579)

For Beaker though it will be like water off a ducks back considering how he treated other Senior TSIs who dared to voice their objections in the PelAir (attempted) cover-up...:ugh:

Addendum - Albo's cost cutting back to bite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPU05SAYQ94

Transport safety regulator hit hard by cuts (http://www.smh.com.au/business/transport-safety-regulator-hit-hard-by-cuts-20141103-11g1bd.html)

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's annual report, released on Monday, said more than 200 years of combined corporate and investigative experience had left the agency after a four-year planning program completed in March showed it could not maintain current staffing levels into future years.
"The decision to reduce our staff numbers was particularly difficult as it was made in the knowledge that there is no contingent workforce of highly skilled transport safety investigators available in the marketplace to be deployed at short notice in the event of a new crisis," ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said.
Q/ Is the ATsB now redundant?? :ooh:

MTF...:ok:

[Nkosi]

I have looked, examined, agreed, disagreed and wondered at the eloquent arguments or discussions put forward by the esteemed regular contributors to this thread.

The cloak of 'what if' has been draped, or thrown, over the shoulders of the incoming DAS. Perhaps this could be shrugged off and given time, not a week but at least six months, to reshape the arguments for providing the sensible outcomes discussed in previous posts.

However, and there is always one of those, being in the spotlight and centre stage, the bedraggled cloak be discarded and a clean, clear, straightforward purpose to the regulatory system is produced. But perhaps not!

Nkosi

[Kharon]

Addendum - Albo's cost cutting back to bite.

Certainly supports the rumour that Albo was persuaded that a big R regulator would lead the way to fortune and glory – he got conned, again.

Now Beaker – HERE (http://www.smh.com.au/business/transport-safety-regulator-hit-hard-by-cuts-20141103-11g1bd.html) - wants us to believe that "200 years of experience" has been allowed to toddle off, due lack of funding? – Bollocks. Maybe a couple of retirements, but I'd bet the 'talent' has simply had a guts full and walked. The inflated salaries of the top three 'administrators' alone would fund training a few investigators, there's a saving. Why there is a need for the 'corporate' services levels of staffing is beyond me – except as an empire; which may explain the shortage or need of 'trained men' puzzle.

Or, is this now part of a planned move to have the ATSB subsumed into the CASA juggernaught, where the pre determined results can be more properly managed. If that is the case then we can dispense entirely with independent trained investigators and hand the tasks over to any of the 440 'corporate services' aviation experts at CASA. Cut out the middle man, as it were and eradicate those embarrassing Safety Recommendations, Senate questions and external audit.

Who needs two Safety organisations anyway?, it's confusing.

Who needs independent analysis of accidents and incidents?, particularly from a crowd who made a fearful hash of a simple ditching.

What need have we of accident investigation at all? – when, according to CASA-speak we have such a safe, world class rule set which prevents all but the wilful, deliberate, criminal actions of pilots and engineers involved in the accident. More lawyers and prosecution is required, not investigation, accurate reporting or education from experience. Waste of good money. Australia has the finest safety record in the world, don't it?; no need to examine the very few 'minor' incidents we have – no Siree...

Of course it could just be the dreadful Beaker, jiggling, wringing his hands, whining and snivelling his way into the government purse. After all is said and done, and beyond all Reason he does believe that the Pel Air style of reporting is a thing we need more of; and, of course he deserves a raise for doing such a mighty job on 'aberrations'.

Gods know what the world makes of this shambles; but all will be well. Beaker has had a word with the CASA tea lady and she has agreed to write the MH 370 report during her Christmas holidays, that'll save a few bucks and maybe even provide the answers. That combined with the full support of the ATSB and CASA top management, should satisfy the international press and not disturb the long lunch crowd.

Yes, boys and girls, it's all beyond reason, beyond the pale even and reaches the dizzy limits of total rule by the regulator. Would you buy a used car from this crew, trust them with your pocket money or even let them know you had sweeties in your pocket? then see Beaker for change, in threes, from a nine dollar note.

Toot toot.

"For the foreseeable future, we will be able to undertake fewer investigations and we will need to carefully consider and constrain the scope of investigations initiated. Our capacity for industry engagement will be limited and the timeliness of the completion of some of the investigations currently under way will be an ongoing challenge."...:yuk:..:yuk:

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive. - Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808).

One indulgence, just for Nkosi.
Richard: - "And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."
Richard III.

[Sarcs]

From another thread..:ECreamy - On a related subject, does anyone have any first hand evidence of a person called "Steve Creedy" having ever produced an original piece of work? More to the point, does anyone have any first hand evidence that a person called "Steve Creedy" ever existed? I have suspicions that 'he' is just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the sub-editor (who is probably 'himself' just an email address that's auto-forwarded to the 'pap content' address used to fill in the gaps between the advertising in the cockie-cage liner).Gold Creamy..pure gold..;)

Love the concept, basically the MMSM have an app (call it iRobot Editor, a.k.a Steve Creedy) which trolls for selected subject matter news-bites. Then when it gets a hit it plucks up the relevant article, scrambles the words a little bit and then edits for political correctness etc. Then automatically hits send for online content & print for the following day hardcopy...:D:D

There is much evidence to support the iRobot Editor app theory, let us use the SMH article from my previous post as an example:
The transport safety regulator will be forced to undertake fewer investigations and will have less time for industry engagement in the foreseeable future after it cut 12 per cent of its staff earlier this year due to pressure on its forward budgets.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's annual report, released on Monday, said more than 200 years of combined corporate and investigative experience had left the agency after a four-year planning program completed in March showed it could not maintain current staffing levels into future years.

"The decision to reduce our staff numbers was particularly difficult as it was made in the knowledge that there is no contingent workforce of highly skilled transport safety investigators available in the marketplace to be deployed at short notice in the event of a new crisis," ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said.

The safety body was given additional funding for the underwater search for MH370, the Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared off the coast of Western Australia in March. But Mr Dolan said despite that, there would continue to be pressure on ATSB resources.

Its aviation investigation teams completed 44 complex and 120 short aviation accident and incident investigations during the financial year ended June 30. Among them were a number of serious concerns about pilots flying in conditions of poor visibility, such as the loss of an ABC television helicopter north of Marree, near Lake Eyre, South Australia in August 2011. In that case, the final report found the pilot had become spatially disoriented while flying in dark night conditions.

As a result, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has action in progress to clarify the nature of what is meant by the term "visibility" in dark night conditions and to provide enhanced guidance on visual flight rules flight planning.

In addition, CASA has advised it will require that helicopter air transport operations with passengers at night use either a helicopter fitted with an autopilot or a two-pilot crew.

By the end of the financial year, ATSB had 102 complex investigations underway.

"We have more than 12 per cent fewer staff and we have been required to task some of our investigation and administration staff to the major and ongoing investigations into the two Malaysia Airlines disasters," Mr Dolan said.

"For the foreseeable future, we will be able to undertake fewer investigations and we will need to carefully consider and constrain the scope of investigations initiated. Our capacity for industry engagement will be limited and the timeliness of the completion of some of the investigations currently under way will be an ongoing challenge."

But he added that despite the challenges, he was proud of the dedication and achievements of investigators and staff.

Read more: Transport safety regulator hit hard by cuts (http://www.smh.com.au/business/transport-safety-regulator-hit-hard-by-cuts-20141103-11g1bd.html#ixzz3I448ZSKW)
Not to be outdone (can't be trumped by the opposition) the iRobot (Steve) puts out - some 12 hours later - this...Air safety investigator warns of cuts to capacity (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/air-safety-investigator-warns-of-cuts-to-capacity/story-e6frg95x-1227111462154)

by: STEVE CREEDY
November 04, 2014 12:00AM


THE head of Australia’s air safety investigator has warned that the internationally respected body will be able to conduct fewer investigations “for the foreseeable future’’ after budget cuts forced it to slash staff by 12 per cent.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau head Martin Dolan also cautioned that some investi*gations could take longer after the bureau had taken the decision to reduce its workforce, losing 200 years of experience.

The bureau still had 102 complex investigations under way at the end of 2013-14 and is leading the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in the Southern Indian Ocean.

Its staffing difficulties come despite an additional $90 million earmarked by federal government funding for the MH370 investigation.

Mr Dolan said the staff cuts meant it had to combine some functions and its capacity was *reduced in all teams including investigation, technical analysis and research and publications.

“The decision to reduce staff numbers was particularly difficult as it was made in the knowledge that there is no contingent workforce of highly skilled transport safety investigators available in the marketplace to be deployed at short notice in the event of a new crisis,’’ Mr Dolan said in the bureau’s annual *report.

“It was indeed sobering to see more than 200 years of combined corporate and investi*gation experience leaving the ATSB.’’

The ATSB boss said the *bureau would be able to undertake fewer investigations for the foreseeable future and would need to “carefully consider and constrain the scope of investi*gations initiated’’. Yep definitely firming to your theory Creamy...:O

While on the subject of the (ir-)relevance of the ATsBeaker - as an effective State run & independent:yuk: AAI - it is fascinating that prior to the PelAir (attempted) cover-up, such articles from the SMH & the Australian would have met with outrage from various sections of the aviation community but now..well to be honest does anyone really care?? :{

And to think it all started with a 4corners program and a certain determined independent Senator who dared to refer to the RRAT committee for inquiry...:D

Even then the powers to be still thought they had the good Senator Xenophon's measure. Remember this from the CAsA FOI disclosure log: EF12/8481 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-8481.pdf) Dolan Martin <[email protected]>
Wednesday, 12 September 2012 6:09 PM
Craig Carmody; McCormick, John

Subject:
RE: Sen Xenophon Motion re Pel-Air [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Categories: Important

Thanks, Craig.

At the simplest level, the answers to the Senator's questions are straightforward - and a fair amount of the information is publicly available. We are prepared to answer them in whatever forum they arise (with the exception of anonymous rumour sites and some tendentious bloggers).

Let us know if you need any background briefing on the Senator's issues.
Regards
Martin
Martin Dolan
Chief Commissioner
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
P: +61 2 6274 61441 E: [email protected]

From: Carmody Craig [mailto:[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012 17:46
To: Dolan Martin; John Mccormick
Cc: Lovell Jaimie; Michael Choueifate; Virginia Kim; Jeff Singleton
Subject: Sen Xenophon Motion re Pei-Air [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Martin/John
FYI.
We are opposing this motion however Sen Xenophon will no doubt pursue in Estimates (or in the media).

Regards

Craig Carmody
Senior Adviser
Office of the Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Leader ofthe House
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport If you required any further evidence that the ATsB is in fact operating in contravention to ICAO SARPs (Article 26, Annex 13&19) and indeed the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003; go no further than this email...:ugh::ugh:

{Comment: It should also not go unnoticed that - as representatives of the State - the Minister & his department are also in fact trying to impose/influence/pressure/have an effect on the ATsB Chief Commissioner in the course of a Parliamentary Inquiry}

MTF...:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

I think Creampuff is on to something here Sarcs, but don't hyperventilate in hyperspace, because Creedy gets everything off PPRune. That's if he exists I mean.
That's if he is reading this post today.
I mean not necessarily today, I mean tomorrow, for I wrote this post yesterday.


It's impordan (new trendy word), that you understand this.

[Kharon]

It's probably a good thing that the Australian media only regurgitates fluffy press releases and leaves it at that. If the real investigative journalists or aviation press overseas ever cottoned on to way matters aeronautical are conducted in Australia we'd be downgraded and made a laughing stock. Any thorough investigation and exposure of any of the Pprune tales would be a potential Pulitzer winner for anyone ingenious and brave enough to investigate and could find a publisher with balls enough to print it. But, unfortunately, the journalists of the real world are happy to accept the outlandish notion that Australian aviation is as good as it gets, safe as houses and CASA does a great job. Bollocks.

For fairy tales and feel good spin stories, read press releases; for reality – start – HERE (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-8481.pdf)-.

[Sarcs]

Following on from the Beaker revelation...

"For the foreseeable future, we will be able to undertake fewer investigations and we will need to carefully consider and constrain the scope of investigations initiated. Our capacity for industry engagement will be limited and the timeliness of the completion of some of the investigations currently under way will be an ongoing challenge."

...it now appears that the story on ATsB cutbacks has now gone international...:E

So we now get a totally different MSM version on the same story - this time without being sanitised for Australian political & editorial interests...:rolleyes:

From the International Business Times:MH370 Search Update: Lead Agency Admits Capacity Is Less Than Before (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/571683/20141104/mh370-search-news-update-latest.htm#.VFlw7UhxnIW)

By Athena Yenko (http://au.ibtimes.com/archives/articles/reporters/athena-yenko/)| November 4, 2014 9:06 PM EST

The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau or ATSB made the difficult decision to cut its staff by 12 percent within the next four years. With this, the agency leading the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 admits its capacity is less than before in all teams involved with investigation, technical analysis, research and publication. The revelation came as the agency release its annual report for 2013-2014.

Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan said the decision came in light when their planning of the next four years showed the agency would not be able to sustain the current number of staff it has for the next years. With the decision, the agency is forced to marry various functions under one job function, such as research and notifications.

Dolan highlighted the decision to cut staff was being made about the same time the news of the disappearance of MH370 broke. He said that as the agency was being required to reduce the number of its staff and resources, ATSB had also received the news that the missing Boeing 777 could possibly be in the Southern Indian Ocean, in Australia's Search and Rescue Zone. The agency was thereby delegated the responsibility to take the lead in searching for the missing plane.

Under this circumstance, ATSB's responsibility as the lead agency searching for the missing plane became its greatest challenge to date. With a limited staff in the coming years, the already "most serious aviation occurrence ever" that landed on ATSB's responsibility became all the more challenging. As how the global community describes it, the mystery surrounding the missing plane is the most mystifying, most expansive and most difficult search operation in the history of commercial aircraft.

In July, the agency subsequently received the news about the downing of MH17, claiming the lives of many Australians. The agency had then deployed two of its investigators to support the investigations of the Dutch Safety Board-led Annex 13.

"The decision to reduce our staff members was particularly difficult as it was made in the knowledge that there is no contingent workforce of highly skilled transport safety investigators available in the marketplace to be deployed at short notice in the event of a new crisis," Dolan stated.

"It was indeed sobering to see more than 200 years of combined corporate and investigation experience leaving the ATSB," Dolan emotionally said.

To contact the editor, e-mail: [email protected]
Hmm...wonder what the Chinese government snoops (i.e. cyber-hacking crew) make of all this...:rolleyes:

Addendum: Passing strange :rolleyes: - The apparently now emotional Beaker on losing some of his troops..compared to the vulnerable public being potentially smashed by some out of control UAV...well remember this?? :yuk::yuk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhmqerh6DNU

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Sarcs – I did try to watch that video (bad enough the first time), I really did; had a bucket ready and everything, but it beat me..:yuk:......Perhaps that's the Beaker strategy – make everyone so nauseous that they give up trying to understand what the Uriah Heep of aviation is wittering on about.

Mind you, I have trouble coming to grips with the Truss decision to 're-appoint' given the shellacking dished out by the Senate committee and the carefully worded comments following the Pel Air double shuffle; the way this clown keeps mixing sheep with goats and getting away with it is beyond me. Perhaps it all comes down to the big end and airport leases, who would know?. It's certainly not the unswerving devotion of his troops; one look at the SMH picture expresses more about that than could ever be expressed by a million written words.

The thing troubles me most is Australia's international reputation becoming even more tarnished than it is. There are some clever, hard eyed folk with vested interests watching every move, analysing every syllable spoken, every word written and they are very good at 'seeing' far and clear. And we put up the Beaker: he of beyond all Reason, of dubious credibility, of the non retrieval of 'black boxes', of the obfuscation of Annexe 13, to face down the world on the MH 370 gig; what, in all the seven hells is Abbott thinking (or not, as the case may be).

Selah.

[Sunfish]

ATSB:

"For the foreseeable future, we will be able to undertake fewer investigations and we will need to carefully consider and constrain the scope of investigations initiated. Our capacity for industry engagement will be limited and the timeliness of the completion of some of the investigations currently under way will be an ongoing challenge."

Translation:

"We have been directed to avoid controversy, synchronise our reports with the wishes of the Government, The Department, CASA and Air Services and above all avoid any criticism of their management.

That is what the words "carefully consider and constrain" mean in our press release - considered and constrained not to rock the boat.

The bit about "industry engagement" means that we won't answer your questions or discuss any misgivings you may have about our actions.

Our excuse for this dereliction of duty is that we don't have enough money to do our job properly.

Needless to say, we will broadcast any confidences you may wish to "confidentially" report to us to anyone in Government who wants to know who you are.".

[thorn bird]

This press release wouldn't be a ploy to weedle more money out of the Guvmint would it?
I agree with sunny, given the "Integrity" displayed over recent times I think it would be a foolish man who communicated in anyway with the ATSB, or CAsA for that matter.
Watch them in the senate or in front of the icac, the "I don't recall" or "Not to my knowledge"answer to questions is a bit hard to challenge, they are masters of that game.

[Kharon]

Seems we are not able to use the CVD hearing transcript to illustrate a point, but thankfully the PM system works and I snagged the link for the PAIN download. The transcript is an interesting read for many reasons, hopefully the CVD crew will get off their arses and seek the necessary permissions so the MaM can discuss some of the twists and turns, without having to rely on independent, free hand translation. Until then you'll just have to put up with my twiddles for some of the highlights (no whinging, puleese).

Before we go any further, the President, His Honour (HH) should be congratulated; no matter the decision handed down, he ran a tight ship, was IMO fair, even handed and all together sane, safe, sound and reasonable. Nicely played Sir...:D. (Can you give a HH a choc frog?)

One of the more fascinating parts of the hearing came on day three, when the May 26 appearance before the Senate inquiry was raised and one Fawcett Esq. was mentioned along with the CAD test. The reaction from Hardly Normal was an instant – "Well, I object"; - you'd think his seat had goosed him, he was up off it so fast. All flustered and angry. HH, cool as a cucumber asks Lawson does he want to press the question; "Oh yes please" chirps young Lawson (for the CVD) with a big smile..:D.

Well, Hardly drags in a big one and starts banging on about the Parliamentary Privileges Act, from memory mind you, and bemoaning the fact that while he doesn't have the Act itself about his person; he's bloody sure that drawing context, particularly judicial imperial context is a big no-no. Then he drops Joey Norules in it and expects him to produce that Act, wabbit like, out of his hat (Norules ain't got a hat), while bleating on about working from memory. The HH visage must have been a study – here's a QC, barking about a point of law, without a reference or even a hope of finding one for HH before tea time.

HH displayed his tact and reasonable attitude again and suggested that they move away from that minefield until later, when both sides know what they are talking about. It's fair to say young Lawson didn't have the PP Act in his briefcase either; but then, he didn't expect such a big reaction from Hardly at the mention of Senate or Senator. (Or did he?).

Now you'd expect Hardly to let that go through to the keeper and get his reference about parliamentary stuff then. But no; there is no way he is going to have the Senate dragged into play and he launches into one of those seemingly innocuous, well rehearsed, trusted, venomous soliloquies which have caused the 'other side' so much consternation in the past; he's good at it.

He starts off, looking reasonable and caring only for 'justice' to suggest that perhaps young Lawson could 'work around' mentioning the Senate; then 'sulkily' asks why he has to refer to the Senator at all, seems he can't understand that (wonderful theatre); the last part of the routine ends with a loaded question – imagine Hardly posed one hand on chest, the other extended forward, his ala Lincoln pose, and in a performance worthy of Portia cries (paraphrased) "Oh M'lud, what gravamen it has to quote the words of a political figure, can we not dispense with this foul calumny"; pause, sip, big breath, "I have not; not for four and forty years looked at the PP Act; but I am certain that it's very wrong to refer to any parliamentary doings, very naughty indeed". Pause for effect, sits dramatically to the gentle applause noise (some say wind) emanating from Norules.

Well children, young Lawson just smiled quietly and bowled around the wicket, the point had been made and the whole thing fizzled out; neither side dragged out the PP Act and argued the points of law.

Two things were shown, clear and bright through the murk: CASA don't much like not being able to lead a Senate committee around by the foreskin and they remember that one D. Fawcett Esq. kicked seven bells out them on Night Vision and is lining them up for round two on Colour Vision. Not true you howl; well, he nailed Pooh Shambollocks and provided young Lawson some superior ammunition, which was used wisely.

The CVD issue provides such a perfect snapshot of all that is wrong with the current CASA system and makes the case worthy of the time and effort taken to study it. Best of all, Pooh-Shambollocks will not be there for the return bout; and, perhaps Hardly Normal will take the hint that if CASA want to make a case, the 'evidence' must be beyond reasonable doubt, lest the AAT make another legally unsafe ruling. I think the AAT wise owls have tumbled to the fact that CASA can, does and will continue to rely on their name rather than 'facts and circumstances' to win at any cost; Jones being a prime example. Maybe, those days are over. We can only hope.

Toot toot.

[thorn bird]

Should make you the court reporter Kharon.

Transcript is about as boring as watching the machinations of a bunch of newts at a lawyers conference on the bottom of the pond.

Your version is much more entertaining, and perhaps opening the pompous asses up to ridicule is a good thing.

As my granddaddy used to say:

"The law is for everyone. Justice is for them that can afford it"

Just ask a few of them that have been pineappled by CAsA if thats not true.

Questions for the new DAS:

"When can John Qadrio expect justice?"

"When can Karon Casey expect justice?"

Things really are sick when one group in industry is hoping for a major smoking hole, another plotting civil disobedience because they can see no other way of affecting change in time to save their industry.

All the while the minuscule fiddles while Rome burns.

TIC TOCK

[Sarcs]

Was just watching a presser with PM TA & Dutch PM giving an update on the MH17 (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MH17&src=typd) investigation. In the intro TA passed tribute to the many agencies & government officials involved in the DSB headed investigation and repatriation of victims remains, everyone it seems except for Beaker & his boys (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-50.html#post8575579)...:{

This omission - although obscurely - was somewhat recovered by PM Rutte when he paid tribute to our "forensic experts" assisting the DSB...:D

I also note from a presser held yesterday that PM Rutte recognises the importance of maintaining the independence - & therefore integrity - of the State Aviation Accident Investigation agency..:D: Joint Press Conference with Prime Minister Rutte, Parliament House (http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-11-06/joint-press-conference-prime-minister-rutte-parliament-house)
PRIME MINISTER RUTTE:

And on your second question, I can guarantee you that we will do everything we can to bring those responsible to justice. We are working on this with all the countries involved through the independent Dutch Safety Board, through the public prosecutors, many people of high calibre are working on this on both sides of the world to get to the bottom of this. So, we are highly motivated. I have no 100 per cent guarantee but I do have 100 per cent guarantee that we will do everything we can to bring them to justice.


As you know, we as a Dutch Government we are leading the international investigation and that means that I will never comment on evidence or… I know there are many dots, there are many facts which have been established or facts which we think have been established, to make sure that we have absolute clarity about the facts and to connect the dots of these facts into a clear conclusion is up to the independent Dutch Safety Board and the reason we do this through the independent Dutch Safety Board is that Tony, myself and all the others involved we don't want to have political interference in the final conclusions of what happened. If it is independent then it is much more difficult for countries, probably being involved or potentially being involved, to question the outcome and that's the reason why we are so hesitant to connect dots. Crying shame..:{..we cannot say the same about our own AAI whose independence - after the PelAir cover-up - remains extremely questionable!

However we all know that these pressers are very much stage managed by the PM's minders. So was his omission of the ATsB involvement in MH17 (no doubt a valuable contribution) an attempt to distance himself from any association from mi..mi..mi..Beaker?? And will the Coalition government rue the decision of keeping Beaker in the top spot at the bureau and then putting him in charge of the MH370 search mission in the Southern Indian Ocean?? :rolleyes:

Time will tell I guess but TA & Co cannot say they were not given fair warning...:ugh:

This from a Liberal Senator no less:
Senator EDWARDS: Chair, since we have started, there has been mea culpa after mea culpa after mea culpa in this thing. Now you are hearing evidence for the first time of what is supposed to be a forensic investigation. I have heard that this report would be a joke in the international standing—if other reviewers were to have reviewed this. I think that the evidence that Senator Xenophon and Senator Fawcett are drawing out would suggest that. We haven't even got to the black box yet. Are you proud of this report?

Mr Dolan: I certainly would not hold this report as a benchmark. I am still satisfied that the key elements—

Senator EDWARDS: Three years in the making. Mea culpa after mea culpa. Are you proud of this report?

Mr Dolan: No, I am not proud of this report.[20] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c03f20)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb-h7WJBPgo

And this from Chapter 3 para 3.64 of the AAI report...

"...3.64 The committee finds the ATSB's refusal to retrieve the FDR incongruous and questionable. Furthermore, the committee takes a dim view of the ATSB's reliance on a version of ICAO Annex 13 that only came into force in late 2010, nearly a year after the accident, to justify this decision. Mr Dolan's evidence in this regard is questionable and has seriously eroded his standing as a witness before the committee..."

...a statement that Senator Xenophon drew attention to in his adjournment speech 04 March 2014, along with a query on how Beaker's position was now tenable:

Senator Xenophon adjournment speech 04/03/2014 - YouTube

There are now indications that the international community is becoming suspect on Beaker, now would be a good time for Beaker & the miniscule to be quietly shown the backdoor...:D

On the MH370 search simply pass the baton to the AMSA crew whose no fuss co-ordination of the initial search in the Indian Ocean has gained them much respect - Australia sponsors improvements to global aviation search and rescue (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2014/October/wt221_2014.aspx)- surely it would not be much of a stretch for AMSA to now oversee & co-ordinate the MH370 undersea search??

Addendum - MH370: Boeing needs to explain neglect of 777 security flaw (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/08/mh370-boeing-needs-to-explain-neglect-of-777-security-flaw/)

The above article from Planetalking perhaps perfectly highlights why it is essential for politics & aviation accident investigation to remain separate - as PM Rutte goes at length to explain (above). And why it is essential for an ICAO signatory State to protect the independence & veracity of the State appointed AAI.

The following quote also gives rise to questions on why TA's government would possibly risk putting an individual like Beaker - with zero credibility (or indeed believability) - in charge of the MH370 underwater search mission, when there is such huge interest internationally:
What we do know is that the Malaysia Government, having deliberately mislead its search partners as to what it knew about the course flown by MH370 on the morning of its disappearance on 8 March, has also suppressed two items in the cargo manifest, which among other possibilities, have been rumoured to have comprised gold bullion.

This is not the only thing that has been suppressed for, rather than by, the same government, but more about that sine dei as some Australian judges say.

The role of Boeing in this is important, but not officially explained. Boeing was told in no uncertain terms about the security risks of this unsecured access to critical flight and support systems several years, and as recounted in Jeff Wise’s blog, even Emirates, the largest user of the Boeing 777, brushed them aside at the time.

We will ask Boeing again why it designed such a crock when it came to security in the first place, and why it didn’t put in train immediate mandatory action to close it off. There are times when airlines, regulators and aircraft makers ought to listen to concerned pilots and take what they say seriously. Now there is risk of serious criminal liability arising from an incident in which 239 people died. Pure gold Ben..pure gold..:E"Leaving the door open to a potential for hijacking or terrorism is surely indefensible, but c’mon, give us some weasel words anyhow." MTF...:ok:

[Up-into-the-air]

Found the following:

Martin Dolan Member, Audit and Risk Committee [casa] – April 2004 to present
Martin Dolan is First Assistant Secretary, Aviation and Airports, Regulatory Group, Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Mr Dolan joined the Australian Public Service in 1980 to work with the government’s overseas aid program, and continued in that field for eleven years. He then moved to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy (later to become the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry). He worked there for ten years, principally in corporate management roles including planning and evaluation, ministerial support, communications and legal services, fi nancial management and corporate services.
His final roles were those of Chief Financial Officer and then Head of Corporate Management.
In 2001 Mr Dolan transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services. After completing a review of the department’s road
programs, he took over management of the Airports Division. He has since been responsible for the department’s role in selling Sydney Airport, the enhancement of aviation security, post-Ansett aviation policy and aviation safety reform. He is currently responsible for the department’s overall role in the regulation of aviation and airports.

Audit and Risk Committee

As required by the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, CASA maintained an audit committee throughout 2004–05 to support effective corporate governance.

The committee comprised from 2004-2005 annual report:
Barbara Yeoh, Chair (April 2004 to present)
Martin Dolan (April 2004 to June 2005)
Michael Lewis (April 2004 to present)
Bruce Gemmell (April 2004 to present)
Mr David Andersen (Secretary)

[Kharon]

We may yet, if (IF) the latest rumour out of Cant'berra proves accurate, have to have whip around to fill the Sunfish hat with choc frogs. Seems he may well scoop the pool if the dire warnings of PMC involvement go from 'strong' rumour to cold fact. We may yet have been throwing rocks onto the wrong chook shed roof. The latest has it that it's the Abbott chooks slowing down the process, not the Truss non layers. Word is the Yanks are coming and there's going to be trouble (T). So, the rumours make sense; well , enough for discussion purposes at least. The story goes:-

CASA were gifted a reprieve after the last FAA (ICAO) visit: the negotiation to give them a chance to put their house in order was conducted at high level, promises were made and money was made available to keep those promises. It seems, it's just not the IOS who are aware that CASA not only took the money, but the Mickey Bliss as well, by not keeping those promises and thumbing their nose not only at the Yanks, but their 'real' masters. Which, naturally enough, has angered and embarrassed some heavy duty folk. With the shameful CASA and ATSB performance known to the real world –.

Abbott is going to look bloody silly, grabbing 'Vlad' by the shirt front and banging on about anything aeronautical. It's a bad negotiating position and starting on the back foot is not a smart move; so until the G20 hoo-haa is over, rumour has it that the PMC have their foot on the throat of matters aeronautical and nothing will happen. Well, not until the PM can return to the land of the free only slightly ruffled, rather than humiliated and chastised. Anyone watching will see Vlad smiling quietly, listening to the Abbot tirade then saying "So; Tony, let go my shirt front (wipes off self righteous drool) and tell me, will MH 370 be managed the same way as Pel Air?" "I notice you have the same crew running it". Game, set and match - Vlad....:D

Then of course there is the Canadian cousins whispering to their American cousins. They may play the diplomatic game and 'massage' their report to fit the ToR, but make no mistake, they will be speaking to their counterparts in FAA. "Well, it's in a hell of a mess down there, thought you guys had sorted it out last trip" (smirk, smirk). The FAA will not be too happy that the Canadians are laughing and making snide remarks about how the Aussies 'third world' authority have treated the last FAA audit. The hook may not be so easy to shake this time; rumour has it the Yanks are officially, if quietly, miffed...:eek:

This is all to be kicked upstairs to their grown ups, who will talk to our grown ups, who will put the brakes and silencer on any or all proposed changes related to matters aeronautical. With nothing to be done until the top level gabfests and the G20 shindig are over and face saved. Which explains, in part, the appalling delay in any form of response from the miniscule.

It's true that most important matters are managed by the PMC in some way; but, if it is true that the PMC have actively taken over the management of aviation direction, then things may just work out as Sunny forecast. Then again, it may all be supposition, rumour and pub gossip. But it makes a sort of sense; and any morsel is welcome in the desert of no response, no comment and no announcement of any sort.

Still, big meetings to come, perhaps then we shall see. Time will tell if the tale is true.

But it's quiet Tonto, too damn quiet...

[rammel]

I was recently chatting to a guy who works for the FAA and is relatively high up in the FAA on the West Coast. Topics of discussion that came up from him were in no particular order, Pel Air, Qantas and Jetstar issues, Jetstar Pacific, the implementation of Part 61 and various other aviation topics. I would expect someone who is in the aviation industry on the other side of the world to know a little about these topics, but he was very well informed on them.

He may or may not be involved in Australia's next FAA audit, but if the people who are are as informed as him, it should be a cause of concern for those who are being audited. This guy is a very smart guy and I would not like to try and bul!**** him, as he will see through it. He even gets the sarcastic Aussie sense of humour, so he is not an average American.

[thorn bird]

Hmmm, heard the same rumour Kharon.

Does this signify that politics is suddenly taking an interest in aviation?

I sincerely hope that is the case.

Given the historical record one cannot help but be cynical.

Do I sense the clammy hand of that malevolent, manipulating, Machiavellian mandarin's mandarin meddling in the mire?

Was the scenario a dimly lit room, overstuffed chairs, decanter of the finest cognac, snifters and the wafting aroma of cuban cigars?

Sir Humphrey (Oz version)

"It is dreadfully unfortunate that the minister chose to ignore my advice and have this damned inquiry.

I warned him it could backfire, which it undoubtably has".

PM's man.

"How in blazes did you let that that happen Sir Humphrey?"

Sir Humphrey (Oz version)

The minister insisted it was an election promise. Silly old goat getting attacks of integrity all of a sudden, I tell you his minds going.

Those dreadful malcontents from industry fairly buried the committee in submissions, all damning.

We tried to keep it all under wraps, but as you know the DAS insisted he wanted names and addresses including next of kin for later retribution, he's as bad as the minister except he's convinced he belongs to the Stasi.

I mean, really, have you seen those thugs he employs as enforcers? good god, they even frighten the hell out of me.

Security was so lax bits and pieces got leaked to the ills of society and the next think we knew there was thirty four, Thirty four mind you, recommendations that would tear through the very fabric of the CAsA safety mystique we have worked so hard to develop.

PM's man

"So what do you want me to do?"

Sir Humphrey (Oz version)

"Well there are rumours that the FAA have been taking a strong interest in CAsA, this whole unfortunate business, along with the Pelair debacle, must have made it abundantly clear to them that they were, shall we say, snowed during their last audit. There is little doubt we would not get away with it again.

Think of the ramifications for the government and the PM if Australia were downgraded by the FAA.

You must be aware that my minister is...err...not to put it too unkindly, two penneth short of a quid, I am of the opinion that to leave him to handle it is fraught with danger. He could get another attack of integrity and call for a royal commission. Do you have any idea how corrupt CAsA is? Could bring us all down.

No No No, a royal commission is absolutely out of the question.

If you could see your way clear to take this damnable report away from the minister.

My concerns are entirely about protecting the PM from embarrassment of course.

You are in a far better position to withhold it than my department.

That will give me breathing space to fabricate the governments response to be released sometime in the new year.

With luck the industry will be too full of christmas cheer to notice and I'm informed there's a whole raft of new regulations about to be inflicted on them which hopefully will distract them from complaining too much"

Fiction I know But...

[Sarcs]

Kharon - CASA were gifted a reprieve after the last FAA (ICAO) visit: the negotiation to give them a chance to put their house in order was conducted at high level, promises were made and money was made available to keep those promises. It seems, it's just not the IOS who are aware that CASA not only took the money, but the Mickey Bliss as well, by not keeping those promises and thumbing their nose not only at the Yanks, but their 'real' masters. Which, naturally enough, has angered and embarrassed some heavy duty folk. With the shameful CASA and ATSB performance known to the real world –.
Although the now infamous ICAO audit of 2008 (http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Australia_USOAP_Final_Report_en.pdf) is but a distant memory for many of the current crop of misfits at CAsA & the Dept; here is a reminder of how much of a scare it should have put through the establishment at the time:Monday, 11 May 2009
Damning audit slams CASA’s safety record

by Ben Sandilands
Australia (http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/australia/)

The myth of Australian leadership in air safety has been exposed in a damning audit (http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Australia_USOAP_Final_Report_en.pdf) by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
In the final report of the audit carried out in February 2008 the body finds CASA lacks the competencies, resources, training, and regulatory powers to carry out a broad range of critical functions and meet Australia’s obligations under the ICAO treaty.

While Australia’s response in the sanitised final version of the audit pledges to fix deficiencies by no later than the end of this year, they will require a far better use of the hundreds of millions of dollars it has so clearly wasted each year on the ineptitude and ineffectiveness of CASA in the ten years since the previous ICAO audit.

The audit is a huge wake up call to the government, which left much of the dead wood bureaucracy which was responsible for air transport administration under the previous government in place.

This is the world’s peak aviation safety organisation telling Canberra that CASA is so inept it didn’t even exercise oversight of the strict operational requirements of ETOPS or long range operations over water of twin engined wide bodied airliners, like Qantas A330s and V Australia 777-300 ERs.
It finds CASA hasn’t even exercised effective oversight over those it delegates from industry to carry out functions on its behalf and those it directly employs are inadequately trained or monitored.

ICAO says that in CASA in general “the training provided to technical staff is insufficient to address the competency requirements for all the technical tasks.”

ICAO found that “There are no regulations in Australia that…clearly define the direct accountability for safety on the part of senior managements of airlines.”

This is one of the foundations of airline governance in the developed world, in defining the corporate responsibility for maintaining safety standards by airline executives.

It even found that Australia didn’t compel airlines to preserve to the maximum extent flight black box recorders in the event of a crash or serious incident.

Australia had either deficient or non existent rules for the reporting of sub standard or fake spare parts for aircraft and had failed to develop a program to ensure the safe transport of dangerous goods by air.
Regardless of what undertakings or remedial action CASA claims it is now undertaking, the audit shows that the last 10 years of safety oversight have been dysfunctional and inadequate.

The audit’s final report is a negotiated document. The audit team provides the interested parties with a draft, those parties take exception or otherwise to the wording, and a to-and-fro process occurs which retains the conclusions made by the auditors but in a language the parties are prepared to live with.

The audit was also conducted between 18-28 February last year, well before the CASA special audit of Qantas discovered that the airline’s safety standards were slipping, and also, that CASA had been clueless or mute as the case may be about those failings for years prior.

The audit was over when Qantas discovered it had forgotten a crucial airworthiness directive to complete modifications to the forward pressure bulkhead in five of its Boeing 737-400s, but then claimed it didn’t matter anyhow.

It did. It was serious. Airworthiness directives are by definition serious directions to remedy air safety issues. The former head of engineering, David Cox, who played down the matter has since left Qantas, and CASA to this day has denied officially having any responsibility for tracking and ensuring compliance with airworthiness directives.

The audit recommends that Australia sufficiently fund its air safety investigator, the ATSB so that it can investigate all rather than a selection of significant accidents and incidents and fulfil its ICAO treaty obligations in that regard.

Two things stand out from this report.

One is that Australia has agreed to fix almost all of these issues by the end of this year, which will require profound and widespread change in CASA.

The other is that for close on ten years prior to this audit the reputation of Australia as a leader in aviation safety was more the result of luck than rigour. Now there is one thing about auditors eventually they come around again and after the recent bad press, the many..many negative findings/recommendations in various Senate Inquiries and indeed in the Forsyth Report (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Executive_Summary.pdf) itself; it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that the FAA/ICAO will be back sooner rather than later...:rolleyes:

It is also not too much of a stretch, given Australia's strong involvement in the two biggest aviation related tragedies in recent memory, that the spotlight will be on just how well the government & it's agencies conduct themselves while the world leaders are in our patch; which gives credence to the rumour that the PMC is the current roadblock to all things aviation in this country - well at least till the G20 is over and all the bigwigs go home..:E

So fanciful rumour maybe but it would also make sense of the delay of the TSBC peer review report as well...:rolleyes:

Although personally I'm not going to let our inept miniscule, Beaker - or if the rumour be true; our Putin shirt front threatening PM - of the hook anytime soon are you??

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Got busy on Skype last night; tried to get a feel for overseas interest and intentions. Seems 'they' all know, with Australia becoming a 'standard' butt for jokes, like the series of Irish or elephant gags: some of them are very good. It's probably just as well the national sense of humour is based on taking the Mickey; rather than wit, the irony should be appreciated.

I could not, not 100% determine if the Yanks were planning a trip 'dununder', they most certainly want to and if there were a few more pennies in the jam tin; they certainly would be here. As it stands, that decision is in the lap of the financial gods; however the will to do it exists.

The main concern of course is that now a small part of the 'system' has been exposed for what it is, through the Senate Pel Air inquiry and the expert recommendations of that panel; that being further supported by the Rev. Forsyth and his excellent review, that nothing, not a thing has been done to address the 60 odd far reaching, important fixes required by those reviews and demanded by industry. My response is to quote the 2008 audit, the money spent and the stellar achievement of Part 61 and CAAP 215 as proof of money well spent, when the coughing and spluttering dies away; always the same response to the "you're kidding" question – "no mate, I'm not". The next question everyone asks is – "where the hell are the press?". Your guess is as good as mine I reply. Unbelievable they say..

Now as it happens, I know a couple of 'producers', one in the US and I did manage a chat with him. He was as surprised that there was 'trouble at mill' as I was that he had NFI. It ended up being an 'interesting' conversation. Not holding my breath though, Sandilands reckons there are no journalists anymore and people are not interested in a good yarn, well told. Just 'grabs' of easily digested potted or regurgitated pap. A quick, vicarious thrill, a tut-tut and it's back to MKR. Friend of mine who makes a study of such things has always maintained that most conversation is carried out during the TV program and dries up when the advertisements are on; he's serious about it – go figure.

This all leaves us wandering about in the dark, and Vlad trying to understand WTF Abbott is on about; I couldn't snag the picture I wanted, but look at the Vlad expression in the one below. Talk about glass houses, rocks and them what chuck's 'em. The pot and the kettle, together at last; discussing who has the grimiest arse; which is rather a good question.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/11/1415698144163_wps_1_epa04484780_Russian_Presi.jpg Courtesy Daily Mail.

Thorny, have you been keeping low company again, mixing with the IoS and MaM, drinking beer and attending arcane, lampshade wearing meetings with riff-raff?..:eek:... Good onya....See you next week mate...:D..:ok:

Toot toot. (MkI).

[Sarcs]

While on the subject of audits it is worth remembering that before the 2008 FAA/ICAO Audit the bureau asked for and got audited by ICAO on pretty much similar ToR to that of the TSBC peer review:
Media release

Title
Positive results of ICAO audit of the ATSB



Date: 29 October 2004


An ICAO audit of the ATSB has reported high satisfaction with Australia's legislative, organisational and training framework for aircraft safety investigation and the professional and efficient conduct of the ATSB investigations reviewed in detail.


The audit by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was sought by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to ensure that the ATSB met international best practice for aviation accident and incident safety investigation.

The ICAO audit team 'commended the positive and professional approach of the ATSB in proactively seeking the audit' and made a number of very positive findings.

For example, the team 'was highly satisfied with the legislative and organizational framework established by Australia and the ATSB enabling the conduct of aircraft accident and incident investigations' in particular through the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and Regulations.

The ICAO team 'commended' the ATSB's 'very comprehensive training policy and programme' and, based on the two complex accident investigations audited, found: 'despite multiple difficult circumstances in each of the investigations reviewed, the investigators appeared to have managed the investigation tasks in a professional and efficient manner, consistent with the established standards and practices of the ATSB. Furthermore & safety issues were properly addressed and the processing of reports of the investigations was generally accomplished in a timely manner'.

As expected, the audit team did make a number of recommendations for improvement including regarding documentation, memoranda of understanding, post-accident medical testing, budgeting and number of investigations, investigator training, and occurrence reporting, against which the ATSB has submitted a corrective action plan.

These recommendations are being progressed with the Minister and internally. In transmitting the audit report, ICAO stated that it was 'pleased to advise that your (the ATSB's) proposed corrective action plan was found to be fully acceptable'.

The field stage of the ICAO audit was conducted in May/June 2004 and the final audit report was transmitted this month. In the interests of transparency, the full ICAO audit report is available from the website (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2004/ICAO_audit.aspx), or from the Bureau on request. A decade on and a lot of water under the bridge - which included significant events like the Lockhart River tragedy and the attempted cover-up of the VH-NGA Norfolk Island ditching investigation - did the bureau heed the lessons learnt from the ICAO audit or are the bureau diverging further from compliance with their obligations to ICAO Annex 13??

My money is on the latter and after the PelAir debacle for very good reason...:ugh:

The following is a prime example of how the bureau has IMO regressed rather than improved over the course of the last decade. First an extract from the bureau link above...

"...Safety recommendations are issued by the ATSB in conformity with Annex 13 requirements..."

Then this quote from Ben's article yesterday - Boeing unwilling to comment on 777 security issues (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/12/boeing-unwilling-to-comment-on-777-security-issues/#comments):One of the protocols of air accident investigations that conform to the prescriptions and intent of ICAO Annex 13 (covering air safety inquiries) is that if a safety issue is identified in the course of an investigation then it is dealt with expeditiously rather than kept on ice pending the publication of a final report. Which brings an interesting parallel to the PelAir investigation...:rolleyes: As we now all know there was a critical safety issue identified very early on in the PelAir ATsB investigation - which in normal compliance with Annex 13 should have meant the automatic promulgation of an SR. Instead the bureau sat on this safety issue for a further 3 years and the SI is still yet to be adequately addressed...:=

The following vid - from 26 May Senate Estimates - perhaps further highlights this contradiction by the bureau (since 2004) in application of Annex 13 on the subject of safety issues and what Senator Fawcett refers to as 'closing the safety (issue) loop' i.e. mitigating safety risk.

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - ATSB Safety Issue Methodology - YouTube

It is also interesting to note that apparently the ATsB provided a copy of their actions in response to the 2008 FAA/ICAO audit to the TSBC - see QON 258 answered here (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1415/infra/Answers/ATSB.pdf) by Beaker - yet they didn't furnish the Canucks with the 2004 exclusive ICAO audit (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36732/ICAO_audit.pdf) of the bureau...:confused:

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Looking over the last post from Sarcs a couple of fairly significant things jump off the page:-

a) The Canadians were given the 2008 'general' ATSB audit which only lightly brushed over the 2004 response; the 2004 audit was a peer review and made some serious recommendations – and had much to say. Particularly related to 'investigation' (or lack thereof) independence and funding, all as required under Annexe 13, to ensure that obligations were properly met.

b) That had the ATSB acted as recommended; then things would be better and a damn sight closer to what a first world safety investigator should be doing.

Beaker is 'emotionally' and publicly bewailing the loss of '200' years experience; that's twenty years per annum for the last decade, if you like. More broken promises to the detriment of the ATSB to the point where the infamous, Beyond all Reason SR are left to sit in limbo for three years, before being diluted to a minor, politically correct SA suggestion: lots of accidents are not even cursorily investigated; reports are written by the tea lady and, once again, the department is complicit in deliberately thumbing it's nose at an ICAO audit. Had they complied, we would have a first class ATSB to be proud of. What do we and ICAO have – Mi mi meee, mee, me; trust me, mi mi mi.

I wonder why we bother; I really do. FCOL, the bloody Canucks have toddled off with almost exactly the same ToR that were used for the ICAO 2004, peer review made at ATSB request, but are working with the 2008 FAA light version of a 'general' review. No matter, both were not only ignored but have, as the facts show, been inverted and perverted into the shameful mess we see today.

We have now had several inquiries, reviews and audit; all danced to the tune of no change and obfuscation. Why bother doing them – if no one takes the slightest notice.. If we just didn't bother with 'audit' the ATSB could have afforded the $00.20 to raise the Westwind and maybe even replaced the 'lost' talent to write a report which was not an aberration and a SR that stuck. We may have even had some meaningful insight into why life vests failed, life rafts went walkabout, whistles didn't work and a sensible fuel policy; written into law. We may have even gained a better understanding of fatigue. But, hell the world don't need that kind of information now, do it? Bloody Bean counters, advisors, spin doctors and statisticians, all would make a stone idol weep.

And we, masquerading as an upstanding, righteous aviation nation feel it is our duty to 'shirt front' the Ivans of this world and have the rest of it believe that "our" ATSB can manage MH 370. Well, if it's to be a cover up of the duck up, they probably can; very well indeed. Sad part: the world will probably swallow it, whole, and ask for more.

Selah..

[Sunfish]

It may not be too late for a private salvage operation to raise the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder. What is needed are a couple of amateur cave divers who can operate with heliox and decompressions stops.

A single professional oil rig guy would do it in a doddle.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has beaten us to it.

Another possibility with respect to CASA is that PM & C might have decided to do some surgery and amputate parts of it . AVM. Skidmore might already be briefed and tasked with holding the fort while this is done.

...but how would I know? I'm just guessing what Sir Humphrey would do.

[Frank Arouet]

The simple fact that the aircraft has been partially raised and then dropped back down is sufficient to "break the evidence chain". Bringing it, or any part of it up now, would serve no legal purpose except to have the suspicions confirmed by the Bar Room barristers. (BRB).


Sorry for the negative vibes.......

[Lookleft]

You don't need the aircraft you just need the recorders. If the ATSB are not going to be required to reopen the investigation then yes, there is very little point in even bringing the recorders to the surface.

[Ziggychick]

Five years next week.
Still the same bull****e from the "Trusted Authorities"

What a crock!
Go Abbott, raise your fists for justice for the Australians that perished in the two air disasters.

Survivors of Oz first Int'l Aviation Incident. Nah. We lived. No justice for us.
Seems like it will just be words, that's all. Thanks PM and co.

This is a living hell. Every day. Knowing the truth and watching the clowns perform their deceitful acts.

I lost so much that night. Have fought for the truth and justice.

Not a day goes by lately when I sit in pain, knowing the pain and disability is permanent.

Some days I honestly do wish I perished. This living hell that my own country has put me and others on board through is not acceptable.

How about justice for the living?

I am so disgusted with my "leaders" that I will leave this country when all is done. If I survive that long.

Bunch of pathetic asses. How can they do this to their own citizens?

Mr Skidmore. I beg you to be honest and finish this disgraceful and embarrassing, torturous battle. Please. No-one else has yet shown the balls to do so.

[Kharon]

Strength and patience Ziggy; hang in there and look after yourself first. The foul messenger boy got his marching orders, maybe Clive has seen some of the dreadful emails regarding your plight he wrote; probably not, but Karma is alive, well and always on duty. Skidmore has many ghosts at his feast and much to deal with from real life, perhaps you may prove to be a spur to prick conscience, or an incentive to do better.

[Kharon]

LL - You don't need the aircraft you just need the recorders.

Semantics, whatever, perhaps it's become more a matter of principal rather than a pressing need, a holy hand grenade sort of thing, to knock down a brick wall of deceit and malice aforethought. The Senate, CASA and the ATSB all know full well that the report must be withdrawn and the entire case honestly re examined. The attempt to diffuse, dilute and dust off the issue failed; and failed miserably. It was amateur hour, handled at the coal face by totally misguided, inept, unqualified, overweening egos.

Leave the bloody CVR/FDR to rot; just publicly fire the two CASA twerps who mismanaged and manipulated the 'evidence' to suit and in doing so, compromised the entire CASA. Get rid of those who aided and abetted them. Restore a sense of purpose and pride in both ATSB and CASA. Cut out the rot, to save the tree. No one can operate a government service where none can look their clients in the eye, without knowing that we know to what depths some will sink to. There are only two camps, the willing accomplices, or those who are unafraid to speak out against the iniquity. Two choices, no options; except resignation and scampering off to live quietly on the super and attempt to assuage a guilty conscience.

Better to openly and honestly seek forgiveness from an offended industry; for permission to act as they did was surely never granted.

Selah..

I do repent. But heaven hath pleased it so,
To punish me with this and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.
I will bestow him and will answer well
The death I gave him. So, again, good night.
I must be cruel only to be kind.
Thus bad begins and worse remains behind.
One word more, good lady—

[Soteria]

Sleepy Terry is off to Hong Kong at the moment. Perhaps to do a course on 'investigation techniques' or 'deep sea diving'? Or just earning a few more points on the frequent flyer card before he flies off into the permanent sunset in January? You never know what these sneaky buggers are up to! Besides, maybe while he is out of the country (hope Sky Sentinel engaged Tezza's out of office email message) DAS Skidmore makes a robust move and bones one or two of Tezza's cohorts? I've seen that little trick rolled out before! Now that would be fun to watch wouldn't it?

P.S Rumour has it that he went to Honkers on an A380. Anybody know if Terry was part of the operating crew?

[Dangly Bits]

If Tezza is O/S, who is running the show? Please don't tell me it is PB?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Isn't Mr Skidmore in position now.

Soteria indicated an EM had already departed?

[Soteria]

If Tezza is O/S, who is running the show? Please don't tell me it is PB?
Richard Dreyfuss is keeping Terry's seat warm while he is in Honkers.
Perhaps there is a CX reunion going on? Tezza, Skull, all the big hitters!

[Kharon]

While we all languish in an information vacuum, trapped in the tension of glutinous silence emanating from those who will not, or dare not speak; we are akin to those trapped in a time warp by the cold, uncaring space time continuum. Doomed to endlessly watch the same events, time after time – bit like MKR, same old ****, different day. Like this little episode, eloquently and succinctly 'nutshelled' by Creampuff. (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/551383-loss-vh-svq-all-nine-pob-20-years-ago.html#post8745270)

[The] report of the $20 million Commission of Inquiry into the Relations between the Civil Aviation Authority and Seaview Air followed 2 years and later. The Minister for Transport at the time the report was handed down noted in Parliament:

[That] recommendation was made eighteen years ago. Today, all of the problems identified by the Commissioner in Regulation 206 remain. The definition of the operation specifically mentioned at recommendation five - regular public transport - is in exactly the same terms.

You'll notice Lockhart River had a brief return to the front page, that event had similar treatment, to Seaview: and Pel Air; well, it's only a pup, just five years old, but with all the attendant required trimmings for it to fall into the chasm of 'legend' and enter the great void. Maybe in ten years, it too will be dragged out, dusted off and discussed on Pprune; only to be shut down again for lack of intelligent discussion.

One of the truly amazing things to emerge from research is how other countries in the aviation 'first world' and even some of the emerging nations have dealt with 'their' Seaview, Lockhart and Norfolk versions of fatal accidents, how 'their' political masters have responded and how the associated government agencies have acted in response to Coronial and Parliamentary inquiry and recommendations. It may have escaped your notice, but other counties do have accidents, people get killed and injured; aircraft get burnt, broken and drowned. The glaring difference in response, even from those countries without Australia's resources and talent pool is they actually get off their collective rumps and do something when the 'grown ups' demand changes which affect the safety of the travelling public.

What a sad, sorry, expensive testament to Australian government has been the response to fatal air accidents – the same path taken so often – with same result; every single time. It's not my say so, the facts are there all neatly documented, from the wailing and rending of flesh, to the steely eyed determination to 'fix it', the same money spent, the same time wasted: the same result, every heartbreaking time.

Wasted lives, futures, careers, all sacrifices on the altar dedicated to perpetuating the myth of 'Safety'. Oh, it's 'safe' enough if you are a politician or 'servant of the people' that is, but for the rest of you, those without a cushion, it's the devil take the hindmost and book early to cross the Styx.

Perhaps we could just openly dismiss the recent Senate committee report and Forsyth review; that would at least be honest. The ship of state has set course, once again the destination is known and we will at least avoid the huge impost of the pointless, empty 'inquiry' pantomime. Just bury the dead, scrape the airframe remains off the runway and get back to being the proud, aviation superstar we claim to be; strutting our proud heritage on the world stage. Bugger the incredible number of ignored recommendations, edicts, policies and bollocks uttered by neutered politicians, coroners and independent report writers. "Sleepy Hollow rules: OK, you got it. Good, now STFU, give us your money and do as you're told"..(instant compliance).. "There now, there's a good little industry".

Outstanding – GOLD!, gold for Australia.

Words and music. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8EOHvMCTKU)

[Sunfish]

Kharon, the only logical conclusion is that CASA is corrupt and rotten to the core. That includes anyone who works there because by definition they are required to leave their ethics at the door when they join.

I was once asked to do that (at my first job with Exxon) and I immediately walked. To stay would have meant becoming one of them. You saw the depths of Exxon/Esso unethical behaviour following the Longford gas explosion and subsequent Royal Commission.

CASA's bad behaviour is on display daily, all you have to do is follow the AAT and the aviation press.

[Sarcs]

Perhaps we could just openly dismiss the recent Senate committee report and Forsyth review; that would at least be honest. The ship of state has set course, once again the destination is known and we will at least avoid the huge impost of the pointless, empty 'inquiry' pantomime. Just bury the dead, scrape the airframe remains off the runway and get back to being the proud, aviation superstar we claim to be; strutting our proud heritage on the world stage. Bugger the incredible number of ignored recommendations, edicts, policies and bollocks uttered by neutered politicians, coroners and independent report writers. "Sleepy Hollow rules: OK, you got it. Good, now STFU, give us your money and do as you're told"..(instant compliance).. "There now, there's a good little industry".
85 recommendations from Senate/Govt inquiry/review in last five years...:=:=

Pilot training and airline safety; and Consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2010-12/pilots2010/report/index)

Recommendation 1 - The committee is of the view that an ATPL should also be required for first officers in high capacity regular public transport (RPT) jet aircraft such as Boeing 737, A320 and other aircraft of similar or greater capacity, and that consideration be given to implementing this as a standard.

Recommendation 2 - The committee recommends that for non-jet operations which employ low-experience first officers, operators be required to provide enhanced supervision and mentoring schemes to offset such lack of experience.

Recommendation 3 - The committee recommends that Air Operators Certificate (AOC) holders be required to develop and implement 'green on green' policy positions relating to the use of low experience pilots in RPT operations, to maximise, wherever possible, the collective experience level of flight crew.

Recommendation 4 - The committee recommends that Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 61 ensure that all prospective regular public transport (RPT) pilots be required to complete substantial course-based training in multi-crew operations and resource management (non-technical skills) and human factors training prior to, or in reasonable proximity to, initial endorsement training; the committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) expedite, and assign the highest priority to, the implementation of CASR Part 61.

Recommendation 5 - The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) ensure that Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations currently being reviewed place sufficient weight on multi-engine aeroplane experience as opposed to the current recognition of glider and ultra-light experience.

Recommendation 6 - The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) be required to undertake a risk assessment of current simulator training to assess whether the extent, aims and scope of such training is being utilised to achieve optimum safety outcomes rather than minimum compliance objectives.

Recommendation 7 - The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) expedite, and assign the highest priority to, the implementation of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Part 141 'Flight Training Operators' and Part 142 'Training and Checking Operators'.

Recommendation 8 - The committee recommends that the Government require the Productivity Commission or another suitable body to undertake a review of the current and future supply of pilots in Australia, with particular reference to the general aviation and cadet training pathways, and HECS HELP and VET FEE-HELP arrangements.

Recommendation 9 - The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Australian aviation operators review the final findings of France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis into Air France 447, including consideration of how it may apply in the Australian context. Subject to those findings, the committee may seek the approval of the Senate to conduct a further hearing in relation to the matter.

Recommendation 10 - The committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport provide a report to Parliament every six months outlining the progress of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) regulatory reforms and specifying reform priorities, consultative processes and implementation targets for the following 12-month period.

Recommendation 11 - The committee recommends that the Government undertake a review of the funding to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to ensure that there is sufficient specific funding to support an expedited regulatory reform process.

Recommendation 12 - The committee recommends that, as an ongoing measure, the Government provide the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) with specific funding to enable it to offer salaries that are competitive with industry; in addition, or as an alternative, the Government should consider implementing formal mechanisms for the sharing of expertise between industry and CASA.

Recommendation 13 - The committee recommends that the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 not be passed.

Recommendation 14 - The committee recommends that the current prescriptive approach needs to be supplemented with a general obligation to report whenever the 'responsible person' believes that there is an urgent safety risk that must be addressed.

Recommendation 15 - The committee recommends that the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) review its approach to the investigation and publication of human factors with a view to achieving a more robust and useful learning tool for the industry.

Recommendation 16 - The committee recommends that the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) review existing processes for the categorisation of aviation events to ensure that miscategorisation is minimised and opportunities for system improvement are not lost.

Recommendation 17 - The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), in concern with Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB), consider developing and publishing guidance on model reporting to minimise understatement of the actual or potential significance of aviation events.

Recommendation 18 - The committee recommends that Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) require operators to observe the highest standards of incident reporting from their personnel and provide appropriate training as part of the safety promotion function of their SMS.

Recommendation 19 -The committee recommends that, in order to enhance 'just culture' and open reporting of incidents, aviation operators should ensure that their relevant managers are adequately trained in procedural fairness.

Recommendation 20 - The committee recommends that, following the release of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) fatigue guidelines, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) should expedite necessary changes and/or additions to the regulations governing flght and cabin crew fatigue risk management as a priority

Recommendation 21 - The committee recommends that, in the event that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) fatigue guidelines do not extend to cabin crew duty limits and fatigue risk management more broadly, the Government should amend the Civil Aviation Act 1998 to include cabin crew fatigue risk management under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) regulatory oversight.

Recommendation 22 - The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) specify the type of training and amount of training required for cabin crew, including mandatory English language standards.

Aviation accident investigations (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/index)

Recommendation 1 - The committee recommends that the ATSB retrieve VH-NGA flight data recorders without further delay.

Recommendation 2 - The committee recommends that the minister, in issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the ATSB, valid from 1 July 2013, make it clear that safety in aviation operations involving passengers (fare paying or those with no control over the flight they are on, e.g. air ambulance) is to be accorded equal priority irrespective of flight classification.

Recommendation 3 - The committee recommends that the ATSB move away from its current approach of forecasting the probability of future events and focus on the analysis of factors which allowed the accident under investigation to occur. This would enable the industry to identify, assess and implement lessons relevant to their own operations.

Recommendation 4 - The committee recommends that the ATSB be required to document investigative avenues that were explored and then discarded, providing detailed explanations as to why.

Recommendation 5 - The committee recommends that the training offered by the ATSB across all investigator skills sets be benchmarked against other agencies by an independent body by, for example, inviting the NTSB or commissioning an industry body to conduct such a benchmarking exercise.

Recommendation 6 - The committee recommends that, as far as available resources allow, ATSB investigators be given access to training provided by the agency's international counterparts. Where this does not occur, resultant gaps in training/competence must be advised to the minister and the Parliament.

Recommendation 7 - The committee recommends that the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 be amended to require that the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB be able to demonstrate extensive aviation safety expertise and experience as a prerequisite for the selection process.

Recommendation 8 - The committee recommends that an expert aviation safety panel be established to ensure quality control of ATSB investigation and reporting processes along the lines set out by the committee.

Recommendation 9 - The committee recommends that the government develop a process by which the ATSB can request access to supplementary funding via the minister.

Recommendation 10 - The committee recommends that the investigation be re-opened by the ATSB with a focus on organisational, oversight and broader systemic issues.

Recommendation 11 - The committee recommends that CASA processes in relation to matters highlighted by this investigation be reviewed. This could involve an evaluation benchmarked against a credible peer (such as FAA or CAA) of regulation and audits with respect to: non-RPT passenger carrying operations; approach to audits; and training and standardisation of FOI across regional offices.

Recommendation 12 - The committee recommends that CASA, in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group (eg. Royal Flying Doctor Service, air ambulance operators, rotary wing rescue providers) consider the merit, form and standards of a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. The minister should require CASA to approve the industry plan unless there is a clear safety case not to. Scope for industry to assist as part of an audit team should also be investigated where standardisation is an issue. This should be completed within 12 months and the outcome reported publicly.

Recommendation 13 - The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.




Recommendation 14 - The committee recommends that the ATSB-CASA Memorandum of Understanding be re-drafted to remove any ambiguity in relation to information that should be shared between the agencies in relation to aviation accident investigations, to require CASA to:

advise the ATSB of the initiation of any action, audit or review as a result of an accident which the ATSB is investigating.
provide the ATSB with the relevant review report as soon as it is available.
Recommendation 15 - The committee recommends that all meetings between the ATSB and CASA, whether formal or informal, where particulars of a given investigation are being discussed be appropriately minuted.

Recommendation 16 - The committee recommends that, where relevant, the ATSB include thorough human factors analysis and discussion in future investigation reports. Where human factors are not considered relevant, the ATSB should include a statement explaining why.

Recommendation 17 - The committee recommends that the ATSB prepare and release publicly a list of all its identified safety issues and the actions which are being taken or have been taken to address them. The ATSB should indicate its progress in monitoring the actions every 6 months and report every 12 months to Parliament.

Recommendation 18 - The committee recommends that where a safety action has not been completed before a report being issued that a recommendation should be made. If it has been completed the report should include details of the action, who was involved and how it was resolved.

Recommendation 19 - The committee recommends that the ATSB review its process to track the implementation of recommendations or safety actions to ensure it is an effective closed loop system. This should be made public, and provided to the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee prior to each Budget Estimates.

Recommendation 20 - The committee recommends that where the consideration and implementation of an ATSB recommendation may be protracted, the requirement for regular updates (for example 6 monthly) should be included in the TSI Act.

Recommendation 21 - The committee recommends that the government consider setting a time limit for agencies to implement or reject recommendations, beyond which ministerial oversight is required where the agencies concerned must report to the minister why the recommendation has not been implemented or that, with ministerial approval, it has been formally rejected.

Recommendation 22 - The committee recommends that Airservices Australia discuss the safety case for providing a hazard alert service with Fijian and New Zealand ATC (and any other relevant jurisdictions) and encourage them to adopt this practice.

Recommendation 23 - The committee recommends that the relevant agencies review whether any equipment or other changes can be made to improve the weather forecasting at Norfolk Island. The review would include whether the Unicom operator should be an approved meteorological observer.

Recommendation 24 - The committee recommends that the relevant agencies investigate appropriate methods to ensure that information about the incidence of, and variable weather conditions at, Norfolk Island is available to assist flight crews and operators managing risk that may result from unforseen weather events.

Recommendation 25 - The committee recommends that the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA) is updated to reflect the need for caution with regard to Norfolk Island forecasts where the actual conditions can change rapidly and vary from forecasts.

Recommendation 26 - The committee recommends that in relation to mandatory and confidential reporting, the default position should be that no identifying details should be provided or disclosed. However, if there is a clear risk to safety then the ATSB, CASA and industry representatives should develop a process that contains appropriate checks and balances.

1. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority delegates responsibility for the day-to-day operational management of airspace to Airservices Australia, including the designation of air routes, short-term designations of temporary Restricted Areas, and temporary changes to the classification of airspace for operational reasons.

2. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and Department of Defence (and appropriate agencies) establish an agreed policy position on safety oversight of civil operations into joint user and military airports.

3. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its regulatory philosophy and, together with industry, builds an effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.

4. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority continues to provide appropriate indemnity to all industry personnel with delegations of authority.

5. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority finalises its Capability Framework and overhauls its training program to ensure identified areas of need are addressed, including:
a. communication in a regulatory context
b. decision making and good regulatory practice
c. auditing.

9. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority publishes and demonstrates the philosophy of ‘just culture’ whereby individuals involved in a reportable event are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training. However, actions of gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts should not be tolerated.

10. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reintroduces a ‘use of discretion’ procedure that gives operators or individuals the opportunity to discuss and, if necessary, remedy a perceived breach prior to CASA taking any formal action. This procedure is to be followed in all cases, except where CASA identifies a Serious and Imminent Risk to Air Safety.

11. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, without redaction or de-identification.

12. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers its safety education function to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

13. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its organisational structure to a client-oriented output model.

14. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes small offices at specific industry centres to improve monitoring, service quality, communications and collaborative relationships.

15. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority shares the risk assessment outputs of Sky Sentinel, its computerised risk assessment system, with the applicable authorisation holder.

16. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority provides full disclosure of audit findings at audit exit briefings in accordance with international best practice.

17. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority introduces grading of Non-Compliance Notices on a scale of seriousness.

18. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority assures consistency of audits across all regions, and delivers audit reports within an agreed timeframe.

19. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority implements a system of using third-party commercial audits as a supplementary tool to its surveillance system.

20. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau transfers its safety education function to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

21. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes its organisational structure to a client-oriented output model.

22. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes small offices at specific industry centres to improve monitoring, service quality, communications and collaborative relationships.

23. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority shares the risk assessment outputs of Sky Sentinel, its computerised risk assessment system, with the applicable authorisation holder.

24. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority provides full disclosure of audit findings at audit exit briefings in accordance with international best practice.

25. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority introduces grading of Non-Compliance Notices on a scale of seriousness.

26. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority assures consistency of audits across all regions, and delivers audit reports within an agreed timeframe.

27. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority implements a system of using third-party commercial audits as a supplementary tool to its surveillance system.

28. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority establishes a safety oversight risk management hierarchy based on a categorisation of operations. Rule making and surveillance priorities should be proportionate to the safety risk.

29. Recreational Aviation Administration Organisations, in coordination with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop mechanisms to ensure all aircraft to be regulated under CASR Part 149 are registered.

30. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two-tier regulatory framework (act and regulations) to a three-tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:
a. regulations drafted in a high-level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences
b. the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language.

31. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority structures all regulations not yet made with the three-tier approach, and subsequently reviews all other Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts (in consultation with industry) to determine if they should be remade using the three-tier structure.

32. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reassesses the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

33. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority applies a project management approach to the completion of all Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts not yet in force, with drafting to be completed within one year and consultation completed one year later, with:
a. a Steering Committee and a Project Team with both CASA and industry representatives
b. implementation dates established through formal industry consultation.

34. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Director of Aviation Safety meet with industry sector leaders to jointly develop a plan for renewing a collaborative and effective Standards Consultative Committee.

35. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority devolve to Designated Aviation Medical Examiners the ability to renew aviation medical certificates (for Classes 1, 2, and 3) where the applicant meets the required standard at the time of the medical examination.

36. The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas, not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.

37. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority amends the current Terms of Reference of the Industry Complaints Commissioner so that:
a. the ICC reports directly to the CASA Board
b. no CASA staff are excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction
c. the ICC will receive complaints that relate to both the merits and the process of matters
d. on merits matters, including aviation medical matters, the ICC is empowered to convene an appropriately constituted review panel, chaired by a CASA non-executive director, to review the decision
e. while all ICC findings are non-binding recommendations, the original decision-maker is required to give reasons to the CASA Board if a recommendation is not followed.

TBC...:ok:

[Sarcs]

On the anniversaries - (20th) Seaview crash & (5th) Norfolk Is ditching - we are left with some very disturbing parallels that reflect very poorly on our government department & agencies responsible for administering & regulating aviation safety in this country - the question is have we progressed or digressed since Seaview??

IMHO we have very much digressed for - unlike in Seaview - we now no longer can trust the veracity, integrity & independence of our (once proud & fully independent) aviation safety watchdog i.e. the ATsB/BASI...:{Welcome and thank you for flying with us. Your aircraft today is an Aero Commander 690 conducting an overwater flight to Lord Howe Island.

Your aircraft is probably overloaded by about 300kg. Your pilot is 25 years old and has 60 hours flying this type. He has an infection and is taking unregulated antibiotics and analgesics. His annual medical certificate elapsed last month and has not been renewed.

The latest weather report may or may not have been obtained and indicates the aircraft will be flying in significant icing conditions. There is a placard restricting flight into icing because of equipment deficiencies.

The maintenance control officer lives 500km away, in Wagga Wagga, and has acted as a clerk rather than directing and controlling maintenance. In the last 12 months numerous defects have not been recorded.

Airworthiness directives have been actioned tardily, or not at all, and the right engine of your aircraft has exceeded a 5400-hour manufacturer’s limit.

The chief pilot of your airline was employed six months ago after the previous chief pilot was sacked. The sacked chief pilot reported directly to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) citing serious safety concerns. In recent years your ‘airline’ (in reality a charter operator) has been involved in 11 air safety reports and two of these allege unauthorised RPT operations in overloaded states with unsecured cargo and inaccessible life rafts.

In May your ‘airline’ was mentioned negatively in Parliament and numerous inspectors and managers within the CAA have failed to address these issues.

Please ensure your seatbelt is buckled and enjoy your flight … Somewhat ironically the above quote/parody on what the safety cards (in hindsight) could/should have said (pre-Seaview tragedy) is taken from the CAsA Flight Safety Australia online article - The Seaview disaster: conscience, culture and complicity (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/09/the-seaview-disaster-conscience-culture-and-complicity/)...

This paradox was not missed by Planetalking on these inauspicious anniversaries:
Pel-Air and Seaview anniversaries highlight safety failures (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/19/pel-air-and-seaview-anniversaries-highlight-safety-failures/)

At a time when the Minister responsible for aviation safety, Warren Truss, appears to be invisible in relation to the shameful Pel-Air crash and its aftermath, it is worth remembering the Seaview disaster of 1994.

The pilot and eight passengers on the light aircraft died just over 20 years ago when it plunged into the sea on its way from Newcastle (Williamtown) to Lord Howe Island.

That accident, the result of failed air safety oversight by the then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) , and a total contempt for the safety regulations by the operator, is reported in very blunt terms in this article in Flight Safety Australia (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/09/the-seaview-disaster-conscience-culture-and-complicity/), which is published by CASA, which replaced the CAA following the Seaview disaster.

This is quite a remarkable article, both in its scholarship and ferocious style, and in its coming out under the auspices of CASA, since much of the criticism of Seaview and the safety regulator that it conveys might prompt readers to draw parallels with the 2009 Pel-Air crash, and the quite shocking performance of CASA, the ATSB, and this Minister and his predecessor Anthony Albanese in relation to these matters.

But the irony goes deeper. Current Minister Truss’s former coalition colleague John Sharp was the Aviation Minister who tabled the Seaview Commission of Inquiry report in Federal Parliament which found Seaview was “a slipshod, often wilfully non-compliant organisation in which breaches of regulations and unacceptable practices were . . .commonplace”.

It was in 2009 the same John Sharp as the deputy chair of REX, the owner of the Pel-Air operation, who told the media that there was “no plan B” if the corporate jet that was ditched in the sea near Norfolk Island passed the point of no return and found itself unable to land for refueling if the weather conditions deteriorated to the extent that this was no longer possible.

Mr Sharp’s indignation, concern, and with hindsight, it seems his hypocritical posturing, can be read in contemporary news reports such as this (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/has-draytons-curse-struck-again/story-e6freuy9-1111115337473).

Now, in 2014, five years and one day after the Pel-Air crash, the lack of adequate regulations concerning the fueling of such oceanic air ambulance flights has not been remedied. The reform process in CASA is in as big if not bigger mess under Truss than it was under Albanese. Lots of words from Albanese, and fewer from Truss, but no material results from either.
Air safety regulation in Australia is a joke, and one that will backfire on the industry.

After reading the article in Flight Safety (which has been curated) please read the comments. The second comment is from Karen Casey, the nurse who was badly injured in the crash, and has as yet been left uncompensated by parties who appear to think they have no liability for the outcomes of their actions.

There is something very rotten in the administration of air safety in this country. And no-one seems to give a damn.

And from Ziggychick... Kasey Nov 16, 2014 at 10:49 pm (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/09/the-seaview-disaster-conscience-culture-and-complicity/#li-comment-161)

Stumbling upon this article, reading and absorbing it. Checking out the MoU between CASA and the ATSB…the game of dodge. Cost lives, compromises safety, use of tax payer money for an inquiry. Bureaucrats squabbling in the name of avoiding any accountability. Yet they write the rules.

I scratch my head.

Truth and honesty trickle from the top. Have examples of strong leadership with “good will” happen yet?

I personally have not seen this displayed.

If the truth was just told from the start, perhaps history could have been different.

As I braced for death, slammed into the ocean, a Half-inflated life vest. Terrified of sharks, freezing, hurt, fighting to live with every piece of energy. Start to give up within after over an hour of treading water in an angry ocean as I held my patient close. She was brave and so was her husband. Deserved better treatment from our Government.

Some parallels.
If I knew we were flying around the South Pacific, Ad-Hoc MedeVacs with many variables, unprotected with the correct oversight in place from thy ones who make the rules/law/, informed, I would not have flown.

I don’t know what category we were under or the AOC status for that flight.
Most know of the serious safety alert from a 2008 audit. The “Special Audit” not given to the ATSB.

I have it. A no brainier would have been to alert them.

So pretty much, same as twenty years ago. Levels of failure from all three.
Conscious. No. I don’t believe so.

No Law/Policy addressing International MedeVacs. High risk field, one would think.

No Law regarding above post ditching

No protection from an Authority with statutory rights from 1996 to today, which are being examined, closely.

Why would Ministers allow (both sides) for this to continue on?
Lawyers don’t fly planes and pilots don’t right rules.

Mutual respect without inflated egos might help too.

Industry is voicing, so are ghosts of the past along with current, factual evidence which keeps bouncing off that dome.

The human element of consciousness from the Operator, CASA and the ATSB are all still questionable to this day., I believe.

That protective dome, allows the ones who write the rules to not be accountable. Ever. Stat

I would be very interested in an article regarding the same thought given to the management of the Pel-Air incident thus far.

Five, very long years. 18/09/2009

Also, why was there rope on the rear of the aircraft, the fuselage has moved it seems? Peculiar?

Just thinking. Why?

Twenty years of learning. Where?

I must ask?
Good article. Thank you
Reply (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/09/the-seaview-disaster-conscience-culture-and-complicity/?replytocom=161#respond)

http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/718adb67e8ff0a5ef9fd69a71e82b16b?s=50&d=&r=G Karen Casey Nov 19, 2014 at 12:28 am (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/09/the-seaview-disaster-conscience-culture-and-complicity/#li-comment-171)

I have no words to describe the past week. In particular this evening.
Vivid is an understatement.

I can assure you that the psychological trauma begins before the ditch into the endless ocean. It began in the air. As we circled.

My question, tone answered honestly please.

Were we in NZ Airspace when my legs turned to jelly and I felt my fate. Which haunts me every day as each sting of pain reminds me.

Therefore, psychological trauma could have began in NZ airspace??
Bodily injuries, full impact where I sat, into the Ocean. Norfolk jurisdiction??

If lessons could be learned with this current opportunity for a change of culture. If the truth told.

Just get it right.

Break the political cycle of bantering aviation safety laws/reforms.

Absolute nightmare. Believe me.

Tut tut…twenty years. Dear oh dear.

I shake my head. As I am wasting my time bothering anymore.

Butt heads. Be ridiculous regarding serious matters. Ignore those who needed your help not your avoidance. MTF with CTL Part 3...:ok:

[Kharon]

Whoa, that's quite a wish list to pin on the chimney at Christmas time, in the hope that Santa has the 'necessary' in cargo hold A. And that, is just the 'big kids' list, those that work in Scrooges factory in Can'tberra. There is still the 'littl'uns' list to consider, those that slave away in the Coroners sweat shops.

I intend to hazard a Choc frog here and perhaps steal some of the brother Sarcs thunder (if I get lucky). When Sarcs starts a story line with Part 1, you can bet your boots, parts 2 and possibly 3 are in the pipeline. David Fawcett provided the worthy duo of Heffernan and Stearle with the finer, more subtle points related matters aeronautical; they were already 'onto it', through estimates questions. But with Fawcett included, the blunt instrument became a lethal weapon and so the Senate committee, we know and admire came into full promise. Back in the day, Fawcett was rightfully curious about 'closing the loop'. When a recommendation is made was it accepted and what happened to close the loop; and, if the recommendation was rejected, what then? Time scales were also mentioned. You need a chronology to accurately track what happened through the Senate; but, there were some plain and fancy moves made to obfuscate the QON answers to 'curly' questions, CASA, ATSB and Mrdak all in mix. Fascinating. I reckon Sarcs has nutted it out and is about to join some of the outstanding, embarrassing dots.

It all began, IMO one day when Fawcett. Esq. asked about 'closing the loop' on a fatal helicopter accident. This one:-

Report - R20050002.

Issue date 14 March 2005.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24411/aair200304282_001.pdf

Recommendation R20050002 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/recommendations/2005/r20050002.aspx)

As a result of the investigation, safety recommendations were issued to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority recommending: a review of the night VFR requirements, an assessment of the benefits of additional flight equipment for helicopters operating under night VFR and a review of the operator classification and/or minimum safety standards for helicopter Emergency Medical Services (EMS) operations.

ATSB Safety Recommendation.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority review it's operators classification and/or it's minimum safety standards required for helicopter Emergency Medical Services operations. This review should consider increasing:-
1) the minimum pilot qualifications, experience and recency requirements,
2) operational procedures and (3) minimum equipment for conduct of such operations at night.

Coroner Hennessy.

(12). That CASA consider regulating for the initial training of a helicopter pilot to include night VFR training.

(13). That CASA and the industry move towards a national system of accreditation and uniform standards for provision of EMS services in Australia.

(14). That CASA investigate reclassification of EMS helicopter operations into charter category, or create a separate EMS category of aviation in order to provide the benefits of increased level of regulation and CASA oversight, than that presently available under the aerial work category.

(15). That CASA ensure that appropriate information be provided to pilots on an ongoing basis regarding the issue of spatial disorientation.

(16). The Coroner supports CASR draft regulations point 61 and 133 becoming final.
(17). That beacons, both visual and radio, be placed on prominent and appropriate high points along routes commonly utilised by aero-medical retrieval teams, including Cape Hillsborough.

(18). The Coroner supports the ATSB recommendations 20030213,and promulgation of information to pilots; 20040052,

o assessment of safety benefits of requiring a standby altitude indicator with independent power source in single pilot night VFR; 20040053,
o assessment of safety benefits of requiring an autopilot or stabilisation augmentation system in single pilot VFR; and R20050002,
o review operator classification and minimum safety standards for helicopter EMS operations.


CASA response.

Date Issued: 29 August 2005
CASA has reviewed its previous advice in relation to this matter [provided with the directly involved parties comments to draft occurrence report 200304282] and I am advised that the Authority has no additional comment to provide in response to recommendation R20050002. However, it should be noted that resources to review this action will be allocated in accordance with CASA's reviewed priorities. For your information, a copy of CASA's initial advice is recorded below. CASA advice

CASA will:
* Review the requirements for helicopter EMS operations to include consideration for two pilots, or a stability augmentation and/or autopilot system;
* Review the special operational and environmental circumstances of helicopter EMS services, particularly with regard to pilot qualifications, training and recency including instrument flight competency; and

* Review the pilot recency requirements for helicopter EMS operations to ensure that operator check and training processes are focused on the EMS environment.
CASA 10 October 2007.

The following updates the actions previously advised in response to the recommendation:
The proposed review of EMS operation crewing and aircraft equipment requirements will take place as part of the re-instated project to finalise Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 133. As you may be aware, the regulatory review aspects of CASR Part 133 have, under instruction from the CASA CEO [deleted], been on hold for some time. However I can now advise that this project is scheduled to recommence in October 2007, and that this subject matter will be incorporated in the consideration of CASR 1998 Part 133.T.3.

CASA has been considering these issues (particularly the special operational and environmental circumstances associated with EMS operations) for some time now as part of the review processes for the introduction of Night Vision Goggles (NVG) into Australian helicopter night operations. As a result of this review we have incorporated helicopter EMS operations as a Permitted NVG Operation in the new NVG Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.

This CAO (which is now in effect) empowers appropriately equipped, trained and approved EMS AOC holders to use NVG on their night EMS primary and secondary response taskings. Both CASA and the industry consider this to be a major safety initiative and we will be monitoring its effect over the next twelve months by way of a formal research process.

• EMS pilot qualifications, training and recency requirements will be included in the CASR Part 133 project consultation and review processes, however I can also advise the (as part of its normal surveillance processes) CASA will continue to review these matters in current operations as well.
•
Additionally I can advise that pilot qualification, training and recency requirements were also reviewed by both CASA and the industry as part of the consultation processes associated with the previously mentioned NVG implementation project, and that the industry subject matter experts at these meetings included several representatives from AOC holders who conduct EMS operations in both VFR and IFR situations at diverse operational locations.

Comment - April 2012.
CASR 133 is still not available for use. It is our opinion that essentially, the potential for the accident scenario to reoccur has not been eliminated.


The analysis above is self explanatory, but I'll leave it up to you to work out the rest. More to follow – Oh, you bet...:ok:

Toot toot.

[Sarcs]

Spot on "K" the person who paraphrased "Closing the loop" was indeed Senator Fawcett long before the PelAir cover-up inquiry came on the radar...:D:D:From Budget Estimates ATSB Hansard 23/05/12 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Fac4cc40 9-1146-463a-8fcb-70fbd6afc70a%2F0008;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Fac 4cc409-1146-463a-8fcb-70fbd6afc70a%2F0000%22)
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)When there is an aircraft accident and there is a fatality and the coroner becomes involved, can you describe the relationship between ATSB and the coroner?

Mr Dolan: The legislation, the Transport Safety Investigation Act, requires us to cooperate with coronial processes. Therefore, coroners have, if you like, a special relationship with us. There is a range of information and support that we are required to give to coroners that we do not give to other legal processes. We try, as far as possible, to ensure that our reports are reliable and comprehensive and therefore can be used by coroners to form their views, which are largely no blame and in parallel with what we are trying to establish.

We recognise that there are areas where coroners will investigate and we do not. We are trying to deal with that carefully. We do that mostly by making sure we are in close contact with the police who are working with the coroner so that there is clarity from the beginning as to whether we are going to be playing to any significant extent. We are always happy to explain our reports to coronial processes. In addition, we have been offering accident fundamentals training, the basics of how we approach our job, to a range of police officers across the jurisdictions who are likely to be assisting coroners in carrying out their duties.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Do coroners ever face the situation where they have to
choose between your advice and that of another aviation expert?

Mr Dolan: Quite often. It used to be more common than I think I have noticed in the last year or two that alternative views were put to coroners—

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Who would those other stakeholders be?

Mr Dolan: Our experience has been that counsel assisting, in trying to do a comprehensive job in support of a coroner, sought other lines of information and brought it to bear in the process. Other parties, all of whom have their own interests in a coronial process, often find it necessary to test a range of alternative hypotheses. Sometimes the weight comes down to a different place than we placed it. That is just part of the relationship. If there is a coronial finding that is inconsistent with what we found or more information comes to light in the course of an inquest that is relevant to our investigation, we will reopen the investigation and make sure that is properly weighed up in our processes.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) I notice CASA is often another player in the coronial inquests and often you will highlight something, the coroner will accept it and basically tick off in his report on the basis that a new CASR or something is going to be implemented. Do you follow those up? I have looked through a few crash investigations, and I will just pick one: the Bell 407 that crashed in October '03. CASR part 133 was supposed to be reworked around night VFR requirements for EMS situations. I notice that still is not available now, nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated? How do you track those? How do we, as a society, make sure we prevent the accidents occurring again?

Mr Dolan: We monitor various coronial reports and findings that are relevant to our business. We do not have any role in ensuring that coronial findings or recommendations are carried out by whichever the relevant party may be. I think that would be stepping beyond our brief.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Who should have that role then?

Mr Dolan: I would see that as a role for the coronial services of the various states. But to add to that, because we are aware of the sorts of findings—as you say, it is not that common that there is something that is significantly different or unexpected for us, but when there is—we will have regard to that obviously in our future investigation activities and recognise there may already be a finding out there that is relevant to one of our future investigations.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Would it be appropriate to have—a sunset clause is not quite the right phrase—a due date that if an action is recommended and accepted by a regulatory body, in this case CASA, the coroner should actually be putting a date on that and CASA must implement by a certain date or report back, whether it is to the minister or to the court or to the coroner, why that action has not actually occurred?

Mr Dolan: I think I will limit myself to comment that that is the way we try to do it. We have a requirement that in 90 days, if we have made a recommendation, there is a response to it. We will track a recommendation until we are satisfied it is complete or until we have concluded that there is no likelihood that the action is going to be taken.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Mr Mrdak, as secretary of the relevant department, how would you propose to engage with the coroners to make sure that we,
as a nation, close this loophole to make our air environment safer?

Mr Mrdak: I think Mr Dolan has indicated the relationship with coroners is on a much better footing than it has been ever before. I think the work of the ATSB has led that. I think it then becomes a matter of addressing the relationship between the safety regulators and security regulators, as necessary, with the coroners. It is probably one I would take on notice and give a bit of thought to, if you do not mind.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You do not accept that your department and you, as secretary, have a duty of care and an oversight to make sure that two agencies who work for you do actually complement their activities for the outcome that benefits the aviation community?

Mr Mrdak: We certainly do ensure that agencies are working together. That is certainly occurring. You have asked me the more detailed question about coroners and relationships with the agencies. I will have a bit of a think about that, if that is okay.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Thank you.
Unfortunately for DF, who was still relatively new to the game, his question to M&M was not officially recognised as a QON and therefore was totally ignored until Supp Estimates a week before the PelAir Cover-up inquiry was to begin:
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Chair, given the inquiry on Monday I do not actually have a huge number of questions, except to follow up something with Mr Mrdak. Last time we spoke about closing the loop between ATSB recommendations and CASA following through with regulation as a consequential change within a certain time frame. The view was expressed that it was not necessarily a departmental role to have that closed loop system. I challenged that at the time. I just welcome any comment you may have three or four months down the track as to whether there has been any further thought within your department as to how we make sure we have a closed loop system for recommendations that come out of the ATSB.
Mr Mrdak: It is something we are doing further work on in response to your concerns. We recognise that we do need to ensure the integrity of the investigatory response and then the regulatory response. So it is something we are looking at closely. I and the other chief executives in the portfolio will do some further work on that area.
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Do you have a time frame on when you might be able to report back to the committee?
Mr Mrdak: Not as yet. I will come back to you on notice with some more detail.
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)If I could invite you to come back to the chair perhaps with a date for a briefing to the committee, outside of the estimates process, as to how you might implement that.
Mr Mrdak: Yes.
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Because the work by ATSB is almost nugatory if you do not have a closed loop system that makes sure it is implemented in a timely manner.
Mr Mrdak: We will come back to you on that.
This time the good Senator's line of inquiry was listed as a QON...:D

However presumably due to the sensitivities in the PelAir cover-up M&M handballed the answering of the QON to Beaker...:ugh:

Who in typical Beaker fashion obfuscated the QON with these weasel words...:yuk::

Answer:
One of the principal safety improvement outputs of an ATSB investigation is the identification of ‘safety issues’. Safety issues are directed to a specific organisation. They are intended to draw attention to specific areas where action should or could be taken to improve safety. This includes safety issues that indicate where action could be taken by CASA to change regulatory provisions.


The ATSB encourages relevant parties to take safety action in response to safety issues during an investigation. Those relevant parties are generally best placed to determine the most effective way to address a particular safety issue. In many cases, the action taken during the course of an investigation is sufficient to address the issue and the ATSB sets this out clearly in its final report of an investigation.


Where the ATSB is not satisfied that sufficient action has been taken or where proposed safety action is incomplete, the investigation report will record the safety issue as remaining open. In addition, if the issue is significant and action is inadequate, the ATSB will make a recommendation, to which the relevant party is required to respond within 90 days.

The ATSB monitors all safety issues (including all associated recommendations) until action is complete or it is clear that no further action is intended. At this point, the issue will be classified as closed. When safety issues are recorded as closed, the basis for this decision is also specified: whether the issue has been closed as adequately addressed, partially addressed, not addressed, no longer relevant or withdrawn.
A safety issue remains open (like a recommendation) until such time as it is either adequately addressed, or it is clear that the responsible organisation does not intend taking any action (and has provided its reasons). In the event that no, or limited, safety actions are taken or proposed, the ATSB has the option to issue a formal safety recommendation. However, experience has been that this is rarely required.


The ATSB policies and procedures for identifying and promoting safety issues, including through the issuance of a formal recommendation, is outlined in its submission to the Senate References Committee Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations.


The ATSB’s Annual Plan and part of the ATSB’s Key Performance Indicators specifically relate to a measurement of safety action taken in response to safety issues; in the case of ‘critical’ safety issues, the target is for safety action to be taken by stakeholders 100% of the time, while for ‘significant’ safety issues, the target is 70%. For 2011-12, there were no identified critical safety issues and 28 significant safety issues. In response to the significant safety issues, adequate safety action was taken in 89% of cases and a further 4% were assessed as partially addressed.


As previously advised to the Committee (Q59 – May 2012), CASA has a formal process for following up on recommendations and safety issues identified by the ATSB, as provided for in the Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies. Aviation safety agency heads will continue to monitor the present arrangements to provide an adequate system for addressing issues identified through ATSB investigations.
As we now all know this was where it was revealed that Beaker (BASR) had taken the bureau to beyond Reason in AAI investigative methodology -i.e. Beyond All Sensible Reason...:ugh:

Now although Senator Fawcett's QON was officially obfuscated by Beaker this did not deter the Senator and closing the loop was subsequently incorporated into the PelAir cover-up report at R17-R21:Recommendation 17 - The committee recommends that the ATSB prepare and release publicly a list of all its identified safety issues and the actions which are being taken or have been taken to address them. The ATSB should indicate its progress in monitoring the actions every 6 months and report every 12 months to Parliament.

Recommendation 18 - The committee recommends that where a safety action has not been completed before a report being issued that a recommendation should be made. If it has been completed the report should include details of the action, who was involved and how it was resolved.

Recommendation 19 - The committee recommends that the ATSB review its process to track the implementation of recommendations or safety actions to ensure it is an effective closed loop system. This should be made public, and provided to the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee prior to each Budget Estimates.

Recommendation 20 - The committee recommends that where the consideration and implementation of an ATSB recommendation may be protracted, the requirement for regular updates (for example 6 monthly) should be included in the TSI Act.

Recommendation 21 - The committee recommends that the government consider setting a time limit for agencies to implement or reject recommendations, beyond which ministerial oversight is required where the agencies concerned must report to the minister why the recommendation has not been implemented or that, with ministerial approval, it has been formally rejected.
The miniscule's response to these recommendations would appear to have again obfuscated Senator Fawcett's original closing the loop concern with further weasel words that presumably were authored by M&M and Beaker...:=

Example R17...

"...Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The ATSB publishes on its website a list of all safety issues and actions highlighted in
its investigation reports, including recommendations. The status of these issues and
actions is updated quarterly.
The ATSB Annual Report to Parliament also provides details of safety issues and
advices published in the ATSB investigation reports and advice on the status of
recommendations..."

The response at R18 is interesting because apparently the bureau action/inaction is contingent on the final report from the TSBC..:rolleyes:Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
ATSB policies and procedure$ require that the details of actions taken in response to
safety issues identified as part of an investigation are included in the investigation
report. The ATSB website provides an ongoing status report on the action undertaken
in response. The ATSB reviews and updates this information quarterly.
The ATSB will review its policy on the use of recommendations, including in relation to
international best practice and having regard to the final report of the Canadian
Transportation Safety Board peer review. However the response to R21 is the most disturbing and highlights that there never was any intention for the government, department or bureau to close the loop..:ugh:: Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
All recipients of recommendations are required to respond with details of intended
action (if any) within 90 days and this response is published by the ATSB. This
arrangement provides for oversight of implementation and the identification of related
factors or processes impacting the timeframe for implementation of specific
recommendations.
The implementation of safety actions, including the time needed and the resources
involved, may vary on a case by case basis. Further, the implementation of some
safety actions may be tied to the implementation of others, or other regulatory
initiatives, meaning that implementation needs to be accommodated within broader
aviation safety regulatory processes.

Ministerial intervention in safety actions by its independent safety agencies is not
necessary and could undermine the proper independence of our statutory agencies in
acting in accordance with their legislative mandates.Hmm...so I guess 'Ops Normal' & 'nothing to see here' but I do wonder if the international community will be quite so naïve when the final outcome of the MH370 search & investigation comes to its ultimate conclusion....:E

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Sunny " [the] only logical conclusion is that CASA is corrupt and rotten to the core."

IF it were a 'honest' system of baksheesh, I could live with that. Slip a quick 'gift' to the system and you are in and out of the office in about the same amount time it takes the ATM to dispense the funds – fixed price, no hassles and everyone knows how the game is played. But it's not 'that' type of corruption, is it? It's a meaner, harder system where no one knows the rules – not properly at least – favours and cooperation rule, closely supported by a bizarre cronyism (for wont of better).

Sarcs 'Closing the loop' posts prove (IMO) the ego fed 'attitude' at the top. Take any one of the multitude of 'recommendations' as an example. If you were in charge of an outfit like CASA and one of those landed on your desk – you would have at least three honest options; respond in a positive – proactive manner; even if you intended to reject the notion. (i) Explain why the thing was to be rejected and what equivalent measures you had in place: (ii) Adopt the thing, explain that it was a fine idea, but beyond your budgetary means and ask for 'more', throwing the ball back to the keeper; or, (iii) have a deep and meaningful and sort it out over a cuppa. What you would not do is to ignore it – or wriggle around it – or simply promise a result then renege. And that is only looking at the 'top tier'.

Down the ladder, among the snakes, there is an entirely different culture, which takes it's lead from the layer above – the signers of documents; blokes like Hood. When one of the third tier are 'on a mission' they bring the 'paperwork' to a Hooded look-alike, for processing and 'the signature'; the juice if you like to effect what they propose. What they are seeking to do may reflect the wishes of various parties, depending on the mood. McComic and his cats paws used this system to catastrophic effect against those 'in the gun' and to the great benefit of those who were in vogue. Thus divide and control, ensures the silence of those granted privilege, ensuring 'industry support' and the isolation of those who were to be used an examples of a big R regulator, honestly toiling for safety's sake. Thus, the term without fear or favour, becomes perverted, corrupted to a juxtaposition where fear and favour rule the weak and destroy the strong.

But the really despicable creature lives in the grass roots, there we find the antithesis of fair, honourable dealing. You don't need to search very far or cast your net wide to find an example of how the creatures at the bottom of the swamp operate. Ever watch a hyena pack go work – same -same. There is one extraordinary tale, told at BRB which was only ever exposed because the antagonist was of such an inherently 'dubious' character, that his masters were forced to abandon both him and his corrupt evidence; when even those that ordered the fix dare not, not even in the AAT support it, and that, boys and girls, says a lot. The masters were quite prepared to 'go with it', they could stomach it alright; but the risk of taking that one step too far and being exposed for what they were, by a wily barrister, was the only thing troubled their minds. They happily turned on one of their own and then had the neck to claim the moral high ground; so much honour amongst thieves.

Reading through the Sarcs offering, you can see where the skeleton is riddled with a cancer and why the flesh is rotten. Corruption, yes, but of the conscience and spirit. Most certainly not the honest, cheerful, wealth sharing kind a little baksheesh brings.

Selah.

Ay, marry, is’t.
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honoured in the breach than the observance.
This heavy-headed revel east and west
Makes us traduced and taxed of other nations.

[thorn bird]

Ah Kharon,

there are many Dubious characters strutting their stuff on the CAsA stage.

Some are called blowflies, they blow in, spread their corrupt opinions about, then blow out, generally to prime industry jobs, obtained largely because they can save their employers considerable sums of $$$ by using their influence to grease the wheels.

Takes one operator 18 months and $100K to get a new type on their AOC, another 8 weeks and a few grand, and surprise, surprise, their new chief pilot is???.

One of the people who perverted the course of justice to stitch up John Quadrio, suddenly turns up in a highly prized GA job.

Love to know who's signature appears on that companies approval's.

We are, as an industry, unfortunately, a bunch of hookers. We are quite prepared to prostitute our integrity, morals and soul in a desperate attempt to get across the line.

It could be said, but maybe I'm a tad harsh?... Yeah okay, when desperate people are teetering on the brink, they will clutch at any straw, but please people, bending over and taking it where the sun don't shine achieves nothing and just encourages these corrupt ass.oles.

The Industry must circle the wagons, slap down the egotists amongst us and confront, not CAsA, but their political masters, and say enough is enough.

[Sarcs]

These days whenever the muppet Beaker utters a single syllable in public the 'man at the back of the room' cringes and subconsciously a thought bubble appears with one single word - BOLLOCKS! :E

Example -

DPM Warren Truss/ATSB Martin Dolan - MH370 tender announcement 06/08/14 Part 1 - YouTube

And so it was with equal cynicism that most on here would have switched off to Beaker's whinge announcement in relation to the bureau's AR that..

“It was indeed sobering to see more than 200 years of combined corporate and investi­gation experience leaving the ATSB.’’

Regurgitated and lovingly PC'd here by SC - Air safety investigator warns of cuts to capacity (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/air-safety-investigator-warns-of-cuts-to-capacity/story-e6frg95x-1227111462154)

What is interesting is to see how an international MSM publication, with no associated domestic political interests, viewed the same story...:cool:



Love this headline...:E:Will the search for MH370 be called off due to Australian budget cuts? Ten investigators have already been scrapped from the mission by bean counters (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2819620/Lead-search-agency-missing-MH370-flight-warns-investigations-hampered-budget-cuts-10-investigators-let-go.html)

Australian Transport Safety Bureau has lost 12 percent of staff due to $2 million budget cuts
Chief Commissioner says the agency has lost more than 200 years of combined experience in the same year as two Malaysian Airlines disasters
ATSB has been tasked with leading the search for missing MH370 flight
They also deployed two investigators to Ukraine following MH17 disaster
The lead agency behind the search for the missing MH370 flight has warned it will be forced to undertake fewer investigations after cutting 12 percent of its staff due to $2 million budget cuts.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's annual report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5168903/ATSB_Annual%20Report_2013-2014.pdf) detailed losing more than 200 years of combined corporate and investigative experience in the same year as the disappearance of MH370 and the shooting down of MH17.

Ten transport investigators are among those to go from the transport safety regulator after cutting its staff from 116 to 104 since July 2013.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau who are the lead agency in the search for MH370 warns investigations may be hampered due to budget cuts ATSB's Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan said investigating the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 was the 'greatest challenge' the bureau had faced to date.

'We have more than 12 per cent fewer staff and we have been required to task some of our investigation and administration staff to the major and ongoing investigations into the two Malaysia Airlines disasters,' Mr Dolan said.

'For the foreseeable future, we will be able to undertake fewer investigations and we will need to carefully consider and constrain the scope of investigations initiated.'

The Malaysia Airlines plane disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in March with 239 people on board, including six Australians.

The ATSB detailed losing more than 200 years of combined corporate and investigative experience in the same year as the disappearance of MH370 (pictured) and the shooting down of MH17.

While the safety body was given additional funding from the Federal Government for the extensive search, Mr Dolan said there would continue to be pressure on ATSB resources.

'(MH370) is the most serious aviation occurrence ever to involve the ATSB and its precursors, and is arguably the most mystifying, expansive and difficult search operation ever undertaken in the history of commercial aircraft,' Mr Dolan said.

'At the same time as we were required to undertake difficult decisions in relation to our staffing and resources, we received the news of the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and of its possible location in the Southern Indian Ocean, in Australia’s Search and Rescue Zone.

'The decision to reduce our staff numbers was particularly difficult as it was made in the knowledge that there is no contingent workforce of highly skilled transport safety investigators available in the marketplace to be deployed at short notice in the event of a new crisis.

'It was indeed sobering to see more than 200 years of combined corporate and investigation experience leaving the ATSB.'

The ATSB also deployed two investigators to the Ukraine in July after Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by a missile with a number of Australians on-board. Certainly a very much different spin and mainly focussed on the possible implications for the ongoing search for MH370. I also now wonder if Beaker may have diverged from the government (M&M) briefed script/spin when he said...

'For the foreseeable future, we will be able to undertake fewer investigations and we will need to carefully consider and constrain the scope of investigations initiated.'

This innocuous, throw away, line would appear to be quite damning when you consider the findings & recommendations from two previous ICAO/FAA audits...:=:2004 -
RECOMMENDATION:
The ATSB should endeavour to establish its budget based on its actual requirements to meet its international
obligations under Annex 13 and its national obligations under the TSI Act 2003.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROPOSED BY THE ATSB:
The ATSB has incorporated detailed workforce planning for its staff requirements in its 2004-05 business plan.
The plan also provides for revision of workforce planning, recruitment and organizational structures to take
account of revised funding and pending retirements. Funding for aviation investigation is provided by the
Federal Government through the Department of Transport and Regional Services and was increased by about
A$2 million from 2004-05. The new funding level will enable the ATSB to increase the annual number of new
aviation accident and incident investigations commenced from about 60 to up to 100. This is approximately half
the average number of accidents and serious incidents reported to the ATSB each year. All accidents and serious
incidents involving international airlines are investigated as are all fatal accidents that do not involve sport
aviation aircraft.
The ATSB will, before the end of August 2004, advise the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport
and Regional Services, the Departmental Secretary and the Department of Finance and Administration of the
ICAO audit recommendation that budget funding for the ATSB should be based on a demand-driven approach
based on the number of accidents and serious incidents each year and their severity, complexity and safety
significance to enable the ATSB to investigate them all. However, the ATSB is not aware of many, if any,
ICAO states that do not face a budget constraint that impacts the number and extent of accident and serious
incident investigations.
2008 -
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/one-2.jpg

While trolling through the internet to see if I could find where the outstanding issues identified by the FAA ended up I came across a fascinating document - that was published on M&M's website - that outlined a Tripartite (MoU) agreement between the Department, ASA & CAsA labelled - ARRANGEMENTS FOR AUSTRALIA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL (https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/pdf/Tripartite_Memorandum_of_Understanding_Aust.pdf%20)
AVIATION ORGANIZATION (https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/international/icao/pdf/Tripartite_Memorandum_of_Understanding_Aust.pdf%20)

Still reading through this document but a couple of strange coincidences and anomalies have already perked my interest...

First was the day of signing of this agreement which just so happened to have been the day after the 1st hearing held into the PelAir cover-up Senate inquiry...:cool:

Also it would appear that M&M has ultimate responsibility for the administering of Annex 13..
13 Aircraft Accident Investigation Infrastructure
...and therefore M&M not only signs off on the notified differences to Annex 13 (relevant section see here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h18.pdf) page 74 Chapter 5) but also administers all follow up actions in audits of the ATsB...:=:7. Audits

7.1 The three agencies recognise that ICAO regularly conducts audits of
Australia's safety and security systems. Australia will fulfill its
obligations in accordance with Attachment B of this MOU.
7.2 An interagency USOAP CMA Working Group, chaired by Infrastructure
will meet quarterly or as required to review actions in relation to
Australia's USOAP CMA obligations in accordance with the USOAP
CMAMOU.
7.3 The Office of Transport Security will be responsible for handling all
transport security related audits and obligations in accordance with the
USAP MOU. Working arrangements for agencies involved in the audit
of safety related Annexes are detailed as follows:
a) Following an onsite USOAP CMA activity by ICAO an
interagency USOAP CMA Working Group, chaired by
Infrastructure, will meet to review actions in relation to
Australia's Findings and Recommendations as a result of the
onsite activity and to coordinate and monitor the corrective
actions resulting from the onsite activity and the implementation
plan. The group will comprise of members from Infrastructure,
CASA, Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety
Bureau (A TSB), Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).
Responsibilities of the Working Group will include:
1) Overseeing implementation of Australia's Corrective Action Plan
(CAP),
2) Ensuring Australia's completion of information required under
the CMA online in accordance with Attachment B of this MOU;
3) Providing updates, at least every 6 months, to AIG (refer to
paragraph 6.3) including implementation of the Corrective Action
Plan; and
4) Updating the DGCA Directory. Still trolling and I reckon there are many more dots to join in this tale...:cool:

Love to be able to track the changes to that Tripartite MoU but my bet is Doc Hoodoo Voodoo has probably put a curse on it...:ugh:

MTF...:E

[Kharon]

ATTACHMENT A - ANNEXES TO THE CHICAGO CONVENTION.

Respective Departmental, Airservices Australia and CASA responsibilities for ICAO Annexes are set out below. These are the prime responsibilities only - does not account for "shadow" arrangements or provision of technical/policy advice by another agency.
But is it coincidence? Are there not subtle forces at work of which we know little?”. Holmes - the Blanched Soldier.

Coincidence is a queer thing; most of the famous detectives won't have a bar of it. MOU - Date, timing and wording – but "shadow" arrangements do not, in any way deflect the liability of the 'ultimately' responsible person.

Quiz show compare - "And now I can reveal our mystery guest - the star of our show?" (pause) (delay) "Come, come - Don't be shy - Step out into the spotlight" (big ruck back stage, then, suddenly, propelled onto centre stage, into the bright lights: a minion, slightly battered and definitely looking confused). "Our volunteer" pipes a voice off stage.

"Oh bugger" say the minion....:eek:

[Sarcs]

Kharon - Coincidence is a queer thing; most of the famous detectives won't have a bar of it. MOU - Date, timing and wording – but "shadow" arrangements do not, in any way deflect the liability of the 'ultimately' responsible person. Hmm...so does that mean that our pumpkin headed Mandarin has ultimate carriage of the final outcome of the MH370 search mission...:rolleyes:

While on the subject of Beaker & Co and the FAA/ICAO...:E

The following comment from Confirmed Sceptic to Ben's article - Pel-Air and Seaview anniversaries highlight safety failures (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/19/pel-air-and-seaview-anniversaries-highlight-safety-failures/#comments) - hits the nail on head... Confirmed Sceptic
Posted November 19, 2014 at 3:30 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/19/pel-air-and-seaview-anniversaries-highlight-safety-failures/#comment-29611)
The NTSB, and now the ATSB are both suffering from underfunding. The ATSB is also suffering from a massive credibility deficit. Don’t get me started on the unspeakable CASA. Among my corespondents in other air regulators CASA is a joke in search of a punchline. There is a small but very real chance that the FAA may find the time to do the unpalatable and find CASA unreliable, and hence impugn all airlines regulated by it.

I think the Abbott government should bitch a little louder about Obama’s words on climate change. It would be fun to see a little diplomatic pissing contest involve CASA, which is very low hanging fruit. Rumour has it that the FAA definitely have a strong desire to conduct a follow up audit of Australia but are simply under resourced (i.e. cash strapped) to do so. However could that situation drastically change if ICAO were given further evidence of the State aviation safety authorities taking the Mickey bliss to their obligations as a signatory to ICAO...:{

Moving on for now and back to the subject of Beaker & MH370...;)


The following is interesting as it is addressed to our infamous muppet:
Brock McEwen
PostedSeptember 24, 2014 at 9:33 AM


Open Letter: Request for Public Disclosure on MH370 Investigation
September 24, 2014
Dear MH370 Search Team Leadership (c/o Martin Dolan, Commissioner, Australian Transport Safety Bureau),
Hundreds of experts – both inside and outside the formal investigation – have been working for 200 days, now, in an effort to determine MH370’s fate. The collective failure even to search properly, let alone find anything, has sparked frustration and finger-pointing, as a baffling lack of consensus on basic data has pitted stakeholders against each other. Families of MH370’s passengers and crew – stretched taut on the rack between hope and grief – deserve better than this.
A more fulsome disclosure of your team’s working assumptions – in support of performance and radar-tracked path analysis in particular – would not only “clear the air”, and dispel growing suspicions concerning the veracity of this search, but is quite likely to expedite search zone refinement: “crowd-sourced” insights stemming from the eventual partial publication of Inmarsat data have already demonstrated clearly the value of such disclosure.
Accordingly, we ask the Search Team Leadership to disclose the following elements of its basic internal working assumptions. For each assumption, please publicly disclose initial (i.e. mid-March), all interim, and current (i.e. mid-September) working best estimate(s), as well as date ranges over which each was effective:
PART A: DATA (all items have already been referenced in public statements, and are thus, we trust, readily available)
1. Full set of Inmarsat ping ring radii (in nmi), and associated satellite position (latitude/longitude in degrees/minutes)
2. Amount by which radar-indicated speeds were judged to reduce post-radar range, as percent of initial post-radar range
2a. for each version of the above: minimum and maximum speeds (in KTAS) outside of which fuel exhaustion was assumed to occur prior to 00:19 UTC (i.e. feasibility limits, expressed in KTAS)
3. Point at which MH370 turned south around/near Sumatra, expressed as a specific coordinate (latitude/longitude in degrees/minutes); where a range was contemplated, please supply the range – but indicate clearly the single coordinate which drove the “highest priority/probability” search location. If a slow turn was modeled, please indicate its north-western extreme.
4. Feasibility ranges derived from the above, expressed as a coordinate pair along the 7th Inmarsat arc (where a range of turn south points informs the feasibility coordinates, please also disclose what these coordinates would be if the “later turn south” assumption were abandoned (i.e. “early turn south only”).
PART B: RECONCILIATION: In addition, please reconcile each of the above to each of the following:
a) Original search zone, based (presumably) on neither “heavier fuel burn” nor “later turn south”
b) Mar.28 ATSB Media Release #2 announcing 600nmi shift NE, expressing confidence in “heavier fuel burn”
c) Apr.1 JIT advice to ATSB causing a further 750nmi shift NE, expressing confidence in “later turn south”
d) May 1 release of maps accompanying MH370 Preliminary Report (especially the “highest probability” path)
e) June shift back SW, (in Jun.24 Malaysia Chronicle interview) retracting confidence in “heavier fuel burn”
f) Jun.26 “MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas” Report: all performance limits and search zones
g) August shift further SW, (in Aug.28 statement by Warren Truss) retracting confidence in “later turn south”
Thank you in advance for your attention. Please be advised that failure to supply PART A by Day 210 (Oct 4) and PART B by Day 225 (Oct 19) will trigger an online petition designed to gauge international public opinion on this matter.
Should evidence of MH370’s fate surface in the interim, the need for this disclosure will remain. If the jet is located, the above documentation will be required to dispel any suspicions of evidence tampering, and will prove vital to what we trust is surely our shared goal: getting to the truth, to offer closure for passengers’ families and friends.
Sincerely,
Brock McEwen, on behalf of a frustrated general public
Not sure if Brock got a satisfactory response from Beaker but if he did I would be inclined to heavily scrutinise the factual content (in amongst the weasel words) of the reply...:cool:

I also came across an interesting story from NBC news titled - Girlfriend of MH370 Passenger: 'Something Is Being Covered Up' (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/girlfriend-mh370-passenger-something-being-covered-n198046) - that has many disturbing parallels to the PelAir cover-up...:{

Examples:As relatives marked the six month anniversary of the Boeing 777’s disappearance Monday, Sarah Bajc told NBC News she believes that there “are active steps being taken to interfere with finding the plane.”

“Our opinion, the family members’ opinion, has been the same since the very beginning that we need an independent investigating group who has access to all the native information, so including military radar records, to be able to go back and start the investigation from the beginning to see if we can find out what happened,” she said.

“I think that if the existing investigation team is left in charge … we may not ever find the plane. Because I believe there are active steps being taken to interfere with finding the plane,” she said,

Asked what she meant, Bajc said she wasn’t sure. “Failure to release information - whether its obfuscation, you know, actually covering something up - or dishonesty… creating false evidence or just hiding something, right? We don’t know why or what is being covered up, but something is being covered up.”

She said the Australian investigators, who have been working alongside the Malaysian team to find the jet in its presumed location in the southern Indian Ocean, “should be very embarrassed by their behavior so far,” adding: “They pursued a path of underwater pings long after it was very clear they weren’t accurate. They have not had the strength of will to force Malaysia to open up all if its records.” Hmm...no comment required except to say TICK...TOCK Beaker and the Mandarin providing top cover for him...:(

MTF...:ok:

[PAIN_NET]

Sarcs there seems to be a problem with the link to the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - post #2543. For those interested in reviewing the MoU the link below will take you to Zippyshare, where a user friendly version may be downloaded.

Only click on the

http://www30.zippyshare.com/images/download.png

to avoid unwanted spam.

MoU_Tripartite. (http://www30.zippyshare.com/v/37397257/file.html)

Nice work boys.....:ok:

P26. a.k.a. 36-24-36.

[Soteria]

Australian Transport Safety Bureau has lost 12 percent of staff due to $2 million budget cuts.
Chief Commissioner says the agency has lost more than 200 years of combined experience in the same year as two Malaysian Airlines disasters.
Incompetent clowns. A bunch of brain dead zombies. For the sake of $2m, (probably what they spend quarterly at Parliament House on coffee, biscuits, cut sandwiches and apple juice for all those busy worker bees) the Government bean counters cull 12% and 200 years worth of experience from the once reputable Investigator?? It really goes to show why this country is rooted! That amount of money would be spent per week at least on pilots, fighter jets, ordinance and sorties over Afghanistan!

You know what, ICAO and the FAA really do need to come back an have a very close look at what an even bigger cluster f#ck this countries aviation has become. The tin of turd polish has truly run dry.

[Kharon]

Sarcs - #2456 "Rumour has it that the FAA definitely have a strong desire to conduct a follow up audit of Australia but are simply under resourced (i.e. cash strapped) to do so. However could that situation drastically change if ICAO were given further evidence of the State aviation safety authorities taking the Mickey bliss to their obligations as a signatory to ICAO."

I wonder; "what if" the 'passengers' on the Pel Air ditched West-wind had been American. What response we would have got from the FAA then – or, had they been 'European'. One of the neatly covered over (not known, or just ignored) big ticket items is the treatment of the 'victims' after the event. I wonder, if the aftermath were widely known would other ICAO NAA or the media just sit back then. Oh boy.. Imagine if the USA version of 'Sixty minutes' got onto a little tale like this one if US citizens were involved –

Now I am not 100% certain of all the facts or the legal swings and roundabouts; but since the incident, I hear the female patient has, out of sheer frustration been forced to seek psychiatric assistance, not just because of the incident, but because of the strain and stress of trying to gain some meaningful 'assistance'; rumour has it the house has been sold to pay legal fees and the marriage on rocky ground. The lady's passenger husband is having all manner of problems, the travelling doctor is having all manner of problems. As for Karen the flight nurse and Dominic, the pilot, the happy world they used to live in has been destroyed, shattered, for ever. This directly attributable to the aftermath of the duck up and subsequent attempted cover up, by people still gainfully employed within the Australian aviation safety system. Go-figure..

The post event damage bill has been massive – in human terms. Now we get folk from all corners of the world visiting, they get sick and their insurance would provide for a 'medi-vac', where required. This then becomes an international issue where the same post event 'treatment' will be afforded to any, who use an Australian 'patient transfer' aircraft involved, in the event of an accident. Translated – it means if you travel on an 'Airwork' category flight, read the policy fine print. The one certainty is that it's not written to assist you, should you have the temerity to survive, that is..

I doubt it would kick off WW III, but foreign NAA do have a responsibility to 'protect' their nationals. To allow their nationals to continue travelling under a flawed, manipulated aviation safety legislative system, where the probability of a pre-determined outcome and cover up, which affects the insurance payout are likely, places that NAA in a 'queer' position; particularly so if they are aware that probability exists.

As we have now seen publicly demonstrated, this manipulation has had a direct impact on the ability of those involved to claim compensation under this highly compromised system. If the 'aviation system' was set to rights, the need for expensive, post accident litigation would be removed.

Perhaps, if the FAA are short a few bucks, Obama could donate his green fees to the cause and send the very best team the FAA can put together for a short visit to the great empty land – Down-under. In the national interest; maybe they can visit our Barrier reef and take some happy snaps and 'selfies' back home, when they go...:ok:

Visitors are said to be worried about our crocodiles, sharks, snakes and spiders out in the wilds. Rightfully so, but the most dangerous of those species reside in air conditioned comfort, in an office building, or swimming pool, very near you.

"Change for a nine dollar note, certainly Sir; now, would you like that in three's ?".

Toot toot..

[thorn bird]

Be an interesting question for the good senators at estimates Kharon.

How many of the two hundred years of experience Beaker made redundant were bean counters, how many were coal face workers?

Bet I know the answer.

Same same CAsA's employment program.

We get an increase in fuel excise, allegedly because CAsA is desperate for additional ninety coal face staff. What do we get?

Ninety bloody managers.

What did they need the additional staff for anyway? Pilot numbers are in decline, hours flown are in decline, and I would hazard a guess the real number of aircraft is in decline.

I would hazard that the extra staff were required to interpret and explain what their incompetent lawyers have put in the alleged reformed regulations.

Hells bells the Kiwi's can enunciate a complete rule set for flight standards in 80 odd pages, the yanks the same.

Is the CAsA legal fraternity so incompetent, so inept, that they require over 1500 pages and even then nobody seems to understand them, with so many inconsistencies the High Court would probably have to sit continuously for ten years to decide what the hell they mean.

If Part 61 is as it is, looming down the track is Part 135.

Be afraid, be very afraid, I've read the draft.

Mr Minicule if your awake, very sorry you've got the ****s, but it appears the industry has as well, but I don't think its the same bug.

You could save everyone a lot of money by simply banning all forms of aviation in Australia except high capacity RPT and the RAAF, its going to happen anyway under the CAsA regime, just later rather than sooner.

Come to think of it why include RPT, the RAAF could undertake that as well, think of the promo's

"Come fly with the Skygods!! they'll get you there"

[Sarcs]

Steady on Thorny you will have the 'thought police' knocking on your door if your not careful...:E Get on the same page here man! :ugh: The Mandarins & Muppets are on the next chapter titled - 'Beyond all Sensible Reason' (BASR) - not the 'Reason Model' chapter...;)

Talking of Mandarins, Muppets with a dose of international diplomatic obfuscation it would seem the Dutch have also drifted to the dark side in taking the Mickey Bliss out of ICAO Annex 13&19...:=: Dutch government refuses to reveal ‘secret deal’ into MH17 crash probe (http://rt.com/news/207243-netherlands-mh17-investigation-documents/)

This tweeper asks a pertinent questionCould anyone call #MH17 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MH17?src=hash) investigation independent, if it runs by NATO and denies Malaysia, the owner of the plane, participation?? Moving on and back to the BASR Beaker, I noted that the MSM (SMH) have put out a vomitus piece on our infamous muppet Beaker...:oh: (Warning: BYO Bucket definitely required :yuk::yuk:): The world's biggest mystery is in Martin Dolan's sights (http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-worlds-biggest-mystery-is-in-martin-dolans-sights-20141120-11f336.html#ixzz3JkESZg4b)

Not going to give this puerile piece any more coverage than it deserves but I will quote the relevant bit (in between dry heaving) in regards to the PelAir 'Duck Up': He also oversaw the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air ambulance plane off Norfolk Island in 2009. Amazingly, all six people on board survived the crash.

A senate committee slammed the bureau's handling of the inquiry, criticising its report for focusing on the pilot's actions and lacking analysis or details of factors that assist the wider industry.

Dolan says the government accepted the bureau's advice that no safety purpose would be served by reopening the investigation as was urged by the committee.

At the bureau's request, he adds, Canadian transport safety regulators are currently conducting a peer-review of the the body's policies and how they were implemented in several investigations, including Pel-Air.

"We learnt that there are different views of our work and how we do it and that aviation safety is an area where people have different views and they don't always agree with you," Dolan says.
I would be extremely interested in how much Murky Machiavellian & Co paid for this obvious attempt to humanise such a severely discredited muppet (i.e. the Pinocchio fix)...:ugh:

Oh well back to trolling...:ok:

[Creampuff]

Dolan says the government accepted the bureau's advice that no safety purpose would be served by reopening the investigation as was urged by the committee.Ironically, I agree there would be no safety purpose.

Even if the ATSB had the corporate integrity, it no longer has the corporate competence to do adequate investigations.

[Soteria]

Creampuff gets a chocy frog for causing me to have a lightbulb moment;

Ironically, I agree there would be no safety purpose.
Even if the ATSB had the corporate integrity, it no longer has the corporate competence to do adequate investigations.

So considering the ATSB's sole function is not to investigate accidents thoroughly, rather it is to protect the Government from bad publicity, I totally agree with the budget cut and redundancies!!! Cull another dozen investigators along with admin staff, cleaners, office leases and so forth. Then employ just a handful of PR people, one HR administrator and get rid of all three Commisioners and hand over their no longer relevant function to their puppet master MrDak who can handball running the department to the twerps in PMC. I reckon that will save the penny pinching Government $20m per year.

Investigators, what investigators?

[Kharon]

SMH: The 57-year-old is helping solve what remains the greatest aviation mystery of all time: the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

This, all without any technical qualification (NFI in industry parlance). Doesn't it therefore qualify (technically) as a 'porky'? - in light of the Senate report of the Pel Air inquiry. I believe, some of the words used in Hansard transcript were: unreliable, disingenuous and untenable. Although industry further accords the "beyond all reason" approach as being directly attributable to "the team leader". Yet our beloved Bea-cur can sit there; stuffing his now shaved face with spaghetti, intimating (in public) that 'he' (probably only he alone) will solve the MH 370 riddle: industry is overwhelmed and simply says "it's beyond all reason".

SMH :As head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, he is leading the search for the jet, concentrated deep in the southern Indian Ocean off the coast of Perth.

This 'leading' is done mind you, without any technical qualification (NFI in industry parlance). Doesn't it therefore qualify (technically) as a 'porky'? - in light of the Senate report into the Pel Air inquiry. I believe some of the words used in Hansard were: unreliable, disingenuous and untenable, industry simply says "it's beyond all reason".

SMH : "Sometimes I'm tempted to say 'oh yes, we've found it we're just not telling you'," he says. He quickly clarifies that he's joking.

They do say his water cooler nickname is "laughing boy". Oh yes, the famous Dolan sense of humour at work, a pawky wit and a fine sense of the ridiculous"; dry as sticks. Industry simply says "it's beyond all reason".

Oh if the gods the power would give us, to see ourselves as others see us".

SMH : Since the disappearance, conspiracy theorists have been busy trying to solve the mystery themselves
I wonder why they (all 19,513,305 looking at the humble Pprune) would bother; when we have Martin, he of beyond all reason, showing the way. Industry simply says "it's beyond all reason". No, it's all good with Guru Beacur leading the way and guiding a happy, clappy crew of expert accident investigators to Nirvana....Mind you, it's not that they'll do very many, what with the cost of essential 'admin' to juggle and all.

SMH : It's because you've got this big mystery and everyone wants to know the answer and everyone wants to help. It's unhelpful, for the sake of the families more than anything else, in the sense that it has the potential to undermine confidence in what we are doing," he says.

Well, that's fair. What with Martin, being such a bloody Whizz bang, highly qualified investigator – it's just an insult to a fine, instigative mind to have these tendentious bloggers 'assisting'. 'Amateur' experts; are, like Annexe 13, surplus to requirements; and with such a gifted, qualified investigator at the helm, tendentious 'bloggers' – and all associated riff raff need not apply.

SMH - The Boeing 777 vanished with 239 people on board en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in March. There has been no sign of it since.

Finally – truth and reality in one small; but, oh so sweet paragraph. Bravo.

SMH : He opts for the spaghetti alla carbonara and I choose the tortellini di zucca.

And you managed to keep it down?. Oh, well done that leading light of journalistic clap trap.

SMH: Commitment to the public service has been a consistent feature of his life.

"True dat" edit ...Commitment to the public service, and only the public service has been a consistent feature of his life.

SMH - The position marked the start of 35 years in the Commonwealth public service, in which he has added various corporate management roles, including chief executive of Comcare and Chief Finance Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Which, of course is why he is so well equipped to lead a crack team of clerical staff to assist; this, despite the 200 year deficiency in 'accident' investigations skills; no matter. Bea-cur will come through with swimming colours, once again. Just as he did in the Pel Air inquiry – covered in glory, the praises of the Senate ringing in his heroic ears and the total, complete and utter support of the aviation industry which, by the by, cannot say enough good things about this doyen of safety, this pillar of the beyond all ducking reason model for accident investigation.

Aye. No doubt the MH 370 families will sleep much better now, knowing that Beacur can manage 'spaghetti"; the fish balls were (of course) - imported from Norfolk Island, in commemoration of the outstanding efforts, made on behalf of air safety.

SMH : "I had a moment of revelation in front of a high school English class in Coffs Harbour as I did practice teaching. I looked at them, they looked at me and we realised this was never going to work," Dolan says.

What a Déjà vu moment, as history repeats; like a bad prawn. The music? – Oh, that's 'Believe it, if you like': played by the public service string quartet (conducted by?) yes; you guessed it – Our hero.

Sorry boys and girls; I have to stop here, can't type more, for the tears. Whether they be of laughter (only slightly hysterical); or, of sorrow (for those lost at sea) is uncertain. But, such is life; and, I may add, life is such. I belive I could go on, to the end of the SMH offering, but reality calls and tempus fugit (not to mention tempers).

Dinner Minnie and get that bloody cat off my chair.

How do you spell genius? – Ayup, Guinness is correct. Where's my Choc frog...?...:D

[Soteria]

What is frightening about Beaker is that he actually believes he is a skilled, respected, envied consummate safety professional executive....tsk tsk tsk Monsieur Beaker := := :=
Over 6 years ago there could little if no mi mi mi mi found within the ATSB. Then along came the doyen of spreadsheets, the master of the money tin, the so called Svengali of safety - Martin. Just over 5 years later we now have a third world safety bureau run by a non investigatory executive management team who have been pussy whipped by CASA (something that would never have happened once upon a time) and they have their plums tightly held by the Government of the day. Yes, the ATSB has become a dysfunctional and poorly managed national embarrassment. The once world leading, reputable, enviable department has become a sham, a laughing stock, a mockery amongst its international peers.

Don't be fooled. If MH370 is found it will have nothing to do personally with the beardless Beaker. The only involvement he has is to check the balance sheet daily to ensure overtime isn't allowed and only cheap brand consumables are purchased for the coffee craving Investigators. Martin will provide the odd media release (written by someone else), occasionally make a muppet of himself on TV and that is where his real involvement ends.

Chocolate frog count as of the last ball of the days play -
Kharon = 1 Creampuff = 1 Beaker = 0

[thorn bird]

The "beyond" program is a function of the MOU.

The murky Macavellian decreed that acronyms should be aligned as much as possible across all departments.

Apparently because he is the shadow manager (SM) of what these organizations do and given bureaucrats pathological obsession with having acronyms (POWHA) for everything, it saves him considerable time referring to the glossary all the time to find out what they mean.

For example, the actual employees are, as they say in the service, "Smoke generators" (SG's).

The upper management are " Smart mirror deflectors" SMD's.

The ATSB has their "Beyond all sensible reason" or BASR Model.

CAsA has their "Beyond all sensible regulation" or BASR Model.

Haven't been able to find out if there has been any alignment in the pink Bats department (PBD), or the building the education revolution (BTERD), or the flog off general aviation airports (FOGAAD) departments, but rumor on the street is the SG's have been very busy generating a lot of smoke.

[Sarcs]

...and a gold star or two...love it! :E:E



Interesting thing on the airwaves is Sir Tim is making a revival tour on his MH370 scepticism...:rolleyes::'Information on missing MH370 is being withheld,' says boss of Emirates airline

A full transcript of Sir Tim Clark's interview has been made public
Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014
There were 239 people on board the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing
Sir Tim has also said the somebody took control of the aircraft before it vanished
The Emirates CEO said the industry must not accept MH370's a 'mystery'
By Sally Lee for Daily Mail Australia (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Sally+Lee+for+Daily+Mail+Australia)
Published: 16:01 AEST, 22 November 2014 | Updated: 21:59 AEST, 22 November 2014

The chief executive of Emirates believes information on missing aircraft MH370 is being withheld by authorities.

This was revealed in a formerly unpublished full transcript of an interview conducted by well-known aviation journalist Andreas Spaeth, which has been made available on the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/world/full-transcript-emirates-chief-sir-tim-clark-on-mh17-and-mh370-20141121-11rc70.html).

Sir Tim Clark further questioned the role of the Malaysian military after the Malaysian Airlines flight disappeared on March 8 this year carrying 239 people, including six Australians, while en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

'I think we will know more if there is full transparency of everything that everybody knows. I do not believe that the information held by some is on the table,' he said in the interview.

'Who actually disabled ACARS [the plane's Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System], who knew how to do it?

'If you eliminate the pilot on a suicide mission, I'm sure you could have put the aircraft in the South China Sea, rather than fly it for seven hours. So if he was on a suicide mission, he would have done it then. Who then took control of the aircraft? Who then knew how to disable ACARS and turn the transponder off? That is a huge challenge.'

When asked whether he can comprehend the mysterious disappearance of a plane in this day and age, Sir Clark responded:

'Therein lies this huge question mark in my mind. I know this did not have to happen, there is technology to track these aircraft and everybody will say that, Boeing or Airbus.

'That is where the conundrum is of mystery, that is where we must be more forthright and candid as to what went on, it is not good enough for the Malaysian military to say: "On a prime radar we identified it as 'friendly'".'

Sir Tim, who's airline Emirates operates almost 130 Boeing 777 aircraft - similar to the doomed jet, added the role of the Malaysian military has been 'bizarre'.

'This is a very busy part of Southeast Asia, the notion that we should not be able to identify if it is friend or foe, or we can on primary radar and do nothing about it, is bizarre,' he said.

'What would have happened if the aircraft would have turned back to fly into the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur? But we identified it as "friendly"? Friendly with intent, or friendly without intent? But what was done? These are the questions that need to be asked of the people and the entities that were involved in all of this. Full transparency of that will help us to find out what went on.'



In Spaeth's article, which was published for German magazine Spiege (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/mh370-emirates-head-has-doubts-about-investigation-a-996212.html) last month, Sir Tim also claimed that 'control was taken of' Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 before it vanished.

Sir Tim said it was very important that the airline industry does not accept that the fate of MH370 is an 'unexplained mystery'.

'MH370 remains one of the great aviation mysteries. Personally, I have the concern that we will treat it as such and move on. At the most, it might then make an appearance on National Geographic as one of aviation's great mysteries. We mustn't allow this to happen. We must know what caused that airplane to disappear,' Sir Tim said.

Earlier this week, the government created a video to explain to the heartbroken families of MH370 victims why their loved ones have still not been found after eight months.

In the four-minute video, posted by the Joint Agency Coordination Centre on YouTube, authorities attempt to explain why the search mission has taken so long and why the search area continues to be based along the seventh arc in the southern Indian Ocean, an area with incredibly deep water and rough conditions.

The arc is described as 'a thin long line that identifies all the possible points the last communication between the aircraft and the communication satellite could have taken place'.


Trying to calm recent fears that the Australian-led search operation in the southern Indian Ocean off the coast of Perth in Western Australia could be stopped, the video says: 'The expert satellite working group is continually refining analysis of the available data to identify the areas of the highest priority for the search.'

Relatives of MH370 passengers were outraged last week after a senior Malaysia Airlines representative allegedly said the beleaguered carrier is planning on officially declaring the plane 'lost', which would call off the search.

Read more: Emirates CEO Sir Tim Clark believes MH370 information is being withheld | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845039/Emirates-CEO-Sir-Tim-Clark-believes-information-missing-MH370-withheld-authorities.html#ixzz3JprV5F2y) Oh Dear it would appear that Sir Tim is a serious supporter of James Reason's 20th Century model?? Bea- Cur and M&M better rifle off a memo to Dubai on the Beyond All Sensible Reason model that the forward thinking Aussies are apparently now such strong proponents off...:ugh::ugh:

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - ATSB Safety Issue Methodology - YouTube

Here is an idea maybe Sir Tim could lend the fully independent WIOS (World Ills Of Society) experts a B777 to fly along the couple of FIR boundaries to see what the various DIPs radar installations could or couldn't see...:cool: The real thing is so much better than a simulator...:E

While Sir Tim is writing out cheques could he swing some loose change to bean-counter Bea-Cur to help recover VH-NGA's CVR/FDR...

Non-retrieval of CVR/FDR - Dolan obfuscation 22/10/12 hearing - YouTube

...call it a dry run for when Bea-Cur solves the greatest aviation mystery of the world...:E

MTF...:ok:

[Sunfish]

Let's get it out in the open folks; the Government hates private aviation. CASA hates private and GA aviation. The RAAF hates private and GA aviation. The ATSB hates private and GA aviation.

The RAAF believe that only RAAF training should be allowed and all airline pilot jobs should be reserved for former RAAF pilots.

The RAA is about to be destroyed via the demise of jabiru, the SAAA is next.

Could. I be forgiven for thinking that every hand is raised against us?

Isn't it time that the feeling is returned?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
In my opinion, if nothing else, the SMH feature on Mr. Dolan illustrates the the fact that the Commonwealth bureaucracy hold the aviation sector (and the public in general) and the Commonwealth Parliament and its MHRs and Senators in complete contempt.
Tootle pip!!

[SIUYA]

In my opinion, if nothing else, the SMH feature on Mr. Dolan illustrates the fact that the Commonwealth bureaucracy hold the aviation sector (and the public in general) and the Commonwealth Parliament and its MHRs and Senators in complete contempt.

Well said Lead Sled. :D

Also relevant perhaps:

Justice Rich … pointed out, many years ago, that there does not need to be a legal definition of wrongdoing for a charge of misconduct on the part of a solicitor. His Honour considered that it is enough that the conduct in question is indicative of a failure to understand "the precepts of honesty and fair dealing in relation to the courts, his clients and the public". To this may be added that honesty in a lawyer must extend to self analysis.

Source: Ethics and The Profession Of The Lawyer, The Hon Justice Susan Kiefel, High Court of Australia - Queensland Law Society, The Vincents' 48th annual Symposium 2010, 26 March 2010.

Now, if Justice Kiefel's quote was amended to read:

There does not need to be a legal definition of wrongdoing for a charge of misconduct on the part of a public servant. It is enough that the conduct in question is indicative of a failure to understand "the precepts of honesty and fair dealing" in relation to the parliament and the public. To this may be added that honesty in a public servant must extend to self analysis.

...then that's probably getting awfully close to what the industry is thinking about the conduct that's been associated so far by certain people in this disgraceful episode. :ugh:

[Kharon]

The chief executive of Emirates believes information on missing aircraft MH370 is being withheld by authorities.

Not by Australia, surely not. Shock, horror, where would a notion like that come from?, not from a harmless, toothless Senate inquiry, surely.

"[This] was revealed in a formerly unpublished full transcript of an interview conducted by well-known aviation journalist Andreas Spaeth, which has been made available on the" etc

Hullo, wuz this : a real 'aviation' journalist talking with someone from the industry who actually has clue. This is much better than a discussion of what failed schoolteachers have for lunch. Sir Tim – here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845039/Emirates-CEO-Sir-Tim-Clark-believes-information-missing-MH370-withheld-authorities.html#ixzz3JprV5F2y) - will have some clever kids looking hard at the 'data' and a simulator working OT, the results may never be published, but word will inevitably, albeit slowly leak out. Whether the 'vested' interests will ever allow the studies into the public domain, let alone a court is a moot question, with a foregone conclusion.

But the smart money is on Sandilands (Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/)), de Spiegel (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/) and Le Monde (http://lemonde.fr/)– to produce the real deal, or at very least, close to it, (lawyers permitting). Some say the information may even 'surface' this week. No doubt the aforementioned prestige publications will then rush a team of gifted journalists to Oz, all panting to have an intimate, informative lunch (Spag-Bol only, remember the budget) with our very own, home grown expert, Bea-Cur to seek his very own opinion. Will the piece be entitled; We have no need of boxes, black, Orange or any other colour; not with our methodology, as approved by the Canadian TSB.

Oh, what tangled web of Spaghetti to unscramble; alphabet noodles are much safer, more economical too.

Toot toot..

[Sarcs]

Leady & "K" both nail the outrageous spin & pony pooh tale that our loyal, self-serving bureaucrats that oversee aviation administration - with their despicable Mandarin M&M - want us to believe when it came to the PelAir coverup...:ugh::ugh:

Remember this from our super sleuth muppet way back where all this started:Smith-Roberts, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To: ·
Cc:
Dolan Martin <[email protected]>
Wednesday, 12 September 2012 6:09 PM
Craig Carmody; McCormick, John
Subject:
Lovell Jaimie; Michael Choueifate; Virginia Kim; Jeff Singleton
RE: Sen Xenophon Motion re Pei-Air [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Categories: Important
Thanks, Craig.
At the simplest level, the answers to the Senator's questions are straightforward - and a fair amount of the information
is publicly available. We are prepared to answer them in whatever forum they arise (with the exception of anonymous
rumour sites and some tendentious bloggers).
Let us know if you need any background briefing on the Senat or's issues.
Regards
Martin
Martin Dolan
Chief Commissioner
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
P: +61 2 6274 61441 E: [email protected] I M: Muppet Bea-Cur was pretty confident that he could keep a lid on it wasn't he?? Bet he never expected to get this very public condemnation in the Senate some 555 days later...(my bold :E)
Senator XENOPHON: by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the incredible work of the committee secretariat on this report. It is a very complex, technical area, and I believe this report should be held up as the gold standard of what a dedicated Senate committee can achieve. At the risk of embarrassing her, I would like to acknowledge my legislation and policy adviser, Hannah Wooller, who did extraordinary work on this, and who probably knows more about air safety investigations and air accident investigations than she ever thought she would want to know when she started work with me.

I fear that I may not be able to say the same about the government response, in comparison to the way that the secretariat has dealt with this.

I note that the government has already established its review into aviation safety, and that the ATSB has already invited the Canadian transport safety board to consider its investigative and reporting processes in relation to the Pel-Air incident and other matters. But I do have serious concerns about the Canadian process. Those concerns are not about the integrity of the Canadian transport safety board, but about the fact that it seems that their terms of reference are so circumscribed. They have yet to interview or obtain information from the Senate committee, from the pilot involved in that incident or from experts who gave evidence to that committee.

What is vitally important about the recommendations from this report is that they do not stand alone. They were made in the context of evidence that showed a serious and systemic lack of rigour from both the ATSB and CASA. Any responses from the government that claim that existing policy or procedure addresses the committee's concerns cannot be accepted, because this report clearly shows that existing policies and procedures do not work. Instead, the flight crew of VH-NGA were made scapegoats for regulatory failures.

I note, in particular, the comments from ATSB Chief Commissioner Mr Dolan, who admitted during questioning that he was 'not proud' of the ATSB's report into the Pel-Air incident. The committee even went so far as to state that Mr Dolan's standing as a witness before the committee had been eroded by his evidence relating to the ATSB's failure to retrieve the flight data and cockpit voice recorders. Mr Dolan justified this position by quoting a version of the statement that sets out the ATSB's international responsibilities in this regard—ICAO Annex 13—that was not in force at the time of the accident or investigation. I pay tribute to Senator David Fawcett's cross-examination of Mr Dolan in this regard, which elicited very valuable information. A reading of the current Annex 13 may leave some room for discretion as to whether the recorders are to be retrieved. A reading of the annex that was in force at the time of the incident and subsequent investigation—and therefore should have been the one used by the ATSB to reach a decision—does not provide for this discretion. The committee report states:

The committee does not accept this argument—
that is, the argument of Mr Dolan.

At the time the decision against retrieving the FDR was made the imperative existed for the ATSB to do so. To ignore this imperative by arguing that the benefit did not justify the cost appears disingenuous. To imply that the revised wording in the current version of Annex 13 was the basis for the ATSB's decision in 2009/2010, before this version was in force, is even more disingenuous.

This report also called into question the relationship between the ATSB and CASA, and whether the intention of the memorandum of understanding between them is being met. The purpose of CASA is to ensure Australia's aviation safety regulations are being met and are serving their purpose. Therefore, if an incident investigated by the ATSB reveals a gap in that oversight, it is the ATSB's duty to report it.

I would like to share an email from an ATSB officer to Mr Dolan and Mr Ian Sangston of the ATSB regarding the investigation, which reads in part:

We were discussing the potential to reflect the intent of our new MoU that describes the 2 agencies as 'independent but complementary'. We discussed the hole CASA might have got itself into by its interventions since the ditching, and how you might have identified an optimum path that will maximise the safety outcome without either agency planting egg on the other agency's face. Right now, I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support. If we were to contemplate an exit strategy, or an 'out', then CASA would need to recognise that it is 'in' something in the first place.

It is important to note that the final ATSB report makes no reference to the officer's concerns. What this email clearly indicates is that there was a belief inside the ATSB that CASA had 'got itself into a hole', and that the ATSB's priority was avoiding conflict between the two agencies, rather than holding CASA to account.

On its own part, CASA concluded a special audit of Pel-Air after the ditching and found multiple significant safety breaches on the part of Pel-Air. A further audit CASA undertook on its oversight of Pel-Air found that CASA had failed in its role as regulator. CASA did not share this information with the ATSB, despite the MoU between them requiring it. As such, the ATSB
did not have access to information that showed the broader context in which the incident occurred. What is even more concerning is that, after receiving the information as part of the committee process, the ATSB defended its investigation and stated that access to that information would not have changed their conclusion. Again, this is the report of which the chief commissioner of the ATSB is 'not proud'.

In aviation safety, it is vital to look at the contributing factors to consider the bigger picture in which an incident occurred. For example, were the staff adequately trained? Did the company employing them provide appropriate and continuous access to training and other support? Was there a safety culture in the organisation, or did the operator encourage their staff to take risks and 'just get the job done', so to speak? All of these questions, and more, should be asked so investigators can understand the environment in which an incident occurred. In that way, the environment itself can be addressed to prevent that same, or similar, incidents happening again.

The government should take a similar approach to considering this report. Sadly, it has not. In what environment is the ATSB and CASA operating? What are their cultures like? Are they likely to enforce the systems and procedures already in place, or do changes need to happen? This report gives us the answer to many of those questions. The next question is whether the government will take them into account and act appropriately. I seek leave to complete my remarks later.

Leave granted.
With the Leady & "K" conclusions plus the added suspicions of international collusion with the Canucks - sitting on the bureau peer review report - I think we now know what length the Mandarin & his minions are prepared to go to in covering up a seemingly insignificant domestic duck-up in the PelAir debacle...:ugh:

It will be interesting to see (if & when required) whether Bea-Cur - with M&M providing top-cover - has the mettle to put in place a similar fix once the bucket of money runs dry and the MH370 mystery comes to its penultimate conclusion..:rolleyes: (well at least from the bureaucrats & directly interested governments point of view...:{).

Another matter of interest - come December 1st - will be just how complicit the Canucks will be with - the nothing to see here - PelAir duck-up...

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Dolan, have you received the interim report from NTSB?

Mr Dolan : From the Transportation Safety Board of Canada?

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Sorry, yes.

Mr Dolan : We received a draft report from the Transportation Safety Board back in August.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Did you make comment on that?

Mr Dolan : We provided some comments on the factual content of the report and our understanding of it and areas where we thought there could be clarification.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)And the time frame for that to come back?

Mr Dolan : We had a teleconference with our Canadian counterparts last Friday and they assured us that their report would be published by 1 December.

There is also the small matter of Nick's MoP...

Senator Xenophon matter of privilege AAI inquiry - 10 July 2014 - YouTube

...which also for some inexplicable reason seems to have been delayed...:rolleyes:

TICK..TOCK M&M & Bea-Cur..:E

MTF...:ok:

{Had a dream: Imagine a scene where the MH370 attempted cover-up goes to an international court of inquiry where the men/women at the back of the room include the likes of Sir Tim all demanding answers & god forbid the truth from Bea-Cur & Co...

Senator Heffernan Person at the back of the room 150213 - YouTube

RRAT PelAir inquiry 22/10/12 - "Mea culpa after mea culpa" - YouTube

Change the faces & the scenes i.e. fill in the gaps and the mind boggles..:E}

[Australopithecus]

I do hope that today's crossing of the Rubicon by Senator J. Lambie will upset the zeitgeist sufficiently to again pour some daylight upon the sorry bureaucrats who infect both the ATSB and CAsA. Please, viewers, if you have any avenues open to Senator X's office, make clear that quid pro quo for Lambie's protection* should include her being open to being schooled on the various and many foul failings of the current perch-sitters.

*odd, init, that an independent will, as a practical matter, need both a mentor and a protector? Realpolitik in action, comrades.**

** was there ever a more hopeful, yet ultimately jaded, cynical or banal word? Still, I couldn't resist as a nod to the recently late G.W.

P.S. Don't put too much hope into Confirmed Sceptic's post on Plane Talking: he tells me that his FAA/TC/TSBC confidants are a level or two below the Mandarin level, and as such are widely informed yet happily have cover, given what may come next.

[Kharon]

Sunny – IF we were to start calling a spade a shovel, there are two decades where one consistent element has held the reigns of aviation; only one, when looked at chronologically, the repercussions of that influence have resulted in stories like the one today published by Sandilands on – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/24/how-can-city-metro-airports-be-saved-from-big-box-retailers/). Nearly all of today's expense, risk and problems which face industry can be defined in one word – Airports– and the 'development' of...

The manipulations required to make a secondary 'airport' into an attractive business proposition can all be sheeted home to one, or perhaps two of the Murky Machiavellian clan. Buy the paddock, clean out the riff-raff, bring in the land fill; and, off you go.

I'm no lawyer; but I can research, read and join the dots as well as most; a resignation is required, it's not that of Truss, but of those who hold his hand. Perhaps, the Xenophon MoP, combined with the Heffernan/ Sterle MoP, will shed some much needed light into a very murky pit of cynical embuggerance.

Someone is holding up the reform of CASA demanded by industry; a call for the Mrdak resignation will go some way towards deflecting the international criticism mounting against Australia; with the huge potential for MH 370 to rebound and further taint an already blemished international reputation.

Over to you Tony...

Tick tock (get in first, to beat the international journalists who are slightly ahead of the game at the moment and getting closer by the minute – remember Pel-Air; and that Sir, was but a warm up bout)....

Start - HERE (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/24/mh370-is-australia-being-taken-for-a-fool/) : Insider bulletin today urges Malaysia’s most uncritical supporter, PM Tony Abbott, to call for, or read, the latest intelligence he can summons on the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Toot toot.

[Sarcs]

Them is fighting words Kharon...:E

Speaking of MH370 & the Oz government you might be interested in this...:rolleyes:
By Planetalking: "Is Australia being taken for a fool?"


Crikey
Tony Abbott’s big MH370 problem: is the Malaysian government lying?
Ben Sandilands | Nov 24, 2014 1:12PM
MH370: Is Australia being taken for a fool? | Plane Talking (http://t.co/PuNFKKrDFu)

The question that has been increasingly heard as the months pass is: who or what is the Malaysia government protecting?

Urgent Memo to Prime Minister Tony Abbott: commission the best Australian intelligence on the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 on March 8 this year, then distance your government from any unquestioning hand-wringing about this disaster or unwavering acceptance of the official narrative about the loss of that Boeing 777-200ER and the 239 people on board from the government of Malaysia.

Many things point to something rotten going on in relation to MH370. The most striking comes from commentary made on the flight’s disappearance by Tim Clark, the president and CEO of Emirates, in June, July and October (variously reported on Crikey blog Plane Talking).

To cut to the chase, Clark is accusing the Malaysian authorities of lying.

He has repeatedly drawn attention to the suppression of the nature of some items carried as cargo under the floor of the jet, which abruptly “went dark” to air traffic control radar screens when it was over the Gulf of Thailand, on track to Beijing.

Clark heads the world’s largest user of 777s, as well as A380s. He says there are indications that unauthorised access was made to an unprotected electronics and electrical systems bay reached through the floor of the forward cabin immediately behind and below the cockpit.

Boeing is refusing to comment on prior warnings from pilots that it needed to secure this hatch against such intrusions.

But on May 1, even before Clark began dissenting from the Malaysian government’s often-changed narrative, its then-acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, revealed that the Malaysian cabinet knew, on the morning that the flight “vanished”, that it had deviated westwards across the Malaysian peninsula from its last transponder-identified position heading towards Vietnam, taking a course that was headed toward the Andaman Sea.

The government of Malaysia misled the growing international search effort, causing authorities to intensify the search into the South China Sea, and as far north as Kazakhstan, despite having knowledge of the abrupt change of course of MH370 as tracked on its own military radar.

It even resisted American intelligence disclosures that the jet had eventually flown south and crashed into the southern Indian Ocean west of Perth, which appear to have been revealed unilaterally by the White House out of a frustration it shared with China, and soon after, with India, over the quality and integrity of the Malaysian response to the disappearance of MH370.

To give context to Clark’s stance, there are clear signs that the US and other powers, including China and Indonesia, know that terrorism was not involved in the diversion of the flight, but that a well-planned attempt to steal unidentified cargo went wrong, or a that a similarly intricately planned act of suicide and mass murder went right.

The focus on the south Indian Ocean search for the wreckage of the jet, which ran out of fuel seven hours and 38 or 39 minutes after takeoff, and at about the time the Malaysian cabinet knew the truth about its diversion, has kept attention off the criminal investigation, which the Malaysian authorities have subsequently refused to discuss in any detail.

While confidentiality in such investigations is very important, the question that has been increasingly heard as the months pass is: who or what is the Malaysian government protecting?

That disquiet parallels the astonishing suppression by an Australian court of allegations, made in Australian litigation, of corrupt payments being made to a south-east Asian government.

The Abbott government needs to understand that matters already reported abroad in the supposedly less free Asian media in relation to corrupt payments will, like the criminal probe into the disappearance of MH370, eventually come out — and probably fairly soon.

It would be wise to not be caught falling for the full and misleading Malaysian government narrative about MH370 as currently publicly known.

While the wreckage of the missing jet may be located sooner rather than later, it seems unlikely to reveal more than the intelligence dossiers the PM ought to read, or commission, as the case may be.

Being taken for a fool by Malaysia through an uncritical acceptance of its MH370 narrative could prove very bad political optics. MTF...:ok:

[PAIN_NET]

As airports appear to becoming of interest, the link below will take you Zippyshare where a small part of the many research documents into 'airports' has been released. They are in note form as provided to the Senate.

PAIN cannot guarantee the veracity or provenance of the 'working notes', they are offered in good faith, without prejudice in the general interest of assisting independent research. Please refer to the Senate disclaimer, page 1.

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION.

This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such
Airport Notes. –HERE (http://www29.zippyshare.com/v/72713484/file.html) -

Only click the

http://www29.zippyshare.com/images/download.png

to avoid unwanted spam and advertising material.

P7 a.k.a. TOM.

[Soteria]

It's ironic that the name Dolan means 'dark haired'! Now our Australian version of a Dolan, the Martin type, has no dark hair either on the face or upon the melon. A contradiction in meaning? Perhaps.
So what is the relevance of a hairless Beaker to the ATSB? Well the hairless Beaker is much like the Governments response to the Forsythe review - vacant, bald, without substance, even naked like, empty.
Mr Truss and his department of obsfucators are a disgrace. Again, the only way that this situation will be resolved (maybe) is if ICAO and/or the FAA have their interest piqued by a jet full of Yanks slamming into that great Spamberra monument to nothing, Parliament House. Otherwise boys it's all done and dusted, it's all over, pack up your uniforms and your flight bags, lock the door behind you and head to your local watering hole (perhaps 'The Pink' in Brisbane) and drown your sorrows. We have all become victims of BOHICA.

[Kharon]

Closely following D.C. electrics and hydraulics in my lexicon of boring or not understood things, (due massive interest failure) comes politics and the actions of politicians and those of their minders. Whether they are opening their mouths to change feet or setting fire to their feet to keep their hands warm, it is simply one of the many things I fail to understand. Not 'thick' you understand, just the hard wiring is different.

For example; MH 370 ranks up there with the Titanic as a disaster and a mystery. Perhaps even a bigger mystery; which was always (as demonstrated) going to draw a large crowd. That crowd keeping a watchful eye on the many layers of vested interest, Government, manufacturer, safety agencies, military, secret services etc. etc. Australia's SAR obligations soon became apparent and, to their credit, the government responded quickly and properly. Rapidly despatching our very competent search crews and aircraft into the wide, wild Indian Ocean; heeding neither the cost or risk, in an attempt to locate survivors and the airframe. The laudable SAR exercise was conducted by the first class Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and someone had the good sense to deal Angus Houston into the game. It was all peerlessly managed, honest, open and correct. First class job and bloody well done; by all; from the cleaning crew to Houston. Bravo.

Long before the 'theorists' got going for real, there were difficult questions, of a technical nature to answer. Conspiracy and piracy aside, there was enough 'smell' coming off the known facts to warn even the most naive, politically insensitive of creatures that this incident had the potential to turn very ugly, very fast.

So, why would anyone put the undermanned, under-skilled, under funded, discredited Australian Air Transport Safety Board (ATSB) management 'front of house' to replace the peerless AMSA and the impeccable Houston?.... Sure, it's an 'aviation' matter but without an aircraft to investigate and considering the world wide talent pool analysing the available 'aeronautical' data, the ATSB was pretty much one of the banjo players in the orchestra pit. Their practical value would be 'dubious', the clever folk, with the expensive toys would, eventually pass along their information; but not until 'they' were certain of their facts and results; at best ATSB would be an also ran in the information and analysis stakes.

Then, to crown this, a short sighted, blatant PR attempt to 'resurrect' the tarnished Bea-Cur reputation by his golfing mates. He is shoved centre stage of the MH 370 production. This mind you following closely on the heels of a 'lacklustre' performance in a Senate inquiry which clearly identified several areas of incompetence, went very close to calling the duck-up of the cover up a collusive conspiracy, shamed Dolan and by extension discredited the entire ATSB, as an entity. No one blamed the coal face troops, but mud does have it's own methodology.

Which ever way it plays (or spins) out, MH 370 has the makings of a first class political disaster. What I fail to understand is why throw more fat into the fire by putting the Mrdak/Dolan duo into a very fierce spotlight?, when they're joined at the hip. One whiff of involvement in anything remotely resembling the Pel-Air debacle and the government will catch the blame; probably not all of it, but enough to 'shorten' their credibility. If any form of cover up is ever proven and with these two, already 'suspect' under a Senate exposed 'cover up' cloud, standing front and centre it will be very hard to deny Australian complicity; given the proven track record in domestic matters. Even if there never was a cover up of any sort; the international press are no where near as tame, frightened or benign as the local variety.

Nope, just don't get it – from a chance to shine by continuing with the great job done by AMSA and Houston to being tarred by a very dirty brush; in one ill considered, badly advised move, beats me. No matter, Julia will sort it all out, being a Bishop on a chess board, rather than an Abbott running a monkery.

Selah..

[Sarcs]

What I fail to understand is why throw more fat into the fire by putting the Mrdak/Dolan duo into a very fierce spotlight?, when they're joined at the hip. One whiff of involvement in anything remotely resembling the Pel-Air debacle and the government will catch the blame; probably not all of it, but enough to 'shorten' their credibility.

While M&M, Bea-Cur & Co continue to play the WIOS for fools it would seem that Senate BOP has now shifted into NX's favour...:D:D: Palmer power weakens as Xenophon fosters allies (http://www.theage.com.au/national/palmer-power-weakens-as-xenophon-fosters-allies-20141122-11rxg3.html)
...One crossbencher said the experienced South Australian has forged a close bond with Ms Lambie. "Nick has been duchessing Jacqui. He sat and giggled away with her all day in the chamber during the FOFA [Future of Financial Advice] vote," he said.

Another source said: "He's the powerbroker again; the government knows that, that's why they've called this briefing. Nick loves it. He wants to be the linchpin. He wants to be the guy who makes or breaks legislation. He's always wanted that."

Senator Xenophon, whose huge personal popularity in South Australia delivered his Nick Xenophon Group one in four upper house votes in that state at the last election, is known as a wily political pragmatist with a good antenna for the public mood.

Labor Senator Sam Dastyari, who drove the FOFA coup, said: "Graham Richardson called him the most talented politician in Canberra, and it's hard not to agree with that assessment. There's a lot of ego in politics but Nick doesn't let his ego get in the way of doing what he believes is right..."
Now the fact the miniscule is recuperating at home for probably the last Parliamentary sitting days for the year...

" Mr ABBOTT(Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:12): The Deputy Prime Minister is recuperating at home from an illness and will not be in question time this week. Questions to him should instead be directed to the Treasurer..."

...plays perfectly into M&M's hands for stalling any real action on the Forsyth report or the Board position announcements etc. till effectively the New Year; however it will not stop the pending TSBC released report as promised by Bea-Cur...:rolleyes: Senator FAWCETT: And the time frame for that to come back?

Mr Dolan : We had a teleconference with our Canadian counterparts last Friday and they assured us that their report would be published by 1 December.

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - ATSB - YouTube

Or will it??:ugh: Given the suspicions of complicity with the TSBC stalling the release of the final report so far it would not be a small stretch to think that they will do it again..and again till the WIOS has lost interest or fallen asleep...:zzz:

However I don't think NX will rest on his laurels if the TSBC sail past their promised due date without the report being - also as promised - published on their website...:= {nor is it guaranteed the WIOS will be so BOHICA when it comes to the TSBC terminally stalled report..:E}

NX will still have 3 sitting days to bring this next attempt of obfuscation (if that is what transpires) - call it the cover-up of the duck-up of the cover-up - by Bea-Cur (& his top-cover Mandarin) to the attention of the Parliament.

Not to mention he has time to put pressure on the Privileges Committee to get on with it an release their AAI MoP report preferably before the New Year...:zzz:

To the self-serving Mandarin and his minions there is a new paradigm in the Senate and gone are the days when you can merely thumb your nose to the good Senator X...:E

It will indeed be interesting when this debate finally resumes:

Government Response to AAI report 20/03/14 - Senator Xenophon not happy! - YouTube

MTF...:ok:

Ps In regards to the Ben Sandilands MEMO to the PM it is well worth remembering that there is no love lost between NX & the KL Govt...:E: Deportation from Malaysia 'a big mistake': Independent Senator Nick Xenophon (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/deported-nick-xenophon-lands-in-australia-from-malaysia/story-fndo3ewo-1226579643228)

[Sarcs]

Speaking on yet another of the current crop of executive, obfuscating, bureaucrats that fall under Mandarin Mrdak's murky spell remember this...:=

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 20/10/2014 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Airservices Australia (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Fb2ac266 9-3dee-4a38-960a-1a82388dccaa%2F0008;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Fb2 ac2669-3dee-4a38-960a-1a82388dccaa%2F0000%22)

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - AirServices Part 1 - YouTube

CHAIR: Well, Mr Mrdak, you and I must have a discussion immediately following the shut-down of this committee in 30 seconds about the matter that was raised earlier... Well here is ASA CEO Ms Staib AVM (not retired) belated explanation to the Heff
Dear Senator Heffernan

SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET ESTIMATES OCTOBER 2014

I write regarding statements made at the Senate Estimates Hearing on 20 October 2014.

I wish to correct the record for the following section that appears in the Hansard:

Date Monday 20 October 2014 Page 145
In response to a question from Senator Sterle relating to a staff member's misuse of an Airservices Corporate credit card. I stated:

Ms Staib: lt is in the order of about 10, 000 to 20, 000 dollars and it was around travel, if my memory serves me correctly.

This matter was complex as the credit card misuse related primarily to inappropriate expenses being incurred during periods of approved business travel. In some cases, travel had been modified or adjusted without approval.

The misuse was identified through internal credit card governance processes and thoroughly investigated. The investigation conclusively identified transactions where personal benefit had been obtained that amounted to less than $3,000 in total.


In considering all the circumstances of this matter, including some complex matters of a private nature, the decision reached by management was to terminate employment and not refer the matter further.

Airservices complied with all relevant guidelines and policies in relation to both the conduct of the investigation and the subsequent management actions. This includes provisions of the Australian Government Investigation Standard 2011 and the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011 which give guidance to agencies on circumstances where referral to external law enforcement or prosecution agencies is appropriate.

Section 10.10 of the Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines 2011 is particularly relevant, stating that:

"Agencies are responsible for investigating routine or minor instances of fraud, including investigating disciplinary matters. 'Routine or minor' means instances of fraud that, on initial assessment by the agency, would be unlikely to be accepted by the Australian Federal Police under its Case Categorisation Prioritisation Model."

We are, however, in discussion with the Australian Federal Police about whether there is anything additional that would enhance our processes for assessing and referring cases.

Airservices takes a very strong approach to the misuse of corporate credit cards and has robust processes and procedures in place todetect and respond to any instance of misuse. Regular reviews and audits of compliance with credit card and travel procedures are conducted across the organisation.

I trust that this appropriately clarifies the situation for the Committee.


Yours sincerely

Margaret Staib

Chief Executive Officer
24November 2014

So again we get the standard spin and further clarification that it is ops normal & under control..."move along nothing to see here".:yuk::yuk:
Do you think if we fraudently received $3000+ dollars of Centrelink payments that we would get off with a simple slap on the wrist and a do not pass GO do not collect $200...not bloody likely..:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

"[routine] or minor instances of fraud, including investigating disciplinary matters. 'Routine or minor' means instances of fraud that,"
Is it just me ?, but it seems that minor fraud (tickling the till) is just a routine part of the daily round; and, provided you don't take too much, too often, there is little to fear - provided you don't upset the milking by getting caught with a big lump. That would upset the system as everyone else who was 'at it' would have to stop until the heat was off; so if you just keep it at a 'minor', routine level; all will be well. Correct Toto; this ain't Kansas.

It seems Nick Xenophon may have gained some extra Senate leverage, if Lambi can be persuaded to play nice; this could be a good thing for KC. When Karen asked Senator Lambi for assistance, the Senator went out of her way, despite the negativity and direct opposition of her advisors and actually wrote to the PM, supporting Karen's cause. For that, if for nothing else she becomes one of the 'good Senators'. Perhaps, if similar interest in, and assistance for the industry could be gained Nick and his colleagues may, finally shake something positive loose from the death grip Mrdak has on the aviation handbrake.

December 1 is the next milestone, when, "late in the Canadian Autumn" (Kinda poetic that, ain't it; useless, but it has a certain je ne sais quoi) - the TSBC finally release their manicured 'peer review' of the ATSB. What's the betting it will be published one minute to Canadian midnight Dec 1; primped, preened and massaged to a fare thee well. The ToR will keep the thing low key (moribund) and as it's essentially a 'look-see' at the paperwork, it may not generate any fireworks. The 'department' will certainly not be expecting surprises, Bea-Cur has been reappointed and (according to his press catamite) 'leads' the MH 370 search, so the required conclusions will probably turn up; on time. Only five sleeps to go now, NX and the Senate crew will be waiting for it, lets hope it makes it's deathline.

Toot toot.

Addendum: At least Ben Sandilands has the courage to discuss the unsavoury aspects of the MH 370 disaster; rather the lunch menu, who ate what and who paid. He also seems to be the only Australian journalist with enough national pride to point out that this whole thing could reflect badly on the country, the government and the agencies of that government.

Thanks Ben – Plane Taking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/) – today. Food for thought, for those who can think beyond the rice (or spaghetti) bowl.

[Australopithecus]

A point, your honour, if i may:

The seasons officially change on the solstice in the northern hemisphere. The indeed picturesque phrase "Canadian Autumn" extends right up to Sun, Dec 21. And that should pretty much be that as far as any attention being paid by the News Corpuscles.

I aim to make a phone call over there shortly, eh?

[Sarcs]

Good call Austra...:D:D

This is the dude you need to ask for...

[email protected]

As for Ben's latest..:rolleyes:: MH370: Vast margins for error and disagreement in search zones (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/) ...this part is pure gold..:EThis account of the disunity among the advisory panels that appears in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/articles/search-for-malaysia-airlines-flight-370-hampered-by-disagreements-1416887764) coincides with bean counter stress in the Australian Government, where there is argument as to whether or how soon it should or could back away from its promised determination to see the deep ocean search throught to a successful conclusion. And these should be sending warning bells to the PM, miniscule & by default M&M and his muppet Bea-Cur..:E:
...It parallels serious, but in Australia, suppressed allegations about highly improper bribes said to have been paid by an Australian government owned enterprise to senior figures in political or adminstrative establishments in SE Asia.

Mr Clark’s allegations, which amount to calling the Malaysia authorities liars, underline the serious risk to the credibility the MH370 search poses for the Australian Government if it uncritically accepts the official Kuala Lumpur narrative concerning the loss of the jet, and its ‘secret’ under floor cargo...

...Australia is carrying out its obligations under international treaty to search for the wreckage of MH370 as it came down within its defined maritime and aviation search, rescue and recovery zone covering a large part of the Indian Ocean.

But it has no obligation to be effusive, uncritical, unquestioning or gullible.. TICK...TOCK one and all in Scamberra..:E

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Austral - Oh, nicely played, good shot sir..Have a choccy frog....:D..:D

We shall allow the learned collegues point to be admitted – but, using the telephone is a very modern concept – we shall consider the motion. Meanwhile. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju4c6iAnQNs)

[Australopithecus]

Thanks Sarcs. Mrs. Confidential Informant informs me that Mr. C.I. Is out doing whatever it is that Spiderpigs do. She was not privy to the inner machinations of this particular exercise but she was quietly, gently sceptical of us finding the holy grail.

I hope she is too cautious by half, but I have always trusted her b.s. detector. Saw right through me all those years ago:ouch:

On edit: a choccy frog from Kharon! Doing the happy dance now m'Lud.

[Sarcs]

Interesting comments coming through on Ben's - MH370: Vast margins for error and disagreement in search zones (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comments) - especially from about here...:E:Tango
Posted November 26, 2014 at 3:17 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29713)
And as I have noted before, its a waste of time and I think the government of Australia (or anywhere else) is obligated to protect the treasury and use the money in the best interest of the people of said country
Frankly this is just grand standing. 100 million plus
on a crap shoot? You really have to be kidding me.
colossal waste of money that in the end will tell you nothing even if the wreckage is found (other than all the conspireacy theories are wrong, not that in turn does not get more conspiracy theories about how it was all covered up)
Yes the Malaysian lied through their teeth. to what ends not a clue, maybe they just are pathological liars. That does not mean that a pilot hijack is not a simple and plausible explanation .
US would kill 200 some people to protect a stupid drone system that is only good for low intensity conflict (which china would not be) shees, amazing. Not to mention its another bogus story. Bring on the Aliens and the probes

Simon Gunson
Posted November 26, 2014 at 3:26 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29714)
Giant Bird MH370 would have been discovered by now if they had not abandoned the search for debris spotted by prior to 27 March.
That was when Malaysia applied pressure to the JACC through the Joint Investigation Team (“JIT”) to abandon efforts to locate large floating debris and shift the search north.(NB ATSB Report 26 June pages 6-10)
Airline Operations Staff at Malaysian Airlines (MAS) recalculated the fuel based on an assumption that MH370 did not turn South at 6.792N, 95.901E, but kept flying further north towards Car Nicobar Island. Why they recalculated the turn point seems arbitrary, but in doing so they imposed a fuel constraint to exclude MH370 having reached the debris field.
The point I am making is that Malaysia have kept redirecting the search away from clues. That is why the search has been so expensive and fruitless.

Simon Gunson
Posted November 26, 2014 at 3:39 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29715)
Tango the first attempt by Malaysia to divert the search effort away from clues was four days after MH370 disappeared when news emerged of an aircraft sighted on fire by oil rig worker Mike McKay, when they spun an enormous lie that a pilot hijacked the plane through the Straits of Malacca and photo-shopped an image of an SSR radar and claimed it to be from a military Thales Raytheon GM400 based at Butterworth.
That in itself tells one something. If an aircraft was sighted on fire at 35,000ft then it immediately indicates there was a fire inside the cabin which self extinguished through decompression once it had flared through a melt hole.
The reason why is because a naked flame cannot survive at 35,000ft outside the aircraft, but could have emerged from a fire inside the cabin.
All the facts point to an electrical fire. Since 2010 there have been 17 cockpit fire/smoke incidents or in-flight electrical failures to Boeing 777 aircraft.
Statistically the odds were certain that someday an electrical fire would claim a Boeing 777 however the risk of unlimited civil liability both for MAS and Boeing from finding MH370 are so huge they would rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a great charade to falsely prove that MH370 can’t be found.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee Tango that this is just theatrics by the JACC who know perfectly well they are looking in the wrong place and wasting money.

Ben Sandilands
Posted November 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29716)
Simon,
The object sighted by the oil rig worker appears to have been recorded by the global fireball network which now tracks up to several dozen large bolides a day and is often able to provide orbital elements. This was one of the first databases checked out by the science community. You can work back through the potential matches for the claimed sighting by following the links on Space Weather.
The oil rig sighting unfortunately tells us stuff all. Incidentally fire doesn’t self extinguish in a decompressed airliner unless it is defying gravity and velocity and moving very slowly. You need to educate yourself on the strength of the slipstream and the consequences for fire risk. There are numerous technical papers on this but I’m not your librarian.

Simon Gunson
Posted November 26, 2014 at 4:15 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29717)
Ben Sandilands, the “JIT” team which urged the JACC to abandon searching for the large debris field east of Kerguelen islands includes MAS pilot Lim Jit Koon and senior civil aviation official Ahmad Nizar Zolfakar.
In the introduction to the ATSB Report dated 26 June 2014, Page.1, the ATSB states:
“On 17 March 2014, Australia took charge of the coordination of the search and rescue operation. Over the next 6 weeks from 18 March, an intensive aerial and surface search was conducted by assets from Australia, Malaysia, China, Japan, Korea, UK and the USA.
During this period, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and the ATSB jointly determined a search area strategy correlating information from a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) located in Malaysia and other government and academic sources.”
Then further into the same report at page 6 states:
“On 27 March (D20), the JIT advised they now had more confidence in the increased speeds provided by primary radar near Malaysia. This increased the aircraft fuel burn and the most probable track moved north to the S3 area. The JIT additionally had more confidence that a 7th arc was a fuel exhaustion point. Two new search areas designated S4 and S5 were defined.”
and later;
“On 1 April (D25) the JIT advised AMSA/ ATSB of further aircraft performance and path analysis starting at a distance further NW of Sumatra that had the effect of shifting the most probable area NE within S4 and into S5.”
The search for the southern debris field was in fact abandoned on 27 March ostensibly in relation to a storm however that storm was close inshore to Western Australia and had no effect on the search area itself and thus the storm was just a false pretext by the JACC to abandon the debris field.

Simon Gunson
Posted November 26, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29718)
Fire at 35,000ft lacks the stochiometric conditions to stay alight. You may have heard of a fire triangle in which you need heat and oxygen plus fuel. At 35,000ft the temperature drops to minus 53 degrees Celsius thus subtracting heat.
At 35,000ft the oxygen content drops too low to sustain a flame. Flames only exist in jet engines due to compression. Pilots are well aware that their APU generators can’t be relit or started above 22-24,000ft.
Any fire inside the cabin would self extinguish as soon as the heat had melted an escape path through the aluminium skin. The sighting by McKay tells us that he saw the flaring of a cabin fire from an aircraft which self extinguished.

Giant Bird
Posted November 26, 2014 at 4:51 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29719)
Simon,
Irrespective of what might of happened or should have happened it is time to stop throwing good money after bad. Australia really has no skin in the game, it was not our aircraft, we do not make any aircraft, we do not even have an international airline of any major size any more. Why should we care about this. If Malaysia is trying to cover up, then they win, so what do we care. If it is important to Tim Clark let the UAE find the plane.

Ben Sandilands
Posted November 26, 2014 at 4:58 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/26/mh370-search-vast-margins-for-error-and-disagreement/#comment-29720)
Simon,
Your recollection of the storm is bizarre and completely at odds with the live tv coverage of the sorties that were attempting a low level search in conjunction with various state naval vessels and passing freighters.
The search was not close to the Australia coastline, it took a long time to get there, and to the frustration of myself and a few colleagues, there were sightings of floating objects that could have included the pallets listed as carrying mangosteens.
In your presumably parallel universe, the 777 caught fire and crashed way to the SE of Vietnam while it replicated itself to fly west across the Malaysia peninsula. I’m with you as to the obviously compromised official narratives, but not ready to fill the dark spaces with some of the inventions or suppositions that have been made to date. Besides the fact that it is quite obvious that Simon quite likes the sound of his own cyber-voice - what this passage of comments more than adequately highlights is why anyone in their right mind would want to be associated with the MH370 mystery (read Abbott Government) and in particular the shonky KL government is beyond me...:{ Then if we are to be inextricably involved why oh why would you take it off AMSA - who are the experts in SAR - & place it in the hands of muppet Beaker with his long list of discredited achievements??:{

PM to TA: The Malaysians are toxic..even the man at the back of the room can see that..:ugh:

FFS...TICK..TOCK TA/M&M/Wuss & Co...:E

MTF...:ok:

ps What GF said here you go:28/11/2014
1:15PM - 3:00PM Senate, Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport Legislation Committee (Performance of Airservices Australia) http://www.aph.gov.au/images/template/icons/playback-hi-disabled.png http://www.aph.gov.au/images/template/icons/playback-lo-disabled.png http://www.aph.gov.au/images/template/icons/playback-audio-disabled.pngBit of light end of week entertainment...:E

[Soteria]

Sarcs, great post that last one..Please step up and receive your 1.5 Choccy frogs. (Sorry, I had to give something to Kharon's dog, damn thing bailed me up!)
As for Ben's article, smart bugger that boy. Some very interesting ripples in the space time continuum opening up. Most interesting is that in every high stakes game you need a patsy, a fall guy. Well the Malaysians found one - The Beaker. The ATSB, Abbott and Co appear to have fallen victim to a not so obvious ploy. It's incredible how downright stupid they are. You have Beaker, Sam Eagle (MrDak) and Statler and Waldorf (Truss and Abbott) completely naive to the machinations of the real powers manipulating the MH370 investigation, and stupidly following every red herring being tossed about. Pure gold!

I believe that Mr David Johnstones quote about Australia's billion dollar submarine building 'lemon' industry could be used to describe what team Beaker are currently doing - "rhetorical flourish"!

[Gentle_flyer]

Hmmm

Let's see how many rhetorical flourishes we can pick tomorrow at the special hearing of the RRAT senate committee!

Topic: Performance of Airservices

Details at the Watch Parliament website

[Kharon]

Jeez Gentle: not sure how much more of the ASA line of nonsense I can stomach: more passing the buck, more protecting the obscene AUD $100, 000, 000 screwed out industry; more ways to line personal pockets; more kick-backs, more credit card questions, more scripted lines, more questions on notice, to be answered later, much later. More Mrdak conducting the well trained Seals orchestra....:yuk:

And for what, more of the same service, more 'corporate' service Muppets, more un-investigated separation breakdowns, even more exhausted controllers under increasing stress levels, more ATC overtime worked by those with less training. Less equipment, more and longer delays: etc. etc....:ugh:

Nah, I'd rather watch a replay of MKR; or better still - Air Disaster Investigations – at least they get the aircraft type right and attempt investigation – which is at least marginally entertaining. Anything; any mind numbing, stultifying, puerile rubbish, rather than listen to Staib attempting to read aloud from a spin sheet, or gulping down bile as she does another stunned mullet interpretation during the search for a credible answer; or, worse, tries to remember who that responsible 'someone else' is to not answer the question. Nope; I'd rather chew my leg off.

The Senate reaction to the QON will be worth noting though. Steam on, perhaps??

[Sarcs]

Hmm...you maybe right "K" yet another in a long line of Senate inquisitions - where we get to observe obfuscating public servants thumbing their noses at the RRAT committee Senators...:ugh:

However judging from the QON index for Sup Estimates (see here (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/QoN_Index.pdf) from about page 92 onwards) it is quite obvious that the non-partisan alliance of RRAT Committee Senators is growing and their anger is universally palpable...:uhoh:

Now although we all know by now that M&M and his cronies will drag out answering - this long list of very damning QONs - till just before the Additional Estimates in February 2015, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that many of the QONs to ASA will be put to Ms Staib tomorrow arvo...:rolleyes: That alone could make the nearly 2 hour Senate inquisition of reasonable entertainment value...:E

Examples:
QON 228/Gallacher/ Medium Works Projects:
1. When did Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 139 subpart H come into effect?
2. When was it subsequently decided to assess airfields around the country for compliance of CAS Regulations?
3. When was the need brought to the Board’s attention?
4. What decisions were made at Board level regarding compliance assessments, builds and refurbishments?
5. When did consultation with CASA begin and what was the nature of that negotiation?
6. When did consultations with the Pricing Consultative Committee begin and what was the nature of that consultation?
7. Who won the successful tender for each of these medium work projects?
8. I note that the Airservices Australia Board meeting approved works for Ballina and Coffs Harbour at the September 2013 meeting. At which meetings were the other projects approved?
9. Did the Board consider the Newman and Gladstone projects given the tenders closed on the same day (14 June 2014) as the Ballina and Coffs Harbour at this meeting?
10. What caused the delay in the execution of the Ballina and Coffs Harbour contracts until March 2014 given the tenders closed on 14 June 2013?
11. Do the costings include cost of fitouts for projects where it is noted that after the completion date “… this will be followed by a fitout of the structure”?
12. Who is the successful tenderer for each project?

QON 230/Gallacher/ Corporate Credit Cards:
1. How many corporate credit cards have been issued to directors and employees of Airservices Australia?
2. What are Airservices Australia’s credit limits on these issued credit cards?
3. What are Airservices Australia’s protocols pertaining to the use of the corporate credit cards?
4. What are Airservices Australia’s protocols for inadvertent or deliberate misuse of corporate credit cards?

QON 231/Gallacher/ Civil Aviation Regulation Part 139:
1. In reference to Civil Aviation Regulation Part 139 Subpart H that came into effect in 2003, what is the date that the 11 projects (discussed in the Senate Estimates Hearings in October 2014) clicked over 350,000 passengers?
2. How many of those projects were not completed within the 12 month statutory timeframe?

QON 237/Xenophon/ Breakdown of Communication Incident:
I refer to the breakdown of communication incident described in REPCON AR201300090.
1. How much time elapsed between the time the breakdown of communication occurred and the time the breakdown was detected and corrected?
2. Can Airservices provide a copy of the Airservices Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System report mentioned in the REPCON?
3. Can Airservices provide a copy of the preliminary investigation it conducted into the Incident?
4. Can Airservices provide a copy of the radar recording of the Essendon Tower, Melbourne Approach & Melbourne Tower areas of responsibility between the time the breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected?
5. Can Airservices provide a copy of the radar recording of the Essendon Tower, Melbourne Approach & Melbourne Tower areas of responsibility between the time the breakdown of communication occurred and the time it was detected and corrected?
6. Can Airservices provide a copy of the Essendon Tower, Melbourne Approach & Melbourne Tower Airways Operations Journals for the day of the Incident?
7. Can Airservices provide a copy of the Essendon Tower, Melbourne Approach & Melbourne Tower Local Instructions & any associated Letters of Agreement laying out coordination and control responsibilities between those parties? {Link for AR201300090 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2013/ar201300090.aspx)}
Comment: That is the most amount of QONs related to aviation that I have ever seen for Supplementary Estimates??:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

[Kharon]

Wolf pack? circling? – don't know if that holds true any longer Sarcs. Reading through the QON, I get a feeling the circling is just about over. Actually, a better analogy may be of a pre game – Haka (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUiGF4TGI9w) – the challenge before the battle. Those QON are 'distributed' among a team with, it seems to me, a clear game plan and a determination to win.

Although it's paper, not pig skin being used, you get the feeling of a Final, leading to a Grand final; with it all to play for. The volume and almost surgical precision of the QON, evenly divided amongst the backs and forwards, with clear lines of distribution make for an interesting contest. No doubt the foul count will mount in the rucks and nuts will be 'tickled' in the maul; but both sides know the rules and, although the Senate team may appear more elegant, never forget Rugby (as played in heaven) was essentially a game for young 'gentlemen', of a class which didn't get to rule half the world because it was overawed by a rough looking opposition.

OK, you dragged me in, I'll watch; and, read the Hansard – but only for love of the game well played mind you. I'll be using your bucket..:D

Selah.

[Lookleft]

Besides the fact that it is quite obvious that Simon quite likes the sound of his own cyber-voice

I would imagine in a parallel cyber universe Simon is saying exactly the same thing. The pot and the kettle are screaming at the top of their stainless steel lungs.:D

[Sarcs]

For those interested here is a link for today's Senate RRAT Committee Proceedings: 28/11/2014 1:15PM - 3:00PM AEDT Senate, Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport Legislation Committee (Performance of Airservices Australia) http://www.aph.gov.au/images/template/icons/live.png (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void(0))High (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void(0)) Low (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void(0)) Also for those interested from the QON index -

First on the subject of the TSBC peer review of the bureau - these are Senator Xenophon's written questions to the bureau:
239/ATSB/XENOPHON/Canadian TSB:
1. Does the ATSB have a date for the Canadian TSB to complete and table its report?
a. At what stage is the investigation?
b. Has a draft report been completed?
2. In response to a question I placed on notice last estimates (Q. 258), the ATSB provided a list of documents that it had given the TSB. Is this a complete list of all documents provided?
a. Has the TSB requested any further information since?
b. The response to this question states that the TSB obtained a copy of this committee’s inquiry into the Pel-Air incident ‘of its own initiative’. Did this occur before or after the ATSB provided documents?
c. Why didn’t the ATSB provide the committee report?
3. In response to a line of questioning from Senator Fawcett in February estimates this year, Mr Dolan stated that three incidents were referred to the TSB as part of its review – the Pel-Air incident, the Canley Vale incident, and the winching accident at Bridal Veil Falls. Why was no documentation relating to the last two incidents included on the list you provided to me on notice?
a. What documentation relating to these incidents has been provided to the TSB? When did this occur?
b. Why wasn’t this information included in the response to my question on notice?
From the CAsA QONs some of Senator Fawcett's written QONs of interest:
249/CASA/FAWCETT/Personnel:
1. In 2010 CASA identified a need for additional funding which was provided for by an increase in the excise on aviation fuel. Part of this funding was for 97 personnel. Taking into consideration that 50 of the 97 positions identified in 2010 were already filled, have all the qualified personnel now been recruited to fill the 97 positions identified in 2010?
2. Since July 2010, as at 30 June 2014, CASA has recruited 153 new employees. Why has an additional 106 employees above the 47 identified in 2010 (a 226% increase from that identified in 2010) been recruited by CASA?
3. Of the additional 153 employees recruited by CASA since July 2010 at least 91 (59%) of these appear to be in support roles associated to Corporate Services. Why has Corporate Services increased while operational staff has decreased?
4. In 2010 CASA indicated that specialists in certain specific areas are difficult to recruit. Is CASA still having problems attracting experienced personnel and if so, for what roles?
5. In the Portfolio Budget Statements provided in May 2014 CASA indicated that they are forecasting a $9.6m loss for the 2013/14 financial year (a net change of 9.8m). On cross referencing the 2014/15 Portfolio Budget Statements with the 2013/14 Portfolio Budget Statements it shows that Employee Benefits have increased by $7m from that anticipated or 75% of the net $9.8m change. Why has there been an increase of $7m for employee benefits to that anticipated last year?
6. The 2012/13 annual report for CASA shows that they made a profit last year of $12m. With the changes now forecast by CASA this will provide a $21.6m turnaround into the red. Most of this turnaround appears to be due to a $17.2m increase (80% of the net turnaround) in employee benefits. Taking into consideration that the number of personnel employed by CASA only increased by 5 over the financial year why is there such a significant increase in employee benefits since 30 June 2013?
250/CASA/FAWCETT/Medicals:
1. What is CASA’s policy on retention of pilots’ medical documents? How long are these retained, are any retained for auditing purposes and what is the policy for disposal? Please make particular mention in regard to 162A forms.
2. What is CASA’s policy for timely responses to correspondence from aviation personnel? Does this policy vary for letters, emails, phone calls?
3. Does CASA at times require specialists’ reports to support an aviation medical? How many reports does CASA usually require? Does CASA assist in the cost of obtaining these reports?
4. Does CASA at times require specialists’ reports to support an aviation medical? How many reports does CASA usually require? Does CASA assist in the cost of obtaining these reports?
One short, sharp written QON from the Heff gave me a chuckle...:}:
247/CASA/HEFFERNAN/Definition of Airworthiness:
What is CASA’s definition of airworthiness? Hmm...wonder where he is going with that??:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

[Creampuff]

Airworthiness? I'll take a punt:

The extent to which an aircraft complies with its type design, through construction in accordance with that design, compliance with applicable instructions for continuing airworthiness and operations within mandated limitations.

[aroa]

That beat up, poorly maintained C-172 with known but hidden defects has a current Maintenance Release. This makes it a legally flyable entity.
..ie airworthy. But is it ??

The Maint. regs dont specify, but there are TWO types of aircraft when discussing maintenance...for continuing "airworthiness"

Those WITH an current MR..ie deemed "airworthy" and flyable
Those WITHOUT an MR..ie not legally flyable, ie not airworthy.

In BOTH cases you will find the good, the bad and the downright dangerous.!

:ok:Very good question, Heff..! :ok: rgds ;The Liar'

[slats11]

You would suspect current customers of PelAir are following events closely. If there was ever another incident (God forbid) and given the controversy, they could find themselves on a precarious position.

Navy and Vic ambulance I recall. Who else are regular customers? Probably also some ad hoc customers.

[Sarcs]

I think it would be fair to say that there is sh:mad:t on Senator Sterle's liver and there is a couple of Senators who are not far behind him...:=:=

Senate RRAT Committee 28/11/14 - Performance of Airservices Australia Part 1 - YouTube

Does not look good for Ms Staib at this stage...:{

Slight interlude with Hoody ducking & weaving on Melbourne LAHSO incident (i.e. pilot reported to Senator Xenophon)...:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0mdJUX4LFk

Here's a thought maybe we should address all REPCON/CONFIDENTIAL reports to Nick seems to be far more effective...:E

MTF...:ok: