Merged: Senate Inquiry [Archive] - Page 6

ACT Crusader

6th Jul 2011, 22:46

Did anyone else see Nick Xenephon's questions in the Senate yesterday?

Hansard transcript below:

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:46): Always in the back row, Mr President. My question is to Senator Evans in his capacity as Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. In the recent Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry into pilot training and aviation safety, the issue of using foreign crews for domestic flights was raised. These overseas based crews are employed on foreign contracts and recent media reports state that, for instance, Jetstar flight attendants on overseas contracts get paid a fraction of what Australian based flight attendants are paid and can work shifts of up to 22 hours compared to 12 hours for Australian based flight attendants. They apparently have no recourse to workers compensation laws in Australia despite effectively doing significant amounts of domestic flight work. Is the minister aware of foreign crews flying what are essentially domestic routes? What is the government's position on such workers in Australia being paid such low wages under such harsh conditions?

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:46): I thank Senator Xenophon for the question. I am aware of allegations of foreign crew operating on Australian domestic routes. I think it is important to draw the distinction between foreign crew operating on domestic routes and foreign crew operating on foreign airlines that have routes through Australia. The allegations about foreign crew operating on Australian domestic routes I take seriously and I have directly raised that issue with Qantas. They have responded to those concerns. We in this government believe that Australian jobs must be protected and that foreign workers, when employed in Australia, must be protected from exploitation and are entitled to the protection of Australian industrial conditions if they are involved in domestic activities in Australia.

Overseas workers play an important part in meeting critical skills shortages in this country, but they will not be permitted to be used as a source of cheap labour. That is why we made the changes we did to the 457 visa regulations. We believe those workers deserve the same protections as Australian workers. I am advised that the Fair Work Ombudsman initiated an investigation on 20 May this year into allegations about the exploitation of foreign crew raised by the Australian and International Pilots Association and other sources. Obviously I cannot comment on that investigation, but I understand that investigations are ongoing. I can confirm that senior representatives of that agency have recently met with the Pilots Association and Jetstar on the issue. As I said, some of those concerns have been taken up by me as minister and I have sought assurances about those. It is also the case that the Fair Work Ombudsman has had the matters referred to him and has commenced an investigation.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:48): I have a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the minister for his answer. I understand that Jetstar contracts that these foreign crews are employed under enable not only shifts of 22 hours but minimal rest periods that are not considered adequate for Australian cabin attendants. These crew members are vulnerable to severe fatigue during their shifts. Is the government concerned about the occupational health and safety implications of this, particularly as these foreign crews do not have access to the same workplace rights and protections as Australian crew and so cannot take action for fear of losing their jobs?

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:49): I think there is a range of issues there and I will take on notice some aspects of the question. The first point to make is that for those persons operating in Australia temporarily on other than Australian conditions, clearly if there are concerns about safety or their shifts, they will be raised with CASA. The bottom line is that if there are safety concerns then CASA ought to be informed. I urge anyone who has concerns about those sorts of matters to raise them with CASA as the appropriate agency.

Obviously the question of industrial conditions of foreign crew operating on other than Australian domestic routes is a slightly different matter, but we would be concerned if there were any issues surrounding fatigue of crew and inappropriate hours being worked. As I said, people ought to take any suggestions of that to CASA. (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:50): For the minister's information, there are currently no rules that apply in relation to CASA for cabin crew fatigue. I ask a further supplementary question, Mr President. Given that there is an investigation underway by the Fair Work Ombudsman, will the minister liaise with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to see if there has been an abuse of the international rules of cabotage in relation to the use of such flight attendants on Australian domestic routes?

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:50): Certainly, I am happy to take up the issue that Senator Xenophon has raised and have a chat with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Albanese. We have had some broad discussions about some of these issues, but not the particular allegations that Senator Xenophon is referring to today. We are very concerned, as recent events have proved, to make sure that we put safety as the first priority in Australia's airline industry—be they Australian owned or foreign owned aircraft. I accept that the issue of crews' hours and potential fatigue is a key part of any safety consideration. I understand what Senator Xenophon said about CASA, but I would have thought there is an overarching responsibility for safety that would allow them to respond to concerns about fatigue. I am happy to take that matter up as well with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport because I would be concerned if that was not treated as a very serious issue. (Time expired)

The Kelpie

6th Jul 2011, 23:05

It is evident that Senator X is still very much on the case post the report being published.

Given the scope of the report these issues did not get covered however that does not mean they have been forgotten!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

framer

7th Jul 2011, 00:33

Good work senator X.
One could be forgiven for thinking you are a pollie with integrity :eek:

Xcel

7th Jul 2011, 01:41

Finally the magic words were uttered...

I was wondering when this cabotage saga would start. The current agreements with Singapore and new Zealand do not circumvent the current rules on cabotage yet loopholes are being exploited. In EVERY other industry cabotage is the backbone of their operations. Once again look at the marine industry, it's the only reason we have one, otherwise ships would sail down from Asia every day to operate our rigs etc. When will they get a clue?

Good work senator btw, shows how little the government do know about there portfolios "we have spoken to qantas" oh and what did they say? How about INVESTIGATING it instead of flicking an email with a quick - excuse me are you being naughty mr qantas?

Anyway - end rant!

ejectx3

7th Jul 2011, 02:17

I just rang him to leave a message of thanks for his efforts. :ok:

What The

8th Jul 2011, 00:04

There is a poll running at Aviation Business: Home (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/)

It may need some Pprune attention given the current state of matters.

mikewil

8th Jul 2011, 01:29

does anybody have an idea of when we can expect some action on the senate recommendations? is this going to be one of those things that sits on a shelf for 5 years before anything is mentioned again?

BombsGone

8th Jul 2011, 02:08

Listening to the transport ministers comments since the report, I don't think there will be movement on the requirement for an ATPL in Jet ops. His only comments have been to associate this recommendation with the unions, and state that "we will consult experts", which is political code for I'm looking for someone to give me the answer I want. You can have all the reports you like but if the relevant minister doesn't want to act change will be slow if at all.

mikewil

8th Jul 2011, 02:22

and this minister has no concern over the fact that failing to implement this could lead to blood on his hands if we have a serious accident 10-20 years from now? surely just implementing the senate recommendations is just safer and easier for him.

what does he have to gain from not implementing the ATPL requirement?

BombsGone

8th Jul 2011, 04:51

Bruce Buchanan was in the Australian today with very similar comments to what the minister has said. The thrust is that he believes the 1500 hour minimum is a cynical ploy to keep pilot wages high. In doing so he exposes what should be obvious, that the Jetstar cadetship is all about lowering barriers to entry and keeping downward pressure on pilot pay and conditions.

Having exposed his motivation behind pushing for low hour cadetships, he fails to mention that the recommendation for a minimum of 1500 hours was made by an independent panel of senators.

Arguments will continue but what we need is a truly independent regulator whose staff have sufficient experience to see through self interest on both sides. Not staff who would prefer to be working for the companies they regulate. Yes I am pushing for higher pay for key CASA positions, indeed some selective poaching from the airlines into CASA would be a good thing. Having people who can see through the spin and have industry experience is key.

Prince Niccolo M

8th Jul 2011, 07:50

xcel and others,

I do not understand this hang-up about cabotage. Cabotage in aviation is the legal restriction to domestic carriers of air transport between points within a country's borders.

It is about flags of registry, in this case the State that issued the AOC. Jetstar is an Australian domestic carrier and by definition cannot breach the laws of cabotage within Australia.

The whole aircraft can be crewed with martians (provided the pilots have valid CoVs) because it is the operator, not the crew or the State of registration of the aircraft, to which the laws of cabotage apply.

Sarcs

8th Jul 2011, 09:34

Seems the 'House of Reps' has 3 months to respond to the Inquiry report (see link from Senate Hansard 07/07/11 pg 74) from the good Senators. So people time to lobby your MP and keep Minister :mad: Fumblenese honest!:D:=

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds070711.pdf

gobbledock

8th Jul 2011, 09:46

What chance do you really think Aus aviation safety has ? The incompetent Albanese leading the pack, a CASA board consisting of bureaucrats, two washed up has been pilots as Director and Deputy Director of aviation safety and a lawyer and vood0o expert as Associate Director !
Tick tock tick tock.

Sarcs

8th Jul 2011, 09:59

gobbledock maybe you are right!:ugh: But if you don't try then when there inevitably ends up being a major prang it'll be on your conscience.

I believe the weight of numbers could possibly shame Minister Fumblenese in to taking action, otherwise he could be known as the pollie that ignored the warning signs!:{

gobbledock

8th Jul 2011, 10:21

I dont disagree with 'people trying'. Perhaps Xenaphon, Ben Sandilands and a few othes should take over ? Couldnt do any worse ?
And I certainly hope that when our first major smoking hole occurs (it is inevitable, and no, I do NOT want it to happen), I hope it occurs during the Albanese tenure and on the watch of the current incompetent Fort Fumble execs. They do not deserve to set the scene for a disaster and retire with full government benefits before it occurs.

Sarcs

8th Jul 2011, 12:18

You would think that Minister Fumblenese would be rooting for the pilot unions being a Labor (left wing no less) pollie but I guess he is getting some sort of kickback from the RAT! Obviously he thinks that airline pilots are just Fatcats!:ugh:

He is also obviously pissed about the good Senators derailing his 'no dead head jump seat idea', that's why he needs to be shamed into believing adopting the Senate Committee's 22 recommendations is possibly good for his career!

Mstr Caution

8th Jul 2011, 12:29

And I certainly hope that when our first major smoking hole occurs (it is inevitable, and no, I do NOT want it to happen)

Newsflash: "Pilots bracing for impact - Adopt Senate recommendations now"

Turn up the heat on Albanese, so he can't ignore the recommendations.

UTW

12th Jul 2011, 22:48

"I have flown in just about everything, with all kinds of pilots in all parts of the world -- British, French, Pakistani, Iranian, Japanese, Chinese -- and there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between any of them except for one unchanging, certain fact: the best, most skillful pilot has the most experience." - Chuck Yeager

Capt Kremin

12th Jul 2011, 23:25

Great quote...... So Bruce...? Alan?..... Albanese?

You gonna argue with Chuck??????

The Kelpie

29th Jul 2011, 19:37

The Senate Committee report recommended that note be taken of the outcome of the investigation into this tragedy, especially given the low experience of the pilot in the RHS. Justification for reopening the inquiry to look closer at these and other issues that have occurred since in my opinion!!

AF447, media leaks say pilot panic, errors, lack of training destroyed jet
July 29, 2011 – 11:15 pm, by Ben Sandilands
In reports which the French accident investigators have already slammed for being simplistic and incomplete Le Figaro and Le Monde say Air France flight AF447 was destroyed by (variously)* pilot panic and errors and a lack of training in dealing with high speed stalls at altitude.

However it will be some time before the investigators hold a press conference in Paris.

The intriguing thing about the early reports is that if they are correct, it means the newspapers may have been told more about the disaster that killed all 228 people on board the Air France A330-200 on June 1, 2009, in the mid Atlantic, than the BEA may include in its third interim report, when published in a few hours time.

This is because the official version of this latest report on the inquiry into the disaster is the one negotiated with and approved by Air France prior to its release, while the leaks will have been blunter.

At this stage it is understood that the BEA has conceded that the auto-pilot disconnection that starts the four minutes long sequence of events that ends in a modern airliner being flown* into a high speed belly flop in the ocean* was triggered by ice clogging the external speed measuring probes called pitots and depriving the flight management systems of reliable air speed readings.

After that the jet climbs steeply to 37,500 feet from 35,000 feet and the two pilots left in charge of the flight deck while the captain rested had become confused about what to do, and failed to formally identify that the jet had stalled, despite prolonged audible stall warnings.

Neither had been trained by Air France to deal with high-altitude unreliable airspeed procedures and manual aircraft handling, which in itself, is an astonishing indictment of the airline.

While the pilots had plenty of time to recover from the stall they persisted with errors and incorrect diagnosis and lack of recognition of the situation they were in.

When the Captain was summonsed to the cockpit from his rest station time was lost discussing irrelevant issues as the jet rapidly lost height, meaning the Captain did not have time to resolve the problems before impact.

The BEA has already posted ten new safety recommendations relating to what will be its third interim report on the disaster, including an advisory that authorities ‘should assess‘ the requirement for angle-of-attack indicators in the cockpit. This measure of the nose high attitude of the airliner wasn’t displayed directly to the pilots.

Air France is already in damage control, telling the media that the latest findings showed a “combination of multiple improbable factors led to the disaster in less than four minutes” including the icing of the pitot probes, loss of associated control-law protection, and roll movements.

Air France is reported to have said “It should be noted that the misleading stopping and starting of the stall warning alarm, contradicting the actual state of the aircraft, greatly contributed to the crew’s difficulty in analysing the situation.

“At this stage, there is no reason to question the crew’s technical skills.”

While that may well be technically correct, there are 228 reasons to question the quality of Air France’s flight standards and the fact that it left its pilots without the skills to identify and correct a type of incident that had already happened to a number of other airlines’ A332s without leading to fatal errors.

The loss of Air France AF447 was preceded by two similar and high profile unreliable air speed problems that affected Air Caraibes A330-200s which ought to have galvanised Airbus and Air France into doing the things the BEA has now ‘recommended’.

Z Force

30th Jul 2011, 00:04

My opinion is that the recommendations of the Senate Committee won't be acted upon by the House of Representatives.

rodchucker

30th Jul 2011, 00:42

Well if that is the case then we must all make sure to keep the pressure on each and every member of that house.

If we do not, then we must accept some of the responsibility for that outcome.

We have a list of email addresses on this site, lets all get to work.

Capn Bloggs

19th Aug 2011, 14:11

That is one of the best posts I have ever read on Prune. :D

Gnadenburg

20th Aug 2011, 01:16

I had an autopilot disconnect the other day in an Airbus and the cadet pilot handed over to me-

"You have control"

"Huh...I have control"

Presses red button- "Priority Left"

" Master Warning Auto Pilot Two Disconnect"

" Sigh ....Master Warning Auto Pilot Two Disconnect, I have Control ECAM actions "

"No Actions, Clear Auto Pilot"

"Clear Autopilot"

" Status.."

" Well fcuk Status, Here are, Autopilot 2 is back in, you have control"

This was on ILS base to an aerodrome 7000ft AMSL. A normal pilot would have realized the rigmarole of that exchange and just re-engaged the autopilot from an light upset.

I'm sick of it. Cadets are being used to dumb down the RHS, putting extreme pressure on the Captain and negating a multi-crew concept, and their training is budgetary in itself. So, they are not getting an appropriate level of training to offset their lack of aeronautical experience.

Oh, and the same day I either took over a landing from the bloke or had to prevent a descent overspeed due managed mode blindness. I can't remember which, as taking over seems to be a regular event these days.

Up-into-the-air

24th Aug 2011, 05:08

Get your pens out, the next hearings are planned for the week of 17th October 2011

Get your information and submissions to the Senators by 7th October 2011

I suggest that you carefully format it to specific topics, with a well researched appendices of support documents, referred to from the body of the report. Make a summary single page at the front.

Try to exclude rants or assertions and use specific examples of what CASA has done to you.

If you require help, I can do so if you PM me, with adequate time.

One of the things that the enquiry has focused on is "malfeasance in public office".

Where you have found problems in this area and can give both specific examples to the Senators, that will assist the broader inquiry against CASA and lead to a more equitable process in the industry.

gobbledock

24th Aug 2011, 07:08

One of the things that the enquiry has focused on is "malfeasance in public office".
Where you have found problems in this area and can give both specific examples to the Senators, that will assist the broader inquiry against CASA and lead to a more equitable process in the industry.
Up-into-the-air thank you for the update. Folks, it is time to get busy with approximately 8 weeks to prepare. Remember, this inquiry has the support of Senator Xenaphon and this is probably the only opportunity to have this mob properly put in front of the spotlight for a comprehensive investigation, decades overdue. You only get 1 Xenaphon in a century so lets support him. Any piece of information, particularly proof and evidence needs to be spilled before the Senator. Boys, drag it all out now, you may not get another chance. It is time to flush the cockroaches out of the sewer.

Dear Senator Xenaphon,
All I can say is keep up your good work. You have smelled a rat within Australian aviation and justifiably so. The airlines are not the only individuals hell bent on screwing the world with no accountability. Although my personal opinion is that you have some major work cut out for you examining pilot training and CASA, may I suggest you thoroughly review some of the mechanisms that keep CASA 'above and beyond the reach of accountability', examine the senior management in close detail, history of dealing with the public, ministry, operators and it's own staff internally. Take aim at those with 7+ years service particularly, as Directors may come and go but the same bullying mentality has remained for well belong those Directors tenures, so a very robust examination is necessary (jeez I even talk like them now).

Sarcs

24th Aug 2011, 09:06

gobbledock, I agree with most of your sentiments but I think it also needs to be pointed out that most of the FOIs, AWIs and investigators in CASA on the coalface are doing their best in an impossible scenario ie they are going through the proper procedure but are hamstrung by their bosses.:ugh:

Not sure if anyone caught Senator X's speach in the Senate the other night (23rd August):
Qantas
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?
While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.
But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?
To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.
Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based Tuesday, 23 August 2011 SENATE 67 CHAMBER
on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25½ million a year.
Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.
Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.
Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.
Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.
Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?
I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.
A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented night, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is 68 SENATE Tuesday, 23 August 2011 CHAMBER
acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.

It is quite obvious that the good senator is still fighting the 'good fight'!

gobbledock

26th Aug 2011, 11:59

Perhaps the Senator could ask why QF has reached the point it is currently at while supposedly under the watchful eye of a robust Regulator (with a capital 'R')? CASA employees now working within the QF group, another good question? Why doesn't the Senator perhaps ask for a microscopic analysis of every audit, special audit, investigation, surveillance activity undertaken, approval given over the past 7 years for starters, to ensure that due process has always taken place? Not that anything is being insinuated here, it would be done within the context of Senator Xenaphon wishing to assure himself that worlds best practice from the Regulator has always been adopted ? After all a robust Regulator underpins the basis of safety within Australian skies does it not ?

Maybe the Board could even outline their role as to what they actually do that contributes to an enhanced safe Australian skies? Perhaps evidence can be submitted to prove that all CASA inspectors (the overarching word being inspectors) have all undergone safety management systems training that is equal to or exceeds the requirement of operators? Perhaps CASA can table all internal training records, processes, proceduresand training programs undertaken internally over the past 5 years, not just the last 6 months? The Senator needs to be sure that the current regulatory system meets or exceeds worlds best practice methods doesn't he? The good Senator should ask for a cent by cent analysis on what and how much CASA has spent on projects and consultants and provide evidence of what was undertaken, if it was completed, what the outcomes were and where deficiencies were found after spending wads of money, how were those deficiencies corrected, by what means? What about a forensic analysis of every trip internationally to conventions, workshops, seminars, how much was spent and what systems were introduced into CASA as a result of such trips abroad? What about staff remuneration- why are bonuses paid to people who work as regulators? Is CASA an independent regulator or a business venture? How much are these bonuses, who receives them and based on what criteria ? Simple questions. And what about taking a look at the books to analyze who has worked in any capacity as a consultant for CASA that has also worked for them on a salary at some stage? Just to ensure that no ex employee has gained financially by either fully owning, partly owning or working for a consultancy hired by CASA after the person has been a salaried officer a year or so earlier, just to be on the safe side really and again to ensure that all checks and balances are followed in line with correct governance processes?

Anyway, these are mere thoughts that I have, thoughts that may be also on Senator Xenaphons mind, then again, maybe not? If anything I have had the opportunity to indulge in some standard bureaucratic dialogue (of which most can be found in CASA corporate statements and other such fluffed up puff pieces)..

Sarcs

29th Aug 2011, 01:56

Maybe you should copy and paste your post to the good senator, or send him the link.:D

[email protected]

cheers

Capt Colonial

29th Aug 2011, 09:26

QANTAS- Finally the truth is coming out!
This confirms what others have been saying for a while about how Qantas is subsidising Jetstar to its own detriment and to circumvent the Qantas Sale Act.

For those who haven't seen it, Senator Xenophon's speech of 23rd Aug is reproduced below.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?

While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.

But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?

To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.

Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25½ million a year.

Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.

Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.

Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.

Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.

Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?

I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.

A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.

JDI

29th Aug 2011, 14:58

Please consider sending your own emails of support??

Senate Inquiries and Amendments to the Qantas Sale Act are the big weapons that just might save this fiasco??

[email protected]

To Senator Nick Xenephon,

Thank you so much for your efforts in attempting to break through the relentless lies blasted out from Qantas management. Without strong people like you one of this country's greatest icons will be dead forever. Their main game plan is unfortunately not so obvious to the majority of the Government and the Australian public in general (yet?) but thanks to people like you...."The truth must come out!!!"

I can only imagine the attempts of bribes to curb your honesty and direction and clearly you have not succumbed like just so many others have obviously done so, particularly many members of the media. (Cash for comment in Australia is obviously alive and well? - they couldn't possibly be that ignorant and lazy as to just keeping to regurgitate the Qantas management's propaganda and outright lies?)

Where to from here? How is the obvious "true game plan" of these crooks uncovered? Where is ASIC? Where is the Government? (sorry I feel for your frustrations there but that will obviously soon change!!) Nick, how can you force the ever so required Senate inquiries and crucial amendments to the Qantas Sale Act?

Please, please, please - Keep up your fantastic work!! This is desperate and there will be no coming back if their plans are left to unfold! 1,000 people unemployed is not even close to their final true game plan.....and I know you know what their REAL game plan is! (Simply unbelievable?)

You have just so many admirers who see you "making history here" (more than you could possibly realize!)

Kind regards

onetrack

29th Aug 2011, 15:40

That is without doubt, the finest speech I have ever heard or seen in print, from a politician, in the last 50 years. Well done, Senator Xenophon, let's put the corporate weasels to the torch, and see if they can stand up to serious forensic accounting scrutiny, as regards their fudged figures. :D:D:D

Anyone who has ever read a company quarterly or annual report, or who has been a witness to the scamming behaviour of company directors and CEO's as they try to pull the wool over shareholders and the publics eyes on a regular basis, knows full well, that truth is treated with disdain in the corporate boardrooms of this nation... and the QANTAS boardroom is no different in that respect. Just the memory of the previous, outrageous, private equity bid, is enough to make one puke.

I have been in on enough company directors and CEO's private discussions, to know how little regard they hold for morals, ethics, and the truth... particularly if a fast buck is to be made by conveniently "modifying" corporate accountancy figures, that are presented as the equivalent of tablets of stone, to unsuspecting shareholders, would-be investors, and Joe Public.

The employees of QANTAS, the pilots, the flight engineers, and Australians in general, deserve better than the current corporate spiel and weasel-words dished up by the current management of QANTAS.
Thank God for people like Nick Xenophon. The man is a Statesman, not a politician, and on a par with King O'Malley.

1a sound asleep

29th Aug 2011, 16:32

The real issue is what was the response to Senator XENOPHON speech?

Many didnt even stir in fear of losing their Captain's Club membership. Great speech BUT what's the next move????????????

Desert Dingo

29th Aug 2011, 17:47

Unfortunately, his credibility takes a hit when he states
While it is true that Qantas never crashes........A little research into Qantas' history shows:

de Havilland DH-9C G-AUED 24 Mar 1927 - 3 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USG 15 Nov 1934 - 4 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USE 20 Feb 1942 - 9 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ADU 22 Apr 1943 - 13 died
Lockheed 18 Lodestar VH-CAB 26 Nov 1943 - 15 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ABB 11 Oct 1944 - 1 died
Lancastrian VH-EAS 07 April 1949 - 0 died
de Havilland Drover II VH-EBQ 16 Jul 1951 - 7 died
Lockheed L1049 VH-EAC 24 August 1960 - 0 died
Boeing B747 VH-OJH 22 September 1999 - 0 died

Hardly "never crashing".
Apart from that minor point though... :ok:

4Greens

29th Aug 2011, 19:24

Accurate description of Qantas losses. Nothing compared with the Company crash coming up. Xenephon is to be applauded.

buttmonkey1

29th Aug 2011, 20:53

history or aircrashes does not need to be considered back to the avro days.
generally the start of the 'jet' age is the start of air safety records, say the
comet/707 era of the 60's.
else you are talking extraordinary times of warfare and ****e aircraft.
so, yes, qantas does have a perfect safety record.
good on the senator.

TBM-Legend

29th Aug 2011, 21:15

where is the 'hard' evidence for the SEnator's assertions. Statements from disgruntled employees don't count.

If you don't like Qantas then have the courage to vote with your feet and leave...my relation, the great Lester Brain did and was first GM for TAA....

DirectAnywhere

29th Aug 2011, 21:29

General comment - not directed at anyone in particular.

Please take the time to find out how to spell the good Senator's name properly! (Xenophon) I reckon 50% of the posts have got a misspelt surname.

Not saying I'm perfect, and there's probably a typo in this which I'm sure someone will pick up, but a thank you letter is somewhat diluted by the fact his name is wrong!

Minor detail but small things like this should still matter in polite society, especially when you're writing to praise someone.

Alan Joyce on the other hand, spell his name anyway you like.:mad:

Going Nowhere

29th Aug 2011, 23:00

There's a C in there somewhere, isn't there? :E

Oxidant

30th Aug 2011, 06:01

There's a C in there somewhere, isn't there?

Where is the "icon" for "rolling on the floor laughing"?

Tankengine

30th Aug 2011, 08:59

Ditto!:D:D

TBM, if the government wants to start another airline right now I will come across and work for them!:ok:

gobbledock

31st Aug 2011, 04:57

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/462303-faa-views-casa-via-wikileaks.html

I would like to know why the above thread was closed? Very relevant material in relation to Fort Fumbles abilities. The info is nothing new. The date should have read '2009' instead of 2019, and it is all very true, the FAA were considering the downgrade.
Has Fort Fumble and it's team of legal eagles acted to shut this thread? If so, why hide the true facts? To me it is just another reason for the Senator to rip open this can of worms.
Are you readig all this Senator, are you asking the big qustions? Keep digging away, you are inching ever closer.

Captain Peacock

31st Aug 2011, 07:44

Yes a little premature closure there. It's in the mainstream media anyway. There is write up in the SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/us-fears-about-australian-airlines-safety-revealed-20110831-1jlkt.html) by a knob called Dylan Welch. Seems he can't distinguish the difference between CASA and airlines. :ugh:

CASA was doing observations on all QF Check captains 12 months ago so CASA could comply with the FAA directive. All went well I believe and now CASA is in FAA's good books.

gobbledock

31st Aug 2011, 09:41

CASA was doing observations on all QF Check captains 12 months ago so CASA could comply with the FAA directive. All went well I believe and now CASA is in FAA's good books. Maybe so, but what were the issues (all of the issues) that lead to the FAA's concerns? I will tread cautiously here, but perhaps the Senator can delve a little deeper by using his parliamentary priveledges? Suffice to say there are plenty of questions worth asking of this mob.

Shed Dog Tosser

31st Aug 2011, 09:47

I believe one of the greatest concerns was the fact that so many delegations were issued to the industry, as opposed to having true and proper examiners of airmen.......testing airmen.

gobbledock

31st Aug 2011, 09:57

I believe one of the greatest concerns was the fact that so many delegations were issued to the industry, as opposed to having true and proper examiners of airmen.......testing airmen. Aagh yes, that old chestnut. Perhaps the issue is more like 'there were no control measures in place oversighting and tracking industry delegates'? If the Senator digs into this he will find out exactly what the issue was and why it became so out of hand, it's all there, he just needs to look. And they croon about 'worlds best practise' and being a 'robust' regulator? Spare me, incompetence is their middle name.
So many industry delegates? And why is that? Who is responsible for the farce that existed for decades? Wait for it, those same 'powers to be' and a#sclowns are still part of CASA's group of 'faceless men' decades later. Unless Xenaphon brings out a mighty big fuc#ing broom with a tonne of support behind him he is wasting his time and energy.

gobbledock

6th Sep 2011, 11:49

The word from Canberra is that CASA had a bowel movement today and purged itself of an executive manager?
Anybody know the full details? My sources tell me that there has been joyous celebrations and a near orgy like frenzy of excitement since The Skull made the announcement! Talk around the streets of Spamberra is that the top tier are falling apart at the seams and that the beast is turning inward on itself. It's becoming a fight to the death, a battle of who can sacrifice who in order to reign supreme within the halls of 'Incompetence Inc' and draw the fattest tax payer funded salary for the longest!
Perhaps the gravy train is slowly winding to a stop at 'Game Over Station'? Certainly the internal disharmony at the top layer has been boiling for some time, so maybe the excellent work that Senator X is undertaking is starting to come to fruition? Either way, the departure of the Spamberra exec, or should I say the 'necessary sacrifice' should be seen as just the beginning not the end. There is still a need to remove a lot more 'scummy dross' from the bowels of
CASA so my advice to the Senator is keep working your mojo.

Kharon

6th Sep 2011, 14:22

"The Mills of the Gods,
"The Mills of the Gods, Grind exceedingly slow, But grind exceedingly fine."
Attributed to Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus.

September 7, 2011. One calendar month from today you will have one, and probably a one only chance to beat the "Culture of Fear" which grips this benighted industry by the throat.

If everyone who fears retribution, lets it be known that 'you' are afraid, for daring to speak the truth; then the people who hold power will know (at least) that you are afraid of speaking out and needful of protection. It's the 'thin soup' tail end of democracy, but it's a beginning.

If everyone who has a just, honest claim against the 'authority' submits a "confidential", under parliamentary privilege, statement of fact, without rancour, mendacity or even a small 'gilding of the Lily' it will be heard. Perhaps, it may not alter things one iota, but at least we tried and it's on the record.

Like one
Who having into truth, by telling of it,
Made such a sinner of his memory,
To credit his own lie.
The Tempest. ACT I Scene 2.

Albanese should resign; today, there are no more excuses.

The rot starts at the top and flows down hill, a corporate psycho and minions will only follow the 'big dogs' bark. Enough, for pities sake; enough.

A very ancient and fish-like smell.
The Tempest. ACT II Scene 2.

Submit your story to the Rural Affairs etc. Estimates Committee, DO NOT publish it at all, anywhere, but; if you must, not until you are 'protected' (get an acknowledgement). Privilege is not applicable until your comments are receipted – check the Senate web site. This is a democracy, you do have rights, please use them.

This above all: to thine ownself be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!"
--Lord Polonius, Hamlet Act I, Scene 3

Perhaps our erstwhile 'Authority' and their handlers would do well to reflect on the 11the century poet Omar Khayyam; (#545 Rubaiyat).

The moving finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancell half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it

Sorry (but not too much) about the oblique (cryptic) references; but, as the man said "if you can't see your Willy in the blender".

Selah.

Boratous

8th Sep 2011, 07:11

I understand that the Director issued the following announcemnt:

Today I have set in place revised operating arrangements . . .
The effect of this revised arrangement is that Gary Harbor will be finishing up with CASA today.

The problem is of course that this comes several years too late. Harbor was always incompetent - and worse - and it is a pity that neither the Director, nor the Board, nor Messrs Aleck and Farquarson did anything about it for all these years even though they knew about his incompetence (and worse). He should have been sacked as soon as Byron left - instead the new Director promoted him and even put him on the Ethics Committee (shock- he wouldn't know how to spell the word let alone know what it means) - despite warnings and evidence to the contrary. Clearly the Board failed miserably in its oversight role by allowing that to occur. So it's good news - but too late and does no credit on the Director, the Board or the current Deputies.

gobbledock

9th Sep 2011, 07:14

Boratous, Agreed! This was after all the same individual who apparently proudly stated 'no manager worth a pinch of salt would or should stay in an assigned position more than 3 years'...He stayed for 7 years.
However, 7 years is not a pinch on some of the others cretins glued to their lust for taxpayer funded excessive salaries while 'harboring' many dirty little secrets.
Your quote below is very true and accurate, and once again with these sorts of facts out there I can see no logical reason as to why Senator Xenaphon would NOT want to investigate this further. One can only hope that CASA purge it's bowels of more built up waste matter.

The problem is of course that this comes several years too late. Harbor was always incompetent - and worse - and it is a pity that neither the Director, nor the Board, nor Messrs Aleck and Farquarson did anything about it for all these years even though they knew about his incompetence (and worse). He should have been sacked as soon as Byron left - instead the new Director promoted him and even put him on the Ethics Committee (shock- he wouldn't know how to spell the word let alone know what it means) - despite warnings and evidence to the contrary. Clearly the Board failed miserably in its oversight role by allowing that to occur. So it's good news - but too late and does no credit on the Director, the Board or the current Deputies.

CRG85

21st Oct 2011, 04:51

So has there been any update on the recommendations? Seems a bit quiet on this front?

The Kelpie

21st Oct 2011, 06:36

Senator X asked the question of McCormick at Estimates earlier in the week.

Apparently it is on Albanese's desk!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Sarcs

21st Oct 2011, 11:52

Good to see Senator X is still keeping the fire lit.:ok: I think if he wasn't Minister Fumblenese would have discretely slid the Inquiry findings of his desk and into the bin!:ugh:

Senator Fawcett (Lib senator for SA) seems to ask the right questions and he also seems to know what he is talking about!:D

gobbledock

25th Oct 2011, 23:47

Maybe Nick will drop in on them while they are all swanning around Can'tberra this week? A big safety seminar is taking place, so there will be lots of trough feeding and free fun for all to be had. The Minister is attending also, so it will be a real hoot, all those safety discussions, high level wankery and fun and frivolity, yes, the skies will be much safer now.
More grange hermitage please, snap snap.

Sarcs

14th Dec 2011, 23:13

Finally we get a response from the disengaged Minister's office!!:ugh::ugh:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/gvt_response_221111.pdf

ohallen

14th Dec 2011, 23:37

Well that was worth waiting for and no wonder the public servants weathered the storm they are back where they started...in control.

There has been no substantive reform, no realistic consideration of the issues raised and business and the regulatory bodies continues as normal.

The question must be why did anyone bother?

The only thing that will hold any player to account is the very thing that none of us want.

Sarcs

15th Dec 2011, 00:03

Yep I'm afraid there is just more spin and constant referrals to the 'Great White Aviation Elephant...er..Paper!':ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

004wercras

17th Dec 2011, 09:07

Well wasn't that a complete waste of time, not to mention the waste of taxpayers money...bugger me this industry is stuffed.....

Up-into-the-air

21st Dec 2011, 21:38

This reply by "the government" - read casa [I don't think casa deserve the capitals!!]

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...nse_221111.pdf (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/gvt_response_221111.pdf)

requires an Industry response - Any takers please PM me

Frank Arouet

22nd Dec 2011, 06:29

When trying to deal with this sort of thing, try and get your head around the bureaucratic haze in Sen Barnaby Joyce' latest press release.

Remember Truss is the member for Wide Bay/ 1770 and Katter is the member for Julia Ck and environs.

The Regional NBN spin, The NBN reality, The Big Con
Senator Conroy stated on 7th September that “the NBN will provide a massive economic boost for the Australian economy, particularly in regional and remote communities.”
Well if you are looking for remote Julia Creek with a population of 500 between Mt Isa and Townsville is your piece de resistance and the Labor Party’s NBN goes right under the town. Surely Senator Conroy would be mugged by logic and lobbied by his regional advocates, Windsor, Oakeshott and Co., to connect to J. C. for Christmas. The town even has the same first name as your boss Stephen! Nope – they bypassed logic and left Julia Creek just as they found it, waiting for wireless, with the vision of Windsor, Gillard and Conroy pushing the big regional telecommunications button in Armidale burning in their retina.
The stoic remote town of Julia Creek, because it has a population of 500, does not qualify for the fibre optic service, even though it runs right under the town. The amazing vision of the Labor Party.
The council has been told by NBN Co that it will cost them $1.14 million to connect and they should just wait for the wireless service.
But why is it that the Town of 1770 with a population of just 80 does qualify for the fibre connection? Why are 30 other towns, many with much less than the magic 500 population figure, getting access to the fibre optic service?
Senator Conroy also said “One of the great benefits provided by the NBN to rural communities will be important eHealth services that will mean people, especially the elderly, will be able to access high end medical support in their own homes and not have to travel great distances to large cities.”
Apparently not if you live in Julia Creek even though the optic fibre cable just beneath them, so close, as they say, if it was a black snake it would bite you. So what was the point in making all those wonderful promises, only to deny people access when the cable turns up?
It is starting to look like a big con Stephen. There is not much point to a railway line without railway stations.

22 December 2011

More information-Matthew Canavan 0458 709433

WHO IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THE ASYLUM?

Gligg

26th Dec 2011, 21:34

Although CASA has decided that ICAO writes the bible on licensing requirements, how about considering that it by and large represents member states with little to no General Aviation?
Australia is one of relatively few nations with a large GA industry, and after looking at what the US is doing, CASA appears convinced that Australia needs to adopt practices used by necessity in countries without a pool of experience to draw from.

Joyce 2, Aussie pilots 0

Kelly Slater

26th Dec 2011, 22:07

Well it seems that CASA have already thought of everything and have it all in hand. It's twenty years now since CASA gave out exemptions to CAO48 to anyone who asked as a stop gap measure whilst they overhauled the reg, maybe the recommended pay rise will help them finish the job.

gobbledock

27th Dec 2011, 11:44

CASA has issued itself a number of exemptions which it actually does strictly uphold and adhere to:
1) An exemption against having a set of dated workable aviation rules.
2) An exemption that allows it to bypass any ethical code of conduct.
3) Exemption against not being allowed to act maliciously or bully industry.
4) Exemption against not being allowed to be malfeasant.
5) Exemption against using taxpayer funds in a reckless and wasteful manner.
6) Exemption against having talented industry professionals in it's executive management structure.
7) Exemption against having FOI's and AWI's under the age of 90.
8) Exemption against acting unbiased and treating each individual operator in a fair and equitable manner.
9) Exemption against taking any sort of action of any kind against The Rat, ever.
10) Exemption against acting as an independent regulator which operates without political interference or bowing to ministerial meddling.

gobbledock

30th Dec 2011, 02:17

What I find interesting, somewhat ludicrous and totally disconnected is that ICAO have published a policy on ‘Just Culture’. In turn the member states act on that policy and put it into the states regulations, for Australia this is done by CASA.

Below is the statement from ICAO:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/international_aviation/european_community_icao/doc/paper3.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/international_aviation/european_community_icao/doc/paper3.pdf)

‘’Just Culture is a culture in which front line operators or
others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are
commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.’’

(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/international_aviation/european_community_icao/doc/paper3.pdf)
Now as a result of the senate enquiry we see the government has answered point number 19 as follows:
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.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
However, it is noted that CASA’s Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAPS SMS-1(0) - Safety Management Systems for Regular Transport Operations) already refers to concepts of ‘just culture’ in the context of an operators organisation.
So how is that the Associate Director of CASA write the following disconnected tripe:
Just Culture or just culture? A cautionary tale
Speaker:
Jonathan Aleck
Date:
12:30pm - 1:30pm, 31 May 2011
‘Just Culture’ is a term and a concept widely, if variably, used and understood generally to describe an organisational environment in which individuals are encouraged to disclose instances of their own or others’ errors and mistakes, without fearing a punitive or disciplinary response, and with a view to providing a basis on which the likelihood of similar errors and mistakes occurring in the future can be reduced.
The objective is a noble one, intended to make the conduct of otherwise beneficial activities involving unavoidable risks of harm, damage, injury or death safer, by fostering a learning environment in which information about inadvertent shortcomings and deficiencies (‘honest mistakes’) are shared openly, free from apprehension of the consequences of fault or blame for ‘wrongdoing’, but without necessarily minimising or eliminating accountability for one’s acts or omissions.
Like other elegantly simple and seemly self-evident ideas whose time has come, ‘just culture’ has attracted a large, supportive and remarkably uncritical following. Its utility has won the virtually unequivocal approbation of a growing number of professionals in the energy and resources, medical, and transportation sectors, amongst other spheres of activity, including those of law and politics.
Without delving deeply into arcane and sometimes dauntingly complex theoretical arguments, ‘justice’ and ‘culture’ can fairly be seen as contested concepts, readily subject to tendentious and disingenuous deployment. Caution is good counsel, from a practical and intellectual perspective alike, and it is in that light that I will consider some real and telling examples of the risks an undiscriminating embrace of ‘just culture’ may entail for the very objectives many of its proponents so enthusiastically endorse.

Jonathan Aleck is Associate Director of Aviation Safety of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). He previously served as Chief Legal Officer and Executive Manager of CASA’s Legal Services Division.
From September 1998 to August 2003, Dr Aleck served as the Representative of Australia on the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Montréal. Immediately prior to his appointment to the ICAO Council, he served as General Manager of CASA’s Aviation Safety Compliance Division, and before that as Regional Manager of the Authority’s West Region.
Before and since arriving in Australia in 1988, Dr Aleck has combined a professional and academic career as a lawyer, a legal consultant and a university lecturer. He has taught law and politics at the Australian National University (in both the Faculty of Law and the Public Policy Programme), the University of Canberra, the University of Hawaii and the University of Oregon in the United States, and the University of Papua New Guinea. During his tenure on the ICAO Council he was a Visiting Lecturer in the Institute of Air and Space Law (Faculty of Law) at McGill University in Montreal. He currently serves as a Vice-President on the National Executive Council of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law.
Dr Aleck earned his law degree (JD) at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and a Master of Arts degree in political science from the University of Oregon, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in law from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.

Now maybe I am missing something here, maybe I am not an intellect who sits around smoking cigars in a University library, sitting on a leather sofa, hypothesizing, pondering over the deeper things in life or simply sitting around playing with myself while repeating intellectually mattered statements containing fancy wank wording, but Aleck’s statement contradicts or challenges the ICAO and CASA support of Just Culture, does it not? If it does, then this is once again another example of the stupidity of our own Regulator. I mean, if the Regulator doesn’t support or agree with ICAO policy or even their own implemented legislation what hope does industry have??
Some peole obviously get paid too much taxpayer money to fund their ego stroking lifestyles and feed their own self importance at the expense of an aviation industry turning into porridge. And as for CASA's own inernatl 'just culture', well , I rest my case.

Tools.

Centaurus

30th Dec 2011, 11:18

So how is that the Associate Director of CASA write the following disconnected tripe:

My eyes glazed over after reading the first few lines. Means nothing unless you are an academic.:D

gobbledock

30th Dec 2011, 12:02

Oh Centaurus, ye of little faith. Didn't you know aviation safety is based upon such intellectually worded profoundly robust grandiose statements?
Are you unappreciative of all the cigar smoking, brandy sipping, slipper wearing, group hypothesizing sessions spent by these people so they can share such superb wording for all and sundry to ogle over?

My personal favorites of the good doctors statement were 'unequivocal approbation', arcane, tendentious and disengenuous.
Such iconic wisdom. Mix that in with some intellectual knowledge of tribal law and jungle politics and top it off with a dash of Bachelor Of Arts and you have the making of an evening where it would be more fun watching paint dry or watching an elderly retiree picking weeds out of his immaculately manicured acreage one inch at a time!

Funny, the environment I come from is such that people who use such superlative wording usually do so as a cover for the fact they have a tiny pee pee.

compressor stall

30th Dec 2011, 12:14

such that people who use such superlative wording usually do so as a cover for the fact they have a tiny pee pee.

I don't want to know how you know this, nor the sample size from which you have concluded such. :eek:

gobbledock

1st Jan 2012, 11:24

Compressor Stall, don't worry, I have not felt the need to measure my own pee pee, however I have had the mispleasure of working with a number of individuals who did.

Now, down to buiness:

I thought I would put together a little package to highlight the earnings within the CASA executive group. It’s a nauseating breakdown of where your taxpayer money is going. The details below are ONLY for the executive group, not other staff such as inspectors, plebs, skirt riders and admin people have been included. I have also included the consultancy fees!! As you will see those piggies certainly have their robust snouts planted deeply within the trough.

All aboard the gravy train, toot toot. Next stop is the taxpayer purse, toot toot!

2011 / 2010 Highlights

Suppliers Goods and services Consultancies and service contracts:

2011($’000) = 15,793 and 2010($’000) = 14,232. Yes indeed, millions and millions on spent on those sweet Consultants.

Director’s remuneration:
The number of non-executive directors of the Authority included in these figures are shown below in the relevant remuneration bands.
Less than $150,000 = 4 .Total number of non-executive directors of the Authority 4. Total remuneration received or due and receivable by directors 2011= $315,798, 2010 = $280,681

Senior Executive Remuneration Expense for the Reporting Period:
Total expense recognised in relation to senior executive employment 2011, 2010 and Short-term employee benefits: Salary (including annual leave taken):

2011 - $4,125,845
2010 - $3,501,683

Annual leave accrued
2011 – $415,990
2010 - $310,457

Performance bonus
2011- $643,516
2010 - $458,704

Allowances
2011 - $109,969
2010 - $187,539

Total short-term employee benefits
2011 - $ 5,295,320
2011 - $4,458,383

Post-employment benefits:
Superannuation
2011 - $544,390
2010 - $ 449,322

Total post-employment benefits
2011 - $544,390
2010 - $ 449,322

Other long-term benefits:
Long-service leave

2011- $186,414

2010 - $ 148,499

Termination benefits
$150,271

Total =
2011 = $ 6,026,124
2010 = $5,206,475

Average Annual Remuneration and Bonus Paid for Substantive Senior Management -
Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements) I have included 2011 only:

Salary range Execs Actual Salary Bonus

$150,000 - $179, 999 (6) $166, 044 $15, 928

$180, 209 - $209,999 (7) $199,740 $22,244

$210,000 - $239, 999 (1) $232,001 $36,000

$240,000 - $269,999 (5) $255,648 $42,338

$450, 000 - $479, 999 (1) $479, 404 - - - - - -

Of interest is the executive positions grew by 4 since 2010

Variable Elements: With the exception of performance bonuses, variable elements are not included in the ‘Fixed Elements and Bonus Paid’ table above.
The following variable elements are available as part of the senior executives’ remuneration:

(a) Performance bonuses: Bonuses were based on the performance rating of each individual. The maximum bonus that an individual could receive was 15 per cent of his/her total employment cost.

(b) On average senior executives are entitled to the following leave entitlements: Annual Leave (AL): entitled to 20 days (2010: 20 days) each full year worked (pro-rata for part-time SES) Personal Leave (PL): entitled to 18 days (2010: 18 days) or part-time equivalent; and Long Service Leave (LSL): in accordance with Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976.

(c) Senior executives are members of one of the following superannuation funds: Australian Government Employee Superannuation Trust (AGEST): this fund is for senior executives who were employed for a defined period. Employer contributions were set at 9 per cent (2010: 9 per cent); Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS): this scheme is closed to new members, and employer contributions were averaged 28.3 per cent (2010: 24 per cent); Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS): this scheme is closed to new members, with current employer contributions set at 15.4 per cent (2010: 15.4 per cent); Public Sector Accumulation Plan (PSSap): employer contributions were set at 15.4 per cent (2010: 15.4 per cent), and the fund has been in operation since July 2005; and Other: There were some senior executives who had their own superannuation arrangements (e.g. self-managed superannuation funds). Their superannuation employer contributions were set between 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent (2010: 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent).
(d) Variable allowances: Superannuation payments were provided to all senior executives: $489,675 (2010: $357,830); and Accommodation allowance up to $28,500 for the Director.

And this – During the reporting period, there were 31 employees whose salary plus performance bonus were $150,000 or more. In 2010 there were only 15. This was calculated by reference to the gross payments line of the group certificate. These employees did not have a role as senior executive and were therefore not disclosed as senior executives.

And do not forget that each other executive receives a daily away allowance commensurate with their salary. The average is around $300.00 - $450.00 PER DAY. And accommodation and sundries are already paid for. So if you go to say an ICAO function and they provide lunch and nibblies then your $450.00 allowance per day is a nice additional earner on top of those chunky salaries.

What I like is the apparent need to offer salaries competitive with the non-public service sector, yet the non-public service sector makes you work your absolute ass off, these trough dwellers sit on their fat clackers doing sweet FA.

A very Merry year indeed for Fort Fumbles supposedly finest!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRH2SRB4lNIcDix-NfwHlylaI10AhbKI5wmKzhaS6oDu2fx-UGm

LeadSled

3rd Jan 2012, 02:18

---- but Aleck’s statement contradicts or challenges the ICAO and CASA support of Just Culture, does it not?
Folks,
It is a huge leap to assume that:
(1) The CASA Kulture actually supports the ICAO Just Culture, or even interprets Just Culture as ICAO sees it. I think, to CASA, it is just culture.
(2) CASA sees a genuine Just Culture approach as producing better air safety outcomes than produced by the present complex, convoluted and contradictory mass of criminal law that constitutes aviation law and enforcement in Australia.

A good example of the same words meaning different things is the Australian approach to Safety Management Systems, which (if you understand the underlying philosophy) turns the ICAO recommendations on their head, so that SMS is rapidly just becoming another "enforcement tool" in Australia.

Having said all that, it is Dr. Aleck who is probably one of, if not the only, senior CASA executive who actually understand the ICAO intent of the Just Culture, probably the reason he is no longer head of the Legal Services Branch (or whatever it is now called) ----- too much Just Culture equals too few convictions.

As I am certain we would all agree, absolute enforcement of the letter of the law (or whatever I, as a CASA FOI/AWI thinks it is) is the best way to enforce air safety.

However, given how little progress we have made, in so may years, in improving our air safety outcomes (particularly compared to US) we obviously need more of it, and harder.

Because it couldn't possibly be that the whole approach in Australia is wrong, could it????

Tootle pip!!

Frank Arouet

3rd Jan 2012, 02:50

And the floggings will continue until morale improves.:*

4dogs

4th Jan 2012, 10:52

Goobledock,

Aleck’s statement contradicts or challenges the ICAO and CASA support of Just Culture, does it not?

errhh, no, it is doesn't!

I suppose you would have to read the presentation teaser with a bit of attention to detail, combined with a bit of open-mindedness:

Caution is good counsel, from a practical and intellectual perspective alike, and it is in that light that I will consider some real and telling examples of the risks an undiscriminating embrace of ‘just culture’ may entailfor the very objectives many of its proponents so enthusiastically endorse.

I would have loved to hear the presentation (or see a transcript) because I believe that it would have been about understanding what "just culture" really is and, most importantly, is not. It would have been about the limitations of defining the boundaries between those actions that require corrective and/or disciplinary action and those that do not. I certainly hope it may have touched upon the potential conflicts between a proactive safety philosophy and a reactive and retributive legal system and the implications for operators in respect of s28BE of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

Frankly, there are much bigger issues on the horizon....

Stay Alive,

T28D

4th Jan 2012, 11:40

Just culture, Natural Justice are conditional phrases which to the FOI on the front line mean little when placed in context against the needs of the performance review which will be judged on the outcomes of regulatory action, and this means negative action for industry as opposed to proactive action that might have better outcomes but is initially impossible to measure whereas a prosecution is immediately measurable.

Think , the outcomes are a Tautology (rhetoric) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)), using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity. Tautology also means a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct.

gobbledock

4th Jan 2012, 11:50

T28D, S&#t you are scaring me old son, you sound like you are morphing into a clone of Aleck !!!
Lay off drinking goon for a while bro!

Up-into-the-air

9th Jan 2012, 20:31

Has anyone actually read the "reply by Government" to the Senate Committee.

It seems to require some discussion in this forum.

The report is at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/gvt_response_221111.pdf

I am sure that the hard work of the Senators should not be "handed-off" by a reply that has been drafted by the people of whom the Senators work is largely critical.

A robust discussion may well again expose casa for what it is - and as any one who was at the Senate hearings could see for themselves.

Anyone????

Popgun

10th Jan 2012, 01:26

Has anyone actually read the "reply by Government" to the Senate Committee.

Yes, it is shameful. I really don't think we're going to see any substantive change until we have a smoking hole (or two) in the ground. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen.

Big business and government...hand in hand in complicity despite the best efforts of Senator X and many other tireless, safety-oriented individuals

PG

gobbledock

10th Jan 2012, 03:06

Yes, sadly I did read through the bureaucratically laced pages of pony pooh (thanks Kharon for letting me borrow your robust lingo).
As with the 'white paper' ( more like 'brown paper') the responses from government were as expected - non commital, non accountable and basic ****e nicely worded by the overpaid lawyers trained skillfully in the art of deflection. Naturally the government 'notes' the recomendations. Gutless turds. How about saying 'accepts'? Go on I dare you !!

Some comments as follows (please note that I have changed the word 'recomendation' to 'defecation' as this more aptly suits this entire farcical waste of money:

Defecation 1: The response means none of the LCC operations in Australia are breaking any regulatory law. The modern airline CEO in his quest for the ultimate cheap recruit and massive bonus is allowed to continue flying his airline along the current flight path to a smoking hole. Tick Tock.

Defecation 2: A nice example of a response containing nil tangible commitment. We will be waiting another 23 years.

Defecation 3: Expected release in 2012?? Ha! Another 23 years will roll on by.

Defecation 4,6 and 7: Are these drafts released and able to be viewed, as per the proposed date of November 2011?

Defecation 10: Another superlative deflection of accountability. We shall be waiting another 23 years! They made sure they did not 'note' this recomendation didnt they? I mean wow, the Minister gets all these updates on the regulatory reform program through so many super avenue's. BULLS#IT!

Defecation 11: Ha! More funding alright. Being spent naturally on executive payrises, bonuses and even some on the steaming brown reg reform program !! Absolutley hilarious.

Defecation 12: Are you serious, more funding for competitive salaries? These trough dwellers are well and truly overpaid by the modern aviation standard. I know Q400 drivers on 60k so why dont we put the equivalent FOI's on 60k then ? Sorry, what does Tiger and the bulk of JQ pay management again? (not CEO level) OK, all executive CASA management to be paired with those salaries. DONE!!

Defecation 14: Another brilliant deflection. Put that one to bed boys, finished, to go no further.

Defecation 19: Ha! Just Culture. Yes, do as I say not do as I do! How about the regulator treat indsutry with just culture? What a crock of pony pooh, the concept of just culture being apllied by a bullyboy organisation to busy measuring the size of each others tockleys.

Defecation 20: More spin, more deflection, another 23 years awaiting an outcome.

Below sums up what the governemnt and its leeches have delivered

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGgkrqJ8-UyUa0zJIp69Ldr6wIj1COdZ8oAcvhyYRKLoJGr6qF

The Kelpie

28th Feb 2012, 20:40

The Kelpie

28th Feb 2012, 22:19

Home > News > Owners consider sale of Oxford Aviation Academy
Owners consider sale of Oxford Aviation Academy
Mon, 24 Oct 2011
By Hanna Sharpe

The main shareholder of Oxford Aviation Academy, British buy-out group Star Capital Partners, is mulling a sale of the global business.

Star Capital has received several expressions of interest in the pilot training and leasing provider business over the past few months. It is understood that Credit Suisse has been approached with the task of possibly selling the business.

A decision whether to conduct an auction for OAA - which could be worth over £500 million - will be made by the end of this year.

Airlines and airline service businesses from China, Europe and the US have put forward their expressions of interest in the academy. OAA's operations in Asia have attracted particular attention from potential buyers.

OAA was formed in a merger between UK and Hong Kong-based GE Commercial Aviation Training and Scandinavian SAS Flight Academy, which took place five years ago.

After acquiring Oxford Aviation Training, the firm was renamed Oxford Aviation Training in June 2007. US firm General Electric has a stake holding of less than 20 per cent.

Having been hit by the economic downturn three years ago, OAA has been restructured by its owners. Since the move it has rebounded strongly. Today it has over 600 staff and operates 105 training aircraft across the globe. Its earnings before interest tax, amortisation and depreciation have been estimated to be around £30 million.

For a company that relies so heavily on airline connections to enable it to sell its overpriced pilot training, this news makes me wonder whether they know that the days of third party trained so-called 'cadetships' are numbered and they want to get out while the going is good!!

Rumour has it that they are about to receive a significant blow to their Australian operation!!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Sarcs

28th Feb 2012, 23:48

Recent story from the US now that the FAA have ratified the 1500 hour ATPL Co-pilot rule whilst CASA sit on their hands and deny there is a problem.

FAA proposes new rules for co-pilots - CBS News Video (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400279n&tag=mncol%3Blst%3B1)

Good take on this by Ben!US FAA proposes 1500 hours flight experience for jet pilots | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/02/29/us-takes-lead-on-pilot-safety-australia-refused-to-follow/)

Going Nowhere

29th Feb 2012, 01:47

Kelpie,

OAA have apparently already lost one big contract which has gone interstate and due to start very soon.

OAA's loss is another school's gain.

EDIT: Nothing public as yet, but I believe plans are well advanced.

Looks like the trainee's will get a more consistent and realistic training as well :ok:

The Kelpie

29th Feb 2012, 05:41

Going nowhere.

Maybe we talk about the same blow. I didn't know whether it was confirmed or common knowledge.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

The Kelpie

1st Mar 2012, 01:34

................

4dogs

1st Mar 2012, 02:38

Check out the cost difference.

Kelpie, is it the same duration as previously? What was the original cost for comparison?

Stay Alive,

The Kelpie

1st Mar 2012, 05:04

4 dogs

I believe the duration is the same at 6 weeks, as is i assume the content. Oxford were looking for $17k for the Traineeship up until recently.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

scrubba

2nd Mar 2012, 05:25

hey Kelpie, where did it go????

SpannerTwister

4th Mar 2012, 13:04

New DOT Fines Qantas for Violating Price Advertising Rules (http://politicalnews.me/?id=12279&keys=QANTAS-VIOLATION-LAWS-ADVERTISING)

Mar 04,2012 - DOT Fines Qantas for Violating Price Advertising Rules

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) assessed a civil penalty of $40,000 against Qantas Airways, a carrier based in Australia, for violating federal aviation laws and the Department’s rules prohibiting deceptive price advertising in air travel.

“Ensuring that travelers know the full cost of their airline tickets before they buy them is just one way that DOT is continuing to protect consumers’ rights,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. “Passengers deserve fair and honest treatment when they fly, and DOT’s passenger protections will help ensure that they receive that treatment before, during, and after their flights.”ST

gobbledock

6th Mar 2012, 21:37

This will be a real hoot of a conference, a 'must attend' for those who enjoy watching paint dry, mixing with the alleged elite of society or for those who like to sit around playing with themselves and compensating for their small weeners by sprouting off large intellectual words -

http://www.alaanz.org/pdf/ALAANZ-2012-Preliminary-Program.pdf

Some obvious highlights of the conference would be as follows:
Day 1 session 1 - Words of wisdom (or an anger outbust) by the Screaming Skull.
Day 1 session 4 - Just Culture by the one and only Mr Alleck. This should be great as Alleck potentialy rips apart the very model ICAO mandated.

It has been rumoured that end of day activities may include -

2000 - 2300 The day will end in a tea room lined with leather couches where all and sundry will relax in their slippers with cigars, panama hats, schnapps and canopes. The highlight will be a session of high level intellectual wankery where evey 14 letter large robust word in the English dictionary will be thrown around like confetti at a wedding, a 'must see'.
2300 - 2330 The inuagural 'Weener Measuring Chapionship'! A hilarious tradition among the elite who lack anything else of substance.
0001 - 0030 More hijinks as all compete in the 'Limp Handshake Contest'. Legal eagles take on their own in a robust competition where 'winner takes all'. Last years winner from Canberra Australia, Mr Flyingfiend is rumoured to have been preparing for months, exercising his hand muscles by writing a thesis on 'Aviation Witchdoctory - A Regulators Sorcery Tale', sharpening pencils, lifting cups of green tea and writing minutes.

Yes viewers, more of your tax money going to waste sending these bureaucrats on yet another overseas jolly!

P.S
A special thankyou to the CASA frontline staff who will be going about their business (shortstaffed no doubt) while valuable funds are pissed away in typical bureacratic style.
Now, where are my pig pictures!

P.S.S Apparently Kharon was invited to attend, and provide some recitals of Hamlet and Macbeth but he wisely declined, he could smell the stench of hyprocirsy, spin and pony poo from a mile away!

Kharon

6th Mar 2012, 23:25

Then, 1 which I accepted; - there is so much more fun to had at the Senate these days. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Hamlet: There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd—
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.
PS. GD - No more pig pix - no more Hamlet. King Lear only for you m'lad.:D

c173

11th Jul 2013, 08:52

does this change things?

FAA issues final airline pilot certification rule requiring 1,500 flight hours | Regulation content from ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/regulation/faa-issues-final-airline-pilot-certification-rule-requiring-1500-flight-hours)

Sarcs

11th Jul 2013, 10:17

c173 this thread is an oldy but goldy...well done for lighting it back up again:ok:

US AOPA article is also worth a read:
FAA releases final ATP certification rule
July 10, 2013
By Benét J. Wilson

The FAA on July 10 released the final rule (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ67.pdf) for the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations, which will require pilots to hold an air transport pilot certificate in order to fly for an air carrier.

AOPA expressed its concern in the original notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the effect the rule will have on Part 61 flight training providers and new student pilot starts. AOPA’s concerns were also expressed in the proceedings leading up to the final rule, scheduled to go into effect on Aug. 1, by commenting on both the advance notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ67NPRM.pdf), released on Feb. 29, 2012, and participating in the First Officer Qualifications Aviation Rulemaking Committee.

Pilots applying for an air transport pilot (ATP) certificate and those intending to serve as first officers for airlines will be the ones most affected by the new rule. But it will also affect pilots wanting to serve as pilot in command in Part 121 air carrier operations, part 91 subpart K operations, or Part 135 operations because of changes to requirements for obtaining an ATP certificate.

Pilots pursuing an ATP certificate after July 31, 2014, in addition to having 1,500 hours, will have to complete a new, yet-to-be developed, ATP certification training program. The program, consisting of 30 hours of ground and 10 hours of simulator training, must be completed prior to being eligible to take the ATP written and practical tests. The 10 hours of simulator training will include six hours of training in a level C or D (full-motion) simulator. According to the rule, this course will only be offered through Part 141, 142, 135, or 121 certificate holders, not allowing for Part 61 flights schools to develop courses and provide the training.
The new rule also establishes a new ATP certificate with restricted privileges for multiengine airplane only. The restricted ATP certificate can only be used to serve as a first officer at an air carrier. To obtain that certificate an applicant must be at least 21 years old, hold a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating, complete an ATP certification training program, and pass the ATP written and knowledge tests. For the restricted ATP certificate, applicants do get some relief as they are required to have at least 750 hours total time as a military pilot; at least 1,000 hours total time and a bachelor’s degree with an aviation major; at least 1,250 hours total time and an associate’s degree with an aviation major; or 1,500 hours total time as pilot.

“Although seemingly primarily directed at air carriers, AOPA had significant concerns with the NPRM about the effect this rule will have on Part 61 flight training providers and new student pilot starts,” said AOPA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. “The final rule will effectively prevent Part 61 training providers from being a viable pathway to an airline carrier both by limitation on who can provide the required training and on how time is credited toward the restricted ATP certificate. On first read, it appears the final rule does little to address AOPA’s concerns. As it stands, it has the potential to negatively affect flight training by disenfranchising potential career pilots thus negatively effecting flight schools.”
Topics Advocacy and Legislation, (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/Advocacy-and-Legislation.aspx) Pilot Training and Certification (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/Financial.aspx) Also from AOPA (US) that is worthy of reading is this article: 'Obama signs Pilots Bill of Rights' (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2012/August/3/Obama-signs-Pilots-Bill-of-Rights.aspx) What's that :confused::confused: pilot's have their own bill of rights??:rolleyes:...nah it will never happen!:(

Still an interesting concept, the trouble is we don't even have a basic 'Bill of Rights' here in Oz:ugh::ugh:

Sarcs

13th Jul 2013, 07:09

Further to my previous post there was a further insightful commentary piece from the Australian's A-Plus section in Friday's edition.

This IMO further highlights some more interesting parallels to the Norfolk ditching ATSB investigation by stealth vs the full and frank highly publicised preliminary investigation by the NTSB.

As a sidenote it will be of extreme interest if the ATSB's preliminary report for AO-2013-100 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100.aspx)willbe just as full and frank, because there is certainly some disturbing parallels to Norfolk with that one, remember 50:50 opinion on alternate minimas and diversion and BOM WX forecasting reliability??
AS Flight 214 descended over San Francisco Bay, the Asiana Airlines pilots were trying something new.

In the left seat of the cockpit sat Lee Gang-kuk, a 46-year-old pilot with 35 hours' experience flying a Boeing 777 who was landing the big jet for his first time at San Francisco International Airport. To his right was Lee Jeong-min, making his first trip as an instructor pilot for the South Korean carrier.

While the two men had years of aviation experience, this mission involved unfamiliar duties, and it was the first time they had flown together. The flight came to a tragic end when the airliner came in too low and too slow, killing two passengers and injuring many others as it skittered and spun along the ground.

Investigators trying to piece together what went wrong on Sunday are looking at the pairing of the pilots, who were assigned to work together through a tightly regulated system developed after several deadly crashes in the 1980s blamed in part on inexperience in the cockpit.

They will also be examining the men's working relationship, according to US National Transportation Safety Board chairman Deborah Hersman. "We are certainly interested to see if there are issues where there are challenges to crew communication, if there's an authority break in where people won't challenge one another," she said yesterday.

Pilots are trained to communicate their concerns openly, Hersman says, "to make sure that a junior pilot feels comfortable challenging a senior pilot and to make sure the senior pilot welcomes feedback in a cockpit environment from all members of the crew and considers it".

In August 1997, Korean Air Flight 801 crashed into a hill during heavy rain as the captain tried to make an instrument landing on the US territory of Guam. Besides pilot fatigue, the cause of the Boeing 747-300 crash was put down to a cultural issue: respectful subordinate crew declined to challenge the captain's authority.

The NTSB has concluded interviews with all four pilots who were aboard the weekend Asiana Airlines flight. Hersman says the pilot trainee told investigators he was blinded by a light at about 500 feet, which would have been 34 seconds before impact, and the point at which the airliner began to slow and drop precipitously. Lasers had not been ruled out. It is unclear, however, whether the flash might have played a role in the crash.
Hersman also says that a third pilot in the jump seat of the cockpit told investigators he was warning his colleagues as they approached the runway that their speed was too slow.

Hersman added that, once the plane had come to a stop, the pilots told passengers to remain seated while they communicated with the tower as part of a safety procedure. Hersman says this has happened after other accidents and is not necessarily a problem.

People did not begin fleeing the aircraft until 90 seconds later, when a fire was spotted outside the aircraft. "We don't know what the pilots were thinking, though I can tell you in previous accidents there have been crews that don't evacuate, they wait for other vehicles to come to be able to get the passengers out safely," Hersman says.

It is possible the pilots in the cockpit could not see the fire outside the aircraft, she adds. "Certainly, if there is an awareness that there's fire on board an aircraft, that is a very serious issue." The NTSB chief stresses that, while the trainee pilot was flying the plane, the instructor is ultimately responsible, and thus the way that they worked together will be scrutinised.

James Hall, a former NTSB chairman, says: "That's what the airline needs to do, be responsible so that in the cockpit you're matching the best people, especially when you're introducing someone to a new aircraft."
Massachusetts Institute of Technology aeronautics professor Mary Cummings says it is common for two commercial pilots who have never worked together before to be assigned to the same flight.

However, she says that the military typically tries to have crews work together more permanently. "Research would tell you that crew pairing with the same people over longer periods of time is safer," Cummings says.
"When two people fly together all the time, you get into a routine that's more efficient. You have experience communicating."

Jeff Skiles, a US Airways first officer, says that with the right training it should not matter if a pilot new to a plane is paired with a pilot making his first trip as a training captain. "Everybody had to have their first time," Skiles says. "You can't show up and have 500 hours experience in an aircraft."

Skiles was the co-pilot of the "Miracle on Hudson" jet that lost thrust in both engines after colliding with a flock of geese in January 2009 taking off from New York's LaGuardia Airport.

The skilful flying of captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and teamwork between Skiles and Sullenberger was credited for a water landing on the Hudson River that saved the lives of all aboard. That accident happened after the pilots had been paired together for only four days.

Details emerging from the Asiana Airlines pilot interviews, cockpit recorders and control-tower communications indicate that Lee Gang-kuk, who was halfway through his certification training for the Boeing 777, and his co-pilot and instructor thought the airliner's speed was being controlled by an autothrottle set at 157mp/h.

Inspectors found that the auto-throttle had been "armed" or made ready for activation, Hersman says. However, investigators are still determining whether it had been engaged. In the final two minutes, there was a lot of use of autopilot and auto-thrusters, and investigators intend to look into whether pilots made the appropriate commands and if they knew what they were doing.

When the pilots realised the plane was approaching the waterfront runway too low and too slow, they both reached for the throttle. Passengers heard a roar as the plane revved up in a last-minute attempt to abort the landing.

The two pilots at the controls during the accident had also been in the cockpit for take-off. Then they rested during the flight while a second pair of pilots took over. The two pairs swapped places again about 90 minutes before landing, giving the trainee a chance to fly during the more challenging approach phase.

With the investigation continuing, Hersman is cautioning against speculating about the cause of the crash. However, she stresses that, even if the auto-throttle did malfunction, the pilots were still ultimately responsible for control of the airliner.

"There are two pilots in the cockpit for a reason," she says. "They're there to fly, to navigate, to communicate, and if they're using automation (then) a big key is to monitor." As the trainee pilot flew, she says, the instructor captain, who is ultimately responsible for flight safety, was tasked with monitoring. The third pilot was in the cockpit jumpseat also to monitor the landing. The Asiana Airlines flight originated in Shanghai and stopped over in Seoul before making the almost 11-hour trip to San Francisco.

A dozen survivors were still in hospital yesterday, half of them flight attendants, including three thrown from the airliner during the accident. One has been identified as 25-year-old Maneenat Tinnakul, whose father told the Thairath newspaper in Thailand that she suffered a minor backache. Another flight attendant, Sirithip Singhakarn, was reported to be in intensive care.

Meanwhile, fire officials are continuing their investigation into whether one of their trucks might have run over one of the two Chinese teenagers headed for a US summer camp, Wang Linjia and Ye Mengyuan, who were killed in the crash.

Citing similarities to a February 2009 fatal US airline crash near Buffalo, New York state, Democrat senator Charles Schumer yesterday called on the Federal Aviation Administration to issue long-delayed safety regulations that would require pilots to undergo more extensive training on how to avoid stalling accidents.

"While the (Asiana) investigation is still ongoing, one thing is clear, this crash and the other recent crashes like Flight 3407 demonstrate a troubling pattern in which pilots are mishandling air speed, which can lead to fatal stalls," Schumer said.
Whatever everyone's opinion on the different methodologies to handling/managing an investigation, NTSB vs ATSB, it is obvious that the NTSB approach will certainly provide all worldwide aviation stakeholders with a source of valuable lessons probably for many years to come! Something sadly lacking in the Norfolk ditching 'Final Report':ugh::ugh:

Lefty I guess it is implying that both pilots were 'green on green', hence the relevance to this thread Tinny, not to mention the references to reliance on automation which was also relevant to the Pilot Training Inquiry.

Perhaps this Avweb (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/More-on-Asiana-214-220130-1.html)article is a better example of the relevancy to this thread (and ironically to the other Senate thread):I do it. You do it. We all do it.
As pilots, in the wake of an accident like Asiana 214 last Saturday in San Francisco, we crank up our piety and discipline and decline public comment until the investigators are done. But amongst ourselves, there’s no such restraint and there’s not much in the e-mail I’ve been getting, either, the tone of which is to flat out ask how this crew could have flown such an unstable, off-speed approach. Might as well come right out and say it, even if it will be months before the NTSB puts the puzzle together and learns why the pilots appeared to be so far off acceptable airmanship, much less an A-game. I’ve seen a few unkind student pilot analogies posted and not all of them are from the aviation illiterate masses.

If the current fact pattern is sustained, I’m sure the NTSB will get around to finding out how large looms the human factors aspect of this accident. And at that juncture, a certain déjà vu settles in; a couple of correspondents think they’ve seen this movie before. One of the things investigators will probably examine is how the flying pilots worked both the automation and the CRM. That may cause the surprise appearance of a large elephant long thought dead: the bad old days of Korean air safety when KAL and related companies had 16 hull losses between 1970 and 1999. Two of the worst were KAL 801 in Guam and KAL 8509, both of which occurred within two years of each other in 1997 and 1999.

In KAL 801, the Captain failed to brief the 747 crew on the approach then followed erroneous glideslope signals, crashing into a hill and killing 228. Investigators determined that a contributing cause was a fundamental aspect of Korean culture in which subordinates don’t question their superiors--filial piety woven into the base societal structure in a way that deifies the left seat occupant. In the west, you'll sometimes hear the term "five-striper" applied to such a situation . The FO and engineer on 801 failed to question the Captain’s actions and decision-making, the very thing that modern CRM is supposed to prevent.

The circumstances were different for 8509, a 747 freighter, but the outcome was the same.The Captain’s INU/ADI had proven faulty on the inbound flight and wasn’t repaired properly. When the Captain overbanked on a night takeoff from London’s Stansted Airport, the FO rode through the subsequent departure and crash without uttering a word, even though his ADI was functioning normally. That accident proved to be a watershed for KAL, serving as a wakeup call to improve training and CRM in a way that eventually elevated the airline to among the safest in the world. But human perfectibility being what it is, changing a thousand years of culture might not be as easy as that, and I’m sure investigators will consider it during their interviews and CVR analysis.

Some have seen in the 214 accident an eerie echo of another more recent crash: Air France 447 in 2009. In that accident, three crew members mushed a perfectly recoverable aircraft into the ocean because of confusion over instrument and automation indications and a baffling inability to interpret stall indications. Could flight 214’s crew have suffered similar confusion over the arming of but the failure to engage the autothrottles? Did that even matter? Is there a human interface issue with the automation that’s a design flaw or a training lapse in the airline’s program? I’m sure that’s another lead that will have to be pursued in explaining why the approach went so wrong.

The Asiana crash reminds me of another accident I remembered, but I had to call my friend John Eakin at Air Data Research to pin down the details. It was Continental 1713, which crashed on departure in a raging snow storm from the then-Stapleton Airport in Denver in November, 1987. The investigation revealed that the airline had paired two inexperienced in-type crew members, one with 166 hours, the other with 26 hours. And the relatively green Captain assigned the takeoff to the FO who over rotated on takeoff and lost control of the DC-9.

After 1713, the NTSB recommended—and the FAA adopted—not pairing two low-time crew members on the same flight. I suspect the NTSB will consider if Asiana repeated that mistake. Although both pilots had plenty of total time, the Captain was 43 hours into his IOE and, according to Asiana, the check airman training him was on his first flight as an instructor. Could that, coupled with whatever remnants of Korean culture that persist despite CRM training, have been a factor?
I’m sure that question will come up, too. And given the language and culture barriers, I don’t envy the NTSB figuring it out.
I rest my case your Honour??:ok:

Lookleft

13th Jul 2013, 07:19

AS Flight 214 descended over San Francisco Bay, the Asiana Airlines
pilots were trying something new.

Sarcs could you point be in the direction in the article of what the new thing was the Asiana pilots were trying?

Tidbinbilla

13th Jul 2013, 07:56

Back on topic, please. That being the senate enquiry.

Sarcs

17th Jul 2013, 11:11

ATSB research report released today...

Pilot experience and performance in an airline environment (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4171790/ar-2012-023_final.pdf)

And Ben's article:

ATSB says hours not valid safety factor in new pilot jobs

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/07/17/atsb-says-hours-not-valid-safety-factor-in-new-pilot-jobs/ (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/07/17/atsb-says-hours-not-valid-safety-factor-in-new-pilot-jobs/)

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Jul 17, 2013 2:05PM | EMAIL | PRINT (http://javascript<b></b>:window.print();)
An ATSB research report has found that there was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots recruited by Australian airlines were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers.
The research and subsequent analysis was carried out to address the controversy over pilot experience and training outcomes following the US move to require high minimum hours of actual flight experience for junior pilots employed by its airlines in the aftermath of the 2010 Continental (Colgan) disaster. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/07/11/us-finally-gets-tougher-pilot-experience-rule/)
The ATSB collected data on various metrics from simulator check flights, which covered non-normal operations, and line checks, which covered normal day-to-day flight operations.
In summary it found that:
The overall performance of cadets and low-hour pilots matched that of their direct entry and high-hour peers. All pilots were marked as proficient at the completion of the check flights, with the only differences between the groups being a function of how many exceeded the required standard.
The differences between the low and high-hour pilots in ‘meeting’ and ‘exceeding’ the standard across all metrics were variable within airlines and inconsistent across all three airlines. This suggests that the differences between the groups were not of a systemic nature that would highlight an area of concern for industry. While the metric normal landing showed a difference across two of the three airlines, none of the other required regulatory manoeuvres or technical metrics were significantly different in more than one airline. For non-technical metrics, both leadership and situation awareness were significantly different in all three airlines. Although this is understandable given the low experience of cadet and low-hour pilots, focused exposure to those metrics during initial airline training may reduce this difference as was seen in the data for cadets collected at the 5-year mark in one airline.
Three Australian airlines were studied. While not identified it is thought that one was Qantas, or a unit of its Qantaslink operation, that another was Virgin Australia, and the third, in which only a single type of airliner was referenced may have been Regional Express or REX, or Skywest prior to its takeover by Virgin.
Despite the intriguing variations found when it come to the performance of low hour inductees between carriers and in abnormal flight situations (download and study the report in a some spare hours) the report finds that “the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines.”
It would be astonishing if it hadn’t reached this conclusion, however the detailed report supports an important observation in common about the Air France AF447 disaster involved a crew with high hours, and the Colgan crash, involving a less experienced set of pilots.

Okay if I'm reading this right the enquiry was a waste of time and money according to the bureau??:confused:

004wercras

17th Jul 2013, 12:17

There was once a time when I would have respected a report like that from the ATSB, trusted its detail and content and then considered that information as to how it may add value to my organisation. But that was in the pre-Beaker days. With the current 3 non aviation experienced Commissioners, including Grand Commissioner Beaker and his 'beyond Reason' hypotheses I would have to say that this report will be inaccurate, tainted, the opposite to the truth and generally smell like pot plant fertiliser.

If ATSB want to regain the trust, respect and robust reputation they once held with pride, they need to ditch the mi mi mi mi-ing one at the helm, his two minions and the other boot lickers puffing up these buffoons ego's. Until that day occurs I will use their reports for purposes not fit to mention on a family style website such as this (unless the reports are authored by a consultant such as Alan Stray :ok:)

c173

19th Jul 2013, 06:49

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/cadet-pilots-meet-the-standard-study

Last paragraph reads:

'Most interesting is that the study results showed that direct entry pilots generally performed better in "non-normal" operations, a function, no doubt, of the experience that comes with flying hours.' :eek:

Sarcs

21st Jul 2013, 06:03

In recent years there has been several ATSB reports (some of which were highlighted in the Pilot Training & Airline Safety enquiry) dealing with unstabilised approaches and Operational Non-compliance while conducting an approach. Therefore a recent blog piece by the Flying Profs investigating the Asiana Flight 214 is IMO of particular relevance.:ok: Stabilized and Unstabilized Approaches at KSFO (http://flyingprofessors.net/stabilized-and-unstabilized-approaches-at-ksfo/)

Quote from the 'Implications' section of that article:
Implications
What are the implications of these data? Although the dataset is not large, it seems possible that there is a structural issue (training, airlines policies, ATC issues, etc.) that is leading to Asiana flying high energy, unstabilized approaches (or failing to go around when they do, since my data doesn’t include cases where flights go around). Of course, it’s impossible to differentiate between, say, a training issue and an airline policy issue by looking at the data here. But if you believe that flying an unstable approach was a contributing factor in the Asiana 214 crash (my tentative opinion is that it was), and the apparent higher rate of unstabilized approaches by Asiana in this limited dataset is real, then there is an important issue that the NTSB and FAA should investigate.
As an aside, there's been no shortage of cultural explanations for the crash, including assertions that Korean pilots engage in too much rote learning, or that they defer too much to senior pilots because Korean culture emphasizes respect for elders. Please don't construe this post as supporting that position. Whether there are significant cultural issues (national or corporate) that contributed to the crash can't possibly be determined from the data presented here. Our focus at Flying Professors is on the math and physics of flying and the joy that that brings (and least to a certain geeky demographic), and we'd like to keep it that way. But please see the article by James Fallows at the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/confucius-in-the-cockpit-and-other-items-to-read-and-ignore-on-asiana-214/277703/) for a nice discussion about the role of culture in Asiana Flight 214 (and also for some kind words about Flying Professors).
Hats off to the Flying profs!:D

Lookleft

21st Jul 2013, 08:55

My head hurts Sarcs after reading that but I do understand what they are driving at. It would be interesting for them to do a similar chart for other carriers to see how much of a difference there is (if one exists) for geographic/cultural differences.:ok:

Sarcs

1st Aug 2013, 10:07

Forgot this one Mods and this one (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/468378-norfolk-island-ditching-atsb-report-31.html) or maybe even this one (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/487144-barry-hempel-inquest-30.html)....hmm sure there's probably more floating around in cyberspace???:rolleyes:

halfmanhalfbiscuit

1st Aug 2013, 19:05

Passing strange the mods closed the senate inquiry and regulatory reform without reason. Why didn't they warn and remove offending posts. The senate inquiry was one of the most successful threads on the oz nz area. Within a whisker of 600,000 views.

Sarcs, thanks for reminding about the Hempels inquest this month.

Did the meeting the Atsb planned for 24th to discuss re opening the pel air investigation happen?

Guessing casaweary gets people's blood pressure rising. Probably best to stay focussed on the issues not the personalities.

Kharon

1st Aug 2013, 20:51

Regulatory reform Australian style cannot any longer be described as an elephant in the room. We must now beware of Rhinoceros charging about the place. Rhino as in lots of money – Sorearse as in the pain inflicted by these clumsy, dangerous experiments in bad law.

Roll up - Have your knee jerk reaction to unpleasant Senate probing in sensitive areas– robustly managed – right here.

NPRM 1304OS – Regulation of aeroplane and helicopter “ ambulance function” flight as Air Transport Operations has been posted to the CASA website for public comment/review at:

The purpose of this NPRM is to advise the public and aviation community of CASA’s intent to regulate, to the greatest extent practicable, ambulance function flights to the same safety standards that are currently applicable to AT operations.

CASA considers that Part 119 of CASR, with its robust operator management systems, should be implemented by (and integrated into) these essential passenger transport services. This policy and change of classification is based on CASA’s recognition that the focus of these operations is primarily passenger-carrying in nature, albeit in a highly specialised manner, and conforms more closely to international norms for the conduct of these operations.

However, CASA acknowledges that, in some cases, applying all of the Air Transport Operations suite of standards to MT flights would not be practicable. Due to the highly specialised nature of some MT flights, some of the rules in these operational Parts will not apply and other requirements that are not characteristic of normal AT operations will be addressed specifically for MT flights.

This NPRM canvasses those areas of the Air Transport Operations suite where additional compliance or relief considerations would be required, taking into account the purpose and nature of MT flights. CASA seeks comment from the public and aviation community on this proposed policy change to MT operations. My bold.
Now I know there are some clever, competent folk who read these threads, perhaps they would care to read NPRM 1304OS; carefully, and provide comment on this excellent thesis, proposing a micro management approach based on the chaos principal. This to be melded into Part 119. The 'aerodrome standards' part, stand alone left to the discretion of the average FOI opens several interesting avenues for 'robust' discussion.

This appears to be a hastily redrafted version of the one produced several years back which created a requirement for the QPS Citation pilot to shoot someone, thus allowing an 'emergency' to be declared, enabling them to then land at the proposed destination aerodrome (if it was not one of the 14 defined as 'allowable'). That's a yarn that always makes me smile....:D

Please Minister, can we have our marbles back?

Up-into-the-air

1st Aug 2013, 23:49

OK Kharon, the read is at:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Changing the rules (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/topic.asp?session=1001&pc=PC_91070&topic=ops)

There are just thirty five:
Active projects - Flight operations (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/topic.asp?session=1001&pc=PC_91070&topic=ops)

How on earth can the industry keep up.

casa just don't want us and

Are regulating us out of existance by weight of regulations and micro-management as you say.

Lucky Six

3rd Aug 2013, 08:13

Is this all we are going to get from the Senate report? By Ben Sandilands:

ATSB processes to be independenty reviewed | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/02/atsb-processes-to-be-independenty-reviewed/)

thorn bird

3rd Aug 2013, 11:07

Well I think this quote says it all..depending how you "Interpret it"...which means....How the FOI of the day "Interprets it" OR how the "Iron Ring" directs the FOI of the day to interpret it.

"intent to regulate, to the greatest extent practicable"

Therefore this could mean:
"Shut the bastards down, dont care how you do it, just shut them down"....understand this was a directive to a certain "Wabbit"at the BK warren.
OR
It could mean:
"Just ensure that it is so expensive that nobody in their right mind could could afford it"...This ensures that no aircraft actually commit "aviation"..all in the interests of "Safety" of course...therefore we can big note our safety record at the Montreal cocktail parties.
Bit like the"let them eat cake" quote..bugger the punters, if they die on the road "Aint our fault"

I would really hate to think that the Mods were pressured into shutting down a thread that generated such interest because of pressure from such an obviously corrupt organisation. This is Australia guys, not Zimbawi.

Kharon

3rd Aug 2013, 20:31

A Never-Ending Story. (http://flightsafety.org/aerosafety-world-magazine/may-2013/proceed-caution)

Trapping Safety into Rules: How Desirable or Avoidable is Proceduralization?
Bieder, Corrine; Bourrier, Mathilde (editors). Farnham, Surrey, England and Burlington, Vermont, U.S: Ashgate, 2013. 300 pp. Figures, tables, references, index. Trapping Safety into Rules— there is a title as provocative as you are likely to see this year in books aimed at aviation safety professionals. The book itself is a study and no light "read", fact. The article from Flight Safety is thought provoking and worthy of some consideration in context with our regulatory reform rhinoceros. The BRB are going to have a whip around; see if we can't send a Christmas copy (or two) to the warren, perhaps in the vainglorious hope that the shelf-ware can compete with canapés, champagne and annoying cabin crew on those long, first class flights to exotic destinations.

Any way – the article is badly formatted so I have cherry picked some random paragraphs as an appetitive.

The editors think so. Bieder and Bourrier say that proceduralization of safety is part of a general trend toward “the bureaucratization of everyday life. … Even commonplace consumption or simple emotions are rationalized and subject to prescribed procedures, notably at the workplace. In addition, the dangerous link between bureaucratization and administrative evil has also long been established. The key role played by technical rationality in this irresistible and sometimes dangerous push always combines scientific method and procedures. Therefore, it requires us to stay alert and vigilant in front of constant re-engagement towards more rules and regulations.”1 Personnel do not have infinite attention capacity. Under a regime of excessive proceduralization, they must devote an increasing amount of their attention to keeping up with and following rules and regulations. The corollary is that some time and energy must be debited from attention to the real-world working environment. Trapping Safety into Rules is a collection of chapters examining various aspects of the theme. Part I is “Where Do We Stand on the Bureaucratic Path Towards Safety?” Part II is about “Contrasting Approaches to Safety Rules.” Part III includes chapters under the heading “Practical Attempts to Reach Beyond Proceduralization,” and Part IV is “Standing Back to Move Forward.” Several of the book’s chapters suggest that the actual effects of procedures at the “sharp end” must be studied as carefully as their abstract validity. In “Working to Rule, or Working Safely,” Andrew Hale and David Borys say, “Rules and procedures are seen as essential to allocate responsibility and to define and guide behaviour in complex and often conflicting environments and processes. Behind this logical, rational obviousness lies another ‘truth’ about the reality of safety rules and their use.” They cite a study of Dutch railway workers’ attitudes to safety rules: “Only 3 percent of workers surveyed used the rules book often, and almost 50 percent never; 47 percent found them not always realistic, 29 percent thought they were used only to point the finger of blame, 95 percent thought that, if you kept to the rules, the work could never be completed in time, 79 percent that there were too many rules, 70 percent that they were too complicated and 77 percent that they were sometimes contradictory.” The authors present two contrasting models of safety rules.

Model 1, popular among those with an engineering background or way of thinking, “sees rules as the embodiment of the one best way to carry out activities, covering all contingencies. They are to be devised by experts to guard against the errors of fallible human operators, who are seen as more limited in their competence and experience, or in the time necessary to work out that one best way.”

Model 2, derived more from sociology and psychology, perceives rules as “behaviour emerging from experience with activities by those carrying them out. They are seen as local and situated in the specific activity, in contrast with the written rules, which are seen as generic, necessarily abstracted from the detailed situation.”

Hale and Borys discuss many studies of both models of rulemaking. Each model has researchers who take a stand basically for or against them; other researchers advocate a balanced position.

The authors themselves conclude, “The review of the two models and their development and use has resulted in the definition of a broad set of concerns and dilemmas. The picture that emerges is of a gap between the reality of work and its routines and the abstraction of the written rules that are supposed to guide safe behaviour. We have described contrasting perceptions of deviations from those written rules, either as violations to be stamped out or as inevitable and sometimes necessary adaptations to local circumstances to be used and reinforced. …

“Model 1 is more transparent and explicit than the tacit knowledge and emerging set of routines characterized by model 2. This makes it more suitable for trainers, assessors and improvers, but at the cost of creating a gap between work as imagined in the rule set and work as carried out in practice. … Rules may be imposed from above, but they must be at least modified from below to meet the diversity of reality. …

“Model 2 fits best with complex, high-uncertainty, high-risk domains with great variety and need for improvisation. However, in these activities, there is scope for making guidance and protocols more explicit, usable and used, by specifying them as process rules rather than action rules.”
There's also a good article on Crosswind landing (http://flightsafety.org/aerosafety-world-magazine/may-2013/strong-gusty-crosswinds), worth the half cup of coffee it takes to read. Thanks Flight Safety.

004wercras

3rd Aug 2013, 21:27

"Practical Attempts to Reach Beyond Proceduralization"?? Sounds like a type of Beaker methodology?
At the end of the day human governments have and are becoming more and more paranoid about accountability. As a result they massage and introduce law upon law and rule upon rule, all done under the guise of 'safety' or some othwr ficticious reason, but in reality all done to cover their pathetic asses. But society is wising up to their weasel words, empty statements and hypocritical standards. You can only push people so far before the masses fight back. The French revolution is a noteworthy study if you have the time to examine that time period deeply. Perhaps they should consider that fact and include it in their methodology?

Algie

3rd Aug 2013, 23:02

004

Good point about the paranoia on accountability.

We need (i.e us the public) to own up to some of our own role in this. Forcing Macca's to put "Caution, might be HOT" on coffee cups etc, insurance premiums on pony clubs that grind them down etc....on every potentially "risky" issue some group somewhere wants everyone else to be accountable. for everything.

We collectively want someone else to own the solution to everything.

So all we get are the risk avoiders. Won't build rail link to MEL airport in case it costs too much. Won't build a second Sydney airport or alter existing flight paths or curfews because there will be pushback from hysterical voters. Can't build a decent medium speed rail line MEL-CBR-SYD because it might cost money. Qantas won't order 777s because they're not quite perfect. The list goes on.

I could go on too.....but I think you get the point. Wish we could wind back the clock.

Algie

004wercras

5th Aug 2013, 04:41

CAsA dines on another pooh sandwich?
Another brief but salient article below by Phelan which exposes the idiocy that embodies Fort Fumble.
Wow, these old ex pilots and long term legal eagles really have their eye on the ball at FF, NOT.

Maintenance mayday resolved | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1574)

Kharon

6th Aug 2013, 20:05

The pre-emptive and IMO wholly unnecessary closure of a Senate Inquiry (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a.html) thread very effectively destroyed the impetus and focus on some very serious issues. I expect there were huge sighs of relief around various campfires. Disappointing? a little, but perhaps our real disappointment should be reserved for those who should know better but chose 'safe closure' over moderation and balance. Aye well, such are the mysteries and miseries of modern life.

I am always amused when a direct quote from a Hansard transcript reveals yet another howler or a crock-up how very few posters (if any) attempt to defend the 'accused'. E.g. I've not yet seen a word said in defence of the decision to leave the sleeping OBR dog from the Pel Air aircraft lay.

Scattered to the winds, posters sought refuge is various threads diffusing cogent comment through various topics; there have been some excellent posts made which would have been of interest to the dedicated followers of the now locked Senate thread:-

ATSB reports (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports.html)– kicked off by Old Akro

ATSB to be reviewed by Canadian TSB (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520525-atsb-reviewed-canadian-tsb.html) - courtesy TWT.

CAO 100.5 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520008-cao-100-5-amendment-13-a.html)– by TNUC.

CASA – The Mc-Comick view (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520458-casa-mc-comick-view.html) – instigated by UITA.

All worthy of a few moments consideration. However, undaunted Paul Phelan has provided a focus point for those who still have an interest and belief (hope) that some good will come from the last Senate inquiry. I don't believe the likes of David Fawcett, Nick Xenophon, Bill Heffernan, Fiona Nash, Glen Sterle et al, enjoy having the likes of Beaker and McComic publicly thumbing their noses at the committees honest efforts to bring some semblance of realism to matters aeronautical.

Sen Fawcett remains unimpressed (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1576): (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1576) “This raises serious concerns about the efficacy of any resulting report unless the Minister ensures that the terms of reference (ToR) and Australian management of the audit are transparent and independent.” Senator Fawcett again called on Minister Albanese to ensure that this review of the ATSB has the confidence of the aviation industry and the public by adopting Recommendation 8 of the Senate report: “While the engagement of the Canadian TSB is welcome, the gravity of the issues raised in the Senate report means that theMinister should be overseeing the review with the support of an expert panel rather than the ATSB,” Senator Fawcett said.
“It is critical that this review of the ATSB is allowed to examine all sensitive areas of the ATSB investigation processes as identified in the Senate report including the Canley Vale accident.”
Election squabbling buries air safety recommendations. (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1576)

Lookleft

6th Aug 2013, 22:51

Kharon
*
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 1,107
Mods – howzabout either merge this mess or; lock one. Hells Bells it happens fast enough when any other small thing goes awry. Waddja say ? huh?.
Last edited by Kharon; 12th Jul 2013 at 09:31. Reason: I, mean FFS. Guys!?

I feel sorry for the Mods, a bit like the Reserve Bank and interest rates, damned if they do and damned if they don't!

Sarcs

7th Aug 2013, 00:12

DPM:
"Opening the Asia Pacific Aviation Summit this morning on implementation of our aviation white paper"
Wonders will never cease!! The dreaded "A" word appears twice in one sentence from the Teflon man...:E

'DPM (https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/364880473702408192)' Oh and there was this from 'PAIN' (https://twitter.com/PAIN_NET1/status/364858957652697088)

Sarcs

8th Aug 2013, 10:18

Obviously one that the DPM is not so proud of because you kind of have to hunt for it, anyway here it is :yuk::yuk::
Key Note Address to CAPA-Australia-Pacific Aviation Summit, Sydney (http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/address-to-capa-australia-pacific-aviation-summit-sydney)

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the warm welcome Peter [Harbison, Executive Chairman, CAPA Centre for Aviation].

Spike Milligan once famously said: “We don’t have a plan, so nothing can go wrong”.
That is very much the approach we inherited when we came to office in 2007.
There really was no plan.

Regional aviation was way down.

There were 31 fewer airports receiving passenger services and 5 million fewer passengers than there are now.

There was a chronic shortage of pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers.
And Australia was still feeling the impact of the collapse of Ansett in 2001

AVIATION WHITE PAPER

With no coherent plan in place for the industry in 2007, we knew this had to change.

After a lot of hard work, we released at the end of 2009 the first ever strategic plan for growth for the next 20 years – the Aviation White Paper.

We have now implemented almost all of its 134 initiatives.

This has given the aviation industry the long-term confidence it needs to plan, invest and grow the market.

AVIATION IN AUSTRALIA TODAY

The statistics are clear – Australians love to fly.

We took 57 million trips within our country last year.

And a further 16.5 million international flights.

Not bad for a nation of 23 million.

Domestically, growth is a healthy four per cent – a rate that is the envy of the world.
Growth is about six times as strong as the US and UK markets.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE

And with the growing Asian middle class right on our doorstep, there is no sense that things are going backwards anytime soon.

Indeed, we’re well placed to take advantage of Asia’s growth.

Since 2007, we have made sure that we have negotiated air services agreements with every ASEAN nation.

Most of these agreements have been liberalised over the past three years to allow for further growth.

We now have more flights and more airlines than ever operating into Australia.

And there are now many more destinations where our own Australian airlines can fly to.

We have doubled capacity with both China and Indonesia.

In the past three years, Chinese visitors to Australia have increased by almost 70 per cent.

And it won’t be stopping there.

By 2021, around one million Chinese tourists are expected to visit our shores each year, spending a collective $7.6 billion while here.

The Federal Labor Government has also signed open-skies style arrangements with Japan, and increased capacity entitlements with India, Thailand, Malaysia, Viet Nam and the Philippines.

In 2021, the economic value of these tourists is projected to be around $5.7 billion.

That means economic growth and more jobs for Australians right across the country.

All this hard work has helped to secure the futures of Qantas and Virgin.

Both airlines can now compete in new markets using their competitive alliances with foreign carriers.

The Government’s Asian Century White Paper, released last year, not only identified the importance of increasing air services between Asia and Australia.

It also stressed the need for Australia to work with the business sector and partner governments to reduce impediments to trade and travel.

Arrivals from Asia are forecast to reach 3.6 million by 2020 requiring targeted tourism products and good infrastructure.

We will need an additional 70,000 more hotel rooms to meet this projected demand.

UNITED STATES OPEN-SKIES AGREEMENT

Our advocacy isn’t just confined to Asia.

Our 2008 Open Skies agreement with the United States has provided great opportunities for increasing trade and commercial links between Australia and the United States.

Not only did this agreement open the door for Virgin Australia to enter the US market, it also allowed for Qantas and Jetstar to increase services.

That means greater service levels, more destinations, lower air fares.
And in response, the numbers flying between Australia and the US have increased from 1.9 million in 2008 to almost 2.8 million in the past year.

REGIONAL AIR SERVICES

It is also a healthy picture at home where growth is particularly evident at our regional airports.

Passenger numbers last year topped 24 million.
That’s a rise of 25 per cent since 2007.

More flights and greater competition have helped bring down the average price of a regional flight by 35 per cent over the past decade alone.

It’s not just regional passenger numbers that have grown since we came to government in 2007.

We have made unprecedented investments in regional and remote airport infrastructure.

For people living in remote Australia, air services aren’t a luxury – they are a lifeline for basic provisions and health services.

That’s why since coming to Government, we have invested more than $261 million in upgrades and services at regional and remote airports – more than five times what was spent by the former Coalition Government in the preceding six years.

Our record speaks for itself.

I also reaffirm the White Paper commitment that regional airlines will retain access to slots at Sydney airport in the morning and evening peaks.

Just recently the Government extended to 2016 the special pricing arrangements at Sydney Airport for regional services.

This protects regional airlines from being pushed out in favour of larger commercial interstate and international airlines.

CONSUMERS AND OPERATORS

We have delivered on our promise in the White Paper to improve the rights of consumers.

In March we increased the domestic passenger liability cap and mandatory insurance requirements for airlines by 45 per cent to $725,000.

We all aim for an industry free of accidents.

But when the unthinkable happens, this provides extra assurance to customers.
We changed the Damage By Aircraft Act to balance the allocation of risk by including a provision on contributory negligence.

An important piece of law, missing since the Act was passed in 1999.

We now have an Airline Customer Advocate, airline customer charters and much better plans in place for people with a disability so that airlines are clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Simple, common-sense improvements that improve the travelling experience for everyone.

CHEAPER AIRCRAFT

Recently, legislation passed the Parliament enabling Australia to sign up to the Cape Town Convention.

Capital costs are a concern for any industry and the Convention means airlines can now find cheaper finance when buying aircraft.

This reduces the risk for creditors, giving your industry greater certainty.
It could mean a saving of up to $2.5 million on a new Airbus A380, and about $1.7 million on the cost of a new Boeing 787-8.

But it’s not just for the big guys.

It will also help regional airlines expand and renew their fleets with savings of up to $330,000 on an ATR-72.

SYDNEY’S AVIATION CAPACITY

One area where serious questions remain is the capacity of Sydney Airport to service future demand.

Last year, the Federal and NSW Governments released a Joint Study on Aviation Capacity for the Sydney Region, a 3,200 report which made an irrefutable case for a new Sydney airport.

Kingsford Smith Airport is reaching capacity.

All the tinkering in the world won’t change that fact.

This size of the airport restricts its growth.

Melbourne Airport is 2 ½ times bigger than Sydney Airport and Brisbane is three times bigger.

Without a second Sydney airport, we will be saying no to jobs, no to economic growth and no to securing Sydney’s future as a global city.

With four out of every 10 flights passing each day through Sydney, this is no longer an issue just for this city.

A delay at Sydney spreads like influenza around the nation.

Australia – not just Sydney – needs a second Sydney airport sooner than later.
It must be dealt with in a bipartisan way.

The problems of Sydney are already affecting business.

Over the last five years alone, Melbourne’s international traffic has grown by twice that of Sydney.

Sydney’s share of international business now sits at 42 per cent, down from 50 per cent a decade ago.

All this comes at a time when international passenger numbers for Australia overall are at a record high.

HEALTH OF THE SECTOR

A healthy aviation sector is not just good for business, it’s also good for jobs.
There are 50,000 people directly employed in aviation.

And half a million more are employed in tourism jobs.

The air freight industry now carries $110 billion in cargo each year.

And aviation overall is now worth a remarkable $32 billion to the Australian economy.

The Federal Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that we get the policy settings right so that Australian aviation can continue to thrive in the future.

CONCLUSION

I have painted a pretty clear picture of the state of aviation in Australia.
No plan in place when we arrived.

And no policy agenda to address the industry’s problems.
Today, the market has never looked better.

We have passenger growth levels that are the envy of the world.

Our White Paper sets out a constructive, 20-year blueprint for growth, and we’ve enabled the industry to tend to its core business without excessive intervention.
We sit today on the doorstep of the fastest growing region of the planet.

And the people in the many countries that make up the Asian region are choosing to fly here in greater numbers than ever before.

Our aviation sector is in a great position to secure national economic benefits that future growth will bring.

I look forward to working with the sector to secure that future.

ENDS

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy..."waiter I want what he's on!" :E

Sunfish

8th Aug 2013, 19:12

Vomit......

SIUYA

8th Aug 2013, 20:43

Simple, common-sense improvements that improve the travelling experience for everyone. :rolleyes:

The Senate Inquiry comments re ATSB and CASA's performance over the PEL-AIR debacle would seem to suggest otherwise.

DPM is an idiot. :ugh::ugh:

Up-into-the-air

9th Aug 2013, 00:31

From the Albanese address: (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1837)

Our White Paper sets out a constructive, 20-year blueprint for growth, and we’ve enabled the industry to tend to its core business without excessive intervention.What a load of absolute rubbish.

What we have is an over-regulated, struggling industry with an officious regulator and an inept investigator.

In Senator Xenophon's words:
(http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1-Senate_committee_rrat_ctte_pel_air_2012_report_report1.pdf)
It is my view that CASA, under Mr McCormick, has become a regulatory bully that appears to take any action available to ensure its own shortcomings are not made public. This poses great risks to aviation safety, and the safety of the travelling public. Equally, the ATSB—which should fearlessly expose any shortcomings on the part of CASA and other organisations to improve aviation safety—has become institutionally timid and appears to lack the strength to perform its role adequately.
Both agencies require a complete overhaul, and I believe it is only luck that their ineptness has not resulted in further deaths so far.

Sarcs

10th Aug 2013, 08:03

Sorry about the thread drift but this is kind of relevant...

DPM and Minister of many hats in a stoush with Sydney Airport boss..love it!:D
Green light to break airport curfew - Moore-Wilton attacks Albanese (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/green-light-to-break-airport-curfew-moore-wilton-attacks-albanese/story-fni0cx4q-1226694590782)

SYDNEY Airport chief Max Moore-Wilton has attacked Transport Minister Anthony Albanese, claiming Virgin Australia was given special treatment to land 10 flights after curfew because they were carrying politicians.
Mr Moore-Wilton also accused Mr Albanese of having a "massive conflict" of interest in managing the airport - and said he had encouraged international airlines to avoid Sydney.
Mr Moore-Wilton told the CAPA Pacific aviation conference in Sydney yesterday that he was surprised Mr Albanese's representative had given the green light on Tuesday night for the Virgin flights to land after curfew - if necessary.
It came after Virgin's recently upgraded booking system failed, throwing its flights into chaos.
"The minister's office - you could have knocked me over with a feather - allowed 10 flights after the curfew between 11pm and 11.30pm the other night so the system wouldn't come down," Mr Moore-Wilton told the televised conference. "I suspect there were a few politicians on those planes."
Mr Albanese last night said no Virgin flights had operated during the curfew on Tuesday.
"Mr Moore-Wilton should back up his hysterical claim that curfew dispensations were granted for politicians to breach the curfew," he said.
"Mr Moore-Wilton should find out the facts of what happens at his airport before making hysterical claims."
It is understood the airline was granted dispensation for four flights to land over water but none was used.
Documents show Mr Albanese's representative rarely approves requests to take off or land at Sydney after the curfew - even if flights have been delayed by bad weather and hundreds of passengers risk being severely disrupted.
Only eight approvals have been granted this year, according to documents tabled in federal parliament.
Mr Moore-Wilton said Mr Albanese had a "massive conflict of interest" as Transport Minister and MP for Grayndler, which is under the flight path: "Really he is the minister for no noise over Marrickville. He'll never spend a dollar on Sydney Airport because the No Aircraft Noise Party and the Greens will tear him limb from limb."
Mr Albanese is known in the airline industry for micro-managing Sydney air traffic to ensure aircraft noise does not become a political issue in his electorate of Grayndler. Airport chiefs say that means Australia's biggest airport cannot be run as efficiently as possible.
Mr Moore-Wilton also revealed Mr Albanese wrote to Qatari authorities advising them to look at flying to destinations other than Sydney. "I thought that was fantastic advice," he said.
Last year Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker said he can't schedule flights to Sydney because of the curfew.
"Qatar Airways made its position clear in the pages of The Daily Telegraph, which was the first I had heard of it," Mr Albanese said.
But The Daily Telegraph can confirm Mr Albanese wrote to the Chairman of the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority on June 19 this year, highlighting Sydney airport's curfew.
"In the meantime I note the existing commercial entitlement settled in 2009 includes unrestricted access to all airports in Australia other than the four major Australian gateway cities," the letter says.
Mr Moore-Wilton also said capacity at Sydney Airport could be freed up by moving general aviation - including VIP government flights- to Richmond: "We could move general aviation and the Prime Minister's flights and Mr Albanese's flights out to Richmond - they wouldn't go there."
"Waiter bring me a bucket!" :yuk::yuk:

Also picked up on and somewhat expanded by Ben:E:
Footnotes on the Max versus Albo brawl (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/10/footnotes-on-the-max-versus-albo-brawl/)

Teflon man will be having a fresh coat of teflon administered at bath time tonight and it'll all be a distant memory tomorrow...:rolleyes:

Sarcs

19th Aug 2013, 21:27

Confidential reporting R26 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/pel_air_2012/report/b02.pdf):

Recommendation 26
10.35 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.

Maybe while the Canucks are here we could learn a bit about their system of confidential reporting?? :ok:

Report transportation safety concerns in confidence (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/securitas/securitas-20130313.pdf)

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) administers a program called SECURITAS that enables you to report-in confidence-concerns you may have about safety in the marine, pipeline, rail and air modes of transportation. The incidents and potentially unsafe acts or conditions you report through SECURITAS are not always reported through other channels.

Why use SECURITAS?

SECURITAS reports can lead to the TSB making formal recommendations to the Minister of Transport or issuing safety advisories to other government departments or industry organizations for action.
SECURITAS reports can help the TSB identify widespread safety issues.
By combining confidential report data with other accident and incident reports and studies, and by sharing safety information with other agencies in Canada and abroad, investigators gain greater insight into national and global transportation safety issues.
SECURITAS reports may support TSB studies and analyses on safety-related matters such as operating procedures, training, human performance and equipment.

How is confidentiality protected?

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTAISB Act) protects the confidentiality of the statements that witnesses or those involved in transportation occurrences make, as well as the identity of persons who report confidentially to SECURITAS, so they can be frank with TSB investigators without any fear of reprisal, self-incrimination or embarrassment.
Letters, faxes, e-mails and telephone messages to SECURITAS come directly into the SECURITAS office and are handled only by authorized SECURITAS analysts. The analysts are specialists in marine, pipeline, rail and aviation safety.
A confidential record is kept of the reporter's name and contact information because the SECURITAS analyst may need to reach the reporter to follow up on the details of his or her report-but the reporter's identity is kept confidential.
The CTAISB Act (Section 31) and the TSB Regulations prohibit the release of any information that could reveal a confidential reporter's identity without the reporter's written consent.

How is this information used?

SECURITAS analysts examine each report and enter the pertinent information into the SECURITAS database. The TSB initiates action according to the gravity of the safety concern.
When the reported observation is confirmed to represent a safety deficiency, the TSB forwards the information, often with its suggestion for corrective action, to the appropriate regulatory authority. Sometimes the TSB contacts specific transportation organizations, companies and/or agencies directly if they are the ones best placed to correct the problem, but it will not take any action that might reveal the reporter's identity.
By comparing SECURITAS reports with other reports of similar situations, the TSB can also identify systemic safety deficiencies.

How to report to SECURITAS

SECURITAS is primarily concerned with unsafe acts and conditions in commercial and public transportation systems within federally-regulated modes of transport (marine, pipeline, rail and air).

Contact SECURITAS, and include the following in your message:

your name, address and phone number
your profession and experience
your involvement in the unsafe situation being reported
where else you may have reported this unsafe situation or safety concern
complete identification of the ship, pipeline, rolling stock or aircraft
the name of the owner/operator of the equipment
Also, please describe the unsafe act or safety concern.

For example:

How was the unsafe act/condition discovered?
If you are describing an event, tell SECURITAS

what happened;
where it happened;
when it happened (the date and the local time); and
why you think it happened.

What actions/inactions resulted, or could have resulted?
How do you think the situation could be corrected?
You will find the contact information at the end of this brochure.

What should you not report to SECURITAS?

Regulatory infractions or illegal activities that do not affect safety
Customer service complaints
Undesirable working conditions that do not affect transportation safety
False or misleading reports: Remember that it is an offence to knowingly give false or misleading statements to the TSB through SECURITAS. The purpose of your report should be to advance transportation safety through the identification of real safety deficiencies.

Air sector

Who reports to SECURITAS?

You are a pilot, air traffic controller, dispatcher, flight services specialist, flight attendant, aircraft maintenance engineer, a passenger-or any other person having an interest in aviation safety.

What kind of situation should you report?

These are some examples of the types of situations that could affect air transportation safety and that your report might help correct.

Unsafe conditions

Chronic lack of repair of aircraft, poor maintenance practices
Unsafe runway or aerodrome conditions
Inadequate or poor air traffic services in a particular area
Poor reception of navigation signals, weak radio coverage, inadequate weather services
Errors in aeronautical publications; unsafe procedures published in manuals of instructions for pilots, cabin crew, ground crew, or aircraft maintenance or air traffic services
Unsafe procedures and practices

Routinely descending below minimum en route altitude or approach in instrument meteorological conditions
Non-compliance with airworthiness directives, minimum equipment list
Pilots flying in excess of regulatory flight-time limits
Unsafe aircraft circuit procedures and/or communications
Air traffic control practices that could jeopardize the safety of flight, e.g., use of non-standard phraseology, compromising separation criteria, inadequate manning and supervision
Unsafe cabin baggage stowage procedures; unsafe passenger seating or cargo securing arrangements
Aircraft maintenance procedures not completed correctly but signed off
Shortcuts in following checklist procedures
Crew scheduling problems: inadequate crew composition, unqualified crew, inadequate crew rest
Scheduling personnel who are not professionally or medically qualified for the assigned duties
The use of unapproved parts, time-expired equipment
Send us your reports

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada will never reveal your identity or any information that could identify who you are. By reporting an unsafe act or condition, you can help make a real difference towards improving transportation safety.

:D:D

Kharon

19th Aug 2013, 23:03

The country may slumbering through the stultifying morass of election play making or sitting with a thumb firmly on the mute button; even forgetting the breath taking revelations of the Senate inquiry; but not Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/19/phillipines-carrier-zest-grounded-for-safety-failings/)at Plane Talking. I realise that Abbott's dip in the murky waters of the non PC pool may, temporarily, enthral and distract but not even the mods can shut down the press. Tick Tock indeed.

But the candour and speed with which the Philippines authorities notified the public of the actual details is yet another reminder of how poorly Australia’s safety authorities perform, notably in the case of the dishonest and quite frankly disgraceful handling of the Pel-Air crash investigation by both CASA the regulator and the ATSB, the now compromised and un-independent air safety investigator.

Australia, on its record, is more protective of the business interests of shamed airlines than it is accountable to travelling public. In fact the director of air safety at CASA, John McCormick, has quite a bit to say about this on the public and legally privileged record of the Hansard of the recent Senate committee inquiry into the deeply flawed Pel-Air crash report produced by the ATSB. Read the Senate findings and recommendations, and check back with the Hansard. It will take you at least a day, and leave you shaken and appalled.

Your $200 million dollar question is:-

Are we proud of this? Do we care? Or will we only care, when there is an avoidable tragedy in this country, and the responsible minister or his successor, is confronted in an inevitable high level inquiry with a mountain of evidence of shoddy, unresponsive and dangerous incompetency in both CASA and the ATSB?

CASAweary

20th Aug 2013, 03:57

The problem with Australian aviation's regulatory bodies is that they require a giant enema. The amount of ****e that these organisations have collected over the decades cant be measured. The Australian public, aviation professionals, senators, the local bushman, FIFO hookers and even the next door neighbours cattle dog knows that CASA and ATSB are completely useless, corrupt, incompetent, lethargic, out of their league and solely in place to protect the minister. Dolan and his Commissioners are an embarrassment, CASA and its three ring DAS circus are the worst example of safety management I have ever seen in 40 years of aviation. I mean seriously, a Doctor of voodoo law, a burnt out test pilot and an emotionally unstable angry screaming out of control loner do not fit the bill of a robust oversight management team. It is borderline frightening let alone sheer crazy what we are seeing. As for ATSB, well three commissioners who have never put their head underneath an engine cowl or seen anything aviation apart from the QF chairman’s lounge are equally reprehensible.
And I am still surprised that R. Collins whose business partner was Les Wright in PNG has yet to be grilled. There was very strong rumour that Collins helped Wright through the CASA audits of Transair before the Lockhart River accident. A little birdie is also singing a familiar song in regards to the Pel Air accident. It is remarkable how small this industry really is.

Senators Xenophon, Sterle, Fawcett and Nash are our only hope for possible change. And they are the only ones who may bring about closure and peace, finally, for people like Samantha Hare, Ziggychick and Shane Urquhart. Innocent people each with a different story about pain, suffering and the lowest of lows. Made to suffer intolerable pain while Government bureaucrats spin, lie, embellish and deny their own culpability. All of these individuals, the Minister, Mrdak and every spineless piece of amoral dross should hang their heads in shame and have a searing conscience for the remainder of eternity.

Coming to a regulator near you;

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/grim-reaper-1.jpg

I have no doubt that CASA will force PPrune to remove this post or lock this thread, such is their desparation to silence those who know. But let me reassure you that this game will continue as long as I have breath in my body or until CASA is finally taken to task for what it is.

P.S.S How is Consultant Harbor these days? Miss you Gary, hope we get to play again soon :ok:
And Flyingfiend, where are you my friend? Locked in a basement somewhere in Canberra? After all you are a Gimp and were mentored by someone who knows how to play the game by the inhouse rules. Sadly none of you know how to play the game by my set of rules. :=
Be certain, I'm not finished playing yet.

Frank Arouet

20th Aug 2013, 07:29

Yes, Ronald McDonald could do a better job and garner more points of credibility.

004wercras

20th Aug 2013, 08:00

Casaweary, bravo. Nice post. And good to see that you have tempered back your approach just a tad, nice work :ok:

Herr Sarcs, succinct as always mate :ok:
But don't CAsA and the ATSBeaker already have similar sounding systems called 'SECUREOURASS'?

On a serious note, the system sounds good and seems to tick the boxes. I would say only because there are boundaries, the government doesn't overly interfere plus the designers of the system are actual aviation cognisant individuals, not suckholes, bureaucrats, screamers or mi mi mi me'ers.

Frank Burden

21st Aug 2013, 09:53

CASAweary,

Why did you have to mention Harbor?

I have a mild stomach complaint that responds well to daily medication. However, I have had a major reflux breakthrough since reading your post.

Moderators please delete the CASAweary post to aid my digestive complaint.

More recently happy but again cranky,

Franky

Jinglie

22nd Aug 2013, 09:25

Tomorrow is the 90 day deadline for Albanese to respond to the Senate report. Mrdak's comment about the "urgency" he briefed Albanese on is now more laughable! Does caretaker mode stop aviation safety? I'm appalled.

Kharon

22nd Aug 2013, 23:20

Phelan's latest (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1585) piece makes me feel slightly uncomfortable.

Shadow Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss has supported demands from Senator David Fawcett for immediate action on the recommendations of the Senate committee enquiry into CASA and ATSB’s handling of the Pel-Air ditching at Norfolk Island almost four years ago: I wonder – if Truss gets rolled and Barnaby Joyce steps up to the plate, will he lapse into a post election hiatus and simply not tackle the glaring, serious issues highlighted in the Senate "tip of the iceberg" report; go into a 'too busy' coma, or worse, take advice from the present crew? It will take some political will, horsepower and courage to untangle the Gordian knots, rings of iron, Golden West Mafia tactics, white papers and the entrenched rewards system for towing the line and being a willing accomplice. I notice trips to Montreal are being dished out again; and you wonder where $89 million goes to.

Of course, not being politically savvy is of no help, whatsoever; but, a healthy cynical distrust based on past events makes me wonder, will anything ever, ever change. If Xenophon, Fawcett and the Senate crew were not around, I'd reckon game over. But I can live in hope, wait and see, expect the worst and hope for the best. New cages to rattle, fresh tails to pull and the old enemies will still be squatting near trough – now there is a happy thought.

Jinglie # 1367 –"Tomorrow is the 90 day deadline for Albanese to respond to the Senate report. Mrdak's comment about the "urgency" he briefed Albanese on is now more laughable! Does caretaker mode stop aviation safety? I'm appalled." About par for the course I'd say, 'what man proposes, the gods disposes'. (Kempis badly paraphrased). http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Sarcs

23rd Aug 2013, 00:13

Phelan's piece is highlighting a Truss media release that came out a week after the report was released..a lot has changed since then but the point you make "K" is relevant and perhaps industry should be starting to lobby Barnaby with their concerns in regards to the Senate report??:ok:

Meanwhile over at Sleepy Hollow the wagons appear to be circling...from today's Australian:E:

CASA toughens safety rule

by: STEVE CREEDY
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
August 23, 2013 12:00AM
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority is to remove a discrepancy in air safety rules brought into focus by the 2009 night-time ditching of a fuel-starved Pel-Air ambulance in the sea off Norfolk Island.
A notice of proposed rule making to regulate fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter air ambulance flights as air transport operations will bring Australia into line with jurisdictions such as Britain, Europe, Canada, New Zealand and the US.
The Pel-Air flight was working under the less onerous "aerial work" capacity and this was seen as a factor in the ditching. The NPRM said Australia was unique among leading industrial nations in classifying medical transport flights as aerial work, and a reclassification would bring the flights into line with International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations.
It said the current aerial work category did not give operators full recognition of their proactive approach to safety or recognise the fundamental purpose of medical transport flights was passenger carriage of people often not in a position to make informed choice about the transport services received.
"Given industry's predisposition to a more risk-averse and safety-focused philosophy, CASA believes that Australia's new aviation safety regulations will benefit from a policy whereby medical transport flights are regulated as an air transport operation and are subject to the same general standards that apply to other passenger transport operations," it said.
The new requirements will mean medical transport operators will need to have to introduce several CASA-approved systems and processes.
These include safety management systems, human factors and non-technical skills training, fatigue management, check and training, operator expositions and maintenance processes with minimum equipment lists. "These systems are, in CASA's opinion, very relevant to the organisational model required for medical transport operations," the NPRM said.
In defining medical transport operations, CASA said it did not intend to classify as medical transport flights such as a search and rescue, which also may involve "coincident patient care" of an injured survivor.
These would remain classified an aerial work emergency service operation, regardless of the delivery of patient care. A flight solely for the purpose of carrying medical supplies also would remain a cargo operation.
"It is CASA's proposed policy that if a flight commences with the express purpose of carrying a medical passenger at any time, then the MT flight is a passenger transport operation for the purposes of Part 119 of CASA and applicable operational rules," it said.
The regulator also considered that "potential additional costs associated with adopting would be outweighed by the safety benefits".
"In many cases, such costs are already absorbed by operators as they have (in their own right) upgraded their business models, for contractual purposes, to meet the proposed AT requirements," it said.
Comments on the proposed rules close on November 27. Kind of glosses over the cover up (blame the pilot)..of the cover up (hide the paperwork) which was conveniently covered up by the Chambers Report and the dross that was CAIR 09/3...:yuk::yuk:
NB Rule 101 the key to good bureaucratic obfuscation is to deny..deny..deny and then say to the pollies hey look what we've done to fix the problem = contribution to the trough replenishment fund!:ugh:

004wercras

23rd Aug 2013, 02:51

No no surely not. Changes to the Regs, for real?
Oh my, that must hurt the 'iron ring' allowing a change that will see one small component of their sandpit align with the others kids playground - EASA, FAA, TC, CAA?? Egos shall be decimated, genitalia will shrink, control handed over (in a roundabout way), an unofficial admission that other countries have got it right while dumb and dumber Australia wallow in regulatory mire!
One small step for CAsA, one potential giant leap for Australian aviation? Hmmm probably not, well not while the 'three ring DAS circus' is still in town with its side act of Beakerism! Mi mi mi.

Truss should be careful, that impenetrable iron ring will not like a pesky Pollie sniffing around their backyard, Truss could become another victim of the GWM.
Barnaby Joyce is a potential. He is fairly vocal and not afraid to insert a few pineapples, but it will take a giant set of hairy plums to rage against the CAsA machine. Up to the job Barnaby?

Imagine the looks of despair amongst CAsA's upper echelon, the dry throats, the watery eyes and the quivering lips as they approached Sith Mrdak's throne to announce that on one issue they would follow the rest of the world? Oh the humility, oh the shame, to willingly dine on a **** sandwich, that must have hurt. This won't impress the ATSBeaker because CAsA aren't going it alone, they are looking at other regions and acknowledging processes that work, rather than postulating, toying with robust hypotheses and generally playing with themselves whilst engaged in 'beyond reasoning' as the world slips past them.
Oh yes, a slight change of thought by FF as they fight to survive in a post Norfolk world!
No doubt the Screamer won't be in a good mood today folks, not even happy thoughts and a Hawaiian shirt will placate him. So best leave him be, no doubt somebody will be receiving a 1659 fax!

Sarcs

23rd Aug 2013, 09:48

Jinglie:
Deadline
Tomorrow is the 90 day deadline for Albanese to respond to the Senate report. Mrdak's comment about the "urgency" he briefed Albanese on is now more laughable! Does caretaker mode stop aviation safety? I'm appalled. And Nick Xenophon isn't afraid to remind everyone that the 90 days is up {although the spelling on government is interesting:E}:
GOVERNTMENT SILENCE DEAFENING ON AVIATION SAFETY REPORT

23rd August 2013

Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, has criticised Transport Minister Anthony Albanese for failing to respond to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s damning report into aviation accident investigations within the required three month timeframe.

This is despite evidence given by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport during Senate estimates that it would be providing advice to the Minister in early June.

“This is a disgrace,” Nick said. “The Senate committee’s report revealed serious failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB, and still the Government has nothing to say.”

The report, which focused on the ditching of Pel-Air flight VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009, found that the ATSB’s investigation of the accident did not hold up to international standards and that CASA had withheld vital evidence detailing its own failure to oversee Pel-Air from the ATSB.

“Even the ATSB’s Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan said he wasn’t proud of the investigation, but neither the ATSB nor the Government are willing to fix what is clearly a broken system,” Nick said.

“The committee went so far as to say Mr Dolan’s evidence to the inquiry as ‘questionable’ and had ‘seriously eroded’ his standing as a witness,” Nick said. “These are incredibly serious allegations about the Chief Commissioner, but the Government has said nothing.”

“Every Australian who flies should be alarmed at the unanimous findings of the Senate inquiry,” Nick said. “It’s a pity this critical report doesn’t seem to be on the Government’s radar.”
Hear..hear Nick!:ok:

Although not up for re-election DF hasn't been holding back in his criticism of the Minister for many hats DPM Teflon either:

INTERNAL DIVISIONS HIGHER PRIORITY THAN AVIATION SAFETY (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/Aviation%20Safety%20%20050813.pdf)

and:

Albanese needs to lead on Aviation Safety (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/Albanese%20needs%20to%20lead%20on%20aviation%20safety%202%20 Aug%202013.pdf):D:D

Frank Burden

23rd Aug 2013, 09:49

When it comes to Steve Creedy, he is so far CASA's rear office he can see Beaker's feet!

004wercras

23rd Aug 2013, 11:30

Agreed Sarcs, some good articles popping up. I don't think we ever really thought that Nick would forget the agreed deadline did we?:ok:
As for the Albanese/Mrdak cone of science, no surprise there. They are just biding time and doing what Politicians of their calibre do best - prioritise the interest of themselves above all else. They have made an art form out of failing to respond within an agreed timeframe to anything. Its interesting how the Departments bastard child - CAsA, who acts with the same disregard and contempt for aviation safety and transparency as its Masters of the Ministry.
Can we issue Mrdak and Teflon Tony with a NCN? Oh no of course not, I forgot, one rule for the ills of society and one rule for the incompetent trough dwellers. How silly of me!

Frank Burden, all these shenanigans, what to do what to do? Bring back Harbor to sort out all these 'people issues'? Promote Beaker to a position next to Mrdak's throne, as a cup bearer of sorts? Or do we demand that the Screamer stop wearing 1970's porn film clothes around sleepy hollow every Friday? Or perhaps we just put the toilet seat down and hit the flush button? So many items need rectification, so little time!

halfmanhalfbiscuit

23rd Aug 2013, 14:33

The polls suggest Albanese won't be responsible after Sept 7th. Hopefully Nick keeping in the spotlight the next minister might take some interest.

Senator Fawcett might be in a position to push the issue soon.

Btw, Hempel inquest update was supposed to be August too.

Sarcs

23rd Aug 2013, 22:55

From Planetalking (my red bold):
Rudd government’s air safety failure a risk to all

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Aug 24, 2013 8:17AM | EMAIL (?subject=Check%20out%20%22Rudd%20government%E2%80%99s%20air %20safety%20failure%20a%20risk%20to%20all%22%20on%20Crikey&body=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.crikey.com.au%2Fplanetalking%2F2013% 2F08%2F24%2Frudd-governments-air-safety-failure-a-risk-to-a%20) | PRINT (javascript:window.print();)

There is is one thing that stinks badly about the Rudd Government’s record in relation to aviation, and that is the persistent failure of Anthony Albanese, the Minister for everything including air safety, to act against the abuse of process in the ATSB and CASA over the Pel-Air crash cover up of CASA incompetence.

This week the deadline for Minister Albanese to respond within 90 days to the report of a Senate committee which inquired into the matter, passed without action.

This inaction drew this statement last night from the Independent Senator from South Australia, Nick Xenophon:
Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, has criticised Transport Minister Anthony Albanese for failing to respond to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s damning report into aviation accident investigations within the required three month timeframe.
This is despite evidence given by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport during Senate estimates that it would be providing advice to the Minister in early June.
“This is a disgrace,” Nick said. “The Senate committee’s report revealed serious failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB, and still the Government has nothing to say.”
The report, which focused on the ditching of Pel-Air flight VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009, found that the ATSB’s investigation of the accident did not hold up to international standards and that CASA had withheld vital evidence detailing its own failure to oversee Pel-Air from the ATSB.
“Even the ATSB’s Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan said he wasn’t proud of the investigation, but neither the ATSB nor the Government are willing to fix what is clearly a broken system,” Nick said.
“The committee went so far as to say Mr Dolan’s evidence to the inquiry as ‘questionable’ and had ‘seriously eroded’ his standing as a witness,” Nick said. “These are incredibly serious allegations about the Chief Commissioner, but the Government has said nothing.”
“Every Australian who flies should be alarmed at the unanimous findings of the Senate inquiry,” Nick said. “It’s a pity this critical report doesn’t seem to be on the Government’s radar.”
Now, it may well be that the Labor way in such matters is to sit back and let corrupted bureacracies screw over individual Australians like the pilot of the crashed plane while compromised public authorities concoct a report which lays all of the blame on his actions.:D

Little people probably don’t count for much when it comes to the machinations of big government, a criticism that might well be just as applicable to the other side of politics.

Who really gives a toss about injustice in public administration? But a Senate committee drawn from Labor, Coalition and Green and Independent senators, unanimously found the testimony of the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan, to be unacceptable, and sought directly a Federal Police determination as to whether the cover up of a damning document identifying CASA failings in relation to this accident breached the Transport Safety Investigations Act.
(It does if the words of the act mean what they say, however the possibility of the AFP finding anything wrong in the withholding of information about an air crash by CASA from the ATSB contrary to the act is, in reality, wildly implausible.)

What is of concern is that the Minister made or allowed to be made on his behalf, a serious of committments for a timely response to the Senate committee’s report, and well before the 7 September election was called and government entered caretaker mode.

Those committments have not been honoured.

There are potential consequences from this for the safety of all Australians who use or rely upon air services of any type. CASA after all has blood on its hands from the 2005 Lockhart River crash in far northern Queensland in which an operator known to CASA to be unsafe was allowed to continue flying until it eventually killed all 15 people aboard a small turbo-prop making a landing approach to an airstrip in poor visibility.
CASA subsequently denied that it had any obligation to warn the public of unsafe operations.

However the biggest potential risk in the really grubby circumstances of the Pel-Air incident, in which the air safety investigator went out of its way to avoid recovering potentially incriminating evidence from the aircraft’s data recorder, which lies on the sea bed near Norfolk Island, is to Australia’s international air safety rating.

If ICAO were to audit and fail the administration and performance of air safety standards and oversight in this country, the US FAA would follow suit, and Qantas and Virgin Australia would have their code-shares with US carriers suspended, and their rights to increase their flights to American cities revoked.

Thus there are compelling safety and commercial reasons for any Australian government to act on the evidence and recommendations gathered and made by the Senate committee in relation to the Pel-Air matters.
It’s a matter of good government. It needs to be fixed.
Don't hold back Ben!!:D:ok:

004wercras

24th Aug 2013, 22:13

Another well written article by Ben. I am pleased to see Lockhart referenced. The inaction from CAsA prior to the accident, dating back at least to around 2000 is indeed worthy of the term 'blood on their hands'. The circumstances behind the Transair operation is a murky, festering sore. Operational mates rates with the FNQ office, dodgy operations, high level 'friendships' between Transair and people at CAsA FNQ, and of course the inevitable internal promotions for jobs well done. Sickening stuff. But hey, 15 lives were lost in a smoking hole, **** happens, nothing left to see here, move on folks!
That crazy cat Casaweary had an interesting point to make in his/her last post about Lockhart, makes one think??

The arrogance of Albanese office not to respond within its prescribed timeframe to the Senate enquiry only adds weight to the fact that Australia's aviation safety is at the bottom of a mighty list of priorities. The safety of Australian citizens of all creeds and international visitors is irrelevant, that's the Governments message loud and clear. The Ministers department has also shown that it simply doesn't care about due process or transparency, that it does not have to act in the same manner as any other person, business, department or entity. The Ministers department is outwardly acknowledging that its regulatory departments can do as they please regardless of legal, moral or ethical obligations. The Ministers department is content to allow accidents such as Pel Air to occur, and it is content to allow innocent lives be shed on the side of mountains such as with Lockhart. Importantly, by the Ministers office displaying the level of arrogance, incompetence and thumbing its nose at Australians at large proves that it is not deserving, worthy, willing, or importantly capable of governing our skies. They ought to be handed the countries largest NCN, have the worlds largest pineapple jammed up their ass and forced to unceremoniously walk the green mile with heads bowed low.

004wercras

28th Aug 2013, 03:40

This job is listed on the Fort Fumble website. Digital, media, photography etc. Wouldn't FF require its own AOC to take photographs? Or is the job related to non flying type work such as;

- Taking photographs of the executives smiling in their Gimp suits for the annual CAsA report.
- Taking photos of withering pot plants.
- Taking photos of the Brisbane worm farm and errant snakes during summer.
- Taking photos of CMT piss ups on away trips, namely 'audits'.
- Hiding in aerodrome bushes and taking photos of naughty chopper pilots walking across the Tarmac not wearing reflective vests.
- Taking group photos of each other postulating hard in Montreal while living the dream at the taxpayers expense.
- Taking photos of damage to the walls in the Screamers office, for insurance purposes.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Current Vacancies - E-recruitment (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101096)

PLovett

28th Aug 2013, 05:57

The Australian public, ................., senators (the majority), the local bushman, FIFO hookers and even the next door neighbours cattle dog knows that CASA and ATSB are completely useless, corrupt, incompetent, lethargic, out of their league and solely in place to protect the minister.

NO THEY DON'T!

And that is the bleedin' problem!

Until aviation safety is the daily talking point of the great unwashed aviation reform hasn't a dog's chance in hell of getting up. The reason is primarily that we, the aviation sector, can be guaranteed to fight among ourselves until the cows come home. Unlike the US, where there are effective lobby groups at all levels of aviation, here, all we can do is spit the dummy at any attempt to get unified action, take our bat and ball and stomp off home.

What will it take? A large smoking hole in the ground. No, not a Metro size hole, or a Chieftain or, I suggest, even a Dash 8/Saab 340 size hole but a 737/320 sized one. You see, first you've got to get their attention.

Up-into-the-air

28th Aug 2013, 12:00

Top article tonight by Ben following Chris Reason on Prime tonight (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1940)

Come on albo. you must answer

Pel-Air on prime time TV snares Minister's false statement | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/28/pel-air-on-prime-time-tv-snares-ministers-false-statement/)

Sarcs

28th Aug 2013, 12:16

FFS did he think the IOS wouldn't notice??:ugh:Pel-Air on prime time TV snares Minister’s false statement

The Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese was caught out on 7 News tonight in a report by Chris Reason on the festering sore that is the proven hush up by CASA and the ATSB of all of the circumstances that were relevant to the crash of a Pel-Air operated air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

Albanese said he was unable to take action over a damning Senate committee report on lies and deceits of Australia’s two air safety authorities because parliament went into caretaker mode.

Minister, this is total unmitigated rubbish. Caretaker mode began on 5 August.

On 29 May after consultation with your department Plane Talking published this story as to the urgency with which you and your departmental head Mike Mrdak (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/29/pel-air-update-minister-wants-to-respond-with-urgency/) were claimed to be responding to the unanimous report of the Senate Committee inquiry into aviation safety investigations with particular reference to the performance of the ATSB (the safety investigator) and CASA (the safety regulator).

At that inquiry the Director of Safety at CASA, John McCormick, admitted to withholding an internal audit by CASA that found that the accident was preventable if CASA had actually carried out its duties and obligations in law in relation to the oversight of Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick also apologised for his actions, which the committee has referred to the Australian Federal Police to resolve whether or not it was action that constituted an offence under the Transport Safety Investigations Act of 2003. (If the words in the act mean what they say, McCormick broke the law.)

The committee went on to devote an entire chapter of its report into its lack of confidence in the testimony given by the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan. The committee’s findings, made by a panel drawn from Labor, the Coalition and the Greens, was unanimous in its findings.

It also recommended, among other things, that the ATSB reconsider its final accident report and in the process retrieve the data recorder from the wreckage of the jet, which lies at a recoverable depth on the sea floor near Norfolk Island where it came to rest after being ditched immediately before it ran out of fuel. (All six persons on board were subsequently rescued by a fishing boat in the middle of the night).

The ATSB has deliberately chosen not to recover the data, which carries the distinct possibility of proving that the pilot did not receive correct meteorological information before flying the jet to a position where it could no longer divert to an alternative airport in Noumea or Fiji should it be unable to land at Norfolk Island for a refueling stop.

The ATSB failed to honor its international obligations to make safety recommendations in relation to the failure on board the ditched jet of all of the safety equipment to perform as intended. It regarded the eventual discovery that CASA had found Pel-Air to be in breach of dozens of safety requirements at the time of the crash as ‘immaterial’, and it framed its final report to visit the entire blame for the accident on the captain Dominic James, who was central to the 7 News report, which should be readily found by a search query on the internet later tonight.

As Mick Quinn, the former deputy chief executive officer of CASA told Chris Reason on 7 News tonight, this corrupted and untruthful circus performance by the safety bodies in relation to the Pel-Air investigation has destroyed Australia’s reputation as a first class nation when it comes to the administration of air safety.

Minister, you are personally responsible for this. You allowed commitments to be made on your behalf, which were not honoured, and you have demonstrated contempt for the Senate of Australia by not responding to the committee’s recommendations within 90 days.

This means you have not acted in a timely manner to correct or restore the integrity of the aviation safety authorities, and that means the safety of Australian air travellers, and those of foreign airlines and their passengers using our air space and airports, is no longer a given.

On 30 May Plane Talking reported on the intention of the department of Infrastructure and Transport to ‘ride out’ the controversy (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/30/atsb-casa-to-ride-this-one-out-over-pel-air-scandal/) over the disgraceful report issed by the ATSB into this accident.

Minister, surely you are not a party to ‘riding out’ critically important air safety issues? The world is unlikely to let Australia get away with such a poor attitude, as explained in this more recent report (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/24/rudd-governments-air-safety-failure-a-risk-to-all/).

If the Minister can say so during caretaker mode, what was he thinking when he gave his misleading answer about his inability to repond to these matters in the Chris Reason interview?

Was it amnesia? Or did he think no one would notice that what was broadcast tonight was in conflict with his position at the end of May?

And here's a link for Ch7 news piece : Pilot's scathing attack on air safety agencies (http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/local/18694051/pilots-scathing-attack-on-air-safety-agencies/)

And Albo not just anyone can refer a matter to the AFP...doh! :=:=

Referrals to the AFP (http://www.afp.gov.au/what-we-do/referrals.aspx)
{lie 2 in about a dozen words from the DPM}When a matter can be referred to the AFP

An Australian Government department or agency may refer a matter to the AFP Operations Monitoring Centre (OMC) in the State or Territory where the suspected offence/s occurred if it:

identifies any serious breach of federal legislation
considers the AFP Case Categorisation and Prioritisation Model (http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/operational-priorities/how-the-ccpm-is-applied.aspx)
considers the matter is appropriate for referral to the AFP
requires AFP assistance or advice in relation to an investigation being conducted by that department or agency into suspected breaches of Federal legislation
How to make a referral

For initial enquiries or pre-referral advice, departments and agencies should call the local AFP Operations Monitoring Centre (http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/operational-priorities/operations-monitoring-centres.aspx).

All referrals should be made using an AFP Referral Form (DOC, 100KB) (http://www.afp.gov.au/what-we-do/~/media/afp/doc/annexure-b-afp-referral-form.ashx). If you are having trouble accessing this document, please call the local AFP Operations Monitoring Centre (http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/operational-priorities/operations-monitoring-centres.aspx).

Referrals should be sent to the AFP Operations Monitoring Centre (http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/operational-priorities/operations-monitoring-centres.aspx) in the State or Territory where the suspected offences occurred. The referral should include all relevant referral information and documents (letter and attachments).

Referrals may be sent by email or post, or delivered by hand. Agencies should consider the security classification and sensitivity of the information contained in the referral when deciding how to send it to the AFP.

All referral letters to the AFP must, as a minimum, include the following:

copies of all documents relevant to the referral
action being requested of the AFP
if the department or agency wants the AFP to consider a joint investigation, details should be included (such as which resources they are able to provide)
the suspected breaches including specific legislation offence(s)
details of the suspected offender(s) including name, date of birth, location (where known)
the suspect's criminal history, if known, and information relating to circumstances where they have previously come to the department or agency's attention
a chronological account of the facts or evidence supporting the suspected breach(es)
value of the revenue loss or potential losses for the department or agency
a summary of all enquiries or investigations already undertaken by the department or agency
details of witnesses
if the suspect(s) is aware of the department or agency's investigation/allegation
references to any specific legislative provisions including consent to prosecute or time limitation regarding commencement of prosecution
copies of relevant legal advice sought by, and provided to, the department or agency
significance or impact of the referral to the department or agency
the department or agency case reference number and other reference details, including the operation's name
details of the department or agency's nominated case officer and/or contact person including their contact details
Where search warrants or operational action is proposed, departments and agencies are requested to provide Standard Tactical Plans or similar planning documentation with the referral documents.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

004wercras

28th Aug 2013, 13:11

Indeed an interesting interview. But lets not waste precious time debating the matter as there is nothing really to debate - The Minister, his office, CAsA, ATSB and to a slightly lesser degree up until lately ASA, are an absolute disgrace, a shambles, a mess, a dysfunctional risk and nothing less than a rotting pungent carcass.
It is time that the nation was somehow shown in great detail how pathetic the above mentioned departments, organisations and structures are, and instant action be applied.

Caretaker mode my ass. They are stalling and deflecting. The Screaming Skull's contract is up in March 2014, and unfortunately the rest of his circus act aren't contracted, so they have lifetime jobs. The Minister for bad teeth and his apprentice Mrdork are simply ticking off calendar days hoping all will be forgotten. That's the way they have always done it and hell it used to work. But not this time. Change is in the wind my friends. People, including the IOS aren't going to walk away nor forget this time. And nor should we, because sooner or later more people will get killed. Pel Air was sheer luck that nobody died. Canley Vale and CAsA's blatant ignoring of the warnings is a disgrace. The farcicle actions of CAsA and the deaths of 15 people at Lockhart is a sore that never heals. I reiterate that the families, friends and loved ones of the Transair disaster DESERVE BETTER, DESERVE JUSTICE, DESERVE THE TRUTH TO BE TOLD! This has not happened yet. It is an absolutely appalling episode. Seriously, how much of this **** to Australia's citizens have to endure?

The FAA, ICAO, NTSB, ANAO, hell old mother Hubbard with an AWI in her cupboard, all of them need to audit Fort Fumble.
Xenophon, Fawcett, Nash and Co they've got your number Big John! They smell what you're cooking mate, and its not good. And Beaker, Mr mi mi mi mi, you've also been made old son. You are a laughing stock, a pathetic bean counting bureaucrat who doesn't deserve the position of Commissioner, no you never have, and you never will.

The longer that the above dross are allowed to continue staining our industry with there putrid brown skidmark the closer we come to the inevitable giant smoking hole.

'Safe skies are NOT our skies'

Kharon

28th Aug 2013, 21:32

"Albanese said he was unable to take action over a damning Senate committee report on lies and deceits of Australia’s two air safety authorities because parliament went into caretaker mode."Minister, this is total unmitigated rubbish. Caretaker mode began on 5 August.

That Albo is just plain **** scared of matters aeronautical is a very good thing; the whole lot must be wetting themselves, because one way or t'other this cannot be stopped: it may be delayed, deferred, bushwhacked and sabotaged; but not stopped. In fact the longer it drags on, the more reason for a full dress inquiry there is, nervous politicians (not piloticians) should know that the entire nation will point the finger of blame directly at them the next time there is an incident – they are after all fully aware that there is a deep, festering scab covering a lethal wound – with a bit of luck, this notion will filter through to even those with the attention span of a well trained racing rabbit and the IQ of toilet seat.

Keep up the good work boys, drag it out, deny, deny deny; attaboy....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

tail wheel

28th Aug 2013, 22:43

I have no doubt that CASA will force PPRuNe to remove this post or lock this thread,...

I don't think so! :=

Roller Merlin

28th Aug 2013, 23:42

So the strategy from here:
1. Deny, go quiet...(usual behaviour)
2. Polls indicate defeat, so Albo does nothing even more...loses portfolio
3. New government and new aviation minister appointed
4. New Aviation minister blames previous government, gets as much traction as possible by blaming old minister who now has different shadow portfolio
5. Minor administrative changes made to obscure governing instruments for CASA and ATSB. "Problems caused by Labor Government all fixed, cannot happen again!"
6. New government moves onto bigger announcements, previous stuff lost in the noise.

004wercras

29th Aug 2013, 00:52

7. Smoking hole of a large twin occurs with the loss of hundreds of lives. The truth about the condition of Australian aviation is finally laid out before all, live on TV as charred fragmented body parts are carried away.

TICK TOCK

Kharon

29th Aug 2013, 01:16

Sarcs # 1380 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-69.html#post8017045) - provides a link to the - AFP – which is worth exploring; it makes a nonsense of the DPM statements and reflects the leadership attitude our disgraced 'Safety' watchdog and the pack of mutts following it about. Tim Tam for Sarcs.

I finally got to see the Ch 7 piece (http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/local/18694051/pilots-scathing-attack-on-air-safety-agencies/); it's worth a second look, watch the DPM face and body language, carefully. My Mama could beat the boots off this chump at poker – any day of the week.

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/28/pel-air-on-prime-time-tv-snares-ministers-false-statement/), once again telling it as it is and yet the blighters keep turning up at work, taking their pay and swan about the place, posing as 'expert' front line aviation experts. Fetch the bucket Min, it's puke time again......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

I wonder; do you think Chris Reason would be interested in doing the real story; in depth. He could interview Wodger and Uncle Terry first, then have a beer with the BRB. What a hoot.

Smile and say "Cheese" for camera boys.....:D

004wercras

29th Aug 2013, 03:00

It would appear that Chris Reason and James Reason have something in common - both know how to sniff out something unsafe?
The GWM would not be enjoying any extra attention, but no doubt the crisis team was called into play this morning along with its 'Chair' the Mascot Minister, Mrdork and select available members of the GWM (those not buried up to their socks in a trough somewhere).

Albo's body language was priceless. When Mr Reason first approached him and mentioned Pelair he looked as if he was giving birth to a 13 lb pooh!!! Ouch. Very uncomfortable.
Aargh well, good work Chanel 7, you are on to them :ok:Then again, CAsA have been feeding your FOI requests back to you one page at a time for a number of years now haven't they? Naughty Skull, Flyingfiend and Co.
I bet that since the Ch 7 interview CAsA has order a 747 full of turd polish, extra strong!
May I suggest that Chris Reason (aka Honorary IOS) now track down the mi mi mi Beaker and put some questions to him also? Actually you could kill two birds with the same stone as the Beaker and Associate DAS are literally residential neighbours in Canberra :ok: Interview them together!

Frank Arouet

29th Aug 2013, 04:33

Perhaps pertinent today, but unfortunately we will never see any aviation dream come to fruition in Australia in the foreseeable future. In 48 years I've seen the best and now the worst.

RIP Australian aviation Industry.:(

004wercras

29th Aug 2013, 06:41

No Frank, the worst is still to come, in the form of a giant smoking hole.
Then all the bureaucracies can pack up their lunch boxes and go home, job complete - Australian aviation finally finishes its long drawn out decent to the lowest level in 30 years. The corks will be popped, backs slapped, reach around's given and marshmallows toasted over the still warm flames engulfing a couple of hundred naive and unknowing burning passengers and crew.

Bravo bravo CAsA and company, the fans go wild, the shout of a regulatory encore echoes through the skies, but there will be no encore, the game will have ended history complete.....
Minnie, flick the switch and turn off the lights as you exit the room, atta girl.

PLovett

29th Aug 2013, 09:14

A few years ago I worked for a time in a simulation company that offered "flights" to the public in a quasi-737 simulator. No, it wasn't the flight experience mob who advertise for staff these days and, no, it wasn't Microsoft Flight Sim.

One of my customers was a senior journalist who plied his trade in Canberra. He was also something of an aviation enthusiast and we had an enjoyable hour in the simulator. After the session was over there were no further customers and he had some time to fill so we sat down over a coffee and discussed aviation.

This would have been back in 2010 and I pointed out the dire state of aviation matters at the time quoting several examples. I suggested that he contact Sen. Xenophon on his return as he was at the time already showing a keen interest in aviation matters. End result - nothing - not a peep. The public don't think it is an issue.

Kudos to Ch 7, but I suspect the reason was that there was an issue they could ambush the present govt. over. I suggest that if the parties were transposed it would not have been raised. Ben Sandilands is the only journo who takes aviation seriously and he is preaching to the converted.

004wercras

29th Aug 2013, 10:34

Interesting article. But I'm thinking Fort Fumble, and KRudd for that matter are more sociopathic.

Why working for a psychopath can be great | News.com.au (http://mobile.news.com.au/business/worklife/why-working-for-a-psychopath-can-be-great/story-e6frfm9r-1226706696315)

Plovett, Paul Phelan is passionate about aviation as well and like Ben, he is happy to place his dusters on the line time and time again :ok:

PLovett

29th Aug 2013, 21:16

004,

My apologies, I forgot about Paul who I have also discussed matters aviation with over the years. In fact, Paul has probably the most extensive knowledge of aviation shambles combined with a practical knowledge of what it is like at the sharp end of an aircraft.

Kharon

29th Aug 2013, 21:39

The federal Coalition plans to bring in a prominent member of the international aviation community to conduct an external review of aviation safety and regulations similar to the Wheeler inquiry into aviation security.

It will announce the move today as part of its aviation policy that foreshadows a potential restructure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and a strengthening of the CASA board by increasing the number of members from four to six.

It is also promising a formal aviation industry consultative council that would meet regularly with the transport minister to address matters of concern to the wider industry, and an industry complaints commissioner to investigate grievances about the regulator or its operatives "in a reasonable time".

The external safety and regulation review comes after recent adverse findings by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and after industry feedback that safety regulations were being inappropriately applied and were too bureaucratic.

"We've had such feedback from the industry about the regulatory process and the operations of CASA, it simply has to be addressed," opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss told The Australian.

"We've also got the inevitable and ongoing differences of opinion in the sector about how everything should be done and I thought the Wheeler Review was actually a very useful exercise in dealing with aviation security.

"Not all the recommendations were perfect, but it acted as a circuit breaker and his report has effectively underpinned all that we've done on aviation security since."
Mr Truss said he thought it highly unlikely there would be a consensus on the best way to proceed with the regulatory system.

"I'm hopeful that we will be able to get a decisive breakthrough as we did with Wheeler," he said, noting the opposition did not have a particular candidate in mind but that it would be someone whose views and work would be respected.

He said a Coalition government would not proceed with changes until the review was completed. He said he would like to have it completed so that key decisions could be made by March, when current CASA boss John McCormick's current term expired.

"There are some things I can do immediately without asking for an outside expert. It's just self-evident," Mr Truss said. "For instance, it's silly to have a board that the CEO is not answerable to, and things like that. But it's better to do it all in one go when a new person is appointed or there is a renewal of a term."

Mr Truss conceded that aviation had been an area "where angels dared to tread", but there was concern about the system wherever he went, particularly among licensed aircraft maintenance engineers.

"The big airlines, they can cope with this, because they've got the people and the systems, but the poor one-man operator or just two or three people at a country airfield, this paper war is something they can't very easily cope with," Mr Truss said.

The policy calls for a firm strategic direction for CASA with renewed focus on meaningful industry consultation, an emphasis on consistency in interpreting the rules and a more timely and streamlined review process.

My bold - From the "Australian (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Coalition+flags+safety+review&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=7bwfUrXZOqTOiAenwoGYAw&ved=0CCoQqAI&biw=1153&bih=673)".......:D

Kharon

29th Aug 2013, 21:46

From the Australian (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Coalition+flags+safety+review&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=7bwfUrXZOqTOiAenwoGYAw&ved=0CCoQqAI&biw=1153&bih=673) :-

The industry complaints commissioner would be responsible for investigating complaints about CASA personnel and delegates or authorised personnel.

The commissioner would be required to provide a quarterly report to the board and director of aviation safety that included a summary of activities, the number or complaints received and time taken to respond.

"The other issue we get constantly is criticism of differences in the way the same laws are interpreted in different offices by different people," Mr Truss said.

Other key parts of the policy include better utilisation of the airspace.

The Coalition will task Airservices Australia with fast-tracking technological improvements at airports that are supported by both airports and airlines and could improve reliability.

The en-route subsidy scheme would be revived but would be restructured to provide maximum help to marginal routes.
The carbon tax goes as part of the wider Coalition policy, aviation manufacturing would be encouraged and there would be a move to revitalise general aviation.

On the vexed question of a second Sydney airport, the Coalition would make a decision on a second site in its first term of government.

Now is the time for all good men. etc.

PLovett

29th Aug 2013, 21:55

Is it a "core promise"?

All of what has been discussed here was also occurring when Truss was the responsible minister. He had the chance then and did nothing. Read this (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=922#more-922) and weep.

I am not going to hold my breath on this.

Kharon

29th Aug 2013, 22:16

Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/30/labors-air-safety-airport-failures-come-home-to-roost/)

"The failure of the deputy PM Anthony Albanese, to take his responsibilities to act on the Pel-Air scandal seriously will bite him badly today when the coalition announces what will be an extremely serious review of air safety administration in Australia.

This is how the announcement is previewed (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-flags-safety-review/story-e6frg95x-1226706917176) in The Australian.
Aw, c'mon PL – let's at least smile - till smoko. Things are just a little different this time; traps have been set by clever folk. I just can't decide if I want a wabbit pie or bacon sambo; lots of choice on the menu, two varieties of soup; although some of the menu is of dubious quality it's not all worthless. I shall speak to the Chef.
Now then Sir, will ye have nuts or a cigar......:D....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Frank Arouet

29th Aug 2013, 23:01

"For instance, it's silly to have a board that the CEO is not answerable to,

Isn't the DAS on the board? Doesn't this make for a conflict of interest?

The commissioner would be required to provide a quarterly report to the board and director of aviation safety that included a summary of activities, the number or complaints received and time taken to respond.

Wrong! The Commissioner has to report to The Minister.

BTW, on who's payroll, is this new Commissioner?

004wercras

29th Aug 2013, 23:11

Talk is good, it's cheap but its a start. Mr Truss's concerns are noted, and his probable intentions are what I would say 'in the spirit' of the type of changes we need. However he is still off the mark somewhat on numerous criteria, but at least he is a little bit awake.

By way of suggestion to Mr Truss, he ought to consider the following;

• The current Board does not need an increase in trough dwelling bureaucrats whose job is to protect a Minister while squeezing the DAS testicles between thumb and forefinger (they are rumoured to be quite small). The entire Board needs replacing, and should be replaced by 4 senior people with aviation experience. Their role becomes one of actually completing things such as the reg reform, improving aviation safety, enhancing our current system and reporting honestly and transparently with the sole purpose being SAFETY. Even if that means having to make hard decisions. Career bureaucrats serve no value on the Board.
• Restructure of the 'trio of DAS'. The current three should ALL be dumped come March 2014. Replaced by one DAS and one Deputy DAS who have an aviation background but one that includes actual aviation safety knowledge and experience. We don't need test pilots and angry 'one man show ' induviduals steering (I mean attempting to steer) Australian aviation.
• The incoming Government will need to publicly state 'Houston we have a problem', and admit that successive governments have f #cked the whole system. The sore has been ignored and now we have cancerous lesions.
• The ICC - The current set up is an absolute disgrace. Time for some back to basics, and lets use Michael Hart as an example of how the ICC should be run. Perhaps not perfect, but the current set-up is similar to a Mexican court.
• Any Government advisers on aviation matters could be made up to include independents and people like Xenophon and Fawcett, they simply must be considered.
• CAsA restructure - Apart from the obvious need to tear down the current malaise, there needs to be a ****load of tidying up of past events. How? A high level of inquiry/commission must be introduced to sift through the past events that simply will not be closed until justice is served, truth revealed and closure provided to the countless who have been wronged, denied, suffered at the hands of systemic bureaucratic failures, otherwise Australia will continue to be at pains for decades to come, just like NZ still is over Erebus where justice was never served. Closure must be prioritised for;
- The Transair Lockhart farce.
- The Pel Air fiasco
- Canley Vale, the next can of worms.
- Justice for Butson, Stan, Quadrio, James, Urqhart, Hare and the list goes on and on and on.........
• Time line - A 3 year time line, coinciding with the new Governments term should be set for finishing reform, restructuring CAsA, fixing the ATSB (which should include the removal of the three non aviation Commissioners), a Royal Commision or similar to be hopefully completed and apologies/recompense/justice be awarded to aviation victims and accountability including potential charges be laid upon negligent serving and former government employees.
• Mr Truss states that he can introduce some interim measures ? I would trust that might included removing the CAsA AND ATSBeakers top executives prior to the end of March 2014? And Mr Truss, lets see your plans detailed and in writing with a PERSONAL commitment and accountable statement from yourself please. I am sure that your people can draft something next week, it could just win you a lot of aviation voters support :ok:
• Assistance - The incoming Government needs to eat a giant **** sandwich and seek assistance from ICAO to start with, followed by a potential working group from the FAA and CAA. Both labor and liberal have proven over the past 25 years that they do not understand aviation, have not been capable or willing to govern aviation, have contributed to the absolute demise in aviation safety standards and contributed to the death of GA. The mere voting in of a new government does not fix the underlying problems.

Anyway, this is just a taste of my bucket list. Perhaps we could start a new thread titled 'Aviation Bucket List 2014', containing no sledging, religion or politics, no waffle, no acronyms and no pigs at trough photos (although that is quite amusing!). Just dot points that can be viewed by not only our aviation community but by the media, politicians and interested parties. After all Pprune is a social media site, it has the potential to be a very powerful and effective aviation tool. It is us guys/gals at the pointy end who know what needs to be done, who knows what works, so wouldn't it be in the best interest, the smart interest, of the government to listen to what the IOS have to say??

004

thorn bird

30th Aug 2013, 01:52

I vote 004 for the choccy frog award.
very to the point mate,

Up-into-the-air

30th Aug 2013, 02:43

Well done 004 and Kharon: (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1947)

Now is the real time for action - start the real lobbying

I found this recently:

Aviations Future:

This is dire in Australia if the current situation continues.

Over regulation, improper regulations, interference with due process, prosecution of people without due cause, double jepoardy in charges and on and on.

Where to next is the question that must be posed.

Under Labor, more of the same with a Minister that “Just does not get it…”

Under the coalition, a regulation change and a personel change??

We must have answers.

The following is a briefing paper which exposes some of the issues that are incumbent in this “must have” argument.
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________
Aviation Future – Is There One? (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=1882)

The future of aviation in Australia, which is the basis for modern travel, is essential in Australia, as for the rest of the world. The future of aviation within Australia cannot be easily separated from it’s international connections and context. Yet the core of successful Australian aviation is General Aviation[GA].

The basis for aviation is ensuring a high level of safety for all the users of the system. ICAO has provided, what is shown to be a strong base for aviation. Aviation’s future though, can be affected, in fact defined by the method of application of the direction provided by ICAO in the local context by CASA and ATSB .
Aviation must have a strong and vibrant system within the local setting as a proper base for successful aviation.

The aviation industry, beset by a myriad of partitioned segments. These have, to a large degree, self-interest. This has given us an aviation industry, which does not have clear direction and often moves in disparate ways.

Perhaps this is from the very “roots” of aviation in the 1920’s, where a fragmented base developed. This was supported [or maybe, just developed further] with the dependence in the war years of the 40’s, on aviation.

This fragmentation can be seen in the training of pilots, engineers and of LAME s. It carries through into the regulator, with the fragmentation of the process of regulation.
The regulator, with a process that has taken over 25 years, has led to a system, which is now “more broken” than before the process started. A classic example is CAO 100.5 which would have seen all GA planes grounded within zero to 100 hours of it’s promulgation on 1st August 2013.

Much the same as the AvGas scandal in the late 1990’s of which the regulator was aware, at least 6 months earlier, but failed to act.

A simpler basis for aviation must be developed.

There are seriously embedded self interest groups, who will have to release some of the “control” they have developed, if there is to be any improvement in what is now a very broken system. People are locked in a battle for survival – in a financial and regulatory sense.

This battle is very noisy within industry. The outside community, which needs or at the very least, uses aviation, hears very little. The recent 4-Corners and other current affairs programmes lead to community disquiet.

There are lots of examples that the community sees, which are focussing on quite negative issues. These do more to deride the industry [issues] or just cause the community to lose faith in the industry.

We now have a regulator which favours the “big end of town”, rather than giving a range of reasonable regulations for aviation to prosper.

The regulator in it’s “Directions in/of Operation” or micro-management, interferes in the economic activity, which is not the regulator’s function. Yet the Australian regulator, in it’s activities has industry economic interference at a higher level than any other Government Department/ Instrumentality that I have seen over the past 45 years.

Copyright – August 2013

Lookleft

30th Aug 2013, 02:48

If the new government is serious about changing the direction of aviation policy then create an aviation ministry and not lump it with transport and regional services. It is too easy for governments of all persuasions to palm off aviation policy under the transport umbrella and the Minister to claim that there are more important issues. The consensus seems to be that aviation policy started to deteriorate 25 years ago, doesn't that coincide with the absorbtion of aviation into the transport portfolio?

A Minister for Aviation will only need to focus on one thing and not be able to dodge thorny issues like Senate Inquiries. An aviation minister would also be able to keep his public servants in line and not given the "safety" runaround as an answer to all attempts to change the status quo. At least having a separate ministry would allow the Deputy PM to maintain the Transport and Regional Services portfolio and allow someone like Senator Fawcett to have a portfolio that matches his experience.

I still maintain that we won't see any changes until mid next year at the earliest. If I am wrong I will be pleasantly surprised.

PAIN_NET

30th Aug 2013, 03:58

The Coalition's policy for aviation is now available. The link below provides a download from Zippyshare; as it's been a while, please remember only click the large red "DOWNLOAD NOW" button on the top right corner of the page.

Coalition Policy for Aviation (http://www37.zippyshare.com/v/89058404/file.html)– 13 pages, 30 second download.

P18. a.k.a. Blind Freddy.

Lookleft

30th Aug 2013, 04:34

The only firm commitment I can see is to decide on where to put the 2nd Sydney Airport! The rest of it is to promise to review the state of the industry with no timetable for a final report. Those holding their breath will need to hold a lot longer.

004wercras

30th Aug 2013, 05:26

Can't remember who asked, but yes the Screaming Skull is on the Fort Fumble Board. I have attached the original confirmation letter from the Chief Board Bureaucrat to the Minister for Mascot:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/ips/files/log/CASA_board_appointments.pdf

thorn bird

30th Aug 2013, 10:40

I'm not sure of the exact amount, but Australia's regulator has squandered a quarter billion dollars or so over the past twenty years, allegedly "reforming" regulations. Replacing a modest number of pages into thousands to allegedly improve "safety". Have they achieved the stated goal? Compared with the worlds biggest aviation country nope!
NZ on the other hand expended around five million dollars and a few years and reformed theirs and from informed sources did a pretty good job, so much so that quite a few other countries around the globe chose to adopt them. Did they achieve their stated goal? Yep!
Todays Australian has some interesting articles, not a single job add for pilots though, same at the AFPAP websight except for three in NZ.

Encouraging for Mr.Truss to be calling for an inquiry into the regulator as part of the coalitions policy. It is now incumbent on us all to bombard his office to reinforce the industries displeasure at the current state of affairs and hold the coalition to account for their promises.
Also in the Australian.
The Kiwi's seem to have another thing right to, with a call to copy them on air services.

The telling piece I thought was Air New Zealand announcing a 156 % increase in profit, when our lot can only manage a token five million and a massive loss. One could be forgiven for imagining that things seem to be going rather well in aviation land over there. Of course it couldn't be that the burden and cost of over regulation here is so onerous that it is becoming impossible for industry to make a profit. Are we heading back to the old two airline days of the sixties and seventies when a ticket from Sydney to Melbourne was around five hundred bucks...what would that be in todays dollars? Oh well there goes the tourist industry along with the GA industry, does CAsA care? they don't have to!

Creampuff

30th Aug 2013, 23:04

What cracks me up is that there are still suckers around who appear to have forgotten the last three or so regurgitations of the same empty rhetoric.

A “review”.

A “restructure”.

A new “strategic direction”.

A “strengthened Board” with “aviation expertise”.

(With acknowledgement and apologies to HL Mencken): No political party ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Australian public.

The future of aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will be determined by whoever has the balance of power in the Senate.

hiwaytohell

30th Aug 2013, 23:17

At least a positive sign. Although I think the comment about increasing the CASA Board from 4 to 6 totally misses the point. Its is not the size of the Board that matters but the quality of the directors, people who REALLY understand every corner of the industry AND can run a business... the current directors sadly continue to build on their own unimpressive record... time for complete change!

LeadSled

31st Aug 2013, 04:00

Folks,
Both Virgin and Qantas would have posted very different bottom lines, had there been no carbon tax.
Virgin publicly attribute a large percentage of loss to the carbon tax.

Another point about the comparison between the operations of Air NZ and Qantas --- having the right aeroplanes for the job, ie: fuel efficient, is a very telling factor, and ANZ will move further ahead in the efficiency stakes when, in the near future, they take delivery of B787-9s.

And when is Qantas going to see some fuel efficient aircraft in the fleet??

Creamie,
The first thing that is different, this time, is the intellect of Senator David Fawcett, and the acceptance, by Truss and others, that AMROBA's "iron ring" in CASA actually exists, and must be dealt with, if CASA is to be resurrected in some form that is not aggressively anti aviation.

There is a commitment to taking "the rules" away from CASA, a clear recognition that NZ have it right, and our regulatory direction is misguided, despite all the money that has been spent. the last actual "reform" saw the light of day in 1998.

Perhaps the second is that, this time, there is a recognition by the big end of town that their operations have been severely hit, cost wise, the saga of getting Part 145 approvals being the breaker.

We now have equality of enforcement, the majors are being shafted, not just GA.

The majors also know that the treatment of Tiger was unjustified, buy was and is symptomatic of an aggressive and ill-directed CASA.

If you are a turkey that votes for Christmas, vote Labor.

Tootle pip!!

The Coalition?s plan for Aviation | Liberal Party of Australia (http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/30/coalitions-plan-aviation)

As well a previous Pain.net post, there is a link here to the LNP policy.

Creampuff

31st Aug 2013, 05:30

So why do they need to have a “high level external review of aviation safety and regulations” by a “prominent member of the international aviation community”?

Why did Mr Truss announce that “a Coalition government would not proceed with changes until the review was completed.”?

What is it that the Coalition doesn’t already know about what needs to be done?

Why won’t the Coalition commit to making immediate changes to aviation safety and regulations, based on the formidable intellects and overwhelming pieces of evidence that are, apparently, already available to it?

Up-into-the-air

31st Aug 2013, 05:52

creamie old chap,

Reason for this is simply that there are too many entrenched casa and atsb views. If you were not physically at the Senate inquiry or missed the body language, Mrdac, mccomic and beaker together made an interesting show.

Mrdac telling both what to say [mitigation of damage/ direction of the minister????] and then mccomic and beaker toeing the party line.

This was about the time when the honourable senators smelt the rat and realised that they were being "...done over...".

An outsider with a serious touch of the smarts will see this when briefed by the senators as to the real situation and that person calls for industry comment and this is heard without interference.

Remember the chamber [pot] report in PelAir.

We need a clean start, something no-one until now has been seriously prepared to give clear air too.

Well done the Senators

Step 1 Done

Now Step 2 - Investigate the bad guys in atsb and casa and get rid of them;

then Step 3 - Introduce the NZ or FAA regs

and Step 4 - Go industry

Frank Arouet

31st Aug 2013, 05:57

Why won’t the Coalition commit to making immediate changes to aviation safety and regulations

Why do anything, except wait for next weeks party?

The announcement appears to be at least something to look forward to, instead of looking back at the last six years of "hard labor".

That and the in house "regulatory review process" can stand alone on their respective merits and dismal legacy.

Lookleft

31st Aug 2013, 11:23

Anyone want to take a guess at who the Aviation Expert will be that the new gummint will bring in to provide clarity on the current mess? I vote 1 Brian Aherne.

004wercras

31st Aug 2013, 11:33

Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Ahernes wife/partner and her business partners litigated against CAsA and won a settlement. May be a little too close to the fire.
He also hasn't been very 'diplomatic' with his statements about a number of his former employers including CAsA, ATSB, SACL and the VIC Police helicopter wing.
And finally, aligning himself with Quinn? That won't do your reputation much good.

Jinglie

31st Aug 2013, 13:05

At least Quinn & Aherne had the balls to face up to this publicly and in the Senate. Maybe it might help if more Ppruners go public rather than whinging here. It takes guts to put your name on the line as individuals not backed by corporations with endless funds. I'm about to do so!

Jinglie

31st Aug 2013, 13:15

004, exactly what were his "statements" about CaSa, SACL, ATSB, and the NSW Air Wing employees? General slander in my view knowing the guy. And I think he worked for the Vic Air Wing.

004wercras

31st Aug 2013, 20:31

Jinglie, out of curioisty, why not bring Quinn back instead? He has the higher level experience?

Lookleft

31st Aug 2013, 23:46

If you saw the body language of Quinn and Aherne in the Senate my money would still be on Aherne as someone who could handle the pressure of public scrutiny. BTW I doubt either gentlemen will be picked.

Jinglie

31st Aug 2013, 23:55

Somehow I doubt either would want the poison chalice! When you read their submissions I think the bridges were burnt intentionally.

004wercras

1st Sep 2013, 00:48

Jinglie, don't get me wrong mate, I like Aherne. And he would do a much better job in any position at CAsA than the arse clowns who currently inhabit the upper tier. I don't think he has the measured diplomacy for the role, that's all.
Quinn doesn't deserve another shot. The Screaming Skull simply finished the job that Byron didn't have the balls or the support to do, and that was show him the door. Quinn has the intelligence, but those who have worked in the higher levels of QF, EK or CAsA know exactly why he will never return := He probably thinks he may get a guernsey, and he did have a particularly strong sponsor in Government (that's politics for you), but his day has passed.

It's going to take more that a restructure to fix decades of ****e anyway. Until some accountability is introduced and the wrongs are all righted just taking a scalp or two will do little.

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 03:01

004, fair call. He wasn't shown the door, he opened it himself after being continually undermined by several fort fumbles senior managers, some who remain! Seeing the mess now, smart call.
Aherne would be brilliant in Beakers slot.

004wercras

1st Sep 2013, 03:35

Yes Jinglie I agree, Aherne would easily fill the Beakers shoes. And yes he left the aforementioned organisations off his own back. The same dross that didn't accept his ilk are certainly still wandering the halls of Sleepy Hollow plying their trade. CAsA's iron ring will pineapple anybody that stands up to them, against them, or who won't polish their shoes or rectums with an eager tongue. The dross I speak of hold the Australian public, aviation industry, internal staff, senators, everybody basically in contempt.

I'm now starting to think that we may need an outsider from the CAA or FAA, NTSB.......Mary Schiavo comes to mind, thats one woman with giant nuts :ok: I like the scope of some of the activities she has headed and changes she has made, and she would never allow a Skull, Beaker, Mrdork or Albanese push her about.....f#cked if I know, just hope that Truss is willing to lay his plumbs on the line starting next weekend?

LeadSled

1st Sep 2013, 05:05

Mary Schiavo comes to mind, thats one woman with giant nuts

004,
You obviously don't know the full story of the above woman, she was thoroughly discredited, in part for her activities as Inspector General of DoT in relation to aviation ---- and it was NOT vested interests going after her.

If, by CAA you mean UK, no way, look what happened the last time we had somebody from UK CAA injected into CASA (and that was "Dick's pick"). CAA NZ is too close to home and too small. This leaves FAA and the Canadians.

It is a sad comment on Australia and Australians that it has to be an "overseas expert" --- we know in great detail what the problems are, but the minute you nominate somebody from here, there will howls from multiple directions about "conflict of interest" and worse --- a serious national failing.

Tootle pip!!

Kharon

1st Sep 2013, 05:27

UIA# 1410 –"the real situation and that person calls for industry comment and this is heard without interference." Personalities aside: the guys who had the integrity, brains and balls to stand up at the Pel Air inquiry deserve acknowledgement; they have paved the way. The gift of parliamentary privilege and the notion of 'in-camera' is within the remit of any future Senate inquiry. Once people realise the jig is up and some protection is available, perhaps the walls of Jericho will tumble a little sooner; (check passport). Aherne, James and Quinn are now essentially a fully protected species; any form of GWM attack may be construed as a breach of the protection granted, just because they spoke out. So it's – hand off - and softly softly.

With some form of protection (even indemnity) and the right platform we may even get down 'in the weeds' and sort out the bullies and 'experts' who, on a daily basis enforce the will of the Golden West Mafia, issuing whimsical nonsense as "the only way" and achieving "compliance" by threatening, whispering, lying and cheating. There have been some deliberately malicious actions taken at the coal face, some on the ragged edge, some allegedly criminal. The iron ring must be broken and the entrenched culture of fear replaced with a feeling of safety, security and industry well being. Hells bells, there's enough evidence about the place to keep the AFP busy for a decade.

Time to speak up. If the commission goes ahead it may be the one and only shot in a lifetime. A chance to get things squared away. If you have whistle, now is the time to blow it if you have a drum, beat it; but do not sit back at the bar, whining in your cups and doing SFA.

Too many have risked much to even get a policy (such as it is); it's hard work to get any form of political attention let alone get something done, so when the time comes; as it must, speak out without fear. Lots of great quotes to finish my wee rant available; but not this time – Aherne, James and Quinn have opened the gates – now pile in. (You know you want to)......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Creampuff

1st Sep 2013, 08:13

It is a sad comment on Australia and Australians that it has to be an “overseas expert” --- we know in great detail what the problems are, but the minute you nominate somebody from here, there will howls from multiple directions about "conflict of interest" and worse --- a serious national failing.Somebody’s been tampering with your posts, Leaddie! :eek: A bunch of words were deleted while you weren’t looking! :eek:

The original said:It is a sad comment on Australian governments that it has to be an “overseas expert” --- governments already know in great detail what the problems are, but there are no votes in changing anything and the minute they make their own decisions they might be held responsible, so they don’t make any decisions --- a serious national failing.There’s nothing that an “overseas expert” will find out that competent governments don’t already know or couldn’t find out if they wanted to.

Governments already have the power to make any changes they like, on any grounds they like.

Here’s a clue as to what’s actually going to happen:The review will be modelled on the Wheeler Review into aviation security, which was commissioned by the former Coalition Government and to a large extent has informed the development of aviation security policies in Australia since that time.Lots of activity to comfort the punters; little of substance to those in the know.

Capn Bloggs

1st Sep 2013, 09:01

Somebody’s been tampering with your posts, Leaddie! A bunch of words were deleted while you weren’t looking!
That'd be Leadslead winding back his first draft. He did edit it, you know. :}

004wercras

1st Sep 2013, 09:16

Wow, well there you go Leadie. I didn't realise Schiavo was such a problem child. :eek: I guess the investigation, action and improvements she pushed along to reign in the USA's bogus parts epidemic (yes, I know it is still an issue worldwide) was I guess, bogus??
As for CAA, yes NZ is who I refer to, not UK or PNG. As for NZ being too small, what bollocks. There is no 'perfect' solution so FFS why don't we put in place something that is 90% effective and work it, mold it and massage the remaining 10% to completion? Better than just bleating about it and doing nothing, that is half of CAsA's bloody problem.

Anyway, back on topic. I would be interested as to whom Leadie might see as being an adequate and valuable team or individuals to replace, just for starters - The trio of CAsA DAS's, the three non aviation ATSBeaker Commissioners and lets say Mr Mrdork?

No solution is perfect, but some posters on here (no names, but there are a few) seem to acknowledge that there are issues at play, but they can't post solutions. They say 'this won't work', 'that person won't suit', 'you've all got it wrong' blah blah blah. Lets see a list of names whom you would support for once?

halfmanhalfbiscuit

1st Sep 2013, 11:10

It needs to be a person able to put an exec team together that are capable of rebuilding Australia's reputation. Perhaps Carmody could do it? Although looks like he's got a nice role presently.

I remember the anticipation when present DAS took over from Byron though.

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 11:18

Carmody has as much aviation experience as Beaker! Don't even think about it. No former players will, and should not, be considered!

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 11:40

Frank Young has bucket loads of experience in both GA and the corporate jet world. He has been around to experience the whole mess and is a very talented gentleman. Why not?

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 12:18

Trevor Jensen is another guy sitting idle. Wealth of experience and a guy well versed in administration of large outfits. Plus you can sit done and have a beer and honest chat with the guy. No test pilot or Mirage history! A definite bonus. Also, I'm sure no special favours for Joyce.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

1st Sep 2013, 12:58

From Oracle1 post on Part 145 and maintenance forum. Good find. Relevant to discussion here.

maybe Truss is serious?
From Steve Creedy The Australian

THE federal Coalition plans to bring in a prominent member of the international aviation community to conduct an external review of aviation safety and regulations similar to the Wheeler inquiry into aviation security.

It will announce the move today as part of its aviation policy that foreshadows a potential restructure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and a strengthening of the CASA board by increasing the number of members from four to six.

It is also promising a formal aviation industry consultative council that would meet regularly with the transport minister to address matters of concern to the wider industry, and an industry complaints commissioner to investigate grievances about the regulator or its operatives "in a reasonable time".

The external safety and regulation review comes after recent adverse findings by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee and after industry feedback that safety regulations were being inappropriately applied and were too bureaucratic.

"We've had such feedback from the industry about the regulatory process and the operations of CASA, it simply has to be addressed," opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss told The Australian.

"We've also got the inevitable and ongoing differences of opinion in the sector about how everything should be done and I thought the Wheeler Review was actually a very useful exercise in dealing with aviation security.

"Not all the recommendations were perfect, but it acted as a circuit breaker and his report has effectively underpinned all that we've done on aviation security since."

Mr Truss said he thought it highly unlikely there would be a consensus on the best way to proceed with the regulatory system.

He said a Coalition government would not proceed with changes until the review was completed. He said he would like to have it completed so that key decisions could be made by March, when current CASA boss John McCormick's current term expired.

"There are some things I can do immediately without asking for an outside expert. It's just self-evident," Mr Truss said. "For instance, it's silly to have a board that the CEO is not answerable to, and things like that. But it's better to do it all in one go when a new person is appointed or there is a renewal of a term."

Mr Truss conceded that aviation had been an area "where angels dared to tread", but there was concern about the system wherever he went, particularly among licensed aircraft maintenance engineers.

"The big airlines, they can cope with this, because they've got the people and the systems, but the poor one-man operator or just two or three people at a country airfield, this paper war is something they can't very easily cope with," Mr Truss said.

The industry complaints commissioner would be responsible for investigating complaints about CASA personnel and delegates or authorised personnel.

The commissioner would be required to provide a quarterly report to the board and director of aviation safety that included a summary of activities, the number or complaints received and time taken to respond.

"The other issue we get constantly is criticism of differences in the way the same laws are interpreted in different offices by different people," Mr Truss said.
Last edited by Oracle1; 1st Sep 2013 at 06:25.

Lookleft

1st Sep 2013, 13:09

I thought you were serious there at one stage Jinglie but then I saw the irony in replacing one personality type with another of the same personality type! Good one, couldn't stop laughing.:D

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 13:12

March for McComic? That's if the AFP don't take action first.

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 13:19

Lookleft, no personality types are on display here. You must work in Casa. Send me a private message with your number. Otherwise F O!

Lookleft

1st Sep 2013, 13:27

Send me a private message with your number. Otherwise F O!

Such a kind invitation! and no I don't work for CASA but I have worked for one of your suggested nominees for an aviation expert.

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 13:39

So Lookie get the balls and decency to discuss or is that not your style? Gutless?

Lookleft

1st Sep 2013, 13:44

You remind me of someone else with your angry rhetoric Jinglie. Willie waving contests at dawn is it? I was making a comment on your suggestion for high level office. If you for some strange reason have taken that as a personal slight that is your problem not mine. If you want to engage in off the ball back play go right ahead, it is just as easy for you to PM as it is for me but the difference is I have no interest and, for some reason only known to yourself, it has taken on life importance for you.

Jinglie

1st Sep 2013, 14:59

Why don't you take your whinge to the Senators rather than here Lookie? I think Kharon put it nicely...... The gates are open...."

Kharon

1st Sep 2013, 20:29

CP #1424 – "Governments already have the power to make any changes they like, on any grounds they like." Correct – however; if the promises made are to have any substance and we are to get an effective "Junior Minister" then it seems to me only 'proper' that an independent be brought in; if only for the sake of impartiality. Same at the cricket – impartial umpire. Most of the "names" have either a track record, connections, obligations or axes, some have the full set. Seems that a honest, politically smart start would be to bring in a clean skin – in, out and gone. At least then the warring factions could start off on a level playing field.

LS "the minute they make their own decisions they might be held responsible, so they don’t make any decisions --- a serious national failing." LS makes a good point, cynically (read political) an 'independent' would make an excellent donkey on which to pin the inevitable tail of blame, it is a very Australian pastime.

004wercras

1st Sep 2013, 23:27

C'mon guys, things have been peaceful for a bit. No fighting. Offline is the best place for it. Otherwise the Mods will wield the padlock.
On this occasion, and I do not want to raise the heckles of Jinglie, and I know that Lookyloo and I aren't the best of friends, but I have to agree 130% with Lookys post about Big Trev. That's a big negative, and those who have worked with the big man (you ain't the only one Looky, trust me) will know exactly why he wouldn't suit the role of DAS. That's a big hell no!
Back to the drawing board boys......

LeadSled

2nd Sep 2013, 07:12

Creamie,
I agree, that is what we face.

Will it be different this time? For the first time in years, we have a couple of Senators genuinely fired up --- and with some aviation knowledge, or in the case of Fawcett, a lot of aviation knowledge, and don't forget, it was Fawcett as an MHR that finally broke CASA's resistance to NVG.

Will Truss change things for aviation? depends on the pressure.

Will Truss remain as leader of the Nats?, and Deputy PM --- that's a wild card.

Is his expected successor interested in these problems --- yes he is. Will he do anything? Only time will tell.

Will we get a junior Minister for Aviation in Transport --- its been promised --- but not for the first time.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Bloggs, Take a deep breath, the edit would only to correct spelling, but Creamie is right.

LeadSled

2nd Sep 2013, 07:28

004,
Mary Mary quite contrary has long since retired to well deserved obscurity, and my souvenir is a pretty FAA Certificate saying I have completed the FAA "Suspected Unapproved Parts Identification" course.

She would have fitted a job in the present CASA to a T, she thought she had found a vast criminal conspiracy, and career wise, it was going to carry her to a job as Secretary of DoT. Didn't happen, wrong boat.

Re. NZ, I did not mean to disparage their aviation efforts, the "overseas expert", politically, will be unlikely to be found in NZ.

An aviation act along the NZ line, and a set of regulations very close their "rules" would do very nicely, thanks --- but the changes would be to simplify them further, and weed out a few local NZ peculiarities. ie: type ratings, go with the FAA. Likewise, FAA VFR, which would mean, more or less, reverting to the VFR we used to have before CASA cocked up Class D --- GAAP was so near as made no difference to FAA D as made no difference. A case of mindless application of ICAO in Australia, but only when it disadvantages local aviation.

Tootle pip!!

Kharon

3rd Sep 2013, 21:03

Only a slight drift while we are waiting :-

LS – "i.e.: type ratings, go with the FAA."

We seem to have managed this for single engine types without any horror stories; the addition of 'special design features' seems a sane, sensible way to manage things. So why not adopt the FAA system for multi engine <5700 Kg. First, I would destroy all trace of CAO 40.1.0 and all it's little appendages, what an absolute embuggerance of a shambles it is. It typifies, more than any other the mad, complicated, twisted – Ok, ok, I'll stop there....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

Drift off – back to the mute button (changing channels is of no practical assistance).

Sarcs

3rd Sep 2013, 23:25

While we're waiting Phearless Phelan provides a summary of the LibNat aviation policy (which I don't think has been linked yet?): Coalition’s aviation policies revealed (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1597)

&

Official Coalition Policy (http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Coalition%202013%20Election%20Policy%20%E2%80%93%20Aviation% 20%E2%80%93%20final.pdf)

Waiting...waiting...ho..hum!:zzz:

thorn bird

4th Sep 2013, 09:53

Kharon old mate, its always been my belief that whoever in the bowels of CAsA's rear end wrote CAO 40 should have received a knighthood for penning the most incomprehensible load of gobbeldegook ever devised in the annuls of beauracatese. There has been many who have followed but none that have come close to devising anything as convoluted, incomprehensible and totally valueless as CAO 40.

004wercras

4th Sep 2013, 10:44

Thorny, CAO 40 is a prime example of how select bureaucratic lawyers have raped aviation in Australia. (There are countless other examples though)
The buggery continues unabated.

scrubba

4th Sep 2013, 13:25

Well I'm confused!

Didn't CAO 40 and it's ANO equivalent look pretty much the same in format and principle in the 70s and 80s as it does now? This apparent blight on humanity is older than most of the whingers on here... :uhoh:

So where is the campaign and the protagonists' argument to have it changed and how long has it been running? :eek:

LeadSled

4th Sep 2013, 14:46

Scrubba,
Only the names have been more or less constant, there have been countless changes, most of them not good.
Tootle pip!!

CASAweary

5th Sep 2013, 07:01

Almost as many changes as CEO's, DAS's, assorted bum lickers, GM Operations types and the odd LSD nupty.

I hear that the newly appointed Bald Eagle's first job as GM Operations is to cover the GWM ass, hence a clean up and reappointment of a new Melbourne Field Office manager is a priority, and now advertised. Gotta protect Terry's family.:= All that minor experience at Archerfield highly qualifies him, not! I wonder if he, Harbor and Harbor's girlfriend are still all friends? :=

I also hear that one R. Collins, famous for looking after Transair and buddy Les is also as popular at the CAA as a 'Quinn in a pub'. That is so funny, the little fella, author of SMS ****e and serial idiot can't cut the mustard in PNG. What a tool. :mad:

Meanwhile the Skull, yes the angry incompetent bad shirt wearing DAS continues his ranting and raving around the place, more bad performances in front of staff, more public displays of aggression, child like whinging and uncontrolled outbursts. Grow up little boy.:D

And finally the Witchdoctor. Shouldn't bag out John in public, very unprofessional, doctor :=

LeadSled

5th Sep 2013, 13:51

Shouldn't bag out John in public, very unprofessional, doctor

I would really love to know more about that, maybe the good Doctor has started to return to sanity.

Tootle pip!!

004wercras

5th Sep 2013, 20:20

Perhaps the voodoo Doc bagged out Mr Skulls Friday Hawaiian shirts?
Or perhaps the Doc is referring to the execs all attended a 'love in' and for entertainment they placed Mr Angry in a hessian bag, trussed (not Warren) him up as a piñata and proceeded to do to him what he has been doing to our industry? Could that be a reference to 'bagging'? Maybe Collins was there as well?

Casaweary you have our attention, more detail please?

Kharon

5th Sep 2013, 21:01

CW # 1449 –"I hear that the newly appointed Bald Eagle's first job as GM Operations is to cover the GWM ass, hence a clean up" etc. Don't know about the accuracy there CW; the way I heard it, first there was a training course in "Wodger" writing, followed by a series of letters to be writ. Only a Bankstown crew coffee break rumour of course; but they do say that Wodger has left a trail of very, very dodgy decisions in his wake supported by even shakier evidence; and, these need to be covered off. Apparently, it's all part of the mystical induction into the GWM. They do say that part of the process involves becoming guilty of something, at least by association so that you will be as keen as mustard, come cover up time. This is before the ritual lobotomy ceremony and funny hat issue party. The gods willing, there may come a time where hard facts can be heard, evidence tested and maybe even a little justice metered out. Time will tell of course, but the odds seem to favour at least a partial exposure. I can wait.

LS# 1450 "I would really love to know more about that, maybe the good Doctor has started to return to sanity." Or, they finally got the medication right. No one has told him yet, but the grinding noise he hears is real – it's Phelan and Sandilands sharpening the pencils in preparation. Rumour of the week - if the Senate don't get it sorted – the press will; and I love a good yarn, well told...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

tolakuma manki

5th Sep 2013, 21:13

I also hear that one R. Collins, famous for looking after Transair and buddy Les is also as popular at the CAA as a 'Quinn in a pub'. That is so funny, the little fella, author of SMS ****e and serial idiot can't cut the mustard in PNG. What a tool. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifWhere did you here that? Seems to be OK from stories at the Dero Club

Kharon

5th Sep 2013, 21:38

I can't imagine why Monsieur Collins is not often invited to high tea; perhaps it's muddy boots, or bad table manners; or, maybe it's prior knowledge of where lots of skeletons are buried. There are old fables about honour among thieves – then of course, conversely

A plague upon it when thieves cannot be true to one another ~ Shakespeare, Henry IV

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop.

004wercras

5th Sep 2013, 23:12

Considering Herr Collins, FF and Lockhart have popped up again, for those who may have short memories I thought the following might be worth pondering over a cup of high tea;

2005 ? Lockhart River [LHR] Metro | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=186)

From Phelans article linked above;
Numerous submissions on the company’s behalf challenged the decision, in particular information put forward by aviation consultant Robert Collins. Mr Collins was formerly a pilot with Transair’s parent company Lessbrook, who joined CASA’s predecessor in 1990 and was its Group General Manager, General Aviation Operations at the time of the Lockhart River accident. However Mr Collins asserts that: “Transair was solely the responsibility of the Brisbane Airline Office and not the National or any local GA Office.” He retired on 29 September 2006, but later appeared as an advisor to CASA during the subsequent Coroner’s inquest.
In his consultancy role Mr Collins had since conducted various audits of Trans Air’s operations including a “review of safety and management systems” in March 2009, and his favourable reports, offered in support of Trans Air’s application, were accepted with voluble praise by the Tribunal, who concluded:
“The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that a Foreign Aircraft Air Operator’s Certificate be issued to the applicant subject to the conditions ordinarily imposed by the respondent upon certificates of that type."
Hmmmm. I can still smell something in the air that smells like sh#t........
I find it intriguing that Transair came under Brisbane's oversight, that may be true, but Cairns inspectors had carried out surveillance on Transair, strange thing to do if Brisbane is the primary oversight office?
Kharon, I can only assume that any media story will be released. A given Friday at 1659 PM? One can only hope it is CH 7, those ills of media society who have been chipping away at Fort Fumble through the FOI process for several years now :ok:

LeadSled

6th Sep 2013, 00:48

Folks,
Maybe we new a new peak body for Australian aviation, the;

Ills of Society Society.

IOSS has a nice ring to it, maybe Mr. McCormick could be the inaugural patron??

Tootle pip!!

Kharon

6th Sep 2013, 01:03

While I'm not privy to the future plans of interesting, but scary people; there is a buzz in the air, akin to the sharpening of knives. The BRB have been given a file to peruse and make comment on, currently ploughing my way through it (not a preferred option for RDO - Thanks P7) in preparation for tonight's BRB pre election ho down. Obviously, can't offer a comment here but I reckon the market in tin hats and napalm proof legal advice is going to have a run on. When you drill down into the 'evidence' and work through the 'confrontational' issues, the picture becomes - very clear and it is ugly. I find it hard to believe that supposedly sane people, in charge of aviation safety oversight can believe they could get away with it forever; no one is that protected.

The 'honourable' way to play the hand is to wait (but not too long) for the official inquest sparing the new Gummint and the department from public humiliation. If that does not happen, then perhaps the alternate solution should be employed.

On the plus side, the Bankstown Chronicles have had some holes filled in, where hearsay and supposition has been confirmed with solid data.

Patience grasshopper, patience - Selah.

Sponsored by the anti Witless Overweening Doyens of Grievously Engineered Report writing, on behalf of the Ills of Society.

Frank Arouet

6th Sep 2013, 03:27

the Bankstown Chronicles have had some holes filled in

Probably with a suppository. (which the Italian's call an Innuendo)

Bad Frank, bad.:ugh:

halfmanhalfbiscuit

6th Sep 2013, 07:21

Well 16.59 on the last Friday of the present government has past. Lets see what Monday brings. Could be very interesting next few months.

Casaweary, Melbourne job re advertised?

Kharon

6th Sep 2013, 19:05

The irrespirable Gobbledock smuggled the latest 'vision' in with his postal vote. Now, for a choccy frog - name the protagonists.

WHO ?

Yep, I know blame Frank – bad Voltaire.....:D

Sarcs

6th Sep 2013, 22:43

Not sure if I'll go there "K"..I'll leave that to wiser members of the IOS(S)!!:E

So just wondering where Albo's policy is, or is he continuing with his.."all the answers are in the 20 year Great White Elephant Paper":ugh::ugh:...well industry has taken note of that {from Australian 05/09}:
Coalition policy flies with industry (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-policy-flies-with-industry/story-e6frg95x-1226712026419)

THE Coalition's aviationpolicy has prompted a wave of optimism that in government it would be moreresponsive to industry concerns.

Industry players contacted byThe Australian welcomed the policy, released last week by oppositiontransport spokesman Warren Truss, as a step in the right direction that showedthe Coalition had been listening to the industry.

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese did not take up an offer (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-policy-flies-with-industry/story-e6frg95x-1226712026419) to respond to the policy while at the big end of town Qantas and Virgin werealso reluctant to comment.

But associations representing tourism, the airports, regional aviation, general aviation, aerial agriculture and maintenance providers were all generally supportive of the 12-point policy,costed initially at $6 million, and gave the opposition kudos for putting it together.

They also supported the idea of an external review of the aviation safety and regulatory environment similarto the Wheeler review on airport security.

The Coalition also foreshadowed a potential restructuring of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority,a strengthening of the CASA board and an aviation industry consultative councilthat would meet regularly with the minister.

It said it would invest an additional $3.5m to introduce "a new and better targeted" en-route rebate scheme for regional airlines, focus on better use of Australian airspace by tasking Airservices Australia to fast-track new technologies and recognise the importance of Australian airports to the economy.

Other pledges included the continued promotion of aviation liberalisation while protecting the national interest, enhancing aviation skills, and a review of the way aviation security measures are implemented.

The Coalition's tourism policy also pleased the airlines and the tourism industry, especially the pledge tofreeze the controversial passenger movement charge at $55 for its first term.

Labor had not released an aviation policy document at the time of going to press, but at the recent CAPA Australian Pacific Aviation Conference Mr Albanese singled out general aviation, aviation manufacturing and pilot training (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-policy-flies-with-industry/story-e6frg95x-1226712026419) as areas that would receive a renewed emphasis under are-elected Labor government.

However, in an address (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-policy-flies-with-industry/story-e6frg95x-1226712026419) short of forward-looking detail, Mr Albanese spent much of his speech cataloguing what Labor had accomplished since the 2009 aviation white paper.

These included renegotiated air service agreements, an increase in the passenger liability cap to $725,000,the appointment (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-policy-flies-with-industry/story-e6frg95x-1226712026419) of an airline customer advocate and the signing of the Cape Town Convention toreduce aircraft capital costs.

Both major parties have pledged to nominate a site for a second Sydney airport in their first term,with Labor saying it would also start (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-policy-flies-with-industry/story-e6frg95x-1226712026419) work. Both have indicated they would look at Richmond RAAF base as a temporary overflow for the existing airport.

While players were disappointed in Labor's failure to release a policy, they described the Coalition document as a good start.

The Australian Aviation Associations' Forum, the umbrella group, described Mr Truss's policies as"refreshing" and said the opposition had been listening to the industry.

The group believed Mr Truss was serious about the initiatives and the policy was a positive development.

"They are steps in the right direction," it said. "The industry has never been more united and is looking forward to working with the incoming government."

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia welcomed the return of the en-route subsidy scheme,but noted it was $2.5m less than the earlier scheme.

"The new policies are light on funding (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/coalition-policy-flies-with-industry/story-e6frg95x-1226712026419),but we are willing to work with any incoming government to help them trim the bloated bureaucracies, encourage further efficiencies and have the industry climbing again," RAAA chairman Jeff Boyd said.

RAAA chief executive Paul Tyrrell said the proposal to reappraise CASA, its board and the regulatory reform process had the support of the regional industry.

He said it also supported strengthening the industry complaints commissioner, although it would still like to have a minister of aviation.

"Overall, it appears the Coalition is having a good look at its major aviation bodies and how they are led and how they are structured and has offered some improvements," MrTyrrell said. "And we would support that."

Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said he would have liked to have seen more detail from both sides and it was disappointing only one party had produced a policy.

Describing the policy as"safe", he acknowledged the Coalition was unable to promise the world, but believed it was a positive development, which the AAAA was happy to put to its members.

"It's actually encouraging to see the Coalition is coming in with a pretty wide brief and they're not trying to second guess the answers before they actually get inthere and see what's going on," Mr Hurst said.

Aviation Aerospace Australia,which includes manufacturers and the big airlines in its membership, welcomed the Coalition's focus on the industry, including the future skills development and training policies and formation of the industry consultative council.

"Open and ongoing dialogue with the federal government is a vital part of the continued growth and development of the Australian aviation and aerospace industries,"executive director Paul Fox said.

"We believe there are real opportunities for Australia's innovative aerospace manufacturers in international markets and acknowledge the coalition's focus on the important growth sector. There are also substantial opportunities to export Australia's expertise in aviation training, particularly within burgeoning Asian markets."

Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie welcomed the external review of aviation, particularly given the impact of escalating security costs - now topping 12 per cent of total operating expenses - on regional airport operators. Ms Wilkie said the risk-based approach to aviation security, the new en-route subsidy scheme, the commitment to remote aerodrome safety and adequate regional weather services were also welcome. "A focus on better utilisation of Australian airspace will help ensure that the capacity provided by airport operators, particularly at major capital city airports, is more effectively utilised through better airspace management as well as enabling the latest generation of private and business aircraft, which are much quieter to operate at curfew-affected airports such as Sydney and Adelaide," she said.

The review of allowable charter and business aircraft that could operate during curfews at Sydney andAdelaide was also supported by the Tourism and Transport Forum "as a good first step on the path towards incentivising quieter, modern aircraft overolder, noisier types".

"The Coalition's policy recognises the absurdity of legislation that fails to take into account the massive gains made by aircraft manufacturers in making significantly quieter aircraft," TTF chief executive Ken Morrison said.

Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association executive director Ken Cannane said most people in his organisation were "pretty darn supportive" of the direction proposed by the Coalition.

"It's a pity they couldn't be a little more prescriptive in a couple of areas, but they've got enough in there to make sure of the changeover that needs to be done in aviation to get us back into the business world around the local Pacific area," Mr Cannane said.

He said changes to regulations by CASA had negatively affected the industry and members buried in red tape no longer believed the regulator was listening to them.

Regional Express executive chairman Lim Kim Hai, a trenchant critic of the current government, said the policy addressed critical issues raised for the past two years and "which have been devastating to aviation".

"If Mr Truss gets into government I trust that he will keep his election promises and faithfully carry out the agenda set out in his aviation policy," he said. "Regional aviation has suffered too much in recent times from broken promises and neglect, and deserves better going forward. Waiting..waiting..not long now! Vote one IOSS:ok:

Sarcs

9th Sep 2013, 02:34

I know we've had some serious head case pollies in charge of the aviation portfolio in the past, however where would Albo fit in the mix from worse to best??:rolleyes: Perhaps Ben's latest might make that contemplation a little easier..:ok:
Airsafety failures will dog Albanese as Labor leader or contender (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/09/09/air-safety-failures-will-dog-albanese-as-labor-leader-or-contender/)

Ex deputy PM and Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese carries some excess baggage related to the Pel-Air crash fiasco and the abuse of due process he tolerated in CASA and the ATSB should he contest or win (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/09/09/air-safety-failures-will-dog-albanese-as-labor-leader-or-contender/) the Labor leadership, as widely speculated today.

Albanese had an outstanding term as minister in those portfolios in relation to rail and roads, and a dismal record when it came to his responsibilities in relation to air safety in this country.

The evidence for this is on the parliamentary record in the proceedings of the recent Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s investigation into the crash of a Pel-Air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

While the jet involved wasa small Westwind, and no one died (miraculously) the accident gave rise to a series of appalling disclosures of deliberate malpractice in the two aviation authorities, the safety regulator, CASA and the accident investigator, the ATSB.

The findings of the Senate committee (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/pel_air_2012/report/index.htm) support fears that neither body has the integrity of management nor the technical skills or the commitments to aviation safety that most Australians would take for granted as being delivered and maintained on their behalf.

The incoming government need go no further than to obtain a briefing from Senator David Fawcett,(Liberal, South Australia) who with his state’s independent Senator, Nick Xenophon, pursued and disinterred a rotten state of affairs in both bodies which ought to be of considerable concern to whomever becomes the minister responsible for aviation in the Abbott Government.

The findings of the committee (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/23/senate-committee-atsbcasa-pel-air-wrap/) include an entire chapter detailing its dissatisfaction with the testimony given by the chief commissioner of the ATSB,Martin Dolan.

Anthony Albanese had a responsibility to parliament to respond to the Senate report in 90 days, and late in May gave such a commitment (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/29/pel-air-update-minister-wants-to-respond-with-urgency/) in the clearest of terms, yet he did not honour hisword.

Senator Fawcett (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/23/senate-committee-atsbcasa-pel-air-wrap/) made a measured speech concerning the state of affairs in relation to the Pel-Air crash which should be read in conjunction with thecommittee’s final report.

While aspects of the crash,its investigation, and the Senate’s own inquiries have been reported at great length in Plane Talking, these are among the main matters:-

CASA withheld from the ATSB, contrary to the wording of the Transport Safety Investigation Act, an internal document related to the crash which revealed that had CASA carried out its duties of oversight in relation to Pel-Air, it may have prevented the accident happening.

The Director of Safety for CASA, John McCormick, admitted in testimony that he withheld the document,saying inter alia that he didn’t think it mattered to the investigation the ATSB was conducting, and that he didn’t want to pollute its deliberations.

The documentation that McCormick withheld containing damning evidence of CASA’s inadequacy and incompetence as a safety regulator.

The documents reveals thatPel-Air the operator of the crashed jet was in multiple serious breaches of its air operators certificate at the time of the crash, and that it had no rigorous fuel policy for oceanic flights (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/09/09/air-safety-failures-will-dog-albanese-as-labor-leader-or-contender/) like that being performed by the Pel-Air jet.

The Senate inquiry,comprising Senators of all parties, heard that the ATSB report into what was the world’s first ditching of a fully functioning Westwind jet (but which was about to run out of fuel) failed to make any safety recommendations even though all of the safety equipment on board the aircraft failed to work as intended.

It also learned that the ATSB had declined to recover the flight data recorder from the wreckage, which lies at a recoverable depth near Norfolk Island, and which should have established what meteorological updates were given to the pilot during a flight that had started in Apia, and whether that information was in fact correct.

The captain of the jet,Dominic James, says he did not become aware of the deteriorated state of the weather at his intended refueling stop at Norfolk Island until after he had flown passed the last point of opportunity to divert to airports in Noumea orFiji.

(After four missed approaches and nearing fuel exhaustion, he made a controlled ditching at sea,while all of the aircraft’s controls and systems had the benefit of full power).

The ATSB’s final report into the Pel-Air crash stitched up the pilot for incorrectly fueling the flight, ignored the systemic issues in CASA, and does not meet the expectations of the international air safety community in alerting it to safety issues or deficiencies in a particular type of aircraft.

The Pel-Air report is a festering embarrassment in Australia’s once unquestioned place as a first tier state in relation to air safety.

It is an embarrassment Albanese carries with him should he seek Labor leadership, and it is a matter needing urgent attention by his ministerial successor in the new government.

The remedying of the Pel-Air report, and the reform of the ATSB and CASA ought to be the top priorities of the incoming minister. Next question is...will Senator Fawcett be given the parliamentary secretary gig of DoIT??:D Certainly gets my vote!:ok: