Merged: Senate Inquiry [Archive] - Page 7

halfmanhalfbiscuit

19th Sep 2013, 16:53

Latest from Ben.

September 19, 2013
Pel-Air scandal. Will it sink Albanese’s bid to lead Labor?
by Ben Sandilands
air safety
Former Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese took his case to be chosen as the leader of the Labor Opposition to a town hall style meeting in Melbourne this afternoon.

It will be the first of many such meetings by Albanese and his ‘friendly’ alternative for the role Bill Shorten.

Albanese spoke convincingly and lucidly about his achievements in relation to roads and rail, and also spoke about fairness and social justice.

Yet Albanese’s words are under a dark cloud when his apparent contempt for the Australian Senate Committee inquiry into air accident investigations are taken into frame.

Albanese failed to respond within the set period of time to the unanimous multi party report issued by that inquiry, which found, in plain English, that it had no confidence in the testimony of the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, and exposed the deliberate and admitted action of CASA in withholding from the safety investigator an internal document which was scathing of CASA’s performance in relation to the proper oversight of the Pel-Air operation and which might have prevented the crash of its Westwind air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

However Albanese let the head of the Infrastructure Department, Mike Mrdak, make protestations on his behalf as to how seriously he took these damning findings and how he would respond to them, all at a time when there were more than two and half months left before the Rudd Government entered caretaker mode.

There is a flight data recorder sitting at recoverable depth in the wreckage of the Pel-Air jet which will should determine whether the captain of the flight ever received due warning of deteriorating conditions at Norfolk Island at times when he would have had sufficient fuel to divert to alternative airports in Noumea or Fiji on a flight that began in Apia.

Yet the ATSB refused to recover the data recorder, and produced a report so compromised in its integrity and scope that it makes Australia look ridiculous in the field of air safety investigations.

(It isn’t a matter of the ATSB not producing outstanding reports, but it is a matter of the ATSB producing in this instance, a report that deflected blame from CASA and Pel-Air for failures in due process and standards and framed the captain, who like the others on board, was lucky to survive the ditching in the middle of the night. )

Mr Albanese, is it the Labor way to allow the crushing of individuals through the abuse of process by bureaucrats and agencies in order to deflect attention from their own failures to carry out their duties or obligations to the public?

Is it the Labor way to tolerate deficient performances in the country’s two air safety bodies, ignore parliamentary obligations, and allow Australia’s reputation as a first tier country in relation to air safety to be brought into disrepute?

This is not about what has been reported here, or even about what has been discussed in regulatory circles abroad.

It is about what Mr Albanese’s parliamentary colleagues found, unanimously, in a very detailed inquiry that uncovered a dangerous and unacceptable situation which requires changes in both the ATSB and CASA and the withdrawal of a wrong and unjust accident report in which the public expectations for air safety administration were not met.

Sunfish

19th Sep 2013, 22:21

It appears nobody in either party gives a **** about aviation in any form. Its too complicated and technical for them to get their little brains around.

Wait till an A380 goes in; the ATSB will rule that "Fairy Dust in the engines" caused it.

CASA will then make regulations requiring that only certified and approved fairy dust be applied..

Kharon

19th Sep 2013, 22:54

Pierce Akerman – Telegraph. (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/when_mandarins_turn_into_lemons/)

Labor’s politicisation of the public service was scandalous.

It debauched the notion of an independent and fearless public sector, though given the Green-Left voting record of the People’s Republic of Canberra, it would seem that little coercion may have been needed.

Those public servants who joined in the political game cannot be surprised they are now paying for their partisanship.
We can only hope that the PM applies the blow torch where needed, give us a DAS who would heave the whole of the motley crew producing such counter productive, un required, amateurish, anally retentive, clap trap like Part 61 overboard. Where is Mike Smith when we need him? Someone has to get a rope on the mad buggers; before every flight becomes a proficiency test, subject to whimsy and affordable only by selling your nearest and dearest into slave labour.

Part 61 effective December – read it and weep.

Sponsored by the IOS chapter robustly opposed to those Permanently Dribbling Platitudes.

AEROMEDIC

20th Sep 2013, 00:37

Sunfish,

We all sincerely hope it never happens, and you can bet your bottom dollar that all those that can prevent such an event have agreed on a common way to "cross their fingers".

Up-into-the-air

20th Sep 2013, 04:27

Qantas planes in 'near-miss' over Great Australian Bight
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/aircraft-in-near-miss-over-great-australian-bight/4971478)
Updated 5 minutes ago
Map: SA (http://maps.google.com/?q=-35.2333,138.7500%28SA%29&z=5)

Evasive action has been taken by the pilots of two Qantas aircraft to avoid hitting each other over the Great Australian Bight.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has confirmed the apparent "near-miss" between two aircraft about lunchtime.
CASA said evasive action was required when the aircraft got too close to each other.
Qantas confirmed two of its aircraft were involved, but denied there was any near-miss.
Airservices Australia, which manages air traffic controllers, said it was aware of the incident but could not make any further comment.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has been notified of the incident but says it is waiting for more information before deciding whether to investigate.
It is understood one flight had been heading from Sydney to Perth and the other from Perth to Sydney.

and Ben Sandilands:

Two Qantas jets involved in serious mid-air 'near miss' | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/09/20/two-qantas-jets-involved-in-serious-mid-air-near-miss/)

Kharon

20th Sep 2013, 20:28

It's a funny old world we live in; the world of the media is even stranger. There's a neat little Chris Merritt article tucked away in legal section of 'The Australian' which should be making headlines and discussed on those endless, dreary current affairs TV shows. The old adage "a burn on your arse don't hurt me none" seems appropriate. The - 'Rule of Law Institute' (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruleoflaw.org.au%2F&ei=da48UrbDMI6jigejjIAg&usg=AFQjCNEBjElxqDZqtJlbepGDhzc1X4uMcQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.aGc) - has been chipping away at this issue for a while and I noticed a couple of similar articles in overseas publications recntly; but I guess if you are not one of the minority group who have been affected by this insidious, underhanded method of perverting or circumventing the law then there is no need to consider the matter......The Australian article reproduced on - ProAviation. (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1638)

Phelan - This article appeared in the Legal Section of the Australian. Due to its relevance to the numerous actions being supported by ProAviation, we have copied it here. Should you wish to comment on or relate your own experiences with CAsA and the Model Litigant Directions, please comment below or contact us directly at [email protected] Alternatively write to the editor, The Australian.Chris Merritt – THE Abbott government has been urged to overhaul the rules governing the conduct of federal agencies in court so the organisations with the worst behaviour can be identified.

The Australian - Research by the Rule of Law Institute has revealed a surge in breaches of the government’s legal services directions – which cover the conduct of federal agencies in court as well as the way in which they buy legal services.

Sunfish

20th Sep 2013, 21:48

My guess is that ATSB will try and bury the qantas incident as quickly as it can, probably by putting all the blame on the controller concerned.

Tidbinbilla

21st Sep 2013, 03:41

Okay folks. There are a small number of contributors on this thread that seem compelled to respond in tongues, sea shanties or riddles that many of our members have difficulty following.

This is a public forum - it's not a secret vehicle for a select few to slag out people in the spotlight at the moment. Please consider other members attempting to follow this thread and post accordingly.

TID :)

Lookleft

21st Sep 2013, 04:40

sea shanties

So just to clarify your honour something along the lines of:

"I dips me lid to the most wise TID!"

is no longer appropriate?;)

Given the new gummints program of reducing the number of departments I don't think that we are going to get a separation of aviation from the transport and regional services portfolio anytime soon. As for the former Minister now spruiking for Tony Abbot's old job I think his disdain and contempt for the Senate Inquiries(s) will have little bearing on whether the rankin file will elect him.

Kharon

21st Sep 2013, 21:05

Actually, shanty is considered slang by maritime experts; they are a sea chanty (chantey)...

Wiki:The term shanty most accurately refers to a specific style of work song belonging to this historical repertoire, however in recent, popular usage, the scope of its definition is sometimes expanded to admit a wider range of repertoire and characteristics, or to refer to a “maritime work song” in general.
Not sure whether it's the colossal arrogance, the amateurish attempt at literary criticism, the incredible presumption that a person may be told what to write, let alone how it must be presented; the thinly veiled misuse of 'moderation'; or, perhaps it's just the backhanded assumption that most readers are 'thick as' which I find most disappointing.

The previous, closed Senate thread finished with 831,340 views, this current one runs at 270,074. Since 0930 EST, Friday 30 October the thread has 19,947 views, about 900 a day.

I'd say the 'aunty shanty' mob were out voted, out gunned and most definitely out of order...Have a nice day y'all....

Wiki - Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.
The freedom to not read any published article still exists - thank the gods....:ugh:

Tidbinbilla

21st Sep 2013, 22:13

It's really quite simple, Kharon - there is no freedom of speech anywhere on PPRuNe, because the laws of defamation and slander still apply.

Take a moment to refresh your memory on the rules you agreed to when signing up.

I'm constantly getting messages asking what the thread is about and what all the code means. So I'm dealing with these complaints. You don't have to like it - the mod team have to make decisions on how threads are moderated (if at all).

I've made a simple and reasonable request. Whether you choose to follow this request is up to you :)

"No further correspondence will be entered into".

Sarcs

21st Sep 2013, 23:19

Kharon: The - 'Rule of Law Institute' (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruleoflaw.org.au%2F&ei=da48UrbDMI6jigejjIAg&usg=AFQjCNEBjElxqDZqtJlbepGDhzc1X4uMcQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.aGc) - has been chipping away at this issue for a while and I noticed a couple of similar articles in overseas publications recntly; but I guess if you are not one of the minority group who have been affected by this insidious, underhanded method of perverting or circumventing the law then there is no need to consider the matter...... Love the title of the Merrit article..."Let's name, shame agenciesbehaving badly"...but honestly where would you start??

Perhaps Ms Burns has the solution for Senator Brandis..."Ms Burns said the Attorney-General's Department should be required to disclose the exact nature of each breach of the legal services directions as well as identifying the agency involved, what they had done wrong and what action had been taken"...
&...." The agencies at fault should be required to provide a statement outlining what redress had been provided to the parties adversely affected by their conduct.

She also urged the new government to introduce a formal system of dealing with complaints about the courtroom conduct of government agencies instead of relying on the agencies to report their own shortcomings.

She was concerned that the large number of alleged breaches still under investigation suggested that many matters had been carried over from the previous year.

Ms Burns said the institute would like to see the commonwealth's obligations under the model litigant rules enacted as legislation"...

But how much of the current malaise and lack of accountability by government agencies is as a result of the previous shambolic ALP administration??

Hmm..either way the new AG has definitely got his work cut out for him, it will be interesting to see if he has the ticker to even tackle the problem much like Truss and the PelAir Senate report..:{

...latest from Plane talking: Adelaide near hit by two A330s: How to calibrate its seriousness? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/09/22/adelaide-near-hit-by-two-a330s-how-to-calibrate-its-seriousness/)
It doesn’t matter whether the vertical separation between the two Qantas A332s involved in Friday’s near hit just west of Adelaide was 990 feet or 90 feet, or whether they were 1000 feet or 10,000 feet apart in lateral separation.

What matters is that a TCAS or traffic collision avoidance system RA or resolution advisory was generated and that one of the jets was cleared by an AirServices Australia ATC officer to climb up through the flight level occupied by the other oncoming jet.

The technical media is well aware that on provisional data, the vertical separation between the two airlines, carrying a total of more than 600 seats, was less than 700 feet, which is just as bad as 990 feet or 90 feet. The rules concerning safe separation between airliners are set to the levels specified for carefully considered and universally endorsed reasons.

A further matter of interest, but at this stage impossible to rate as a material factor until it is fully investigated, is whether or not the TCAS unit in one of the Qantas A330s was functioning properly, or at all. It may have been, it may not have been, we don’t know, but we, through the investigation will find out.

If in fact there was a previously unrecognised or undetected fault in one of those units there will of course be an airworthiness alert or advisory, and that type of unit will be urgently inspected and if necessary corrected world wide, as this is one of the positive consequences and contributions that air safety investigations bring to airline operations.

Such speculation is however ahead of where the investigation is likely to be for the immediate future, and it may be false speculation. The speculation was caused by a media report that a pilot on a third airliner overheard the communications related to the near hit, in which one Qantas captain is claimed to have said he didn’t know the other Qantas plane was ‘there’.

The wording of the ATSB notification also supports the interpretation that the RA was, for whatever reason, only responded to by one of the jets involved in the incident. Without prejudice to anyone involved, there are other possible reasons as to why that may have been the case than TCAS equipment issues.

This is what the brief notification (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-161.aspx) says in relation to that RA.

The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a loss of separation between an Airbus A330, registered VH-EBO (EBO), on a scheduled passenger service from Sydney, New South Wales, to Perth, Western Australia, and an Airbus A330, registered VH-EBS (EBS), on a flight from Perth to Sydney. The LOS occurred about 10 NM (19 km) west of Adelaide, South Australia at 1213 Eastern Standard Time on 20 September 2013.

Airservices Australia advised that EBS was cruising at flight level (FL) 390. The flight crew of EBO were cleared to climb from FL 380 to FL 400 and the aircraft commenced the climb. Soon after, the controller cancelled the clearance and the aircraft descended back to FL 380. The flight crew of EBS received a resolution advisory alert from their aircraft’s traffic collision avoidance system.

The investigation will take time, but one might expect the new minister reponsible for aviation will direct the ATSB that it will take less time than until September next year! One might expect that new minister to sort out a number of festering issues at the ATSB as well as its intention to take 12 months to deal with a truly serious issue that could have killed over 600 people through the avoidable destruction of two Qantas airliners, but that is just an observation as to where the minister’s priorities and sense of urgency might lie.

He might also direct it to fix its disgraceful Pel-Air accident report, and to find a new chief commissioner who would command the confidence of the Senate when it comes to giving testimony to a Senate inquiry, especially if he were to be briefed on those matters by SA Liberal Senator, David Fawcett.

In the meantime the correct calibration of the seriousness of this incident in the public and political mind of Australia might be the persistent inability of AirServices Australia to put competent and properly trained air traffic controllers into positions where they are responsible for the lives of at times many hundreds of Australian and foreign users of airspace under their control.

This is not a matter that can be left until this investigation is completed. It requires remedial action now.

If we can stop the boats, surely we can stop airliners being sent across each other’s bows.
Gee Ben is like a dog with a bone on this one...:ok:

tolakuma manki

22nd Sep 2013, 04:06

A bit harsh on Australian ATC.
Try PNG for a laugh.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Sep 2013, 04:38

related to the near hit
Topend 3, he must read Prune and almost got it right. It should be near-hit. :ok:

Capn Bloggs

22nd Sep 2013, 04:44

The wording of the ATSB notification also supports the interpretation that the RA was, for whatever reason, only responded to by one of the jets involved in the incident. Without prejudice to anyone involved, there are other possible reasons as to why that may have been the case than TCAS equipment issues.
No, it's quite conceivable that only one TCAS alert was issued; the boxes talk to each other to determine the best course of action. Just because one says "climb!" the other one may not necessarily say "descend!", especially in this case where the clearance to climb by the lower aircraft appeared to have been reversed promptly by ATC. A330s, I imagine, don't immediately leap into a gut-busting, 20° nose-up lurch when the new altitude is selected.

Jinglie

23rd Sep 2013, 13:00

Albo is on Q&A next week! Who is going to ask the obvious question regarding the Senate Report he ignored? I suggest a bombardment of email questions from Ppruners and hopefully one of the IOS can be there in person.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

23rd Sep 2013, 16:38

Jinglie

Back to the thread!
Albo is on Q&A next week! Who is going to ask the obvious question regarding the Senate Report he ignored? I suggest a bombardment of email questions from Ppruners and hopefully one of the IOS can be there in person.

I always thought Albo was more concerned with the political rather than safety risk. Perhaps the political risk may bite him if someone can get the question in. But, has the new government done anything yet.

004wercras

23rd Sep 2013, 20:35

Jinglie, anybody in the audience who even dare to just think about asking the creator of great white elephants a question relating to his obsfucation over aviation matters automatically gets classified as an IOS.
Nonetheless it would be great to see Phelan, Sandilands or Gobbledock grilling Albo.

Halfmanhalftelevisionshow, perhaps somebody will ask The Minister for Mascot who is it that; a) styles his hair, and b) who his dentist is?

WARNING: Any IOS who attend Q&A and are sitting in the front 5 rows please ensure you bring a raincoat, as the lickspittle and pooh will be flowing more faster and furiously than a politician at a taxpayer trough!

Frank Arouet

23rd Sep 2013, 22:44

I'm constantly getting messages asking what the thread is about and what all the code means

I'm over half way through a glossary of terms and come to the sudden realization that any explanation would put both myself and PPRune in danger of retribution from the players mentioned in code.

It's now binned!

However, all readers of this thread can always do what I did and read from the beginning to get a full understanding.

I've seen this sort of thing before here on PPRune where somebody clicks onto the last page and has a moan about not being able to pick up the thread. May I be so bold to suggest those of such persuasion do please go to the first page to at least get some idea what it's all about, (that's if the title isn't enough), and with a short read you should be "full bottle" on all the nomenclature.

Happy reading.:)

Sarcs

24th Sep 2013, 00:10

Frank: May I be so bold to suggest those of such persuasion do please go to the first page to at least get some idea what it's all about, (that's if the title isn't enough), and with a short read you should be "full bottle" on all the nomenclature.
Sound advice Frank..:D:D..and perhaps to have a fully rounded and informative understanding of the subject matter the avid readers amongst us may wish to refer to the previous (closed) thread from about page 20 (see here):

Previous Senate Inquiry thread from page 20 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-20.html)

Maybe not a best seller but still hours and hours of absorbing reading in that lot and can guarantee you will be adequately informed!:E

Tidbinbilla

24th Sep 2013, 00:24

My previous request stands. Post in a manner which everyone understands, or expect the post to be moderated :)

004wercras

24th Sep 2013, 01:33

My previous request stands. Post in a manner which everyone understands, or expect the post to be moderated
Without disrespect intended, for obvious reasons, this seems to be the problem - some 'rules, expectations and demands' apply to some threads and particular posters yet not to others threads? The inconsistencies on this website are becoming more and more evident, along with bias and nepotism.
How does one quantify 'post in a way that everyone understands'? That's like expecting all students in the same class to equally understand the taught theories of quantum physics exactly the same way? Not all will get it!

The senate inquiry process itself is not understood by all. I have been flying for many many years. I can assure you that some of my acquaintances who still fly for mainline carries (as I once did) do not understand the complexities and farcical nature of the regulator in a way that a pilot in perhaps GA or private business would understand. Is that a crime? Is that a non compliance with Pprune rules?

I understand the term political correctness and won't put up an argument, but to
place a caveat on terminology, phrases or a little sideways banter is a joke.

004wercras

25th Sep 2013, 02:18

This is just way too funny! A snippet below (my bolding) from almost 14 years ago in which the Minister for White Elephants discusses the inaction of the Liberals over Sydney airport, its capacity, the need for another airport, CAsA and safety! Yet what did Albo and his beloved Labor achieve in 6 years (2007 – 2013)?? GROUNDHOG DAY! And this bloke wants to be the new opposition leader?
'2001 An Aviation Odyssey'

Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (no. 2) 2000: Second Reading
7 February 2001

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (7.23 p.m.)I am pleased to support the amendments moved by the shadow minister to the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, which is concerned with CASA and safety in the operation of airports in Australia. Of course, we all know that the situation of CASA and air safety is a mess under this government. Its own appointments have said that it is a mess. Those people who have been put on the board are well-known government supporters such as Dick Smith have indeed been very critical of the operation of these organisations.

Tonight I particularly want to take the opportunity to express my concern, on behalf of my constituents in Grayndler, about air safety and the operation of Kingsford Smith airport. The Kingsford Smith airport is an airport which has reached its time limit. It is full. Anyone who flies in and out of Sydney airport knows about the time delays, which occur because, frankly, the number of movements is at breaking point. Indeed, I moved a private member’s bill, seconded by the member for Watson, in this House to ensure that there was a cap of 80 movements per hour at Sydney airport. That also resulted in guarantees of slots for regional airlines from New South Wales into Kingsford Smith airport. That was not a technical issue; that was an issue in part about safety. We believe that, when aircraft are flying over the most densely populated area of Australia, that is, the inner suburbs of Sydney, 80 movements are about all that Sydney airport can take. Yet, what we have seen in the past year are numerous breaches of the capacity interestingly enough, not while the Olympics were on at Sydney airport. I say that to dismiss any potential criticism made by, for example, the Daily Telegraph journalist Piers Akerman who suggested that it was all Olympics related. Indeed, there were more aircraft movements in and out of Sydney airport over the December-January holiday period than there were during the Sydney Olympics. And that says a lot about the pressure which is being placed on Sydney airport.

My concern, as a member of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, is that when we have questioned those people concerned with aviation safety it is apparent that what those bodies do when they look at safety concerns is to take into account the safety of the people in the aircraft; they take no account whatsoever of the safety of people on the ground. God forbid any accident with an aircraft coming down, but if one does come down, and they do, from time to time, better it come down where there are no people than in an area which is the most densely populated in Australia. That is why we have seen the real plan come out with regard to Kingsford Smith airport. No matter how much people might prevaricate over the issue of a second Sydney airport and the need for it and governments of both persuasions have prevaricated for decades about doing what needs to be done, the reality is that Sydney airport is now at its limit. It is now breaching the cap of 80 movements. Pressure has now been placed on the curfew also, which has been breached at Sydney airport. That is why the government’s absurd decision, which says, `No, we won’t build a second airport for Sydney, but we will reserve the land around Badgerys Creek because we know we will have to do something down the track and, in the meantime, we will stop regional airlines flying in and out of Sydney airport and move them to Bankstown,’ is the worst possible option.

When confronted by this, the National Party representatives in regional New South Wales, including the leader, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, said, `No. We won’t force them to move out of Sydney airport to Bankstown.’ No, of course they won’t, they will just price them out. That is what will occur. That is what was in the briefing given by Bankstown Airport Limited to country federal MPs, state MPs and mayors in January of this year. In spite of the fact there were a number of National Party representatives at that meeting, not one of them brought to the attention of their constituents the fact that they were about to be treated as second-class citizens and discriminated against and moved to Bankstown. The Bankstown airport option is bad for regional New South Wales because it treats them as second-class citizens. It is bad for the people around Sydney airport because it means that jet movements will increase as the propeller and regional flights are moved out. It is bad for the people around Bankstown, including those people in south-western Sydney, who will suffer from aircraft noise.

Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (no. 2) 2000: Second Reading « anthonyalbanese.com.au (http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/aviation-legislation-amendment-bill-no-2-2000-second-reading)

Perhaps the IOS and Q&A panel can ask Herr Albo what he actually achieved while he was mincing around the halls of parliament and why he thinks he should be the new leader?

004wercras

25th Sep 2013, 22:02

Link below;

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - September 2013 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101664)

Under the topic of social media there was no mention about CAsA's following on Pprune?

As usual, no mention of some of the bigger ticket items such as regulatory reform and the senate inquiry.

Frank Arouet

25th Sep 2013, 23:46

I know how to fly, but I don't "Tweet". At least I don't think so.

Obviously a flaw in my training and something that should be included in The Regulatory Review Process.

aroa

26th Sep 2013, 01:53

004. After 6 years we will probably be able to read a like spiel put out by the next DOIT dolt.

Better things to do in life than waste time tweeting CAsA or logging into their Ar$eBook. (sh*te spoken here)

Is this 'social' media thing going to be mandatory with a manual, log book endo and an exam?? Weirder things have happened out of FF before.

After all (Non) Aviation house is the leading exponent in "make work" and "what shall we do this week " brigade.:mad:

004wercras

26th Sep 2013, 04:20

Aroa, perhaps Fort Fumble will introduce a new reg for AOC and COA holders that says;
'An operator must have a system in place which captures CAsA's most up to date media postings. Acceptable means of compliance includes the use of electronic systems including Twatter, Facetake or Poohtube. Failure to comply with this regulation will incur a 50 point penalty and a NCN'. (I imagine some sneaky operators will try to use PPRune, 4 Corners, Q&A, Willyleaks, Crikey or Pro Aviation as a means to ascertain true accurate reports, however this is considered a non acceptable means of compliance).

CAsA, ASA and ATSBeaker are really much like Borromean rings. Linked, but yet they aren't!
And all three put out glossy statements and have tarted up their websites but alas, it is all a distraction. Just another coat of glitter on top of the turd.

P.S
I also hear that the very questionable sentinel I.T program, which was introduced by a friend of one of the GWM Don's, is a complete and dismal failure! Slow, clunky, and full of more holes than what is in Professor Reasons block of Swiss cheese! The amount of time spent trying to accurately use the system has resulted in several months of work backlog including audits and surveillance tasks. No risk in that is there?

Sarcs

26th Sep 2013, 23:46

004:I also hear that the very questionable sentinel I.T program, which was introduced by a friend of one of the GWM Don's, is a complete and dismal failure! Slow, clunky, and full of more holes than what is in Professor Reasons block of Swiss cheese! The amount of time spent trying to accurately use the system has resulted in several months of work backlog including audits and surveillance tasks. No risk in that is there?Hmm very interesting rumour 004!:E So this was the system instigated on mate's rates.."I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine fellow trough dweller!"...that had drawn the interest of one Senator Fawcett at the last Senate Estimates and still has an outstanding QON (no surprises there!!:ugh:) some 4 months later:Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I will swap to yoursurveillance manual. You are obviously aware we have been taking an increased interestin surveillance activities. As part of my background reading for that, inlooking at your surveillance manual, in the introduction section it talks aboutSky Sentinel, the approved IT surveillance management tool. I have done someresearch over Google to try and find out who provided that to CASA and theredoes not appear to be a commercial provider. Can you tell the committee wherethat system has come from?

Mr McCormick: Yes. That system was developed in-house by one of our inspectors in Perth and at the time it wasbased around the issues of Perth and operators. By putting in information and background on operators it allows us to have a risk-rating on organisations, giving us more insight into organisations that are higher risk than would perhaps be seen by a manual search, given the large number of certificates that people hold. It is one of the first systems rolled out in the world. There may be others. We have trialled it for many months, if not a year, in Perth. We have now refined that. We own the IP to it and now every inspector has on their desk an IT based system which gives them indications of what the risk-ratings are of the various organisations that they are overseeing. Coupled with that, of course, we have moved into the certificate management team approach which was to put together our safety systems inspectors, our airworthiness inspectors and our flying operations inspectors in teams so that they could better use that data.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You said that you own theIP. I take it that was developed by CASA staff in CASA time?

Mr McCormick: In fact, I think it was developed in the person's own time, but on the IP issues there are other systems that are similar in the world and we took legal advice on the IP issues.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Was that person recognised or rewarded in some way for their contribution?

Mr McCormick: They were the employee of the month, from memory.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So no other recognition or award given to them? No payment?

Mr McCormick: We did have to buy the IP off them. That is correct.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)How much did that cost?

Mr McCormick: If I can confirm that, it was somewhere between $25,000 and $37,000.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I am assuming that you have then rolled that out across the organisation. Do you have a quality assurance IT department that looked at that? What was their advice about a home-grown system across the whole department?

Mr McCormick: What we had to do with the system was to address that very issue. We had to take the IP from the person and the system and then, in the parlance, cut it into professional code so that it is supportable by modern systems and of course to take out some of theprogramming issues which may have been loops or things to put it on a professional basis. So the system we use now has been done by our professional IT department and we do have QA. We are, in fact, at this stage rolling out quality assurance across all our flight operations to ensure we have standardisation. That is being done by a very senior CASA manager who has previously been the regional manager for southern region.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Were there any concerns expressed by your IT department about that approach?

& further on in Hansard

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Mr McCormick, when the decision was first taken to proceed with this, what was the expected expenditure that would be required from CASA to roll out this system?

Mr McCormick: When we originally looked at getting to a risk based IT system we were looking at projects which we had had running for some time which were addressing this very issue. They had previously had budgets of varying amounts, so the actual purchase of this software and this system was not undertaken until we had an idea of the costs involved.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)My question was: when it was first approved what was the capital expenditure that was approved for the project?

Mr McCormick: The capital expenditure was a very small amount of money. It was a case of how much it was going to cost. It was costing somewhere at a maximum of $37,000 to purchase it. It is not a large amount of cost in total, even capital or op-ex to roll that out in the organisation.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So since that initial decision have there been cost overruns where subsequent allocations of funding have been required to enable the implementation to occur?

Mr McCormick: I am not too sure that we can break it down that way. I will ask my chief financial officer. We do not have that breakdown, I am sorry.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Can you tell me the final overall cost of the system as of this budget?

Mr McCormick: For the CASA IT tool SkySentinel business and technical implementation, development implementation and the new CASA surveillance manuals from March 2011 to June 2013, the total cost was $2,419,157, but we do not have the breakdown of the Sky Sentinel out of that at this stage.

SenatorFAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Can you come back to the committee today, if you can, or tomorrow with that figure? I would be interested to know how much that was. And now the rumour is that this surveillance IT tool is a clusterf*#k and has potentially circumvented several slices of swiss cheese on the safety risk matrix...hmm how potentially embarrassing for the FF GWM contingent and (as Gobbles once said:E) TICK..TOCK!:rolleyes:

ps While contemplating the Sky Sentinel rumour the Jeff Boyd article on Pro Aviation is worth a read:ok::

A Bridge Too Far (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1650)

004wercras

27th Sep 2013, 01:29

Sarcs, an interesting tale indeed! Why would it take CAsA more than 4 months to still not respond to a relatively simple question from Sen Fawcett in relation to an even more basic task of purchasing some I.T??
I think the Senator is having the pi#s taken out of him by these clowns who see fit not to show an ounce of accountability to anybody. But seeing that CAsA are taking so long to respond, perhaps Sen Fawcett can build upon his request and request additional information, evidence and answers to these points;

• Was this I.T system risk assessed prior to purchase and implementation?
• Has the system been reassessed post implementation to ensure it delivers the required outcomes and assurances it is meant to do?
• The CAsA Inspector who sold them the system, who is he and what is his relationship, background or history with the person(s) who signed off on the purchase?
• For the Inspector to sell this system for a tidy sum of $37k to CAsA, how was he paid? Does he have an ABN, a separately registered business? And if so, does this business he is involved in in any way provide services to industry, which could be construed as a conflict of interest considering he works for the Regulator? Has he declared his business to CAsA? After all they do make you sign paperwork in which you must declare business interests in areas that could raise the question of conflict of interests?
• It would be rumoured that the SkySentinel system has been raised before, even on PPRune, and CAsA immediately tried to have the comments removed. Why?
• If Fort Fumble were chasing a new I.T system of sorts, why wasn't a tender initiated? Or do you only have to tender up to a certain amount?

Of interest are Mr McComicks answers to the Senators questions in which he deflects to all and sundry such as explaining what Sentinel does, he dribbles on about its use etc etc, but he doesn't like to directly answer the good Senators question does he :=

It's funny, a Sentinel is a robotic device from the Matrix. A number of CAsA's people could be described as robotic.
But even better, a Sentinel is a small wooden steamboat associated with the Puget Sound Mosquito Fleet! Now I could be mistaken, but I believe the latest addition to Styx Houseboat enterprises is in fact a Sentinel......spooky.

thorn bird

27th Sep 2013, 11:05

And it would seem there are those who deny CAsA is corrupt.
Incompetent for sure, but corrupt?
Oh for sure.
Where are our watchdogs????????? Politicians????? anyone!!??????

Up-into-the-air

27th Sep 2013, 11:16

We are here casa

Watching, taking note reporting and we will have you!!

halfmanhalfbiscuit

27th Sep 2013, 12:31

The senate report appears to be becoming shelf ware collecting dust or am I mistaken?

Jinglie

27th Sep 2013, 13:27

Next time your AOC or licence gets hassled by CASA, use the words of Albo, "if you haven't noticed we're in caretaker mode". What's good for the goose.... !

Lookleft

27th Sep 2013, 23:16

The senate report appears to be becoming shelf ware collecting dust or am I
mistaken?

I think you are right on the money! Not only is it sitting on the shelf gathering dust in the National Archives but there won't be the companion volume of the required government response. Someone with more knowledge of the process could confirm but I don't think the new government is obliged to respond to a Senate report that was conducted during the tenure of the previous government.

Sarcs

28th Sep 2013, 00:10

Remember this (and Creamy’s education on Senate ‘Disallowance Motions’)??

DMCAO 48.1 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-110.html#post7911512)

Well apparently EASA have similar issues to FF on new proposed rules (from Aviation-Safety NET article):
BALPA claims half of pilots have fallen asleep while flying (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/09/27/balpa-claims-half-of-pilots-have-fallen-asleep-while-flying/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
27 September 2013

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) released findings of survey, claiming half of pilots have fallen asleep while flying.

On September 30 the European Parliament’s transport committee (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/tran/home.html) will vote on a European Commission proposal to tighten and standardise flight time limits for pilots across the European Union. This proposal has been under fire from European pilots unions for several months.

On September 26, the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), released the findings of a survey on flight time limits. Of the 500 commercial pilots that participated, 56% say they have fallen asleep on the flight deck and of those who admitted this, nearly 1 in 3 (29%) said they woke to find the other pilot asleep.

Also, 31% don’t believe their airline has a culture that lends itself to reporting tiredness concerns with a half (51%) saying they believed their airline Chief Executive would back them if they refused to fly because of tiredness.

Jim McAuslan, General Secretary of BALPA, said about these findings: “Tiredness is already a major challenge for pilots who are deeply concerned that unscientific new EU rules will cut UK standards and lead to increased levels of tiredness, which has been shown to be a major contributory factor in air accidents.”

EASA has previoulsy issued a statement on the concerns voiced by the European Cockpit Association, stating amongst others: “More than 50 scientific studies were analysed, with a particular focus on the effects of disruptive schedule, while all concerned stakeholder groups including flight and cabin crew organisations, airlines, and Member State representatives were consulted throughout the process.”

More information:

Draft Commission regulation (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&K+V2miGshKBHQTZTrUFdym8eWF9TAwZmH6SdJlvysgZhxbx1TISJ2Mfg5Dtx Y23N)
BALPA Press release ’half of pilots have fallen asleep while flying’ (http://www.balpa.org/News-and-campaigns/News/HALF-OF-PILOTS-HAVE-FALLEN-ASLEEP-WHILE-FLYING.aspx)
EASA press release ‘EASA strongly opposes disinformation campaign on Flight Time Limitations’ (http://easa.europa.eu/communications/press-releases/EASA-press-release.php?id=112)

Perhaps more fuel to the fire that the Senators, ably led by Nick, have already lit and another potential headache for the DAS and his GWM cronies??:E

004: Why would it take CAsA more than 4 months to still not respond to a relatively simple question from Sen Fawcett in relation to an even more basic task of purchasing some I.T??

I think the Senator is having the pi#s taken out of him by these clowns who see fit not to show an ounce of accountability to anybody. To be fair to the DAS, FF are not on their Pat Malone when it comes to being unresponsive to outstanding QONs from Senate Estimates. In fact if you take a look at Kingcrat's whole remit you will see none have responded...

RRAT AQONs (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/rratctte/estimates/bud1314/infra/index)

A quick flick through other Government Departments response to Estimate QONs makes the above webpage link extremely embarrassing for the DoIT Crats:=:=. Here is a couple of examples:

Defence (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/fadt_ctte/estimates/bud_1314/def/defenceqonanswers.ashx)
&
Parliamentary Depts (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/fapactte/estimates/bud1314/parliamentary/index)

ps Slight thread drift..interesting article by Ben (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/09/28/wi-fi-devices-on-jets-could-revolutionise-transport-safety/) on the possible safety advantages of inflight WIFI use. Which was on the back of upcoming recommendations on the relaxing of restrictions on the use of PEDs (in flight) by the FAA (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/technology/faa-nears-new-rules-on-devices.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&).

Comet's comment makes common sense(there's a rhyme!:E): comet
Lots of things don’t make sense.
1. Why aren’t electronic components on flights shielded from electromagnetic radiation such as Wi-Fi? It’s not that hard to shield against. Mobile phones have been in common use since the mid-1980s. Why haven’t they done it?
2. Although car radio broadcasts in road tunnels can be interrupted to play emergency messages, I can’t see any way for that to happen over Wi-Fi, as computer users aren’t watching an incoming audio/video stream that can be interrupted.
3. Why is the FAA thinking of regulating what activity you can do with your Wi-Fi on a plane (NYTimes reports that watching podcasts and videos on takeoff will be allowed, but sending emails will be banned… huh?)
4. How on earth do false collision alarms get triggered by passenger Wi-Fi? They’re not on the same frequency. The passenger Wi-Fi is very week at that distance. Sounds like a scapegoat.
5. Pilots themselves use their mobile phones on landing, as we saw with Jetstar in Singapore.
On a recent Emirates flight over the Indian Ocean, I held my tablet computer in the vicinity of a window, and it registered a GPS location, which I was sharing with other people around the world. My tablet actually sent its location out via the inflight Wi-Fi system. If that had been Air France AF447, I would not be writing this post, but they would have found the wreckage a lot quicker than what they did! Hmm..wonder how long it will take FF to catch up with the good old 'US of A', maybe a while given the comments from CAsA's mouthpiece:ugh::ugh::
Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority will watch the US administration's recommendations and subsequent decision closely. ''We need to wait and see what the advisory panel recommends and then what the FAA decides to do and when,'' CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said. ''It is likely to take some time for the FAA to make changes.''
But because the Australian agency hadn't yet seen the recommendations, it was ''a way off yet'' before changes, if any, would be implemented in Australia.
It is understood some Australian airlines have already approached the agency to change the rules, but their requests were rejected. The authority has a number of concerns about devices becoming distractions during safety briefings, or turning into projectiles.
"Take some time"...err "wait and see" (try sometime in the next decade!:E) being the operative words :yuk:. But the last paragraph (in bold) perhaps takes the cake for how out of touch and in the dark ages is our beloved third world regulator!:{

Sarcs

30th Sep 2013, 23:07

Addendum to my previous post :E

Looks like it is back to the drawing board for the EU parliament on proposed flight duty changes..:ugh:

Breakthrough for aviation safety: EU Parliament rejects flawed flight time rules (https://www.eurocockpit.be/sites/default/files/breakthrough_for_aviation_safety_ep_vote_13_0930_f.pdf)

CAsA beware Nick, Senator Rhiannon & co will soon be back on the warpath and they may be garnering more support for Nick's CAO 48.1 disallowance motion:D:D

Senator Xenophon: Senator XENOPHON: Further to that, there is widespread concern amongst pilots about the flight-time duty regulations, the relatively recent regulations, and the risk they pose to aviation safety.

I understand that these concerns have been put to you, but the reports I have had back are that CASA, and you in particular, have been I think the word is dismissive of them. Why is it the case that the pilots I have spoken to, some very senior pilots with many thousands of hours of experience, have expressed to me that they are at the coalface, and they say that there is a real issue in terms of these new regulations?

For instance, I am told that in certain circumstances under the new regulations CASA allows two pilots to be on duty for 14 hours and to be at the controls for 10 hours. I am told that the science indicates 12 to 13 hours maximum duty in ideal conditions and that fatigue risk increases substantially beyond 16 hours awake. If there is a delay in the flight through weather or whatever—many pilots I have spoken to, including representatives of pilots groups, are incredibly concerned about the new flight-time limitation rules.
Senator Rhiannon: Senator RHIANNON: Can you or any of your colleagues share some information? You have signed off on CAO 48. It is your first point in 1.12 of a document that I imagine you have put considerable work into, and it has there 'after 16 hours awake'.
Surely somebody could give us some background to this, please. And Senator Rhiannon's, yet to be answered QONs, pages 36-38 of index: RRAT Senate Estimates QONs index (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1314/infra/Final_infra.ashx)

Hmm..god forbid if the DAS and his cronies have yet another flawed regulation dragged through the parliament for review..."mea culpa after mea culpa"...comes to mind!:rolleyes: {Senator Edwards your a gem :ok:}

Wunwing

2nd Oct 2013, 06:08

If "Albo" gets to be the new Labor top dog does anyone believe that the Libs won't throw anything including this at him?
I think that its far from dead.
Wunwing

Sarcs

3rd Oct 2013, 00:12

Ben's article yesterday perhaps highlights the biggest outstanding human factor safety risk in the modern day airline environment:
AF447disaster pilots not emergency trained-Coroner (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/10/02/af447-disaster-pilots-not-emergency-trained-coroner/)

A Coronial inquest into the deaths of two UK nationals who were on Air France AF447 when it crashed into the mid Atlantic ocean in 2009 has brought some critical issues in air safety into the public arena.

While this BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24352480) doesn’t add to what air safety observers have already learned about the disaster, it does talk in lay terms about pilot training, and growing concerns that cockpit automation raises issues not properly addressed by many airlines.

This is important. In the course of Senate committee discussions in this country, as well as in various safety forums and statements made by safety agencies abroad, there is concern about an airline management tendency to believe that pilots should be required to do as little hands on flying as possible, and leave as much of the control of flight function as possible to computer aided automation.

What numerous incidents in both Airbus and Boeing types have demonstrated, as recently as the Asiana crash at San Francisco, ‘hands off’ can end badly if anything abnormal occurs that requires pilot skills to identify and rectify or recover from.

In Qantas there has been a long and admirable emphasis on ‘recovery upset’ in pilot training. It has saved the airline from the terrible potential consequences of an A380 engine disintegration (QF32) near Singapore (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/27/qf32-how-highest-standards-in-piloting-again-saved-qantas/) in 2010 as well as a control incident with an A330 (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/12/19/serious-qantas-a330-upset-was-caused-by-long-dormant-computer-design-flaw-triggered-by-chance/) that forced an emergency landing at Learmonth in 2008, and an electrical crisis in a Boeing 747 (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/12/13/atsb-spills%C2%A0the-dirty-dishwater-on-another-qantas-drama/) fortunately while close to Bangkok Airport in 2008. Among others!

How traditional, and highly successful skills in upset recovery can be maintained in contemporary airliner operations is a much argued or discussed issue for airlines, air safety regulators, certifying authorities and the manufacturers.
This relevance has been underlined by incidents in which the most modern of airliners, with safety records arguably underpinned by automation, have been challenged, sometimes disastrously, by events for which the pilots were inadequately prepared. While we are in this limbo before the parliamentary schedule etc is being sorted out and fires up again...:rolleyes: ...perhaps now is a good time to rehash a recommendation from the Senate 'Pilot Training and Airline Safety' inquiry that promised a review of the findings of the tragic AF447 crash investigation:
Recommendation 9
2.299 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Australian aviation operators review the final findings of France's Bureau of Investigation and Analysis into Air France 447, including consideration of how it may apply in the Australian context. Subject to those findings, the committee may seek the approval of the Senate to conduct a further hearing in relation to the matter. IMO it would be an indictment on the new government to ignore this recommendation and continued to obfuscate the matter like the previous government...the AF 447 (although tragic) findings and subsequent commentary, provide a very real warning shot that the worldwide aviation industry cannot afford to ignore!:=:=

Excellent article and essential reading from Flight Global on AF447 & LOC-1: Upsetting convention (http://flightglobal.rbiblogs.co.uk/flight-international-editors-blog/2013/10/upsetting-convention/)

..and PT follow up to AF447 article: Contest of the Control Freaks grows louder after AF447 (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/10/03/contest-of-the-control-freaks-grows-louder-after-af447/) :ok:

Lookleft

4th Oct 2013, 04:41

The fact that LOC-I has developed as a phenomenon proves the industry has a fundamental training problem. UPRT is only the sticking plaster. The industry needs to treat the disease.

The FAA has already come to the view that hours in the logbook is one way to fix the problem. I think the evidence is clear that MPLs, 250 hour jet pilots with more time in the simulator does not create a more competent pilot, it creates a pilot with a skill set that is suited to normal operations and nothing more. The Inquiry into pilot training also recommended that jet F/O's have a minimum of 1500hours but this was dismissed by Albo and friends.

LeadSled

5th Oct 2013, 06:53

The FAA has already come to the view that hours in the logbook is one way to fix the problem. I think the evidence is clear that MPLs, 250 hour jet pilots with more time in the simulator does not create a more competent pilot, it creates a pilot with a skill set that is suited to normal operations and nothing more. The Inquiry into pilot training also recommended that jet F/O's have a minimum of 1500hours but this was dismissed by Albo and friends.

Lookleft,

Almost 60 years of statistics are against you, very decisively so.

None of the pilots in recent highly publicised loss of control accidents were low hour pilots --- and I hope you are not suggesting that learning stops at the conclusion of an ab nitio training course.
Quite frankly, for civil pilots who have only light GA backgrounds, pre-airline hours have little relevance, except in the area of unlearning bad habits all too common in GA.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Albo and friends: the friends included most of the bigger Australian operators.

Capn Bloggs

5th Oct 2013, 07:15

None of the pilots in recent highly publicised loss of control accidents were low hour pilots
So I suppose you reckon the AF FOs, with 4,000+ hours, were quite OK? That 4,000 probably translated into what, 10 hours real stick time, actual eyeballs going everywhere "IF" time? Give me a 2000hr Braz pilot any day. Don't worry, I'll beat those bad GA habits out of him quick smart.

Lookleft

5th Oct 2013, 08:58

Leady the last 10 years certainly does suggest there is something seriously wrong with the skill set airline pilots have if otherwise serviceable aircraft are literally falling out of the sky. If you look at the experience of the F/O who was controlling the aircraft it is most likely that he came from an ab ignitio program. As I mentioned a lot of the cadet programs and PAYG schemes that are prevalent do not produce a more competent pilot outside of normal operations. As evidence of this day in and day out thousands of flights are conducted that arrive safely. The concern is for those flights that end up outside the normal operation. It's not just me saying this it's many aviation blogs and articles that are starting to question current training practices. It has been my experience that civil pilots from GA backgrounds develop a lot of non- technical skills that cannot be taught in a simulator. Things like SOPs and airline culture come after induction and 100+ hours of line training.

A37575

5th Oct 2013, 12:26

As I mentioned a lot of the cadet programs and PAYG schemes that are prevalent do not produce a more competent pilot outside of normal operations. As evidence of this day in and day out thousands of flights are conducted that arrive safely

Agree. When ATSB recently produced their favourable report on low hour pilot competency it was based upon a compilation of proficiency checks in simulators and line training garnered from three major Australian operators. No prize for guessing which three.

The result was unsurprising as arguably 90% of these assessments conducted by the airlines on themselves was on automatic pilot. Of course there was no conflict of interest either.:E No way would the airlines concerned express concern on the standard of the low hour pilots in their own airline since it would reflect adversely on their selection process.

LeadSled

5th Oct 2013, 15:39

lookleft,
I am well aware of the general trends of thought, with which I agree, about the deterioration in handling competency.
There is no shortage of research on the subject, FSF and FAA are two places to look.
However, blaming all that on ab nitio training, when somebody has been an airline pilot for some years, is another thing altogether. To me and many others, there are multiple deficiencies in many airlines' continuation training, even airlines whose upset training is a good as (not very good) a modern simulator allows.
And, of course, upsets are as old as aviation, they didn't suddenly start to occur with the advent of airline cadet pilots.
As for Bloggs' comments, typical of somebody whose horizon and perceptions end at the Australian 12 mile limit. Bloggs, old chap, you are not going to turn the clock (and a goodly percentage of the airline industry) back 60 years.

Kharon

5th Oct 2013, 18:55

Popgun # 1 - 6/10/10. (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry.html#post5978808)

Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety
I am writing to advise you that on 30 September 2010, the Senate referred the following matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2010.

(a) pilot experience requirements and the consequence of any reduction in flight hour requirements on safety;
(b) the United States of America's Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, which requires a minimum of 1500 flight hours before a pilot is able to operate on regular public transport services and whether a similar mandatory requirement should be applied in Australia;
(c) current industry practices to recruit pilots, including pay-for-training schemes and the impact such schemes may have on safety;
(d) retention of experienced pilots;
(e) type rating and recurrent training for pilots;
(f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector; etc.
Three years ago, Popgun kicked off this thread, the Senate Committee was quite rightly concerned, as are most of the rest of the world about pilot training and standards. The committee was essentially told to bugger off and read the great, soft white paper, which said "no worries", CASA have it under control: then we get part 61, just to prove it.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

The young'ns coming through today are no less or more competent than they were 30 years ago; they want to learn and, as 'volunteers', they are most willing to learn. As usual that learning occurs through self funding (in whatever format), which again proves willingness and determination to become professional flight crew. But somewhere in there, there is a 'gap' (for want of better) – which is becoming noticeable. Perhaps there is enough expertise about the place to define the 'gap' and place a well written, short, accurate submission into the willing hands of D. Fawcett esq. or Sen. Xenophon stating the case as asking could we please revisit the issues. I am certain they are still a tad miffed with the "white paper" episode, still concerned that there is something (as yet undefined) wrong within the system and; in all probability, would try to get things sorted as best they may.

Think on, in the last three years the problems at flight school level have probably transitioned from a harmless Jabiru onto the flight decks of passenger jet transport, in another three years, those issues may be training and checking pilots.

So, what d'ya say boys; bicker on Pprune or provide solutions. Hell, we do it all day at work; identify the problem, execute the fix and get home in time for tea. Surely this little problem is not beyond the collective intelligence of the once proud Australian aviation communities.

thorn bird

5th Oct 2013, 22:19

Kharon, a good post.
Having observed the skill sets of one or two newbies fresh out of flying school, I have a suspicion you may be right, there does seem to be something lacking in their basic training.
Difficult to put your finger on it, but I suspect a lot of box ticking goes on during their early training as opposed to ensuring their competence levels.
I have some sympathy for our regulator as I believe competence can be a very esoteric subject and as we know our regulations in Australia fall under the criminal code where things must be in black and white.
The new massive part 61 attempts to set everything in cement by micro managing the entire process. The problem with that, I believe is there can be no allowance made for each individuals abilities, the whole process becomes massively expensive and encourages even more box ticking.
It would appear that Australia has priced itself out of the training of foreign students in favour of New Zealand, I believe Part 61 will do the same thing to our local market.

Sarcs

6th Oct 2013, 23:03

Kharon: Perhaps there is enough expertise about the place to define the 'gap' and place a well written, short, accurate submission into the willing hands of D. Fawcett esq. or Sen. Xenophon stating the case as asking could we please revisit the issues. I am certain they are still a tad miffed with the "white paper" episode, still concerned that there is something (as yet undefined) wrong within the system and; in all probability, would try to get things sorted as best they may.
Perhaps it is time to reflect on the combined wisdom and efforts of Sen X & Sen Fawcett (in all things ugly and white papered over) to do with aviation safety in Oz...

Senator Xenophon: Pilot Training & Airline Safety Senate Report Comments (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2010-12/pilots2010/report/d01)

PelAir Report additional comments (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/d01)

Senator Fawcett: Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill - Speech (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/Aviation%20Security%20150812.pdf)

Airport Amendment Bill Govt response - Speech (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/AirportAmdtBill.pdf)

But my all time favourite from DF recently and worth regurgitating in its entirety (borrowed from Ben:ok:): Pel-Air air safety issues spelt out by pilot and Senator, David Fawcett

A parliamentary speech that everyone concerned about the safety of the flying public, and the competency and integrity of CASA and the ATSB should read

Earlier this week Senator David Fawcett (Liberal, South Australia) urged the upper house of Australia’s federal parliament to ‘take note’ of the Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s final report into the 2009 Pel-Air crash and related matters.

Senator Fawcett was a military helicopter pilot, and was the Commanding Officer, RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit, Edinburgh, SA, and an experimental test pilot, before being elected to public office.
He played a very measured and penetrating role in the air accident investigation committee hearings which were were instigated by fellow SA independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

This is Senator Fawcett’s address to the motion that the Senate take note of the committee’s findings. Whatever the attitude of the government and opposition benches to the Pel-Air matters, the disgrace they brought on CASA and the ATSB will neither be forgiven nor go away.

This is about the safety of the Australian public, and the functioning of the bodies charged to regulate air safety (CASA) and investigate safety issues to further air safety (ATSB). In the Hansard of Senator Fawcell’s speech some emphasis has been added by Plane Talking.

Senator FAWCETT (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) I move:  That the Senate take note of the report:  The final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations was tabled in May this year.

It followed a long period of investigation into the inquiry by the ATSB into the accident in which a Pel-Air aircraft ditched off Norfolk Island in 2009.

The Senate report highlighted that the performance of the two government agencies that were primarily involved, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, came far short of the expectations that the Australian taxpayer, this parliament and the aviation community should have.  

In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies.
Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas.
I will list them and then talk in more detail about them.

They failed to maximise the beneficial aviation safety outcomes that could have been derived from the investigation into this incident.

They failed to enhance public confidence in aviation safety.

I think we saw that in the controversy in the aviation industry and the media around the report when it was finally released.

They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety.

They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency’s complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA’s specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other’s functions.
They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement.

The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting.  Safety outcomes is one area that I would like to touch on.

Accident investigations are an opportunity for an informed and expert body to sit back and take a considered look at why an incident occurred.
That body may be expert but they are not necessarily the best judges of how the lessons from that incident may be applied to other sectors of the aviation industry.

The committee found that for various reasons and over time the ATSB processes have got to the point where much evidence can be excluded if it does not fall into the categories that they consider will impact on high-risk future operations. So we have a situation where they are making an arbitrary decision to exclude evidence, and without evidence they are not then investigating or reporting on what actually occurred.

That means that other aviation operations are not the beneficiaries of an explanation of occurrences and failures in a system safety approach and what defences failed such that the accident occurred. It has been the traditional approach to identify each of those factors and let the stakeholders make their own assessment. But the safety outcomes are no longer optimised because of this approach of trying to make that arbitrary decision at the front.

That is a significant flaw in the current approach which the committee has recommended be revisited.  The report and CASA’s statements in name supported the concept of a systemic approach to aviation safety.
But what we found very clearly was that the investigation focused very quickly on the pilot in command on the night, as opposed to looking at the raft of other factors.

Looking at the James Reason model of system safety, one sees that there are a number of defences which are in place, which include the operating company, the regulator and a raft of things—training et cetera—as well as the pilot. But many of those factors were given, at best, lip-service. They were mentioned in the report so a box could be ticked to say that they were considered, without a detailed consideration of them.
For that reason, the report was quite flawed.  

What made the matter worse was that, having required both CASA and ATSB to produce documents for the inquiry, which initially they were reluctant to do, we spent some considerable time going through literally boxes and boxes of documents to find information, emails, reports and things that were relevant to the report and, having seen a report that said that the company was applying all of its regulatory requirements and CASA was auditing it and so there were no organisational factors to consider, we found that CASA in fact had done a special audit.

Not only had they done a special audit that found a range of problems within the company; they had done their own internal report about CASA’s performance of their oversight of the company and found that, in their own words, that was deficient.

  So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, ‘No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,’ they chose not to do that.
That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.  

It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations.
That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change.
So the ATSB, in its approach to its report, and CASA, by withholding that information, have done the aviation industry in Australia a great disservice.

The aviation industry relies on open, transparent and accurate reporting from the regulator and from the safety investigation agency to make sure that the organisations concerned can be ongoing learning organisations that maximise the safety outcomes for the travelling public and for people operating aircraft.  The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this.

The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment.

To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields.
There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.  

The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were under resourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing.
From subsequent discussions, I would argue that, in some cases, they did not have the background to be writing the regulations or standards in the first place.

I believe there is a strong requirement to look at the regulatory reform process and the role that industry should have, not just with token consultation but with a powerful voice, even to the point of veto, where they can work with the regulator to highlight what is industry best practice, and that should form the basis of regulation unless there is a very clear safety case to not go down that path.

Australia’s travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better.
I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring.
Hear..hear! :D:D & Minister take note NX and DF are honorary members of the "IOS"!:E

Kharon

7th Oct 2013, 21:31

There's a very unsettling rumour doing the rounds, that despite the best efforts being made by various folk, ol' trusty Truss has done a deal with devil in the name of saving face. I do hope it's unfounded; there will not be too much face left to save if the unthinkable occurs.

I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

Frank Arouet

7th Oct 2013, 21:58

done a deal with devil

One hopes he keeps his receipts.:uhoh:

It's strange that he wouldn't hedge his bets by having a fallback to blame Albo if or when the big silver bird "augers" in. By getting into bed with the devil he makes himself a "buckstop". Or is that "buckshot"?

Remember Chamberlain trying to broker a deal with Hitler.

Most all Transport Ministers have historically been a few sandwiches short of a picnic at the best of time. A Transport Minister should be a loose cannon like Barnaby or even "the potplant Senator".

Kharon

8th Oct 2013, 20:42

I got this straight off the back of the Cairns truck – and verbatim I do quote it. "Entsch has backed off supporting Barrier, threatened law suite or some such". It's a disgrace how these scurrilous rumours get started; it's beyond me; but at least it makes for an interesting smoko discussion.....:D

Kharon

8th Oct 2013, 20:44

Posted here as it seems pertinent to the Senate discussions:-

Pro Aviation – Paul Phelan. (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1691) The latest article is an interesting, subtle piece, worth the few moments it takes to read. The question "what went wrong?" is 'germane' it also presents a refresher on one of Dick Smith's best efforts; perhaps this is why the iron ring got tighter. Say what you like about Dick, he does get accused of many things for which he was not responsible, but the Phelan article (for mine) highlights the well meaning intentions of the man, if nothing else. Two years in the Hall of Doom is worth cherry picking, even if you are dedicated anti Smith; at least he has actually been there and will stand behind the words. Admirable quality in any man.

If, as I did, you fail to read the introduction and launch straight into the 'guts'; it's a surprise when you see who wrote it and when. Anyway – for weel of for woe the piece is on Paul's website....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

halfmanhalfbiscuit

8th Oct 2013, 21:38

Kharon

There's a very unsettling rumour doing the rounds, that despite the best efforts being made by various folk, ol' trusty Truss has done a deal with devil in the name of saving face. I do hope it's unfounded; there will not be too much face left to save if the unthinkable occurs.

I can't believe it, but it sort of makes sense; in a bizarre, twisted way......

This is from Pro Aviation Paul Phelan.

Truss demands action on Senate Committee’s ATSB/CASA recommendations

1
Paul Phelan ..... August 22, 2013

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:

“Minister Anthony Albanese must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,” Said Mr. Truss.

“The recommendations, handed down by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading.

“The Senate Inquiry was established following the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB’s) report into the Norfolk Island incident almost three years after the event.

“The circumstances of the flight were both a disaster and a miracle. Despite mistakes being made by the pilot on the air ambulance trip from Apia (Samoa) to the Australian mainland, all four passengers and two crew were saved, the aircraft successfully ditching at night off the coast of Norfolk Island during bad weather.

“However, the purpose of the Senate Inquiry was not the incident itself, but the alleged breakdown in investigation and reporting by the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

“Specifically, the report states:

‘The committee accepts that the pilot in command made errors on the night, and this inquiry was not an attempt to vindicate him. Instead, the committee’s overriding objective from the outset was to find out why the pilot became the last line of defence on the night and to maximise the safety outcomes of future ATSB and CASA investigations in the interests of the travelling public’.

“The report makes 26 recommendations to improve the conduct, regulation and procedures governing aviation incident investigations, which the Committee argues were not up to scratch.

“People have every right to expect world’s best practice when it comes to aviation safety, which includes comprehensive investigation and reporting of incidents. The community is entitled to have confidence in our aviation safety regulations and the conduct of our regulators.

“Similarly, it is vital that through comprehensive incident investigations and reporting, industry and regulators are accorded the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and improve systems to overcome existing weaknesses.

“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Albanese must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency.”

For the committee’s recommendations, see here

Paragraph377

9th Oct 2013, 04:41

Crumbs how things have changed? Mr Truss unseats Albanese for the top job (to coin a phrase) and suddenly the games rules have changed? Now that Warren has what he wanted, his own toy set to play with, he is supportive of CASA? He has gone to ground, quietly supporting his aviation watchdog while firmly embedding himself as the new Minister for ass covering. Perhaps he will adopt Wingnuts policy of not reporting asylum seeking boat arrivals by implementing a new policy in which nothing aviation is allowed to be reported? No whispering about malfeasance in the hallway, no chitter chatter about anything to do with the governments beloved Qantas, no bedroom talk about aviation mischief, no innuendo or discussions in the tea room, not even sign language behind the pot plants is permitted :D Yes, that is how he will fix things. And if that fails well it is the gulag for all IOS (or perhaps 5 years in Opotiki).
Sad to see your Senators hard work go down the drain with all the pot plant nutrients.:ooh:

Sarcs

9th Oct 2013, 08:53

Kharon paying Dick a compliment:confused::confused: and everyone missed it, or maybe no one wants to recognise that Dick maybe eccentric and some of his ideas might be out there but he has always worn his heart on his sleeve...

A new approach to enforcement (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1691)

And this wouldn't be a Sarcs post without a coupla quotes:E:
First, aviation safety depends upon there being a high level of trust between CASA and the industry. The Board is concerned that over recent years the level of trust has declined. Some parts of the industry believe that CASA’s current enforcement processes are arbitrary, inconsistent and unfair. Key organisations are advising their members not to speak to CASA about incidents or rule contraventions. There is much work to be done by both CASA and industry to repair the damage that has been done, but the Board believes that a new approach to enforcement is a good place to begin.
This is not a new problem and was clearly expressed by Sir Donald Anderson, the Director-General of the Department of Civil Aviation, in an open letter to the industry dated 16 October 1972. Sir Donald stated:
I have been concerned for some time by the number of incidents which reveal an element of reluctance on the part of pilots to seek help. It seems to me that it may be helpful if I, as Director-General, give some lead on the rapport which I believe needs to exist between pilots and others in the system if we are to avoid some of the mistakes that are evident. It is important that no barrier should exist to inhibit a readiness by all to give and take in the common interest of safety
If an atmosphere of reluctance or hostility develops to a point where there is discouragement from making full use of the services available, the end result could be disastrous in critical operational situations.
A similar concern was expressed 23 years later in the Plane Safe Report of the Parliamentary Committee chaired by Peter Morris MP. The Committee stated:
“The committee was dismayed by the denigration, venom and viciousness of the evidence. This attitude of mistrust if not mutual contempt between the participants places a heavy load on CASA in fulfilling its statutory function of promoting higher safety standards through education, training, advice and consultation.” and two.. nah bugger it those interested enough can do their own bloody clicking :rolleyes:

VH-MLE

9th Oct 2013, 12:36

Sorry, but personally I don't particularly care, agree with (or understand most of the time) what Kharon has to say.

Cheers...

Frank Arouet

9th Oct 2013, 23:50

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." - Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
With your head in the sand your bum is exposed old mate.

Apologies to all Ostriches.

Sarcs

10th Oct 2013, 03:47

Update to EASA FTL reg debate mentioned in post #1545 (http://www.pprune.org/8070668-post1545.html) and directly relevant to Senator Xenophon's disallowance motion:D on CAO 48.1: Europe adopts new Flight Time Limitations (FTL) regulations (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/10/09/europe-adopts-new-flight-time-limitations-ftl-regulations/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

The European Parliament adopted the European Commission proposal to harmonise flight and duty time limitations (FTL) for cabin crew and pilots across the European Union.

This European Commission proposal is based on an EASA Opinion. Amongst others, night flight duty will be reduced to 11 hours in the new regulation, instead of 11h45 previously. More flights will be considered night flights and subject to shorter duty periods. Total flight time in 12 consecutive months will be limited to 1000 hours instead of 1300 hours.

The weekly rest will be increased by 12 hours twice a month. The combination of standby at the airport with flight duty will be capped at 16 hours. It is currently 20 hours or 26 hours, or even without limit at all in some EU Member States.

The European Cockpit Association (ECA), along with other flight crew unions, was opposed to the proposal. ECA President Voorbach stated: ”The proposal still contains dangerous safety loopholes. They will allow pilots to land a plane – full of passengers – after being 22 hours awake. It also allows pilots to fly for 12hrs30 through the night. This is up to 25% longer than the 10 hours unanimously recommended by scientists.”

On September 30, 2013, the European Parliament’s transport committee had voted against new flight time limitation measures. In a plenary vote, the European Parliament voted in favour of the new rules.
So the pilot unions were celebrating last week only to be weeping in their pints this week! :{ Sounds kind of familiar!:ugh:

David Learmount does a good job of straddling both sides of the fence:E:

Pilot fatigue: the battle is over but the war still rages (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/learmount/2013/10/tired-of-arguing-about-fatigue/#sthash.Fz1NuM6e.dpuf)

Selcalmeonly

11th Oct 2013, 08:51

Sorry been OS - and forgot about Barrier, so apologize if I've missed something. What is happening or happened with BA? Are they still in the AAT?

LeadSled

11th Oct 2013, 14:46

Folks,
The below is from an email today, with an update from the RAAA conference.
Obviously, they were no convinced by the soothing words of Mr. McCormick about what is supposed to be in Part 61, because they are more concerned about what is actually in Part 61 now, before a whole swag of amendments, now in the mill, hit the streets --- and Part 61, Version 1.0 isn't even in operation yet.
Looks like most of the member of the Regional Aviation Association of Australia are at least Honorary Members of the Ills of Society Society.
Tootle pip!!

Warren Truss addressed the RAA Conference today and he told the
> regional airlines that they are close to completing the terms of
> reference for the review by an international expert.
> He stated that he will make the announcement in a month or two.
>
> He also stated that the Board will be changed and the indication was
> it would be this year.
>
> He re-affirmed that he has to take the decisions as quickly as
> possible to implement their policy.
>
> The RAAA Chair, Jeff Boyd, in his opening speech stated too much had
> been wasted and we are out of step in this region. He went on to say
> the RAAA Board supports the adoption of the NZ system.
>
> Everyone is against the current direction and totally against Part 61.

Sarcs

11th Oct 2013, 20:56

Good catch Leady!:D

Here is a link to Truss's speech in full:

‘Regional Airlines’ bumpy ride needs a smooth landing’ (http://www.nationals.org.au/News/Speeches/tabid/96/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7832/Regional-Airlines-bumpy-ride-needs-a-smooth-landing.aspx)

and Jeff Boyd has already made his opinion widely known, here's a rehash courtesy of Phearless Phelan: A Bridge Too Far (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1650)

Although I can't remember JB (IOS and F.A.R.T Honorary member) mentioning Part 61 in there...hmm perhaps we'll be able to get the full text of his speech at the Coolum dinosaur park???:E

Up-into-the-air

12th Oct 2013, 05:16

It certainly is in Mr. Truss's hands and it needs to be a rapid transition with attention to a whole range of issues including:

Regulatory process - Immediate cessation of activities by casa [happenened in 1999], so there is a precedent, with the proposed changes to airspace pulled up in a single day;
Stop the investigatory powers of casa - Pilots, Owners, Operators and Engineers are not criminals;
Get AVMED and remove the poor performers, plus correct with proper supervision of the DAME system;
Weed out the rorters of the system [Cover-up of Hemple];
and Lots More

What Mr. Truss says:

Warren Truss to the Regional Aviation Conference Coolum 2012 | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2128)

Sarcs

14th Oct 2013, 01:29

In an article by Gerald Frawley from AA magazine put out prior to the election gives further 'pause for reflection' and he asks some particularly pertinent questions in the context of this thread:ok::

Why is it that aviation was hit by the carbon tax when other transport sectors were not?
How has it come to pass that relations between industry and CASA are as bad as they have ever been, and regulatory reform as slow and contentious as it ever was?
Why has CASA been downsized and de-skilled in the name of cost-cutting so much that its approval processes are so slow it externalises costs back onto industry in foregone revenue generating activities?
Why is general aviation, that training ground of civil aviation, in alarming decline?
Why are some of the country’s most important airports seen by their owners as property developments with irksome runways in the middle?
Why are many council-owned regional and rural airports struggling to pay for maintenance and upkeep of runways and taxiways?
Why haven’t burdensome security regulations been reviewed a dozen years after 9/11?
Why isn’t the pilot training industry supported by HECS-subsidised training courses?
Why isn’t there a second Sydney airport and an increased movement cap at the current airport?
Why is there a looming shortage of LAMEs?
Those are just some of the issues facing aviation in Australia today. So why isn’t there a minister for aviation or – at the very least a parliamentary secretary – who can champion aviation’s development and work to address its issues?
And indeed why isn’t there a minister, and government policies, that champion aviation’s opportunities and potential as well? Hmm...why indeed?:ugh:

ELECTION 2013 – Advocating for an advocate (http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/09/election-2013-advocating-for-an-advocate-2/)

Paragraph377

14th Oct 2013, 03:30

Mr Frawley just joined the IOS legion. Welcome :ok:
All good questions, I am sure Mr Truss, his boss and all the other minions will take them on notice, to be answered........never.

Up-into-the-air

14th Oct 2013, 09:14

Just a reminder:

McCormick and CASA questions | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2148)

Well anyone - let's stop them

Up-into-the-air

17th Oct 2013, 00:41

The following has just been released by Warren Truss:

Warren Truss opens SafeSkies Conference 2013 | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?p=2152)

Any comments on direction??

Lookleft

17th Oct 2013, 01:15

A lot of talk about the impressive safety record and the progress in regulatory reform that has been a 20 year process!

No reference at all to implementing any recommendations from the 2 Senate Inquiries. What the speech reveals is that the rhetoric in opposition is not matched by the potential to change policy in government. All those holding their breath will be turning a serious shade of blue by now.

Creampuff

17th Oct 2013, 01:45

Correct.

As we've both said before, like the previous government, this government does not intend to do anything substantial to change the regulation of aviation in Australia.

Sarcs

17th Oct 2013, 05:31

Parliament seems to be back in business now the election writs are in (bar one in dispute Mr 'Balance of Power' Clive). Supplementary Estimates are now listed for 18 & 19 November and surprise..surprise AQONs are finally posted (DoIT AQONs Senate Estimates (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/rratctte/estimates/bud1314/infra/index)). Hmm..:rolleyes: and there is some answers of interest to the many subjects covered in this thread and the locked thread. Here is a small sampling...QON1:Question no.: 01

Program: n/a

Division/Agency: (CORP) Corporate Services

Topic: Government response to the Committee's Accident Aviation Report

Proof Hansard Page/s: 5 (29/05/2013)

Senator Macdonald asked:

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you for that. Senator Thistlethwaite, as the minister representing the minister, can you give any indication of what timing the minister might adopt in relation to this important report and the government's response to it?

Senator Thistlethwaite: I cannot give you an indication now, Senator, but I can take that on notice and see if we can come back to you before the end of the day.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That would be great, thank you.

Answer:

The Government will release a response to the Air Accidents Investigations inquiry as soon as practicable. Well no surprises there I guess??:ugh: The utter disdain, obfuscation and contempt displayed by Albo in regards to aviation appears to have been consistent right up to the last minute of his responsibility; QON2:
Senator IAN MACDONALD: Can you tell us when the answers were submitted by you to the minister's office?

Mr Mrdak: There were 132 questions in total, 40 taken on notice on the hearing day and 92 written questions. The department did not this time meet our requirements to get the advice to the minister as we would have liked. The first 100 draft responses were provided to the minister on 28 March. The further 32 outstanding responses were provided on 8 and 18 April, owing to some delays in getting data from us. But the minister had all of the consolidated answers by 18 April.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Senator Thistlethwaite, do you have any indication of why it took the minister from 18 April until last Friday to deal with those things?

Senator Thistlethwaite: No, I do not, Senator. Again, I can seek to take that on notice and provide you with an answer.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: It would be good if you could.

Senator NASH: Can I suggest that perhaps the good senator might like to do that over the next two days for us? I am sure he is able to call the minister's office and come back to us before the end of tomorrow.

Senator Thistlethwaite: I already indicated that I would.
Answer: The then Minister advised that he had nothing further to add to this response. And here is an answer for Senator Fawcett's question on the you beaut (in house) FF Sentinel Surveillance software that rumour has it now has some serious functionality issues :=:=:Senator FAWCETT: Can you tell me the final overall cost of the system as of this budget?
Mr McCormick: For the CASA IT tool Sky Sentinel business and technical implementation, development implementation and the new CASA surveillance manuals from March 2011 to June 2013, the total cost was $2,419,157, but we do not have the breakdown of the Sky Sentinel out of that at this stage.

Senator FAWCETT: Can you come back to the committee today, if you can, or tomorrow with that figure? I would be interested to know how much that was.

Mr McCormick: Certainly.

Answer: The original software/IP was purchased for $35,750 (GST inclusive) knowing additional work would be required in regard to the subsequent development into a functioning system and deployment throughout CASA. The total development costs of the system (including the purchase of the software and IP) was $1,027,848.

As advised at the hearing on 29 May 2013, the total overall cost was $2,447,184 which as well as the above, includes associated costs such as preparation of a user manual, training of staff and managers involved in surveillance and business implementation.
For many more examples from the FF masters of spin and smoke'n' mirrors here's the link: CAsA AQONs (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/bud_1314/infra/CASA.ashx) :E

CASAweary

18th Oct 2013, 06:35

More lies, more arrogance, more deception, more pony pooh.

Oh the GWM truly is a stronger mafia than Italians in New York. Call them the untouchables I say. And now there is a new Don, 'Don Truss'. He will ensure all his Capo's are protected from those horrible things called justice and accountability. As for the Senators, what Senators? All shall be kneecapped and buried in a shallow grave so to speak. Dead men cant talk, and the GWM will make sure their protectors around the hallways of Canberra see to it that nothing comes up against the executive turds of aviation. No sir, sleepy hollow is protected by powerful sith lords with voodoo abilities and small johnson's.
They fear not Kharon's beloved ferryman, they fear not the Gobbledock's ICAO connections, they fear not the ghosts of Hempel and Wright.
The CAsA are protected by the mighty bald eagle, the powerful witch doctor and the silly old test pilot (very former one at that) and his dodgy ticker. Soon the angry man will depart, retire to his beloved Brisbane river home and his Yak, another crooked batty boy will take up the 'commander and thief' role in the DAS unit and commence the cycle of trough indulgence, obsfucation and rorting.

Perhaps Lord Collins will be the new aviation expert appointee? Or a new board member even? Oh fun times ahead, and nice pay packets too.
Tootles

Creampuff

18th Oct 2013, 08:28

CASAweary, you offer more huff and puff than anybody. No solutions, no ideas, just criticism. Lame my friend, lame and pure tautology.

aroa

18th Oct 2013, 23:22

Love the Skulls answer AQON.....!!:mad:
It smacks of the Qld Health payroll debacle..a 35K ? programme (sic) turns into
a 2.5 mil $ to implement.
OH dear ...what a trough...nice work if you can get it. Only taxpayers dosh...plenty more where that came from..no worries.

And only last year CAsA was crying poor (again) and the Miniscule (ex) threw millions at em.
What a sick joke.:mad:

The CAsA '"code" requires that taxpayer's $s be spent wisely and efficiently.
A joke doc if ever there was one.
The ways of the bureaucrat/trough dweller are many and varied, but at the end of the day NO ONE is accountable. :mad:

Sarcs

20th Oct 2013, 02:34

Rewinding to post #1548 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-78.html#post8078931)....an Avweb article highlights yet again why this part of recommendation nine..."Subject to those findings, the committee may seek the approval of the Senate to conduct a further hearing in relation to the matter..." (from the Pilot Training and airline safety report) needs to be adhered to.

Autopilot Automation: Friend and Foe (http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Autopilot-Automation-Friend-and-Foe220784-1.html)

Come on Senator Nick & co :ok: bring it on! It is too important a matter to be left in the hands of Fort Fumble and the GWM to obfuscate for another zillion years!:ugh:

Frank Burden

21st Oct 2013, 23:42

National pride is an intangible, but it is galling to know that Australia now sits with India and the Philippines in the eyes of others when it comes to how, as a nation, we manage aviation safety regulatory and accident investigation responsibilities.

Regulators and accident investigators in nearer nations like New Zealand, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia must have a big smirk on their face when they think of us inept and incompetent Aussies!

The quality of the responses to QON are about presenting as low a target as possible rather than providing a responsible answer to the people (via the parliament).

It is evident, as my Dad used to say: 'They couldn't organize a f#ck in a brothel with a fistful of fivers!'

Mr Truss stop vacillating. It's time to get cracking and show some leadership!

A few summary dismissals would set the tone similar to what is being done in Immigration.

FB

Sarcs

22nd Oct 2013, 01:42

FB:The quality of the responses to QON are about presenting as low a target as possible rather than providing a responsible answer to the people (via the parliament).
Frank did you have a gander at the CASA 01 - Attachment A (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1213/infra/148_attachment_a.ashx) (from Sup Estimates AQONs 2012), which is a copy of an internal minute the Doc put out in 2011. Have attempted (hope it works:confused:) to copy page one to a picture file:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/9a08d26f-c973-441d-b8d3-54497d0efe99.jpg

The bit in the middle and in bold capitals is so full of legal weagle, weasel words that each Exec manager must have to have a lawyer on staff just to decipher any correspondence coming from the Doc's office...:ugh:

Frank I think you nailed it mate in the quote above...:ok:

CASAweary

23rd Oct 2013, 06:31

Oops, it seems I must have said something wrong as a recent post was removed. Me bad? Oh well, I guess it hurts CAsA doesn’t it when the shoe is on the other foot? Such bad sports. Can’t have them looking bad can we? Of course it is a different story when they are stitching up the rest of industry. I can only imagine at the moment how much scrambling is taking place at pony pooh central, hardly any time for them to indulge in the almighty trough at the moment with all the attention they are receiving. So let me yet again provide an update, accept this time the names have been changed to protect identities and troughs.

Bald Eagle: Mr Archerfield himself orchestrated the knifing of Barrier Aviation. There was an old score to settle, and this member of the FNQ chapter launched at the right time in his mind. Bye bye Barrier, revenge is so sweet. Never cross a sociopathic CAsA manager. He is getting very nervous that those with half a grain of intelligence may unravel the Hempelectomy and expose Baldy to some accountability. Very naughty boy.

Dr Voodoo: Looks like his ascension to the top of the bureaucratic ladder is almost complete. He has been touted as the next Commissioner of the ATSB once Beaker gets the shove soon. Good luck ATSB Investigators, he even puts his lunch requests in via a minute. The King of arse covering and shabby beards is coming soon. But watch out fella’s, he also likes to polish the turd, especially when the FAA, ANAO or ICAO come in. But don’t worry, after they leave it is business as usual. Naughty boy.

Chief Skull: The only addition to the information at hand is that the Skull is being pressured to leave sleepy hollow by Xmas, He is not very happy with that. He has been seen throwing a couple of additional tanties (not shanties) and the painters and plasterers are on standby. (Silly Skull, you should really stop leaving all those faxes sitting at the fax machine. (And for the viewers out there that is an old CAsA trick. Don’t send anything via email, type it out, print it off and fax it to each other. Very hard to find an electronic trail or record of conversation! Sneaky boys)
GWM Don: Well it seems that old mate’s ticker has been playing up yet again. It has been suggested that Methuselah retire gracefully but apparently he just can’t disconnect himself from the taxpayer funds! It really is time to hanging up his colostomy bag and false teeth and nick for good. Besides, he has a topped up retirement fund courtesy of one of the boys in WA. Naughty boy.

The Gerbil: That bald headed little numpty is still hiding in the wings in Canberra, hoping to receive a career escalation once the other Princes fall. He is the sneakiest of all sneaks, even resorts to feeding information to the Ayatollah of bureaucrats – Teflon Mrdak. Oh how funny to watch him Wodger and other entities greasing the pole and hoping that a scalp will be taken elevating them into the instant half a million dollar bracket. Naughty deceitful boys.

Flyingfiend: Now this is priceless. Old mate Flyingfiend has been in a major panic as he is furious that he keeps being accused of making silly comments on social media sites, which is a big no no under CAsA HR policy. Lucky for him the other chickens have gathered around him and are shielding him with their protective robust wings, protecting him from anybody who tries to slip a pineapple past his minders and insert it into his bottom.

Mystery man: Now here is some info you will be surprised to hear. There is one additional senior CAsA executive who rides beneath the radar. Oh yes, he is a very astute magician who remains out of the spotlight, and he too is sticking the knives into his fellow colleagues hoping that heads will roll and he will be promoted up the greasy pole. Don’t fret my little petals, I have his name on file, however I must await the appropriate moment to out him. Time is on my side, not his. Slowly slowly catch the monkey.

Beaker ATSB: Beaker is also a little panicked about his future, but not to fear, he has been told he is safe houses and he will be slotted back into a plum role within government. His trough runneth over, not.

P.S I was privy to a conversation recently in which the head bureaucrat MM was speaking candidly with the Trussed up one. Lots of idle chat, generalities, giggles and serious discussion. Nonetheless the same theme was covered, “how do we make these problems disappear when CAsA and beaker keep screwing up and the senators keep applying the blow torch”. Very funny indeed, it’s sort of like the IOS holding a magnifying glass to them under the midday sun and cooking them alive? On a separate note the shredders are rumoured to be working overtime as some in CAsA try to bury some quite interesting information on Hempel. And also TRIM has been receiving some cleaning and trimming to ensure there is nothing unflattering left behind in relation to Lockhart. It’s like watching Pulp Fiction when they hire Mr Wolf to clean up the mess. Naughty naughty boys.

Gotta go and play with my private parts 61, hell I might even see if I can purchase a copy of sky sentinel online. Might even drop Skull a letter while I am at it.

aroa

23rd Oct 2013, 07:28

Keep the good news and FF pooh paras coming there, CAsAry. Top read.!!

New PM wants to save money....why not just have a moratorium on all interstate and overseas travel...this is the age of Skype and email after all...theres a few squillion saved. :ok:

Then go thru the upper troughery using a D 4 with especially sharpened blade and get rid of the nupties wasting millions. :ok:

Alas all Trussed up as usual. :E
Hard words applied to those with alternate views and cleaning ideas.

And if people in FF are shredding docs...that's a crime. Prob of strict liability, since they wrote it. But who nicks the nickers? No oversight there.
Just free rein for CYA and all the other bureaucratic bastardry. :mad::mad:

Kharon

24th Oct 2013, 01:50

The link below may give you an idea of what the Senators are fighting against; the bait to lure the old trusty Truss into the belly of the beast and out through the daemons arsehole. A masterpiece of smoke, a dazzlement of mirrors and a hearty Hi Ho Silver.

Choccy frog for the identity of the "Mystery Blonde".

6 minutes of fame. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri8VCDfGMrs)

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. McBeth.

Up-into-the-air

24th Oct 2013, 02:13

BLAAAH

:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::ugh::ugh::ugh: :ugh:

Kharon

24th Oct 2013, 20:45

Digging about for something unrelated, stumbled over an interesting power-point presentation by Ron Bartsch (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raes.org.au%2Fassets%2FPresentations%2F Ron-Bartsch-Making-airlines-more-profitable.pptx&ei=MXVpUqOrIK2jiAfDmYHQAw&usg=AFQjCNHGt2ZWRrG6H1HXJyq_rrGbSiLaAw&bvm=bv.55123115,d.dGI), as the 'horse racing' theme piqued my interest, I took five to have a skim through. It's quite well done and valid.

The premise is therefore that no longer can management feel that they can remain aloof or removed from the actions of those whom they employ, and that the latent conditions or active failures built into the culture and operating practices of the organisation are an integral component of their management responsibilities.

“Regulatory compliance should not create an additional burden on an organisation if it provides little or no safety benefit, but should rather be an outcome of a system specifically designed to support the organisation’s safety operations”. (Extract from CASA letter to Airline CEOs, June 2007).
Included were references and quotes from the Dick Smith book, Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom December 1984. Out of idle curiosity I took a further five to revisit Chapter 10 (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/doom/10-chapter8-hall-of-doom.pdf) of the Smith missive. Between Bartsch and Smith a very ugly picture emerges which makes you wonder if anything can ever be changed. These CASA beggars have the public service mandarins so bluffed with the 'mystique' and baffled by the 'blood's on your hands' mantra that nothing short of an ICAO downgrade will make any sort of difference. I note that ICAO have just finished kicking seven bells out of the PNG CASA and are 'in the area'; perhaps Truss should spare a few moments for tea and biccy's with the ICAO crew; get a true picture and sound advice from a team that actually know what they're on about. Yep, I know, dream on - right.

“By mentioning the word "safety" whenever they believe their unfettered control is threatened, or if anyone queries their deliberate preference for granting selective dispensations instead of updating a regulation. This maintains the enormous power base of the bureaucrats concerned.” Dick Smith. “Now there is a culture of change aversion that has effectively removed Australia from identifying and participating in improvements to air safety.” Dick Smith Ten years of Aviation Safety Neglect July 2010. Like Dick or not, you have to admit, he does hit the odd nail or two on the head.

Sarcs

25th Oct 2013, 02:03

Good catch "K"?:D Ronald (Biggs) Bartsch...isn't he the same bloke that sat on the board of Rex/PelAir? And doesn't/didn't he use, as a consultant, a certain former senior manager (now pariah) of FF who has banished himself to the halls of PNG CASA??:E

Oh well it is all good and the usual status quo..the more things (and personnel) change the more they stay the same (just look at Dick's missive :ugh::ugh:)!

Interesting times it would seem in the halls of Fort Fumble after CW's update, not to mention the repeated wild fires being lit by the IOS arson squad. The Part 61 spotfire is spreading fast and could enter the FF hall of fame labelled as the Fantastic Fort Fumble Fried Friday Fax Fire of 2013!:rolleyes:

Meanwhile it would appear that, in between putting out reg reform spotfires, the FF trough dwellers have got a busy couple of months coming up:yuk::yuk::

Multi-crew Pilot Licence Symposium (http://www.icao.int/Meetings/MPL/pages/default.aspx)

ICAO REGISTRATION 1 (http://www.icao.int/Meetings/Regional-Symposia/AC-SP13/Pages/Registration.aspx)

ICAO REGISTRATION 2 (http://www.icao.int/Meetings/Regional-Symposia/LCC-China2013/Pages/Registration.aspx)

Hmm..question for the FF OHS office: With Montreal to Brazil and then China on the itinerary can a trough dweller legitimately travel first class to enable them to lessen the effects of jetlag??:E

Damn Thorny beat me to it...although the rumour is she is hanging off a little bit more than his shirt tails...reminds me of the joke about President Clinton and his new clock!

thorn bird

25th Oct 2013, 02:34

Hey boat person!!, always on the lookout for a choccie frog!!
I could be wrong but the mystery "Blond" looks suspiciously like the complaints commissioner who I've heard is araldited to an angry mans shirt tails.

Kharon

25th Oct 2013, 03:23

IMO at least, (unless it's Gobbledock or CasaWeary in drag). A strange working arrangement indeed should the 'mystery blonde' be the ICC. Naw, the ICC assisting with a nicely smoked and suitably mirrored 'You Tub' appearance starring McComic. Was there perhaps, a slight wiggle of the conflict of interest Gods eyebrow just then? or was it just the silken whisper of a perfumed breeze that wafted by the bunker just then and disturbed the calm repose of the sleeping giant. Who knows what goes on; movie stars eh?....(Shrug icon here)_ :D

But I do know that it's hell to stop the kids sharing toothbrushes, I shall address the issue this evening, directly. Is how to do that in Part 61 as well or is it 145 ???......:D

CASAweary

25th Oct 2013, 06:49

The video really was a load of pooh wasn’t it?
Highlights of this masterpiece of film making are as follows:

Mystery blonde - I think she had just been rescued from the local Pound. Mr Angry adopted the animal to be trained as one of his new FOI’s from what I heard. Plus he always likes somebody sitting at his feet that he can kick when he gets angry! Poor Hoody, I don’t know how you used to do it. Then again, perhaps it was a female consultant checking the sky sentinel system and ensuring it is working correctly? In that case she will be there until 2017 (or until the regulatory reform process is finished).

Location location – Lights, camera, pooh. As for the video location, I recognize the room. It is the board room down the corridor from Mr Angry's office. It is ironic that I sat in that office with him once, engaged in cheap tautological banter, listened to him spitting vitriol about all his Lieutenants and then sat through him recounting his days as one of the world’s finest pilots! I would have rather watched a rendition of the GWM singing ‘My Girl’ while dressed in lederhosen. Also you can’t see it but the pot plants are robust in that room as they are fed quality nutrients that are emitted from the executives on a regular basis. Combine those gases with the execs general ideas, lies and palpable bulls#it along with the generous pot plant watering budget and you have a board room that looks like an Amazon rainforest. Dark, musky, moist and drizzling………..and so are the plants. Senator Nash would be impressed.

Acting skills - Did you notice how Big John even laughed in one section at 2:39 when taking a potshot at the IOS? Now laughing is not a natural emotion for the bad shirt wearing angry man, and my sources tell me that he laughed because somebody standing behind the interviewer held up a photo-shopped picture of Dr Voodoo’s head grafted along with Terry’s tits on to the body of R. Collins! No wonder the Skull laughed, even the Bald Eagle would have chuckled at that one.

Bubbles of fun – The bubble chart at 4:00. It looked like the bathroom floor in a CASA executive’s luxury villa after they have indulged in truffles, caviar and Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauillac at an ICAO jolly. Personally I think that someone, perhaps one of the Skulls grandkids, took a photo of the balloon stand at the Brisbane EKKA and showed it to grandpa who had a ‘light bulb moment’ and hey presto, the bubble chart! Either that or it is a picture out of a Yak electronics maintenance chart (oh dear, Yaks, maintenance, Skull, Hempel…bad combo).

Anyway I must run. I have to prepare my UAV, often I fly it outside of the CASA Brisbane office level 3 windows and film the shenanigans taking place in there. Then I will read my personal copy of ‘safety management without the pony pooh’, a robust book by author, mate of Les Wright, and Lord of CAA PNG, Robby Collins.

Kharon

26th Oct 2013, 03:26

Disambiguation - in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that occur when articles about two or more different topics could have the same "natural" page title. CW #1593 - I would have rather watched a rendition of the GWM singing ‘My Girl’ while dressed in lederhosen.....:D Still cracks me up, read it several times now – big chuckle – every time; however, as the ridiculous is never far from being sublime, the Gobbledock is on my case. The question he begs answer for is "Who is wearing the aforesaid Lederhosen?" His problem is you see that there exists a smuggled only 'slightly' photo-shopped clip, alleged to feature non other than Casaweary, sitting on a barrel beating time playing the accordion (in lederhosen), a large stein of local brew on hand and a buxom blonde fräulein in attendance, (least a spillage occurs). We have carefully edited the 'vision' here to protect the identity of whoever was actually playing the accordion and his companion; just in case the secret delegation to ICAO is compromised.

Sponsored by the IOS; Fellows of the Aviation Robust Tautological Society.
The pre audit party.

Lookleft

26th Oct 2013, 04:52

Oh well might as well wind this thread up if we are back to references of Gobbledock and the not so subtle references to individuals within CASA. May I suggest another read of post#1521?

Its quite clear that nothing will change despite the ATSB warning about the high number of airprox events in military airspace and that there have been 3 fatal GA accidents in as many days. I asked the question before and was underwhelmed with the response but is the current government obliged to respond to the recommendations of a Senate Inquiry held under the previous government?

Creampuff

26th Oct 2013, 07:42

[I]s the current government obliged to respond to the recommendations of a Senate Inquiry held under the previous government?No.

Nor was the previous government obliged to respond to recommendations of a Senate Inquiry held while it was the government.

Kharon

26th Oct 2013, 20:25

Regrettable, but spot on Creampuff. I've never paid too much mind to the antics of polly's, preferring to accept it all as just a small part of the cost, being lucky enough to live in a 'democracy'. I believe I will return to that philosophy, slightly more cynical after watching and studying the process up close, during the latest Senate inquiry. Disappointed? – no, not really, more like saddened. It's a bit rum; that even despite some transitory interest and an opportunity to affect some form of change, the whole debate is buried somewhere in Never never land, the deputy PM leaning on a shovel, watching.

What did I expect eh? Perhaps that the Prime Minister may use the wealth, expertise, executive power and resources available to institute an effective bush fire program/ system as a matter of national interest, instead of faffing about in a fire truck, getting under everyone's feet. Just about says it all really, the country is burning, people, stock, property going up in smoke; what a great photo opportunity.... That coy little act got more air time than the poor sods who were informed that they MUST complete their tax on time, or be fined; despite the paper work being somewhere in their burnt, wrecked home as part of a life they no longer have.

Aye well; expect the worst and hope for best has always been sound advice. Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/10/26/ntsb-to-hold-asiana-crash-hearings-on-automation-issues/)at Crikey is still slugging away, pity some of his peers can't, won't or are too afraid to get stuck into the real story. Hells bells, the Woman's Weekly agony column has more teeth (and makes more sense) than the mainstream press.

It is examples like this move by the NTSB that shows the difference between competent, diligent and fearlessly open disclosure of air safety problems and issues in the US today, and the rotten performance in this respect of our own air safety bodies. One feature of the NTSB investigative process in the US which is lacking in Australia and Europe is its transparency and openness. There is none of the disgusting collusion and suppression of embarrassing disclosures (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/09/09/air-safety-failures-will-dog-albanese-as-labor-leader-or-contender/) as seen between our safety investigator, the ATSB, and our safety regulator, CASA, over the 2009 Pel-Air crash, nor the spectacle of the responsible minister, which in that case was Anthony Albanese, failing to fulfil his obligations to respond the detailed remedial recommendations made concerning the Pel-Air matters by an all party and unanimous Senate inquiry.

Sarcs

27th Oct 2013, 23:19

The pessimistic doomsayers’ :{ maybe right and Truss, Tony & Co may have fallen under the spell of the mystique of aviation safety bollocks that Kingcrat, Skull, Beaker, the Don and the Doc hold them under :ugh:. T&T may blithely ignore the house of review and IOS bleating :=:= that all is not well in the aviation camp but that doesn’t mean we all wander up to the ferry begging for an economy fare to end our misery because it is all too much :yuk::yuk:. That would be way too easy and besides the fun and games is just about to start with the 44th parliament soon to sit :O. We’ve already put the majority of the Senate on notice so let’s give them some more ammo to fire at T&T's government. A good place to start is at the proposed upcoming Supp Estimates (18th-22nd November) and I’ve got a couple of questions already that I’d like answers for...:confused:

While trolling through the restructured DIRD (formally DoIT..worrying sign as it appears that ‘Transport’ no longer exists :{) website I came across the 2012-13 Financial Year Senate Order listing (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/contracts/files/2012-13_Financial_Year_Senate_Order_Listing.doc). This document lists all the contracts divvied out by the Department over the last financial year, if you have a bent for figures some of this list makes for some very interesting reading, but there was an entry that particularly piqued my interest....

International Civil Aviation/ International Civil Aviation Organisation Assessment 2013 Australia/ $1,521,278
Start Date 1.01.2013/End Date31.12.2013

....call me old fashioned but 1.5 million is still a considerable sum of money in anyone’s language, especially when it is coming from the public purse. So is this a normal payment made by the dept in lieu of Australia being a signatory to ICAO?:rolleyes:

Well if you look at the previous financial year it would seem that could be the case...2012 Calendar year Senate Order (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/contracts/files/2012_Calendar_Year_Senate_Order_Listing.doc). However this is a contract list not a membership fee list and the ICAO contract of 1.5 million for each calendar year (2012&2013) is simply listed as ‘assessment’! Now I’m sure it is all above board and legit but in the interest of transparency Senators could we ask for the details of this contract and what was the outcome of this ICAO assessment??

Note: My bet is the ‘assessment’ could have something to do with the roll out of Annex 19 (http://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Documents/USOAP%20CMA_SSP%20Rollout_v4.pdf), which is due to be officially applicable on the 14th November...but that is only a guess?? If true though I’d hate to think that we’re just buying (on our coin) a rubber stamp for annex 19...hmm it will be interesting to see what the Doc notifies as differences to the annex??:E

Ps There are plenty more contracts of interest in the list that deserve a certain amount of scrutiny from the Senators...:cool:

Sarcs

29th Oct 2013, 20:56

Beaker must have thought he could just slide this past the attention of the frog and Miss Piggy:=:=...

ATSB Annual Report 2 0 1 2 – 1 3 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4355822/ATSB_AnnualReport2012-13.pdf)

Forever the bean counter the ATsBeaker T.W.E.E.T says it all :ugh:: The ATSB Annual Report covers performance, accountability and financial reporting. Follow the link and you will find this missive from mi..mi..mi..Beaker :yuk::yuk:: BBARF (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/annual-report-2012-13.aspx#.Um88wN9gAW0.twitter) (Beaker's Beyond all Reasonable Facts)

From the aviation section of the BBARF :rolleyes:: Aviation

The aviation investigation teams completed 43 complex and 99 short aviation accident and incident investigations during the past year. Several of these garnered considerable national and international interest. Key accomplishments included the completion of one of the largest and most complex investigations in our organisation’s history, the uncontained engine failure on a Qantas A380 over Batam Island, Indonesia, which occurred on 4 November 2010 (AO-2010-089); pursuing the issue of potentially dangerous fuel tanks in Robinson R44 helicopters; and spelling out the implications of the fatal accident involving an air ambulance rescue operation in the Budderoo National Park near Wollongong, NSW.

The completion of the Qantas A380 investigation is a matter of particular satisfaction. After the initial discovery of the fatigue-cracked oil feed stub pipe that led to the engine failure, we continued to work with the engine manufacturer, Rolls-Royce, to confirm how the manufacturing fault had occurred and how to revise their procedures to prevent recurrence. We also worked with Airbus and international regulators to highlight the implications of the accident for airframe certification standards. Our report, released on 29 June 2013, was the culmination of two and a half years of hard work and cooperation with other agencies, and spelled out issues with significant implications for air safety around the world.

The past year also saw the resolution of a different safety issue, one that tragically claimed several lives. We investigated three accidents in Australia involving post-accident fires in R44 helicopters. This led us to reinforce previous warnings to operators about the need to replace rigid aluminium fuel tanks by the deadline of 30 April 2013. As a consequence, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued an Airworthiness Directive that effectively grounded any remaining R44s that had not complied by the deadline.

Another significant accident involved an air ambulance helicopter, where paramedics were winched from the aircraft to rescue an injured canyoner. During the winching, a paramedic and the canyoner fell on to some rocks and the paramedic was fatally injured. Following the investigation, the Ambulance Service of New South Wales and the helicopter operator took safety action in respect of the operating scope applied to retrieval operations and procedures used by helicopter emergency crews. In addition, paramedics, in their role as ambulance rescue crewmen, are now required to conduct annual night winching currency training.

The release of our investigation report into the ditching of the Westwind Jet at Norfolk Island that occurred on 18 November 2009 (AO-2009-072) became a subject of the ABC’s 4 Corners program and was commented upon by other media outlets. A review of the investigation by a Senate Committee was launched late in 2012. The ATSB was required to make a number of detailed submissions, provide a great many documents and attend a number of hearings at Parliament House. The enquiry report was released on 23 May 2013. The Commission has carefully considered the report and has developed an action plan in response to matters raised in the report. The Australian Government is considering its response to the Committee. Addendum on Senate report from page 106 of the report: Response to Senate Inquiry

On 13 September 2012 the Senate referred the matter of aviation accident investigations to the Senate References Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for inquiry and report. The terms of reference addressed:
the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009;
the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in a timely manner; and
any related matters.
On 23 May 2013, the committee presented its report. The committee’s report contained 26 recommendations, a number of which were directed towards the ATSB. The report included additional comments from Senator Nick Xenophon, including an extra recommendation.

Under Parliamentary convention, governments are expected to respond to committee reports within three months. However, the Caretaker Conventions stipulate that responses to outstanding parliamentary committee reports should be taken up with the incoming government.

No mention of the Canucks coming and going I notice???:confused:

And then there is the Beaker bean counter coming to the fore in the outlook for the coming year:(:
The ATSB has never been resourced to undertake investigations into every accident or incident that occurs. Rather, it is necessary for us to be strategic, investigating those accidents and incidents that are likely to yield safety improvements for transport operators and the travelling public.

We can expect to continue to work in a resource-constrained environment during the foreseeable future and will need to be creative in finding ways to deliver the high quality expected by the government and the Australian public. Our responsibilities have grown in the rail sector and we are also acutely conscious of the effect on our available resources of the demands of one or more complex investigations.

More than ever we will need to be selective in deciding what matters to investigate in order to achieve the greatest value and confidence for the travelling public. Under current and forecast resource limits, a time is approaching when we will have to be more constrained as to which investigations and activities we can undertake and as to the extent of those investigations we do undertake. While we will continue to take all possible steps to mitigate it, the risk that we will miss an important issue increases as our resources diminish. Hmm...it's enough to make you BBARF:yuk:...read it and weep! :{

Kharon

29th Oct 2013, 21:26

Key accomplishments included the completion of one of the largest and most complex investigations in our organisation’s history, the uncontained engine failure on a Qantas A380 over Batam Island, Indonesia, which occurred on 4 November 2010

Makes it sound as if Rolls, Airbus, NTSB, Qantas, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, just sat about wringing their collective hands, while the Beaker Boy's shone the light, lead the way and developed a cure; all by them little selves....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

Then; the brass necked buggers trot out the Robinson fiasco and for the grand finale – the Norfolk sym-phoney, composed by CASA and played by Pel Air...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Any decent man would resign and slide out the back way ahead of the tar and feathers brigade after the last embarrassing fiasco; instead of publishing this sly, misleading load of old bollocks.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

29th Oct 2013, 21:32

Kharon, you got their first. Atsb has it's own version of reality. Beyond reason!

Senate estimates going to be interesting. The inquiry wasn't very kind to mr beaker.

Kharon

30th Oct 2013, 19:14

There is the official version:-

We can expect to continue to work in a resource-constrained environment during the foreseeable future and will need to be creative in finding ways to deliver the high quality expected by the government and the Australian public. Our responsibilities have grown in the rail sector and we are also acutely conscious of the effect on our available resources of the demands of one or more complex investigations. Then, from deep within the tin bins laden with writing department drafts; Willyleaks anonymously received what some be believe to be the 'original draft'. While we are unable to verify that the document was indeed found in a tin-bin at ATSB HQ, were able to identify the writer through DNA analysis of the drool patches about the $$$ signs.

We intend to spend as little as possible while maintaining the facade of investigating air accidents. We do need to be 'creative' in order to do this successfully. This can be effectively achieved by grabbing the first available straw then massaging it as the foundation for a brief technical analysis. As very few of the general public or our political masters are capable of understanding any of the issues, we can make a considerable saving by minimising the research and maximising the creative writing initiative. We intend to focus on spending the railways budget; the boys over at CASA have a bigger budget for aviation. We can provide significant savings by continuing to work with CASA and allowing them to complete the few aviation reports we eventually finish. This proven system also avoids the need to make those nasty, expensive embarrassing safety recommendations. To achieve this end; we shall continue to comply with our agreed mandate and only use the Wodger wecommended weport writing system. Safe bonuses for all.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Sponsor: the IOS chapter for 'A Thriving Surplus Budget'.....:D

SIUYA

30th Oct 2013, 20:37

The ATSB has never been resourced to undertake investigations into every accident or incident that occurs. Rather, it is necessary for us to be strategic, investigating those accidents and incidents that are likely to yield safety improvements for transport operators and the travelling public.

Really Mr Dolan?

Here's some of the Aviation safety investigations & reports from the ATSB website:

- AO-2013-194 Wheels up landing involving a Rockwell 114, VH-AYH, Camden Airport, NSW on 27 October 2013 (Unknown type of operation according to the ATSB website - WTF??????)
- AO-2013-188 Loss of control on ground involving Air Tractor AT-502B, VH-FLH, near Deniliquin, NSW on 21 October 2013
- AO-2013-191 Wheels-up landing involving Beech Baron aircraft, VH-TLP at St. Helens aerodrome, Tas. 20 October 2013 (Private Operation)
- AO-2013-174 Collision with terrain involving Rand Robinson KR-2, VH-CTE, 14 km W Tumut Airport NSW on 5 October 2013 (Private Operation)
- AO-2013-158 Collision with terrain involving Lancair Legacy, VH-ALP at Geraldton Airport, WA on 18 September 2013 (General Aviation according to the ATSB)
- AO-2013-168 Total power loss involving a Piper PA-28-161, VH-CCQ, 9 km N of Cunnamulla Airport, QLD, 1 October 2013 (General Aviation according to the ATSB)
- AO-2013-190 Ground event involving DH-82 Tiger Moth, VH-RAY, 19 km NNE Coffs Harbour, NSW, 23 September 2013 (Private Operation)
- AO-2013-164 Total power loss involving a Piper PA-28-140, VH-RVJ, Kilcoy (ALA), Qld., 22 September 2013 (Private Operation)
- AO-2013-092 Total power loss involving a Mooney M20J, VH-NFP, at Canberra Airport, ACT, 2 June 2013 (Private Operation)

As far as I can see, the 'travelling public' wasn't involved in any of these events.

:ugh:

Sarcs

31st Oct 2013, 09:31

Seems that the IOS are not the only ones strolling through the 192 page ATsBeancounter Beaker’s spinneaucracy:ugh:....but I’m a little miffed by what the article from the MMSM (Murdoch mainstream media) is actually attempting to highlight....

Australia'sair accident rate revealed in new report (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/australias-air-accident-toll-revealed-in-new-report/story-e6frg95x-1226749667879?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+ %7C+News+%7C%29)

...maybe SC is just trying to help us out by summarising and deciphering the Beaker spin???:rolleyes:

Speaking of m..m..m..mandatory reporting!! And as it is that time of the year for government agencies to have completed their annual reports (31/10/13)...where oh where is Fort Fumble’s AR?? The mind boggles with all possible permutations!:cool:

Oh well..while we’re all waiting Para 377 on the Hempel thread drew my attention to a recently released 2054 page :{ FF FOI doc (DAME’s Handbook). Now I’ve no doubt that the DAME Handbook (handbook if you’re a Giant :E) is a most absorbing informative read but a read that for now I’ll put on the backburner (till tomorrow at least;)). However what caught my attention on FF’s disclosure log was an entry for July: f13-4067 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/f13-4067.pdf)

Now this document may have been dredged up elsewhere on here (and is probably more relevant to Creamy’s Reg Reform thread:E) but many of the findings and recommendations of the ARRT in 2007 have a familiar theme to this and many other threads.

Here is a couple of examples: The Taskforce agreed that the Government’s aviation agencies can learn from these specific examples and should enhance existing or implement new procedures to ensure transparency and adequate industry awareness of new initiatives. In addition, the consultation models of leading overseas aviation countries should be considered when developing a best practice model
Recommendation 4: The Government’s aviation agencies review and enhance existing consultation arrangements and implement new procedures where warranted to ensure transparency and adequate industry awareness of new initiatives.

&
The Taskforce also considered the broader effectiveness of the SCC itself and took advice from Mr Graham, who has chaired the Committee since 2006. The Taskforce agreed there would be value in CASA monitoring its regulatory development processes and the use of joint CASA/industry project teams to develop regulatory policy proposals followed by more focused consultations through the SCC. The Taskforce further considered views on the role of the full SCC that meets in plenary three or four times per year.

The Taskforce considered that the regulatory development process should be the subject of on-going review and evaluation in order to make the best use of the knowledge and abilities of SCC members and enhance the interaction between the CASA/industry project teams and the SCC subcommittees and working groups. The Taskforce noted that the role of the full SCC could also be reconsidered in this light.
Recommendation 6: CASA monitor the regulation development process using joint CASA/industry project teams and continue to review the role of the SCC in this process, in order to achieve further effectiveness and efficiency gains.
Here is a finding and recommendation that is particularly relevant to a recently released ATsB report on LOS incidents and the thread ATSB Concerned over Military Control Loss of Separation Events (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/525869-atsb-concerned-over-military-control-loss-separation-events.html) :eek:
: Military Airspace
The Taskforce discussed an issue raised by various sectors of the aviation industry in relation to military aerodromes and civilian access to military airspace. The airspace and air traffic control service provision for civilian aircraft at Williamtown air base near Newcastle being a case in point.

The Taskforce Members agreed that this had been an issue for quite some time and the risk profile of the aerodrome was increasing, noting the matter was complex with numerous significant stakeholders. The Taskforce agreed that the matter should be raised at very senior levels with the RAAF to ensure that a solution could be agreed and implemented as soon as possible.

Given the history of this matter a solution will only be forthcoming if the respective Ministers oversee and reach agreement on a new approach. As part of these discussions, the safety of the travelling public at aerodromes such as Williamtown needs to be considered as the first priority, without limiting Regular Public Transport growth or necessarily changing the status of the aerodrome.
Recommendation 10: The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government raise concerns about air traffic and airspace management at Williamtown and other military aerodromes with the Minister for Defence, to ensure that safe and reasonable practices are implemented to protect civilian aircraft and fare paying passengers in accordance with existing safety principles.
Well I’m sure there are others on here that can mine some other gems from this comprehensive and historical ARRT report...so fill your boots (or not)!:ok:

Q/ Wonder who (and why) FOI'd the ARRT report??

Observation: The ARRT report also makes you realise how much the previous Labor governments were totally in the wilderness when it came to actually governing. Six years of stagnation within the industry while the Minister let the bureaucracy run rampant and totally unaccounted for.:=

Former Labor Senator Richo sums it up best in regards to accountability..." Keep political power where the buck stops: with the elected minister (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/keep-political-power-where-the-buck-stops-with-the-elected-minister/story-fnfenwor-1226750827241#sthash.IgSTMSkW.dpuf)"...

Richo: One of the hallmarks of pretty well all of those ministers was their capacity for overruling departmental advice. The minister is the elected person, with the end result of all decision-making resting with them. The buck should stop with the minister.

On many occasions I rejected the advice I received from my various departments. I recall writing "rubbish" or "nonsense" on the tops of pages sent to me. A good minister should not abrogate the responsibility of office. If a minister simply chooses to tick the box on every piece of advice received then there has been a power shift to unelected, unseen and indeed faceless people. Bureaucrats are not elected. Their job is to advise the minister and they will sometimes get things wrong. A minister should not feel constrained in treating that advice. Sage advice:D...so Trusster take heed mate and perhaps refer to the ARRT report after taking advice from the Kingcrat??:ok:

Up-into-the-air

1st Nov 2013, 06:24

Good catch sarco:

It appears here as well:

Aviation Regulation Review 2007 | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://vocasupport.com/?page_id=2253)

It won't last long on the casa disclosure log.

Sarcs

1st Nov 2013, 08:52

Warning short post coming while I reach for a bucket..:yuk::yuk:

Well FF have finally put out their spin fest for 2012-13 (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100228/ar1213.pdf) and if you can get past page one without feeling sick you're doing better than me :(:Goal 1:Comprehensive,consistent and effective regulation to enhance aviationsafety

CASA achieved 84 per cent of the measures against this goal, anda further 16 per cent are progressing with managed delays.

CASA enhanced aviation safety through comprehensive, consistentand effective regulation by:
+implementing the certificate management team structure and theintroduction of a new CASA Surveillance Manual in all regional offices
+using a new fast-time simulation tool to support futureAustralian airspace modelling
+completing the first phase of transition to new maintenanceregulations by regular public transport operators and associated maintenanceorganisations and the completion of the maintenance personnel licensing suiteof regulations.
See pages 34 to 44 for detailed information outlininginitiatives, measures and progress against this goal.

Goal 2: Good governance andcontinuous improvement of organisational efficiency

With 78 per cent of the measures against this goal achieved, and19 per cent progressing with managed delays, CASA exercised good governance andcontinuous improvement by:
+completing the final stage of the organisation’s learningmanagement system with the introduction of Aviation Worx (see page 115).
+introducing new fraud and ethics, records management, workplacehealth and safety, and equity and diversity e-learning modules for completionby all new staff
+achieving an 8.9 out of 10 rating in the Comcover riskmanagement benchmarking survey.
See pages 45 to 52 for detailed information outlininginitiatives, measures and progress against this goal.

Goal 3: Effectiveand appropriate relationships with the wider aviation community

CASA has achieved 97 per cent of the measures against the goalof effective and appropriate relationships with the wider aviation communitythrough:
+enhancing CASA’s suite of user-friendly applications andinteractive multimedia products, with the introduction of a YouTube channel anda project to increase use of tablet technology
+continued participation in International Civil AviationOrganization panels and study groups
+increasing international engagement, including memorandums ofunderstanding signed with China and Singapore.
See pages 52 to 60 for detailed information outlininginitiatives, measures and progress against this goal.
Ahhh...bollocks! No comment..:ugh::ugh::ugh:

ps Page 102-103 (if you must:yuk:) deals with External Scrutiny i.e. those pesky Senators, Coroners etc.:sad:

Kharon

3rd Nov 2013, 18:42

Now, the infamous soft white paper was at least useful and would burn nicely. But this new shiny stuff is of no practical value whatsoever. When it was published I thought, Oh ho, here's a bit of fun, there has got to be some howlers within which can be strung together, for the amusement of the fellahin, the hoi polloi and the IOS. Nope – sorry: by page 14 I was slightly nauseous; at page 15 reaching for a bucket and I lost my lunch at the end of page 16. After a short recovery I gamely cherry picked between pages 77 and 102, but alas, the feeling of nausea and ennui returned. Hence the search for a more practical application.

The ATSB report was at least bearable and worthy of some attention; the ATSB troops will try to wright the ship and will, with qualified leadership revert to a world class safety authority. But, if Truss swallows any of the CASA rubbish, his advisors need to be fired or handed over to the AFP for perpetrating serious fraud. Never has a printed document revealed the absolute hopelessness of attempting to recover an expensive department to a point where it can be useful. The bare faced deception now published at great expense, the complicity of those who wrote it and the perfect arrogant contempt for government, industry and the taxpayer beggars belief (or reinforces it). Gods help the next DAS who turns up with less than a SWAT team, and a bus load of new faces, to start again.

CJ# 247 –"But of great humour was the CASA spin, the performance measures (complete load of poo) and the 'delays being managed' including percentages, oh my god, you have to be kidding us right?" CJ # 247 –"If they consider Certificate Management Teams and the completion of the 12 year re-write of the crap SPM to be a success then our industry is in worse shape than even the most diehard critic realizes. (my bold). Someone should tell the senior Truss, caveat emptor, very very heavy emphasis on caveat. Guilty by association is still on the statutes.
Wiki - Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware" (from caveat, "may he beware", the subjunctive of cavere, "to beware" + emptor, "buyer"). Addendum:-
Sarcs # 1604 "However what caught my attention on FF’s disclosure log was an entry for July: f13-4067 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/f13-4067.pdf)
Now this document may have been dredged up elsewhere on here (and is probably more relevant to Creamy’s Reg Reform thread) but many of the findings and recommendations of the ARRT in 2007 have a familiar theme to this and many other threads.
When I first read the quote, it was of passing interest; but it may be the catch of the year. Something is going on; had a beer with P7 on Saturday (I.O.U.) he mentioned some of his crew had telephone calls from the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office, seeking permission to release documents under FOI. While the stuff wasn't 'ancient' history, it was not 'fresh'. As Al Capone said, once is circumstance, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action. I wonder what's going on???. Someone is digging deep. Insert Kelpie::: endit......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Algie

3rd Nov 2013, 19:51

Often come up away (indeed mostly) from Charon's posts (and his/her coterie) bemused, bewildered and mystified. I think of his/her posts as s Churchill said in another context: "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".

But, just when I thought this unintelligible series of in-jokes and code-words could get no worse......to see on these pages one of the said coterie quoting Richardson as some guide to Ministerial probity was a new low (or high if we're looking at the farce levels". An absolute joke.

You may have valid points.....even by accident some of what you're saying could be right....but PULEEEEZE, get real both on both readability and believability so the rest of us can see what you're on about. Might even end up a supporter!!

Kharon

3rd Nov 2013, 20:30

It really is very, very simple Algie; just don't read my twiddles, if they offend thee so much. But, if you must, then read everyone's posts on the page. Then, you will see that the current topic is the CASA report; recently published, read by and commented on by those with an intelligent interest of how aviation is managed.

Despite your endless, tedious, easily ignored personal attacks, achieving nothing apart from making you appear slightly fatuous, you could use that energy, actually do the reading and contribute to the topic. As for your support; well, there must be a place somewhere on your planet where the sun don't shine; apply therein.

Churchill’s potent spirit of perseverance and determination is best summed up in one of his own maxims: “We must just KBO.” The initials stood for “Keep Buggering On.”8 Churchill understood the dangers of defeatism and poor morale as a soldier and leader, so he set the example needed to inspire others around him… and he kept “buggering on.”

Drift off - Ta,...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Lookleft

3rd Nov 2013, 21:52

Algie be reassured that you are not alone in your requests for Plain English Postings, even the Moderator has requested them! The big difference is that the Mods have the ability to lock the thread if they think that the twiddles have become twaddle.

If you want to take the advise to read back through the thread, start with post #1521 it might assist with yours (and others) understanding of what is expected.

Up-into-the-air

4th Nov 2013, 01:15

I have looked at the casa Annual Report. (http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/casa-2012-13-Annual-Report.pdf)

Come on casa!!

For example, at Page 20:

Parliamentary engagement and accountability

During the reporting period, CASA welcomed the opportunity presented by the parliamentary committee process and its participation in the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations in October 2012 and February 2013 to provide our organisational experience and perspective to parliamentary representatives on the 2009 accident at Norfolk Island.

Although no lives were lost in the accident, there is no doubt that the experience has left a lasting legacy for those involved. In my role as Director
of Aviation Safety, the safety of all air travellers is paramount and the lessons learned from all accidents and incidents are given the highest priority when making further improvements to the system of aviation safety..And from this, only the following words answer the Senator's:

.... on the 2009 accident at Norfolk Island.

Although no lives were lost in the accident, there is no doubt that the experience has left a lasting legacy for those involved.Just 30 words explain away why the committe in part said :

The committee was understandably troubled by allegations that agencies whose role it is to protect and enhance aviation safety were acting in ways which could compromise that safety.

It therefore resolved to take all appropriate action to investigate these allegations in order to assure itself, the industry and the travelling public that processes currently in place in CASA and the ATSB are working effectively.No answer Fort Fumble.

Frank Arouet

4th Nov 2013, 02:52

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/9a08d26f-c973-441d-b8d3-54497d0efe99.jpg

Sarcs

6th Nov 2013, 02:11

Trolling through the 61 submissions (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/sublist) in the infamous (go nowhere:ugh:) 2008 Senate Inquiry and while sorting the wheat from the chaff (some good stuff in there from some wise old boffins :D:D), I came across a reference to the ARRT report in James Kimpton's submission (my bold):There is the question of the regulatory review, which is keenly awaited by industry. Delays are understood to be due to a shortage of drafters, preventing legal drafting of proposed rules, even though there is apparently a ‘queue’ of regulatory proposals ready for that step. As a stop-gap CASA has sensibly implemented some changes via Civil Aviation Orders. The Minister’s release of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review Taskforce’s report in the last few days suggests that thought has been given to expediting the Regulatory Review’s completion and a plan exists for finalising rules the Taskforce considered as ‘priority areas of focus’ within three years, provided the shortage of drafters is overcome. The Taskforce has recommended accordingly. The Minister’s acceptance of the ‘broad thrust of the recommendations’ is welcome and hopefully this means that the resources which the report acknowledges are required, particularly in the legislative drafting area, will be made available as soon as possible; as the report implicitly acknowledges this will require cooperation from OLDP in the Attorney-General’s Department. The CEO’s directives with respect to rule-making appear to cover relevant issues and, assuming they are followed, the resulting rules should be well received
So after a bit more digging around I was able to track down Albo's missive..err press release:E : Report of the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce (http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/report-of-the-aviation-regulation-review-taskforce-2)
MEDIA RELEASE

The Hon Anthony Albanese
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Local Government
Leader of the House
Member for Grayndler
June 26 2008

Today I have released the Report of the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce.

The Taskforce was established by the previous government in response to concern by some aviation industry participants that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulatory reform program was not achieving the desired objective of lower cost, less prescriptive and more effective regulation.

I extend the Government’s thanks to the Taskforce chair, Dr Allan Hawke, and Taskforce members Mr Bruce Byron, Mr Jeff Boyd, Mr Rob Graham, Mr David Cox and Mr Dick Smith.

The Taskforce has made recommendations to the new Government on the way forward. I accept the broad thrust of the recommendations and believe the Taskforce’s Report will make a practical contribution to improving aviation safety.

In April, I announced the Government would deliver Australia’s first National Aviation Policy Statement, or White Paper, to chart the future of aviation policy in this country.

This Report will be taken into account in the development of a ‘Green Paper’, to be released in the second half of 2008.

Aviation industry participants will have an ongoing opportunity to comment on regulatory issues as the National Aviation Policy Statement is developed.

I also expect the current Senate inquiry into CASA’s governance will find the Report useful in its deliberations.

The Report is available on the CASA website: http://casa.gov.au/arrt. (http://casa.gov.au/arrt.)

Information about the development of Australia’s National Aviation Policy Statement can be found at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/index.aspx. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/index.aspx.)
Okay so Albo did acknowledge the practical contribution of the ARRT report and he said that the findings/recommendations would be incorporated in the Great Green Elephant Paper and then onto the GWEP, so did it..:confused:?? Well if we go to the Dept(of whatever it is these days:rolleyes:) dedicated GWEP website page...err??..it appears that it is gone, obliterated...or shelf-wared perhaps?? :E Hmm interesting wonder if that is a Trusster or Kingcrat initiative?? Never mind managed to find it here: Aviation Publications (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/publications/index.aspx).
So looking for a reference to the ARRT report...looking...looking..OK here we go ;) from the GGEP(page 57-58):Improving CASA’s interactions with industry

CASA consults extensively with industry and this consultation is important in ensuring that industry and the regulator are on the same page with regard to CASA’s regulatory role. The Government’s clear expectation is that CASA’s consultation with the aviation industry will be broadly based, focussed and constructive.

CASA’s current consultative arrangements are, however, time consuming and industry and CASA share a view that entrenched disagreements exposed in the consultation processes should not impede timely regulatory action, including the development of new regulations.

The Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce, chaired by Dr Allan Hawke, addressed the issue of the pace of CASA’s regulatory reform program, which has been underway for close to a decade. The Taskforce, whose report can be accessed at<http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/taskforce/index.htm>,made a number of recommendations in this area to expedite progress. Many of these are already being addressed and some significant progress has been made recently in finalising important regulations.

The Government is committed to implementing the Taskforce’s key recommendation that the regulatory reform program be completed by 2010-11 and, in consultation with CASA’s management and the new Board, the Government will support reforms to CASA’s consultation with industry that lead to effective, quicker and more transparent safety regulatory outcomes. The aim of these reforms will be to allow industry views to be collected and timely regulatory decisions to be reached that meet the balance of public interestAnd the GWEP (page105):Recognising the importance of regulatory certainty and clarity to the industry, the Government places a high priority on finalising the reform of these three suites of regulations. In response to the findings of the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce (the Hawke Taskforce), the Government is taking action on a number of fronts to expedite the development of these core regulations and other elements of the current regulatory agenda.
Okay so the ARRT report was referenced and incorporated into the green and white paper, so all good so far! It is also interesting to note that the 2008 Senate Inquiry report was also referenced in the GWEP:
Senate Committee report
The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (the Senate Committee) conducted an inquiry into the administration of CASA and related matters during the Issues Paper consultation period, and reported publicly on 18 September 2008. The Committee supported the introduction of a CASA Board and revision of CASA’s funding arrangements, and recommended the regulatory reform program be concluded as quickly as possible.

The Committee also recommended that the Auditor-General, an independent statutory officer, consider auditing CASA’s implementation and administration of SMS.
So combine all that lot with Albo’s statement of expectations of the Fort Fumble Board (at appendix C of the GWEP), everything was going along swimmingly...so what happened?? Perhaps we need to issue a Show Cause Notice on the Department (of whatever) as there would appear that there is a number of non-compliances by Kingcrat & co in failing to administer government policy (that had industry goodwill and backing) over a period of at least 5 years...:=:=

Hint Senators/Minister: For reference start with the ARRT report recommendations and then the three Senate Inquiry recommendations/findings since.:cool:

Kharon

6th Nov 2013, 18:52

The clever, cunning rubbing out of 2008 inquiry was a masterpiece, sketched in disappointment, painted in heartbreak and sealed with the disappearance of some great submissions. It's passing strange though, the same arguments, recommendations and advice keep cropping up, year after year; only to be ground under heel.

Keep digging Sarcs, there is a constant factor, join the dots and soon or late, the pattern will emerge from under the rubble; a hint, look at airport management. Tough question number 1 - Will isolating the pattern help to restore matters aeronautical to where they were six years ago? TQ 2- Do people like Kimpton, Basket et al remain interested enough to dust off their still valid submissions? TQ 3- Is there the political courage, horsepower and will to finally implement the repeatedly provided recommendations? Or will we continue to limp along, denigrated, despised and the butt of some very funny, though painful jokes.... :ugh:

Addendum.

Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/11/06/america-says-airline-flight-simulator-training-must-be-more-realistic/)

A first class example of the problems we face, valid, lucid and timely.

The inherent difficulty for the Australian regulator and airlines is that whatever the merits and strengths of Australian rules and standards, they might not be expressed with the simplicity or unambiguity of the US rule changes, which always seem to be pack more meaning into a smaller number of words, and leave less wriggle room for ‘interpretation’ for want to a better term.

If, stress if this means Australia goes with what is perceived to be a weaker, or less committed, or more convuluted set of rules to address the same requirements as the US rules, there could be some very bad outcomes.

It is strongly in the interests of the flying public, and Australian airlines, and the Minister of the day, to avoid such outcomes.
Don't worry Ben, it's all been covered in the soft white paper response to the Senate inquiry. You know, the one before the last, where our aviation interested Senators were covered in it. "It's on our to do list". etc.etc. Tick tock, indeed..

CASAweary

7th Nov 2013, 06:48

What? I am shocked. CAsA removing, burying, hiding recommendations or committments made previously from public view, and more worryingly from the Senators? Treating the Senators, again, with contempt. And all levels of CAsA including the ministers office would have been part of this and would have agreed upon this little sideways sneak. Looks to me like all the hallmarks of a 20 year veteran intellect and a fat bloated board member have their DNA all over this. Oh so naughty.
Indeed, sneaky sneaky. These crooks will stop at nothing to deflect the truth, hide fact, deceive anybody and everybody and do it with contempt, malice, and total disregard as government employee's. Shame shame shame. This is yet another example of how disgraceful they are. The executive level requires rapid removal. All the top dross, the Board, the Ministers footstool, the entire lot of them. Transparency is a word they use, but a word they use in jest. They sneak current documents into old files and classify them as 'released', they make promises vanish and they lie about due process and due dilligence. They make a mockery of absolutely everything aviation and in return are awarded fat paychecks, bonuses and worldwide business travel. Every single person paying any form of aviation fee or charge should take notice as this is where your hard earned money goes.

Mr Truss, by default and due to your absolute refusal to take the axe to these individuals you are now officially also in contempt of Australian aviation. Mr Albanese's shoes fit you very well.

Sarcs

7th Nov 2013, 06:58

Speaking of addendums Ben has one of his own in that last article (my bold)...

"This is CASA’s initial response to the new US rules.
We’re in middle of introducing new flying training rules – Parts 141 and 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations come into effect on 4 December 2013. These go to the same standards the US are talking about. But we always review our standards in the light of relevant international developments, so it will be part of the normal processes.
Info on new regs here: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101716"....

Never fear Fort Fumble is here!:ugh:

Before we launch into writing up the Department SCN, of what appears to be obfuscation of the former government's aviation policy (the Great White Elephant Paper) and the RRP, we need to first complete a chronology of events leading up to the alleged offending by the Dept.:cool:

IMO the initiation of the Hawke Taskforce (ARRT) should be our starting point for the SCN investigation chronology. So any handy intel, titbits, witness statements, etc (that is fully documented of course :rolleyes:) that could be significant to the chain of evidence would be greatly appreciated.;)

As an example here is a dusted off article (2008) by SC from the Australian:
FORMER Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has returned more than $10,000 paid to him for taking part in a federal government aviation review, in a protest against the Transport Department's failure to release "the important, urgent safety recommendations" it produced.

Mr Smith was part of the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce set up by the Howard government to provide policy advice on the best way of reforming Australia's aviation regulation over the next five years and what should be done first.

It was chaired by Australian National University chancellor Allan Hawke and included CASA chief Bruce Byron as well as Mr Smith and industry representatives from Qantas and Brindabella Airlines. The taskforce completed its report in December, but it has yet to be released.

In a letter to Transport Department secretary Mike Taylor, Mr Smith said he was refunding the money because "keeping it would be dishonest".

"I have my copy, which contains important, urgent safety recommendations, but it is stamped 'under embargo'," Mr Smith said. "Just why such an important safety document would be embargoed is beyond comprehension to me."

Mr Smith was reluctant to elaborate on the urgent safety recommendations, but it is understood they include issues such as the need for enhanced ground proximity warning systems and collision avoidance alarms in smaller passenger planes. The report is also believed to have recommended speeding up the slow pace of aviation regulatory reform.

The millionaire aviator believes at least $500,000 was spent on the review and said it now appeared to have been an incredible waste of resources.
He said he understood the report had not been released because Mr Hawke had not been able to meet with Transport Minister Anthony Albanese.

But a spokesman for Mr Albanese said last night that Mr Hawke had met staff from the minister's office. "Minister Albanese has received the report ... and is giving it appropriate consideration," the spokesman said.
"The Government's response to the report will be announced in the near future."

Mr Albanese has ordered the nation's first white paper on the aviation industry and a Senate committee will conduct a formal inquiry into CASA's administration next month. The inquiry will look at the effectiveness of administrative reforms undertaken by CASA since 2003 as well as the effectiveness of the authority's governance structure. Hmm familiar theme this... "Transport Department's failure to release "the important, urgent safety recommendations" it produced.:ugh::ugh:

Addendum :ok:: Continuing on with thoughtful quotes from the 2008 Inquiry:(AFAP's Capt Bryan Murray {sub 40} on the subject of the RRP)
With regard to CASA’s Regulatory Reform Programme (RRP), progress has been slow. The time, energy and money (both public and industry) that have been invested in this project are disproportionate to outcomes. The reasons why there has been such little return on this investment are varied and complex. We support Bruce Byron’s move towards appointing small specialist working groups for future policy development. We could learn from our counterparts in New Zealand when they undertook to recast their aviation rules in FAR format. They set a goal to complete the project and did so.
Another common theme...:E

NZScion

7th Nov 2013, 08:56

We could learn from our counterparts in New Zealand when they undertook to recast their aviation rules in FAR format. They set a goal to complete the project and did so.

Sorry to repost what I have previously said in this thread, but I do think it is timely... My previous post is now well over 2 years old...

There is a simple solution to this entire mess, and would ensure that the political and legislation issues within CASA are dealt with, and would ensure a uniform high standard in aviation between both Australia and New Zealand.

Simply sack everyone at CASA, and expand CAA NZ to have jurisdiction over both countries. Former CASA employees could apply for new Australian positions within the new Trans Tasman CAA, naturally with their previous experience and performance taken into account when selecting the best people for the job. The poorly written, incomplete and confusing regulations in Australia would be superseded by the New Zealand rules, which are IMHO far clearer and more sensible than the mess of Australian CARs, CAOs, and CASRs.

It has been done before (see Food Standards Australia New Zealand (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx)), and could quite easily be done again if there were the political will. There would be natural synergies by having one regulatory structure, delivering savings on costs, and providing a more efficient service to the aviation industries and general public of both Australia and New Zealand.

Then again, I'm just a pilot, what would I possibly know about aviation?

Kharon

7th Nov 2013, 19:24

"I have my copy, which contains important, urgent safety recommendations, but it is stamped 'under embargo'," Mr Smith said. "Just why such an important safety document would be embargoed is beyond comprehension to me."
'They' appear to be jolly good at this, or at least someone is. No matter how much money, time and effort goes into a project or inquiry, no matter how lucid or intelligent the submissions, no matter how important or urgent the topic; the burial is never far away. It's almost as if any inquiry were a dummy given to a querulous child to shut it up while mummy is busy with the gin bottle; anything to stop the noise, even for a while.

Somehow the minister is always convinced (or advised) that it's all the rumblings of a minority (IOS) and is really neither urgent or important. Once the minister is pacified, comfortable with the degree of top cover the good work gets shuffled away, under the nearest pile. In this manner when questions are asked, ( e.g. coroner or Senate) there is a container delivered, full of boxes, packed with paper; and somewhere, under the haystack a needle.

The 2008 event not only buried the needle but managed to extinguish the work of some very canny minds which would have made. back then, a significant contribution toward taking Australian aviation into the 20th century. It's time to acknowledge that the majority of submissions were not provided by the Ills of Society. The time, care and effort required to produce a submission reflects the integrity of the advice made by highly competent, qualified people like:-

Baskett; 50 years at the coal face and providing simple, elegant practical solutions to the identical issues raised today. (get well soon mate).

Kimpton; intelligent, sound advice from a legal mind. Qualified opinion, clearly framed, cleverly drafted, sane, competent, practical solutions to the identical issues raised today. See here - All his own work. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZAvBf/toc-K.html)

McKeown; a balanced, polished submission which just keeps hitting nails on the head. Drafted to be comprehended by all, first class sound, competent (free) legal advice.

There were some 40 odd submissions provided in 2008, all made in good faith with a realistic expectation of change. Someone, somewhere dismissed and disappeared the good work and orchestrated the complete multi handed stropathon we see today, where episodes like Quadrio, Hempell, Pel Air, Canley Vale and important Senate inquiries can, with impunity be ignored or treated with open contempt.

Will the real puppet master stand up, so we may applaud a truly Murky, Machiavellian mind. We loved the glove puppets, but now, your spotlight awaits.

Selah.

Kharon

8th Nov 2013, 21:02

There were 61 submissions provided in 2008, not 40 odd; eight of those were 'confidential'. I have not as yet had the time to fully research and read the remainder. Some of those read are just a shameless attack on Byron, some are clearly self centred, a couple just plain silly. One of the stars (IMO) is the Agricultural boys submission; articulate, on the money and for mine, fair. You could dust this off and whack it into an inquiry tomorrow and it would be equally, if not more valid now, than the day it published. Samples provided for your general entertainment and amusement.

AAAA-2008 : (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/casa/submissions/sub15_pdf.ashx) CASA does not have aviation problems - it has management problems.

P. Rundle-2008. (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/casa/submissions/sub01_pdf.ashx) (1)...(2). Both submissions have validity, they are quite hard to read and patience is required, but patience is rewarded. The phantom of the real Venn report, not the CASA embuggered version raises it's hoary head once more. I reckon finding a copy of the 'real' report is job for PAIN. (Waits for blast from P7.a.k.a. TOM.. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif ).

Anyway, if you can spare the odd half hour, download the submissions grab a coffee, comfy chair and have a read. Note: some of the submissions will not open on screen, on the black screen you get, look for the download button, that works just fine.

Erratum complete. endit...

thorn bird

9th Nov 2013, 06:10

Kharon the AAAA 2008 submission makes for very interesting reading.

Five years has past and what's changed?

The same gripes appear in virtually every post concerning CAsA on this website and in almost every publication you pick up, despite what appears to be concerted cyber warfare, whether instigated by CAsA or not, by certain individuals to either, get a thread shutdown, or muddy the water by diverting the discussion off topic.

Some interesting snippets:

“Key Issues Summary”

Independent review of CASA’s functions required, drawing heavily on industry input.

Current governance arrangements do not appear to be supporting or encouraging transparency, accountability or performance.

Industry consultation mechanisms at the technical level may be adequate (for example on regulatory reform working groups), but at the strategic level they are either non-existent or in need of review. Asking industry what their view is and then ignoring it completely is frequently dressed-up as ‘consultation’.

CASA needs a central policy making function that binds all staff to a single interpretation that has been developed with industry consultation. This must be a central feature of any attempt to improve CASA’s culture.

CASA must develop a systems-based approach to managing interactions with industry that are currently piecemeal and treated as ‘once-offs’.

Cost recovery must be based on establishing CASA’s essential functions and priorities (see independent review above), identifying any functions that can be transferred to industry while maintaining safety integrity and removing any requirements that do not deliver a safety outcome that addresses an identified and significant risk.

CASA must be directed by Government to pursue aggressively an efficiency and cost-cutting program that reduces the burden on industry.

Seem to have heard much of the same stuff recently

“In many ways, reform has been compromised by current governance and management structures, a lack of drive for urgent change from the top of CASA and an ongoing combative approach from some in CASA towards industry.”

The angry man in charge?

“Trying to work with CASA is akin to prolonged guerrilla warfare, where success goes to the industry person or organization that can build an alliance with competent staff within CASA and assist them to defeat the other retrograde forces at work within CASA to protect turf, retain power, resist change and to stifle industry.”

Sounds a tad like Wodger Wabbit territory

“It is industry that leads and daily implements aviation safety in Australia, not CASA.”

YUP!

“The effect of much of CASA’s processes is to stop industry from achieving adaptation to a changing market rather than to facilitate it, often as a result of CASA staffs’ personal outlook on aviation.

The FOI of the day routine

“Transparency, accountability and clear performance outcomes are almost unknown concepts within CASA, despite pockets of forward thinking individuals who try and hold CASA to the same standards that are delivered by other public service agencies.”

Hmmm Mr. Truss where are you?

“A poor CASA culture that focuses on personal power at the expense of
aviation safety, sensible regulation and industry development.”

Down the rabbit burrow again

“Management does not seem able to formulate a coherent plan for improvement, nor appears capable of enforcing their will over lower managers, delegates and even field staff in the organisation.”

Which is why Chief pilots are still being overruled when they voice serious safety reservations about operational matters foisted on them by unqualified FOI's pushing their own personal agenda's.

“For example, the role of FOIs and AWI’s varies enormously between individuals and offices, apparently without any coordination from a central manager. Similarly, the outlook of senior management is not shared by many others in the organization, and the perspective of central office to the regions appears worlds apart.”

Which is why operators of the same aircraft can all be operating differently based on the preferences and opinions of their handling FOI.

“In many cases to consult or not, to work positively with industry or not, or to abide by normal standards of good policy development or not, are not decisions made at high level after consideration of the strategic environment. They are frequently made at a local level, often with an agenda of frustrating central office and increasing the power of local staff.”

“There has been no research presented by CASA or government in the pursuit of cost recovery that would indicate proper account has been given to how much of an increase in costs the industry and industry clients can bear and the possible impact of increased costs.”

The impact is clients forgoing aviation for other means of transportation

“For example, the current migration of GA pilots out of CASA controlled aviation to aviation managed by Recreational Aviation Australia should be seen as pilots voting with their feet."

And the migration of foreign commercial students to New Zealand

"The long-term impact of this migration on pilot-shortages and cost-recovery may be substantial. In turn, the impact on the national need for a vibrant and safe aviation industry must not be overlooked.”

Says it all really

Mr. Truss you really need to stand up and be counted.

Kharon

9th Nov 2013, 19:04

TB – yes, it's quite a read. Obviously a concoction whipped up by the Agricultural chapter of the Ills of Society; and what would they know. What with their large, personal investments in aviation, their essential services to the land, their long history of dealing with officialdom since the Wright brothers, or the countless hours spent down in night time cotton, slaughtering grasshoppers or even pissing about putting out the odd small grass fire or two (should the mood descend). Nope –all irrelevant to the great minds over at Sleepy Hollow......:rolleyes:

I have managed to work my way through some more of the other submissions and although some are clearly weighted (even a bit biased) toward a specific 'group' argument; the thrust is essentially the same. The large cracks were plugged by robust Green paper, the final glossy finish made with a carefully manufactured white paper; which has proven to be quite handy considering it was used to confound an early inquiry into a world wide issue; flight standards...

Maybe the better submissions from 2008 and subsequent inquires should be bundled up and sent to an appropriate minister, dumped on a desk with a nice little note....: "Dear Sir. The large bundle of paper attached will save you the time, trouble, effort and expense of initiating your promised inquiry. Spend one day reading, then exercise the powers you have. There is a problem, please get off your arse and fix it. We can help. L&K from the I.O.S. (Opposing a minority group of disaffected, narcissistic sociopaths)....:D

Up-into-the-air

9th Nov 2013, 21:10

From: Estimates daily programs ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/Estimates_daily_programs)

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (to be provided)

Infrastructure and Regional Development:

Monday, 18 November 2013

Agriculture: Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Sarcs

10th Nov 2013, 01:36

Yes the AAAA submission could be listed as the official IOS charter, the trouble is on the FF scale (Regulatory Policy- CEO-PN001-2004:

CASA's Industry Sector Priorities and Classification of Civil Aviation Activities;),
organisations like the AAAA are like a blip on the radar of insignificance...still it is an exemplary submission :D:D

Although it starts off sticking the boots into Byron I also thought the Benke (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2008-10/casa/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/casa/submissions/sub08_pdf.ashx) (crusty but trusty old school FOI & ASAG :E) submission was worth the five minutes to read:ok::

What Should a Regulator be Trying to Achieve?

This question has been partly answered under the heading ‘What is a Regulator?’,
above. But that answer was couched in legalistic terms. What of the practical
outcome?

In reality a regulator should be similar to the rule makers of a sporting game like
rugby union, making and applying the same rules for everyone so that fair
competition can take place. Some people call this ‘the level playing field’. By
keeping a level playing field in civil aviation all operators are made aware of their responsibilities and know that if they do not perform they will be removed from the ‘game’. CASA has never been particularly good at that. In the last few yearthe problem has become greater. What happens when the playing field is not
level?

When an operator is permitted to operate using procedures outside the law this
encourages other operators to follow. Operators operate outside the law because
there is financial gain to be made. Abiding by the law costs money, not doing so
makes a saving in the short term. Thus the illegal operator by saving money can
charge a lower fee for its services which cannot be matched by the legal operator.

In time the legal operator ceases to operate leaving the field to the illegal operator and the level of safety enjoyed by the Australian public is degraded. This is essentially what caused the Lockhart River accident. CASA failed to correct known deficiencies in the operators concerned. Aviation safety problems in remote parts of Australia have been known by CASA to exist for a considerable length of time but little has been done to resolve those problems.

Conclusion

CASA is not an effective regulator of Australian civil aviation. It has become even less so over the last 3 to 5 years. The reasons are many and varied. I have
covered some of those above but have left out many others. It is my belief that
CASA will not be an effective aviation regulator until its operations and ethos
have been comprehensively reviewed, and *effective corrective action taken. Even then it will be difficult to rebuild the organisation because of a lack of properly qualified and experienced people.

*Hard to give up on old habits and language hey Rod!:ok:

Kharon

11th Nov 2013, 18:32

Heh heh; spot on Half baked (#1624).....:D
Maybe instead of sending 2000 pages to the minister, we could just send that clip, with a short explanatory note. Save a lot of time.

Yes the AAAA submission could be listed as the official IOS charter, There were 52 open submissions presented in 2008, even with the most ruthless culling at least 50% could be considered of value and 50% of the remainder were excellent, first class, considered advice, valid and did not cost squilions in 'consultancy fees' or bonuses. The submitters cannot all be just a deluded minority, the dregs of society or not qualified, can they??

You'd think that even if the boys over at Sleepy Hollow were determined to bury the advice, they would have at least have the common or garden nouse to plagiarise the good oil for their own internal recommendations and reports. Wodger did try to lead the plagiarism charge, perhaps the rest were just busy leaning on shovels or towing the party line. Or maybe, it's just they wouldn't know sound advice from shinola, if it jumped up and bit them.

Sarcs

12th Nov 2013, 06:26

Kharon post # 42 (http://www.pprune.org/8145539-post42.html) from ATSB reports thread:I wonder if he ever looks back at what he built, probably not. Come home Kym – all is forgiven;your Mum's worried, the dog won't eat, the cat's out of the bag and there's hell to pay with the Senate. On the subject of the Kym Bills era…came across a 2006 ATSB endorsed paper labelled.. ‘A Layman’s Introduction to Human Factors in Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation’(ATSB SAFETY INFORMATION PAPER B2006/0094 (http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/SMS%20Material/CASA%20Material/HF%20in%20accident%20investigation.pdf) ), which IMO has particular relevance to the AAI Senate inquiry and the Beaker era (beyond all sensible reason) vs the Bills era (back to the future).

After reading this paper you will again be left scratching your head over the PelAir Final Report debacle :ugh: and how a supposedly independent, highly respected, well principled transport safety investigative agency (as the ATSB was) could so comprehensively lose their way in the space of three short years.:{

Okay so here are some quotes of relevance from the paper:

From Executive summary...
“This paper is concerned primarily with the relationship of Human Factors to aircraft accident and incident investigations. The purpose of applying Human Factors knowledge to such investigations is to not only understand what happened in a given accident, but more importantly, why it happened. Without understanding why an accident occurred, safety investigation agencies such as the Australian Transport
Safety Bureau (ATSB) are limited in their ability to draw meaningful conclusions and propose effective safety action and recommendations for change.”

“Since it was known very early on in aviation history that the pilot ‘failed’
significantly more often than the plane did, most aircraft accidents were classified as ‘pilot error’ and often the explanation went little further than that. The use of the term ‘pilot error’ provides a simple, but often misleading explanation of a complex accident sequence.

Sections of the community and some high-risk industries seem to desire a simple explanation for complex events. That is, of what ‘caused’ the event and who is to ‘blame’. Some also tend to see Human Factors as a process of helping individuals avoid their responsibility for accidents.”

“With the evolution of human factors, human sciences knowledge is now not only applied against a systems engineering background, but also against a psychosocial and more recently a business management framework. These evolutionary developments break away from the idea that a pilot operates in a vacuum and that accidents are events isolated from the system which nurtured them.”

Excerpt from Introduction:
1.1 Background to this paper

The term, Human Factors, is a relatively new term that is not well understood by
some sectors of the community.

Apart from a lack of knowledge about the subject, the misunderstanding seems to
be partly due to the fact that some people seem to believe that investigations into
accidents explicitly for the purposes of improving transport safety should be
concerned with identifying and punishing the people guilty of causing those
accidents.

Given this view, and the fact that in many cases Human Factors investigations tend
to confirm that people who have accidents are victims of their own human frailties,
some members of the community seem to believe modern Human Factors
investigations simply help guilty parties avoid taking responsibility for their actions. {That certainly sounds familiar???:cool:)

These notions are completely at odds with the purpose of a safety investigation
which, first and foremost, must be concerned with understanding why an accident
occurred and, on that basis, making effective recommendations to prevent
recurrence and improve transport safety for both the Australian and international travelling public.

In an effort to increase the level of general understanding within the community, the
Executive Director (top stuff KB:D) of the ATSB commissioned this layman’s information report.

1.2 Objective of this paper

Human Factors is a large and complex subject and a full or detailed coverage of the topic is beyond the scope of this paper. The objective of this paper is to give a
layman’s general explanation of the history, development and application of Human
Factors, particularly as it relates to safety investigations of aircraft accidents and
incidents.

The ATSB would welcome constructive suggestions for improvement of this paper
for a future edition. Any suggestions should be mindful of the introductory focus of
the paper. The ATSB runs a five-day course on introductory human factors which
includes much more depth and employs a number of specialist human factors
investigators. Any suggestions should be sent by email to [email protected] by 31 August 2006.
The whole paper is well worth the time to read and IMO if Kym Bills (and his former lieutenant Alan Stray) had still been at the helm at the time of the Norfolk Ditching investigation, there would have been a much more different outcome and a final report that the Senators and industry would have been proud of. :ok:

Note: The ‘beyond pilot error’ (Airbus A300, American Airlines flight 587 in New York City on 12 November 2001) example on page 12-13 focuses on the progress, largely initiated by the ATSB, in Human Factors research and its relevance to AAI.

Lookleft

12th Nov 2013, 09:38

The objective of this paper is to give a
layman’s general explanation of the history, development and application of Human Factors, particularly as it relates to safety investigations of
aircraft accidents and incidents.

The objective of that paper was to get rid of excess EOFY funds from the ATSB budget! Google the author Sarcs and let us know what you find. It is to Human Factors understanding what an unserviceable TCAS unit is to collision avoidance.

thorn bird

12th Nov 2013, 10:34

Lefty,
guess we couldnt have expected much more from a paid up member of the CAsA "defence against pprune" team..Yup the pilots responsible.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

12th Nov 2013, 16:01

300,000 views. Not a bad number of hits. How is titter account of casa doing?

At least in this thread you'll be able to get info on next Mondays senate estimates.

Sarcs

12th Nov 2013, 19:48

Normally don't partake but I think the keyword was 'Layman', perhaps that is why the good Senators referred to it in the writing up of Chapter 8 of the AAI report (hint refer footnote 3 & 4 Ch 8): Chapter 8 AAI report

Importance of human factors

8.3 The ATSB acknowledges the importance of human factors:
The purpose of applying Human Factors knowledge to such investigations is to not only understand what happened in a given accident, but more importantly, why it happened.[3] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c08f3)

8.4 The ATSB's own information notes:
Human Factors are a critical part of the safety investigation process and are at the heart of most aircraft accidents.[4] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c08f4)

8.5 The ATSB website points out the agencies expertise in and contribution to the field of human factors at both the individual and organisational level which is acknowledged as world class.[5] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c08f5)
8.6 The ATSB Chief Commissioner has also personally emphasised the importance of human factors:
The field of human factors is—and always will be—an essential part of the ATSB’s investigation process.[6] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c08f6)

8.7 The importance of human factors principles was also stressed to the committee:
As we said in our submission to the committee, we have a comprehensive methodology for doing this [assessing whether existing arrangements for managing safety risk are adequate]. That methodology takes as its starting point, its base, the principles of human factors that were initially enunciated by Professor Reason and have been built on by a range of others. So, rather than seeing human factors as a separate issue in our investigations, we have integrated them into our overall processes.[7] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c08f7)

8.8 Mr Bryan Aherne, an independent aviation accident investigator and safety and risk adviser to the aviation industry, pointed out the international requirements for an investigation which include human factors:
The collection of Human Factors information is an integral part of the investigation. Thus, the Human Factors information should be integrated into the appropriate areas of the factual part of the report, rather than being placed under a separate heading. Human Factors information should be presented in a language that is consistent with the presentation of the other factual information.[8] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c08f8)

So in other words you are questioning the whole credibility/veracity of the AAI report, in particular R16..

"Recommendation 16
8.35 The committee recommends that, where relevant, the ATSB include thorough human factors analysis and discussion in future investigation reports.
Where human factors are not considered relevant, the ATSB should include a statement explaining why."

...this is despite saying this back in May(post # 1817 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-91.html#post7857185)): Yep great report with some very relevant recommendations. ATSB and to a lessor extent CASA come out looking dodgy. :confused:

Lookleft

13th Nov 2013, 05:04

No Sarcs I am questioning the credibility of that particular ATSB publication . Credibility of the ATSB seems to be a major discussion point amongst the KKK so I'm not sure why you are surprised at anyone questioning something coming out of the ATSB. Human Factors itself is not the issue and of course the importance of Human Factors is recognized by anyone involved in aviation at an operational level. All I am suggesting is don't hold that discussion of HF up as a shining example of what the ATSB produced during the tenure of KB and AS.

Kharon

13th Nov 2013, 18:25

Sarcs # 1626 –"The whole paper is well worth the time to read and IMO if Kym Bills (and his former lieutenant Alan Stray) had still been at the helm at the time of the Norfolk Ditching investigation, etc.A subtle but essential undertone in all the Bills/Stray contributions is the reliance on "Men of good will". It is an excellent précis of the 'philosophy' underpinning an open, 'just culture' approach; defining the 'why' of an accident and providing clear response to the 'how' of reducing the chances of similar occurring. A laudable ambition. When that spirit and intent is manipulated; perverted to the use those who seek only to 'look good', rather than do the job properly; or cover up systematic defects, rather than address them, then attempt to justify their actions, the corruption of good intention becomes evident. Willingly they go to the extraordinary lengths recently witnessed, it is then the true humiliation becomes apparent. The real tragedy is that entire departments must be tarred with the same brush; guilty by association.
Sarcs # 1626 –"Note: The ‘beyond pilot error’ (Airbus A300, American Airlines flight 587 in New York City on 12 November 2001) example on page 12-13 focuses on the progress, largely initiated by the ATSB, in Human Factors research and its relevance to AAI. (My bold)
History reflects the downfall of the ATSB, from leading edge to trailing edge; world class to sub standard and yet the beggars still trade on past glories, use the credit of better men and still dare stand up to speak to their peers (at tax payer expense). The whiff of corruption and the stench of collusion still hover over the Pel Air imbroglio.
Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides,
Who covers faults at last with shame derides.
Well may you prosper. (Lear)

Horatio Leafblower

14th Nov 2013, 04:02

Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development

Media Statement

14 November 2013

Aviation Safety Regulation Review

DEPUTY Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss today announced an independent review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

“This announcement delivers on one of the key commitments outlined in the Coalition’s 2013 Policy for Aviation,” Mr Truss said.

“Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety – among the best in the world – which has been built on a strong regulatory system, forged over many years.”

In launching the review, Mr Truss said aviation activity is expected to double in the next twenty years. The industry is a vital part of our economy and we must ensure it is supported by a regulatory system that delivers the highest levels of safety.

“Now is the right time to reassess how our safety regulatory system is placed in dealing with this dynamic and evolving sector. The independent review reinforces the Government’s commitment to maintaining safety as the highest priority in aviation.

“The review will be strategic in nature. It is about whether we are on the right track to meet future challenges and respond to growing demand in aviation.”

The review is to be undertaken by a panel of leading aviation safety experts and will benchmark Australia’s safety regulation against other leading countries.

Mr David Forsyth AM, will Chair the review panel. Mr Forsyth is a prominent figure in Australian aviation. He is the chair of Safeskies Australia, former chair of Airservices Australia and has over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business.

Mr Forsyth will be joined by Mr Don Spruston, former Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada and former Director General of the International Business Aviation Council, and by Mr Roger Whitefield, former Head of Safety at British Airways, former safety adviser to Qantas and former United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority board member.

The panel will also be supported, as required, by specialist advisers. Mr Truss has appointed Phillip Reiss to take particular responsibility to ensure that the concerns of general aviation and regional operators are well aired.

Mr Truss indicated his confidence that the breadth and depth of expertise secured to conduct this review will ensure that a comprehensive and balanced perspective is reflected in the panel’s findings.

Over the coming months, the review panel will undertake extensive industry and public consultation. Further details, including how to make a submission, will be available from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr<http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr>.

The review panel will provide its report to the Deputy Prime Minister in May 2014.

The Terms of Reference for the review and information about the review panel members follow at Attachments A and B.

Attachment A

Aviation Safety Regulation Review
Terms of Reference

Objectives

The principal objectives of the review are to investigate:
• the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;
• the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);
• the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA);
• the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions; and
• any other safety related matters.

Outcomes

The report of the review will:
• examine and make recommendations as required on the aviation safety roles of CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and other agencies as appropriate;
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
• examine and make recommendations as required on the appointment process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and the ATSB;
• examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry;
• review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry;
• examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business;
• provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and
• provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review.

Consultation

The review will seek the views of the CASA Board and senior management and staff, and the ATSB Commission and senior management and staff in developing its advice to Government on the review’s objectives, and consult closely with:
- international, domestic, regional, general aviation, sport and recreational aircraft and maintenance operators and organisations;
- federal, regional and local airport operators;
- other relevant Government agencies including Infrastructure, Airservices Australia, the Department of Defence and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC); and
- other industry and public stakeholders.

Background

Australia’s aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (covering the operations of CASA), the Air Services Act 1995 (covering the operations of Airservices) and Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (covering the operations of the ATSB).

In addition the establishment of an Aviation Safety Regulatory Development Taskforce in March 2010, comprising dedicated resources from CASA and OPC, was specifically aimed at helping expedite the completion of the regulatory drafting work for an aviation safety regulatory reform programme.

The current regulatory reform programme involves completion of three main regulatory suites covering aircraft maintenance, aircraft operations and flight crew licensing. The maintenance and licensing suites are largely completed with the operations suite scheduled to be completed next year.

The aviation industry and CASA are in the process of implementing the maintenance and licensing regulatory changes already made and in which significant investment in improved systems, training and education is completed or under way.

Work on updated regulations for areas affecting general aviation such as amendments to Civil Aviation Safety Regulations - Part 42 (Continuing Airworthiness - amendments for charter and aerial work), Part 132 (Limited Category Aircraft Operations - Warbirds), Part 138 (Aerial Work Operations) and for sport and recreational aviation (Parts 103, 105 and 149) are scheduled to be progressed in the next twelve months.

Earlier this year a Senate report into Aviation Accident Investigations highlighted a range of issues with the regulation and governance of aviation safety within Australia.

It is therefore timely to consider future aviation safety structures and regulatory development approaches and processes in Australia by evaluating the effectiveness of the current approach, looking at international experience and possible options for future improvements and bearing in mind the commitment of the Australian Government to reduce the burden of regulation on the economy.

It is also timely to look at which areas should be priorities for future regulatory development to meet continued growth in aviation demand.

Review Membership and Timing

The review panel will comprise Mr David Forsyth (chair), Mr Don Spruston and Mr Roger Whitefield. The panel will be assisted by a Secretariat established within Infrastructure, and will be supported as required by specialist advisers.

The review will report to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in May 2014.

Attachment B

Aviation Safety Regulation Review – Panel Members

Mr David Forsyth AM (Australia) – Review Panel Chair
Mr Forsyth has extensive experience in aviation engineering and management. A professional engineer and a Member of the Order of Australia, he has held executive and board positions across the industry, government, not-for-profit and academic sectors in Australia.

Mr Forsyth currently works as an independent consultant to the aviation industry and has served on a number of Boards, including as Chair of Airservices Australia, Chair of the Safeskies Conference, Vice President of the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia (SE Section) and President of the Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division. He previously worked for Qantas for over 30 years in technical and management roles including: Manager of the Melbourne Maintenance Base; General Manager, Regional Airlines; and Executive General Manager, Aircraft Operations.

Mr Forsyth holds a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering (Hons) and a Graduate Diploma in Industrial Engineering Developments from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and has completed the Stanford University Executive Program. A Councillor of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Australian division since 2004, he is currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the UNSW School of Aviation.

Mr Don Spruston (Canada) – Review Panel Member
Mr Spruston has wide-ranging experience in oversight and regulation of the aviation sector with the Canadian Government. He has also been extensively involved in the development and implementation of criteria for reviewing aviation safety regulatory performance as part of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP).

Formerly Director General of Civil Aviation at Transport Canada, Mr Spruston was until recently, the Director General of the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) based in ICAO headquarters in Montreal, Canada. He has previously held senior positions with Transport Canada including Director General of Aircraft Services, and Regional Director of Air Navigation Services in the Pacific Region.

Mr Spruston holds a Bachelor of Science from the Royal Military College of Canada and has an Airline Transport Pilot Licence.

Mr Roger Whitefield (United Kingdom) – Review Panel Member
Mr Whitefield has held senior positions in both regulatory and operational roles within the aviation industry – he was previously a commercial pilot for over 30 years. For the past 10 years he has been a board member of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) during a period of significant structural and governance reform of the Authority.

He is a member of the International Safety Review Team which most recently conducted an independent safety review of Air France following their loss of an A330 aircraft. He is also Chair of Air Safety Support International (a UK Government company charged with helping deliver aviation safety oversight for British overseas territories). A Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Mr Whitefield spent a number of years as an external advisor to the Qantas Safety Review Board.

Mr Whitefield has had 39 years’ experience working for UK airlines as a pilot, airline captain and in executive roles, including as Head of Safety and Head of Corporate Safety and Quality with British Airways.

[ENDS]

Media Contact: Brett Heffernan on (02) 6277 7680 or 0467 650 020 or [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

Creampuff

14th Nov 2013, 04:24

Peace for our time!

Horatio Leafblower

14th Nov 2013, 04:33

Is that a piece of paper in your hand Mr Chamberlain?

I do like the potential of this bit:

Outcomes

The report of the review will:
<snip>
• outline and identify any areas for improvement in the current interaction and relationships between CASA and the ATSB, as well as other agencies and Infrastructure;
<snip>
• examine the current processes by which CASA develops, consults on and finalises changes to aviation safety regulations and other legislative instruments (such as civil aviation orders) and make any proposals for improving these processes such that new regulations are best practice in safe operations for each relevant sector of the aviation industry;
• review the implementation of the current aviation safety regulatory reform programme and assess the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of regulatory changes, including cost impacts on industry;
• examine and make recommendations on options for improving future aviation safety regulatory reform having regard to international experience and stakeholder views, and the Government’s objective of reducing the cost of regulation to business;
• provide advice to Government on priorities for future regulatory development and implementation strategies; and
• provide advice to Government on options for improving oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including rights of review.

...he has provided an opening, now the RAAA and AOPA and AAFI and the rest of us need to stick our feet into the door and wedge it open.

Creampuff

14th Nov 2013, 09:35

Finally they’re having a review.

Just another 7 months or so and all the problems in aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will, for the first time ever, be revealed by external experts and rectified by the government.

And then it will be aviation Nirvana.

Lucky I have the attention span of a goldfish. Otherwise I’d remember the last 3 or so times I’ve heard the same crap.

I’m saddened that many of the people who fly or fix aircraft in Australia appear to have the attention span of a goldfish.

Kharon

14th Nov 2013, 18:39

A review next year eh, well what's to be done then?. Do we all sit and sweat it out over the keyboard, writing and editing; then rewriting. Bore our nearest and dearest witless asking them to read a masterpiece they can't comprehend. Then when it's finally done; wave a tearful, fond farewell to the paperwork as it disappears into the belly of the beast expecting it to make a difference, secretly knowing that within a 12 month it will be treated as every other submission made; redundant from birth.

Control over outcome is what's needed if this expensive inquiry is to get home, the opposition is entrenched, established, have all the levers and know how to pull them. There is little point taking off if you don't intend to arrive at your destination. To get there you can't just do the take off and expect the aircraft to arrive in one piece and land without some driving from you (metaphorically speaking).

Anything other than a determined, concerted, coordinated push for change, seen through to the end will be doomed to failure. Failure will mean creatures like Wodger delivering plagiarised speeches at the RAeS meetings, bald eagles writing more dodgy letters, trained attack dogs patrolling your hanger, see the inutile promoted, the dubious rewarded and your confidential REPCON a signed confession, this process will allow more first class junkets to exotic ports for long lazy holidays with your current squeeze.

You have your review, one shot – now then, what's to be done, lest history repeat itself (again).

Selah.

Creampuff

14th Nov 2013, 19:20

I wouldn’t sweat it.

The report of the ‘Review’ has already been drafted.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

14th Nov 2013, 19:44

A short information broadcast.

If the right people don't have power - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC - YouTube

I can hear the responses to Senate Estimates already and see the ball being kicked into the long grass - again.

The review could start with the last two inquiries and their submissions.

Sarcs

14th Nov 2013, 21:34

Albo: "But..but..I'm not dead yet??":{

Caution: Bucket required!:yuk::yuk:

According to the former minister and Mayor for Marrickville Aviation Safety is still his highest priority and aviation is not a political football (my bold)!!:rolleyes:
Mr ALBANESE (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FR36%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)(Grayndler) (11:03): Labor welcomes the minister's statement and the announcement of a further review into the regulation of aviation safety. As the minister said, this country has an enviable record of aviation safety, the result of governments of either political persuasion taking a nonpartisan approach to this issue, as is entirely appropriate. During the period in which the current minister was the shadow minister, when it came to safety and security issues they were dealt with in a manner above politics (*Truss Media Statement, **DF media statement), and I intend to adopt exactly the same approach. It is absolutely critical that safety not be an issue which becomes part of the political contest.

It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead. (Note: The GWEP was another planned decade or two of bureaucratic and political obfuscation)

All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government (ahh..bulldust!:ugh:). We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation (don't you mean accelerating towards a third world regulatory regime). I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners (well that's really working!) and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues.

I think this plan has got it right by looking forward and making sure that it looks at the strategic framework and the balance that must be there between appropriate safety, regulation and costs. The minister referred to that and I would agree with that. I would say this, though: there should be no compromise in terms of safety being the absolute priority—something I am sure that the minister agrees with :ugh::ugh:.

I also welcome the appointment of David Forsyth to chair the review. I know David well. I appointed him to chair the board of Airservices Australia in 2008, a position he held with great distinction until last year. Under Mr Forsyth's leadership the board led a major program of investment in critical safety infrastructure, air traffic services and training of skilled personnel.
About $1 billion is being invested in upgrades for air services. We have seen new air traffic control towers. I have opened them not only in capital cities such as Adelaide but also in regional centres such as the Sunshine Coast and Broome. The air traffic control process is also being streamlined to achieve greater cooperation between defence systems and the civil aviation sector.

I am also pleased that the coalition has appointed overseas experts to this review because, in an industry that is by definition international, it is critical that we consider overseas experience.

In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes. (won't hold my breath on that one:()
That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified.

In conclusion, the aviation sector injects some $7 billion into the Australian economy each year. Australia has an enviable record of aviation safety, but we should not be complacent at any time. We need to ensure that we keep our personnel appropriately trained and skilled and be prepared to provide proper resourcing.

In 2010, I was very proud that Labor announced an additional $90 million in funding over four years (apparently justified by Wodger's review:rolleyes:) to provide CASA with long-term funding stability. That was not an easy process to get through our cabinet, but people recognised that this was a priority. I would say to the minister that it is important that the resourcing from government to these organisations in charge of safety and security also be kept up. This extra assistance that we provided has allowed the authority to better meet the demands of a growing and ever more complex domestic and international industry.:yuk::yuk:

The proliferation of low-cost carriers, the huge growth of fly-in fly-out airline and helicopter services, and the emergence of unmanned aerial systems are just some of the big challenges facing aviation safety. Others include new aircraft types and the wider use of satellite based technologies. There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost. This balancing is best done by experts, not politicians.(MOA strikes again!!!)
I welcome the minister's acknowledgement today that Australia's safety performance is among the best in the world and that it is built on a strong regulatory system. The opposition will follow the review and carefully consider its recommendations when they come forth in May.

I say to the minister that I believe it would be appropriate that there be a confidential briefing given to the opposition before the release of the recommendations. I have committed to him, publicly as well as in private, to ensure that these issues continue to be held as those not the subject of political debate. As I say, I pledge cooperation with him on this matter and give credit to him for the way in which he dealt with difficult issues such as the introduction of body scanners here in Australia, which was introduced without political rancour and with bipartisan support.
{Footnote:*Air crash investigation needs full throttle response (http://www.warrentruss.com/press.php?id=2038) , **
AVIATION SAFETY AT RISK UNDER GOVERNMENT BUDGET CUTS (http://www.senator.fawcett.net.au/ATSB%20budget%20cuts%2029%20May.pdf) }

Hmm no mention of the no response to the AAI report but you've got to hand it to Albo he is a consumate professional pollie and he is definitely not dead..:D

The cynics amongst us will say this independent review is just another 'wet lettuce' attempt to placate the industry and that Truss doesn't have the cohunas to really take on the real issues but as HL said...

"...he has provided an opening, now the RAAA and AOPA and AAFI and the rest of us need to stick our feet into the door and wedge it open..." :D

There is also the small matter of the other 20 odd recommendations that apparently Truss has committed to still address, from PP's article 'Aviation regulation back under the microscope (http://proaviation.com.au/news/?p=1756)':
Earlier this year a Senate report into Aviation Accident Investigations made 26 recommendations, many of them time-critical, on issues directly related to the Pel-Air enquiry, including consideration of executive-level changes, a reopening of the ATSB/CASA enquiry, and immediate recovery of the aircraft’s flight data and cockpit voice recorders, but these have been ignored until now.

Mr Truss’s office however says matters relating to that report will not be rolled into the enquiry announced today, but will be treated as a separate issue and dealt with before the report is delivered.
So Creamy get ready to don your diving gear mate..and mi..mi..Beaker maybe you can get your new found chums the TSB Canada to independently analyse the BB??:ok:

Addendum: Senator Fawcett Senate speech 14/11/13 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F64fcf309-c2e6-496e-98fb-8df7d65f9032%2F0209;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F64fcf 309-c2e6-496e-98fb-8df7d65f9032%2F0000%22)

..."Many of them are under significant pressure, whether that be through excessive regulation or through the application of regulation that makes life difficult for them. Significantly, we saw that earlier this year with the release of the report into the Pel-Air accident at Norfolk Island, where we saw a number of issues with the regulator and ATSB that need to be addressed.

So it is a vital part of our economy, and I am pleased to say that the coalition has been listening to industry both prior to and post the election. We have had a number of meetings with industry, ranging from the one-man workshops through to larger engineering firms, smaller flying operations and large corporate organisations, to understand the pressures on them and how we as a government can try to take some of those pressures off. In the aviation policy put forward by the coalition there are a number of points that go to this. Certainly the topic of this week has been a lot about the abolition of the carbon tax and its impact on aviation fuels and businesses—and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars of impact on the aviation sector here in Australia—but some of the other key points in the policy include looking at establishing a high-level external review of aviation safety and regulation in Australia which closely maps one of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report. There is support for regional aviation, including new and better targeted en-route rebates. There is also an increased focus on recognising the importance of airports in Australia. Not only do we have to focus on things like Sydney's second airport; but the government is also very aware of the fact that the airport infrastructure we have has its primary use as an airport. Whilst the commercialisation and leasing of some of the secondary airports has meant that there are non-commercial activities there, the key focus must remain on the aviation capability that that represents and the potential for that to grow to meet future demand in coming years. The government also has a priority on revitalising the general aviation sector through an action agenda and making sure that things like security measures, which can be an onerous imposition on airlines and airport operators, are in fact risk based and only to the extent necessary.

There are other aspects to the policy, but one of the key ones has been the review of regulation. I am pleased to report to the Senate that today the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Warren Truss MP, who has responsibility for aviation, announced the independent review of aviation. He announced the terms of reference and the expected outcomes as well as the panel.
I want to pick a few of the outcomes that this review seeks to achieve and to deliver to the sector. The review will examine and make recommendations as required on the aviation safety roles of CASA, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and other agencies. It will examine and make recommendations on the appointments process and criteria applied for key aviation safety roles within CASA and ATSB, again stemming back from some of the recommendations coming out of the Pel-Air report about making sure we have the right people with the right competence. That is task-specific competence. People may be very good and very competent, but for a particular task they need both qualifications and experience in that task to do the role.

It is also looking to review the implementation of the current aviation regulatory reform program, which has been going on an awful long time and has been creating much uncertainty in the sector. In South Australia, for example, as operators for the state government's emergency medical service contract look to bid for that new tender, they are uncertain which rules they need to bid for. If the state government is not going to allow for regulatory change as part of the contract, it makes it very difficult for a company to bid—not knowing the standards to which they have to provide aircraft, numbers of aircrew, rosters et cetera.
The review will also look at the cost impacts on industry. That is one of the most important points. The government is looking to make sure that the aviation industry is not just safe but sustainable—that it is a viable industry sector for the future of Australia. Importantly, the review will also provide options to government for improving the oversight and enforcement of aviation regulations, including the rights of review, because we do see cases—some running right now—where companies have been shut down and, months after that, are yet to have their opportunity in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to put their case as to why they believe that decision was unfair. So there is a requirement to make the application of regulation appropriate.

The government's whole focus on deregulation means that we have the regulation we need to be safe but that we make sure that it is quality, that it is informed by people who understand the industry so that it is best practice and, importantly, that its application not only maintains safety but also makes sure that, where there is an equal safety case but one has a more commercially viable application, that is the one that the regulator should be looking to implement so that the industry is sustainable....." :D

Frank Arouet

15th Nov 2013, 00:54

It would be accurate to say that you can do "anything" in the name of "safety".

Therefor with their track record of abusing that word, it should be removed from the CASA title and their stated objectives.

The title should represent their charter and Civil Aviation Authority would seem appropriate unless they add in the job description, "promote and enhance the Industry and Aviation Safety".

Of note with Albo is his willingness to step up to the plate after being duded by his own kind and now in opposition. This could work for the industry if one were to harness his energy to keep the other lot honest. He also has a past reputation of sorts to protect. It's a voice in the Parliament but should be used cautiously so as not to offend others with Industry pragmatism.

Creampuff

15th Nov 2013, 03:04

If only there were people in left in government with the wit, wisdom and courage to actually govern.

Alas, it’s just tweedle dumb swapping sides with tweedle dumber. All the people who avoided doing anything in government are now calling for action, from the luxury of opposition. All of the people who called for action, from the luxury of opposition, are now avoiding doing anything in government.

I often wonder whether, deep down, the likes of Senators Fawcett, Nash and Heffernan feel a little unclean. Like most politicians, as individuals they seem to be very intelligent, hard-working and honest. They obviously have a very deep insight into what’s wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. But the overriding obligation to the party and gaining and maintaining incumbency seems to put paid to all of that.

Must feel kinda weird going to all that effort to get into government to avoid governing. :sad:

Lookleft

15th Nov 2013, 04:48

I was only out by a month when I predicted that the earliest the new government would do anything about the Senate Report would be June 2014. This report will be due in May. So that would mean that any recommendations coming from it would be acted on and legislated or implemented by March 2015 at the earliest.

You have your review, one shot – now then, what's to be done, lest history repeat itself (again).

All the best Kharon with your submissions. I'm not sure why a review is required or why more submissions are required as the Senate has a compactus full. If significant and structural change emerges from this review not only will I be pleasantly surprised but I will go to parliament and extend to the Rt Hon Mr Truss a laurel and hardy handshake:D as he will be the first M.P. to actually make a step forward rather than endlessly talking about reforming aviation in this country.

If, as my cynicism suspects, it will result in frippery around the edges and a greater budget for CASA it will just be a resumption of BAU.

I'll check in again in May to see how the report is received. The 82 odd pages of this thread will provide an indication of how the discussion will progress over the next 6 1/2 months.

Sarcs

16th Nov 2013, 20:54

To read a Creamy or LL post is like going to the wake while your mate is still propped up in bed desperately trying to beat the arrival of the grim reaper or barter a better fare from the ferryman...:E

Perhaps a read of sprocket's post could help stop the rest of us bods from contemplating topping ourselves cause it's all too bloody hard!!:{

Who represents GA to government: post #71 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/526563-who-represents-ga-government-australia-4.html#post8157315) (top post that!:D)

Meanwhile Monday's entertainment for those die hards amongst us:

Public Hearings: Supplementary Budget Estimates for 2013-14 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/25%20Senate%20Estimates/supp1314/rrat.ashx)
Monday 18 November 2013 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/25%20Senate%20Estimates/supp1314/rrat.ashx)

Frank Arouet

16th Nov 2013, 22:50

It's sad to see a lot of work and thought put up to waste by those who tend to do nothing but complain and predict negative outcomes.

While we all may harbor doubts about outcomes, at least something is happening, and more should be said about issues that will possibly have a potential to frustrate the outcome. If the terms of reference, the makeup of decision makers, or the time factors that may negate one inquiry from consideration with another can be put to the sword before any pre determined outcome can happen, it would be better to attack those with submissions to the Minister now rather than just say "I told you so" later when it's all over. Or perhaps that's the agenda.

Continue Sarcs, you have my attention.

Edit to add: More pragmatic thought should be directed toward Albanese. From a political aspect he is now cultivating his love to hate Tories and this can be harnessed. Probably not not wise to use people who have the ears of Xenaphon, Fawcett and others now on side.

Up-into-the-air

19th Nov 2013, 22:06

The following is from the Monday Senate estimates, which gives the answer we need.

Albo had the advice from casa and atsb, via Mrdak on 5th June 2013.

Parliament was sitting that week and not prorogued until 5th August 2013

Why did Albo:

Not answer and report to the Parliament?

Run away from the Prime TV reporter when asked about this?

Certainly plenty of time to answer Mr. Albanese.

From Hansard for 18th November 2013

Senator LINES: I realise that you cannot necessarily provide us with details about briefings and submissions to ministers but I am interested in what has been provided to ministers.

Mr Mrdak: The department provides an extensive range of advice on all matters covered by portfolio responsibilities.

CHAIR: Including two-dollar cockups by the previous government, I presume.

Mr Mrdak: We do provide extensive advice on all portfolio matters, and clearly that has been occurring since the swearing in of ministers.

Senator LINES: How many briefings and submissions have you made?
Mr Mrdak: I would have to take that on notice. It would be a rather large number, I would imagine.

Senator LINES: I would want to know how many were information briefs and how many were decision briefs.

Mr Mrdak: We provide briefs to ministers which require action in terms of decisions. I can take on notice how many briefs have been provided.

Senator FAWCETT: The last time we met in estimates, you were anticipating giving a brief to former minister Albanese about the Senate report into air accident investigations. You anticipated giving that to him, I think, within 10 days of the date of the estimates.

Could you confirm what date the department did provide that brief for action to the minister?

Mr Mrdak: Following our conversation at the 29 May estimates, I provided advice to the minister on 5 June 2013.

Senator FAWCETT: Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?

Mr Mrdak: It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.

Senator FAWCETT: Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?

Well Albo certainly had the report.

Kharon

20th Nov 2013, 00:52

Estimates Hansard (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F1f4a327 c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F1f 4a327c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0000%22) – Start P.63-(PDF) P.59 –(Hansard). (All bolding mine)

GAME -
Mr McCormick: We provided technical input to the department which formulated the responses to the minister.
Mr McCormick: There were 22 recommendations from memory and then there were some additional comments from yourself
Mr McCormick: As I say we do not formulate those recommendations
Mr McCormick: From our point of view we were not dismissing anything out of hand. All we can give is our opinion of what we think of the recommendations. Mr McCormick: I am trying to answer your question, but I personally do not know what we said as far as the answers go, compared to what answers came out there. I am not comparing both. Our concern was what the recommendation meant to us. We did not form a view for the government or whether the government would accept or reject it. That was not our role.
Mr McCormick: I do not know if anyone was more actively involved in this than myself, but we would say what that recommendation meant as to where we are today and its effect on us. But whether it is accepted or rejected is not something we recommend.
Mr McCormick: Making a recommendation to accept or reject a recommendation.
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps I should ask the minister or the secretary this. What difficulty would there be in CASA providing material to the department about the Senate inquiry on Pel Air.
Mr McCormick: Again, Senator, I will have to take that on notice. I am not sure what the protocols are around that.
SET point - Wait for it, here comes the cavalry:-
Mr Mrdak: The minister is currently finalising his consideration of a response to the Senate inquiry. I will take that on notice. I do not think there is an issue in principle but I would need to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator XENOPHON: Let us not talk at cross purposes here. I am saying that CASA gave a considered response presumably to the Senate inquiry, to the minister, to consider. That itself would not be a draft, it would be a document from CASA to the department. What harm would there be for that document eventually seeing the light of day?
Mr Mrdak: Again, without recalling the exact details of the document, I do not have an issue in principle, but I need to take it on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: At the end of the day you would not have an issue in principle with that being released, would you, Mr McCormick?
Mr McCormick: Again, I will take it on notice. I personally do not, but I am not sure what the protocols are. Perhaps Dr Aleck might have something to say.
Dr Aleck: I will concur with what has gone before and to add that CASA made a number of submissions to that inquiry. To the extent that the recommendations dealt with the same issues that were covered by the submissions I suspect there would be some alignment with our submissions.
MATCH -
CHAIR: I am advised that there is no procedural reason, in reference to your earlier questions, for the advice that CASA gave the department to be not tabled. It is something where there is no procedural blockage.
Magnanimous in victory, the opponent is allowed to limp back to the changing rooms, to lick the wounds and salvage any remaining scraps of self respect.
Senator XENOPHON: If we can go back to that, Mr McCormick, to the department and to the minister, I formally request that you table a copy of CASA's response to the department in respect of the Senate report of the inquiry into aviation accident investigations handed in May 2013.
Mr McCormick: I acknowledge your request, Senator, and we will take it on notice and check the legal advice. If it concurs with what we have heard today then we certainly will provide it.
Senator XENOPHON: What has legal advice got to do with it? This where a picture could say a thousand words, pregnant moment? oh yes....
Mr McCormick: We are merely checking to make sure that that is the case.
Ever have one of those moments, when you know, you'd only opened your mouth to change feet. MM' s face was a study, he may be hard to beat in a poker game, but my MaMa could have won that pot – classic.

Senator XENOPHON: Are you suggesting that a request from a committee of the Senate for a document is something that could be fettered by legal advice? Is it just me or was that a master class in how to set traps for the unheeding. The cavalry may have saved an entire rout, but it had to cough up the requested information. Does the Murky, Machiavellian team have a bus timetable?, it would save them time, standing about waiting for one.

And solid gold from Heff to wrap it up.
CHAIR: I regret to inform the committee that that is the end of CASA. Questions, that is—I was just corrected by the secretary. It is not the end of CASA, just the end of them being here. I now call ATSB.....

Kharon

20th Nov 2013, 19:01

Poor old Beaker, hardly got comfy and the seat warmed up when:-

Estimates Hansard (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F1f4a327 c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F1f 4a327c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0000%22)– P.71 PDF - P. 67 Hansard.(My bold) Senator FAWCETT: You recently released a report about the crash of the ABC helicopter, which I commend you for. I am a little disturbed when I look back at the report about the helicopter that crashed off the Queensland coast some years ago—basically it was a controlled flight into water, with the understanding that there had been disorientation. Very similar recommendations came out of that in terms of changing the regulations to look at either augmentation of stability systems or two crew, et cetera. What gives you confidence that we will see action in response to this latest report when clearly nothing occurred in response to your last report? Here is where the pictures were brilliant – Now, I don't know whether the poor man had wind, or if the bloke alongside has just let rip. But I got a top screen shot of his face, (I regret NFP here). The print, now a glossy, framed 8" x 10" is to be hanged (yes) behind the bar of the BRB favourite watering hole; priceless. Last evening a small but elegant group gathered to witness Beaker being hanged in effigy; FWIW he had a good send off and if that mans ears were not burning, it's not our fault.

One item of business was to examine a couple or three rumours floating about the place:-

Rumour 1 : Truss, under advice from MM will extend the Mc Comick tenure.

Supporting : There really is no one in CASA who could be trusted to fill the role. The review is not scheduled to report until May. The ToR call for a review of the appointment process and criteria applicable to key roles in the ATSB and CASA. In order to provide some certainty the job (s) can be advertised immediately on vacancy. Truss, probably on Mrdak's advice, would be contemplating extending the contract until at least the review panel completes its work. Perhaps the government's consideration and response to the senate inquiry will have some bearing, particularly if the AFP find that CASA has a case to answer in respect of the potential breach of the TSI Act.

Rumour 2 : The current minister saying the review won’t be working over individual complaints or investigating 'cold cases' and is actively working to prevent 'looking back', i.e. Pel Air is a cold case, historical value only, academic and; on the public record.

Supporting : The words published in Hansard, the passage of play between Sinodinos and the Senators sort of highlights what the minister wants and the Senators determination not to have Pel Air swept under the rug.

Against: Any solution that doesn’t recognise endemic moral corruption won’t be a credible solution. If the review won’t recognise that symptom then it doesn’t recognise that what was going on yesterday is exactly what’s going on today. This takes us to what will be going on tomorrow, unless there’s a re-casting of roles and players with numerous retirements.

Having concluded the debate, a last order was taken and a minute of silent contemplation of the Beaker effigy was attempted, alas this degenerated into ribald hilarity. The BRB executive committee proposed there and then that another, similar picture could be hanged alongside. But the Nays had it, remarkable really; happy to raise the odd glass to Beaker but the idea of 'tuther fellah's picture parked on the pub wall could not even raise a smile.

Sarcs

21st Nov 2013, 07:31

Slight change of tack and one for those controllers amongst us...:ok:

Note: It is also good to see the Hooded one back, although in a different guernsey:
CHAIR: While Senator Xenophon is preparing himself, I was going to ask about the arrangement between us and New Zealand—

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Please do.

CHAIR: and Norfolk Island or wherever it was. But someone has an opening statement.

Ms Staib : Yes, I do. It is very brief.

CHAIR: Righto; go.

Ms Staib : I have just completed just over 12 months in my role as Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia. Of course, safety continues to be a No. 1 priority and a key focus of my leadership. Airservices has a key focus on safety training, with disciplined, focused education and training for our people, and it is fundamental to how we maintain our world-leading safety record and reputation.

As you know, a loss of separation is one indicator of safety performance and they, of themselves, do not automatically signify a risk-bearing event. We have a very low rate of loss of separation compared to the rest of the world—substantially lower than Germany, the UK and the USA. But there is never a moment when we are satisfied with a loss of separation, and we are always striving for continuous improvement.

On that note, I just want to discuss one event in particular that received significant media attention. On 20 September of this year, just after noon, a loss of separation incident occurred approximately 20 miles west of Adelaide. Two Qantas aircraft were flying in opposite directions: Qantas flight 581 was westbound at flight level 380, and Qantas flight 576 was eastbound at flight level 390. The incident occurred in en-route airspace and involved one aircraft requesting, and being given clearance, to climb through the altitude of the other aircraft without an appropriate separation standard being in place.

The traffic scenario generated an Airservices short-term conflict alert and also a cockpit-generated traffic conflict alert resolution advisory, or a TCAS, was activated. Our alert looks ahead 60 seconds, while the TCAS looks ahead 30 nautical miles or two minutes at cruise speed for oncoming traffic. The controller took immediate action to descend the climbing aircraft back to a separated altitude. The other aircraft responded to the TCAS resolution by climbing. The estimate at the closest point of proximity was 700 feet vertically and 1.6 nautical miles laterally.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Qantas airline safety were immediately notified and kept informed. Our internal investigation of this event is well advanced, and ATSB have advised that they will complete their investigation by September 2014.
I think this demonstrates that, when we have humans in a very complex system, on the odd occasion human error could occur.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)It wouldn't happen in parliament!

CHAIR: Come on.

Senator STERLE: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe68%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Sorry; I was thinking aloud.

Ms Staib : In response to this incident I have established a task force to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, air space design, training and human performance. The task force is led by an air traffic controller who is reporting directly to me.
Aviation growth continues to be the most significant strategic challenges faced by Airservices Australia. We are now seeing the Sydney-to-Melbourne route listed as the second busiest air corridor in the world in terms of aircraft movements. Sydney to Brisbane has now been listed as the 12th busiest in the world. On 11 October this year we achieved 1,004 movements in Sydney in a day. This was the busiest day since the 2000 Olympics.

I wanted to touch very briefly on the OneSKY Australia project. That is the replacement of the national air traffic control system which we are carrying out jointly with Defence, with Airservices being the lead procurement agency. The tenders have closed and we have commenced evaluation of those tenders.

CHAIR: This was to be a brief opening statement.

Ms Staib : I just want to say one thing about our finance and then I will conclude. I am pleased to report that our revenues for the financial year 2012-13 grew by 6.4 per cent to $955 million. Our operating profit after tax was $63.1 million, and we delivered in the last financial year a dividend to government of $21 million. With that, I will conclude.

CHAIR: That was not too bad. When the alerts went off, did both climb or did one go down and one go up?

Ms Staib : One descended, at the instruction of the air traffic controller; the other ascended in response to the traffic alert.

Senator EDWARDS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F225307%22;quer ytype=;rec=0)Did you say the alert went off in the plane?
Ms Staib : There are two alerts. One goes off in our system, the air services system, in front of the air traffic controller. There is another alert in the—

CHAIR: So the air traffic controller gave permission? It was turbulent weather or something, was it?

Ms Staib : No. Our study showed that the weather was not a factor.

CHAIR: So why did he get permission to go down?

Ms Staib : Can you say that again, please?

CHAIR: The air traffic controller gave one plane permission to go up or go down, which put them into—

Ms Staib : What happened was that the pilot requested to ascend.

CHAIR: For any good reason?

Ms Staib : I do not know.

CHAIR: I have one final question. Was the guy who was doing the piloting in the right seat or the left seat?

Ms Staib : I do not know.

CHAIR: Those are all the things you will find out, though?

Mr Hood : If I could answer, the ATSB is investigating this particular incident. So all of those factors in relation to what happened in the cockpit will come out in that. :D:D
And for more on the ASA inquisitorial visit here..:ok:: Airservices Australia (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F1f4a327 c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F1f 4a327c-3a86-4515-9374-f9c0518e91ae%2F0000%22)

Kharon

21st Nov 2013, 18:13

Sarcs # 62- (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports-4.html#post8164398) "hmm Minister perhaps a slight adjustment to the TSI Act could be warranted here??" The TSI Act and the CASA Enforcement manual both have ferocious powers against the hapless offender at the front end. But I wonder about how the 'back end' (so to speak) is policed. The Pel Air inquiry Senators obviously want to eliminate the possibility of a TSI breach from the equation, as they must (No, being in Montreal is not an alibi). But were it not for the inquiry, the notion of TSI breach would not have come to light, nor would the twin daemons of collusion and corruption be hovering about the trough.

It's only when the prospect arises that thoughts of dodgy doings occur. We should, in a better world, be able to trust implicitly the integrity of the body charged with 'using' such powerful weapons, sadly appears the prospect that we cannot. The Enforcement protocols are the same, a two edged sword, but who monitors the application of those rules and ensures that they apply equally to both sides.

It's certainly not the ICC. (Anyway, the fair Elizabeth has gone to grapple with Customs and Excise). It's certainly not the "Board"; and the resident legal eagle has enough on his plate just cleaning up the mess, metaphorically putting out fires and burying the bodies (hell of a job). So then, just who can we rely on to ensure that when great powers are used, they are used transparently, fairly and in the best traditions of probity.

I know – back to my knitting, the breezes in the corridors of power are not the business of a humble ferryman. But I do expect to be busy shortly.

Sarcs

22nd Nov 2013, 23:29

I'm sure their are many within the ranks of ASA (especially those on the coalface) that have reserved feelings about their CEO. Some of which is totally justified given the recent history of spotlighted workplace and executive/middle management issues.

However, outstanding issues aside, IMO it was totally refreshing to see the Staib front foot approach, ably supported by Hood, at last Monday's Senate Estimates hearing. Stark contrast to the arrogant, 'nothing to see here', defensive diatribe deployed by the Angry Man/GWM politburo..:ugh:

In Ms Staib's opening statement (post #1648) she doesn't beat around the bush or get defensive about a very public interest topic (that the Senators were bound to have questioned ASA over anyway).:D

The chalk:

Instead Ms Staib draws attention to the significant safety incident, gives a full and frank summary, then gives assurances that ASA is treating the matter very seriously. Finally Ms Staib outlines a ASA MAP to proactively address the safety risk implications that fall within the ASA responsibilities in regards to this incident. Ms Staib : In response to this incident I have established a task force to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, air space design, training and human performance. The task force is led by an air traffic controller who is reporting directly to me. {Note: Detractors aside there is a lot to admire about the positive (proactive) management style that Ms Staib appears to be deploying...:D}

The cheese (mouldy Swiss variety):

Enter stage left ozfuscation Fort Fumble style and at the tailend of Senator Fawcett's questioning on the Barrier destruction:rolleyes::Mr McCormick : Yes, we will take that on notice and provide you with all the documentation we can. I am cognizant that the committee had a discussion earlier today with Mr Mrdak about FOI versus committee requests, and we acknowledge that anything we give to you will be in confidence. We will do our utmost to give you anything we have available on that, and we will certainly find the reports you refer to and the recommendation paperwork that came to me which led to the serious and imminent risk decision. Is it satisfactory that we go up to that decision point? And from Kharon's post and in context of the PelAir government reply:Mr McCormick: I acknowledge your request, Senator, and we will take it on notice and check the legal advice. If it concurs with what we have heard today then we certainly will provide it.

Senator XENOPHON: What has legal advice got to do with it? Hmm..all about covering backsides and playing games with potentially damning information that might shine a light into some deep, dark crevasses in the FF warren..:ugh:

On a final note and relevant to this post, it is good to see the MMSM, like the inestimable Ms Staib, are doing their job objectively (for a change) and reporting some of the real issues that matter to the aviation industry..:D. Here SC gives credit where IMO credit is due :ok::
Taskforce digs deeper into Qantas near miss (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/taskforce-digs-deeper-into-qantas-near-miss/story-e6frg95x-1226765573817#mm-premium)

AIRSERVICES Australia has set up a taskforce into the circumstances behind an incident where two Qantas jets flying in opposite directions got close enough to activate a traffic collision-avoidance system alert.

The incident near Adelaide generated intense media coverage, speculating the two jets were within seconds of colliding. However, it turned out they were on offset reciprocal tracks and the closest they came to each other was 700ft vertically and 1.6 nautical miles laterally.

The separation breach occurred in en route space when one aircraft requested a change in altitude and was given clearance to climb while the jets were too close to each other.

The breach generated a short-term conflict alert at Airservices and prompted the controller to immediately cancel the clearance to climb and ordered the aircraft to descend while the other aircraft climbed in response to a TCAS resolution advisory.

Airservices chief executive Margaret Staib said the incident showed human error could sometimes occur in a complex system. "In response to this incident, I have established a taskforce to undertake a focused review to understand and address the factors which may have contributed to this incident. We are looking at four areas: technology, airspace design, training and human performance. The taskforce is led by an air-traffic controller who is reporting directly to me."

Ms Staib told a Senate estimates committee this week that aviation growth continued to be the most strategic challenge faced by Airservices, with the Melbourne-Sydney route listed as the second busiest air corridor in the world in terms of aircraft movements and Sydney-Brisbane the 12th busiest.

"On October 11 this year we achieved 1004 movements in Sydney in a day. This was the busiest day since the 2000 Olympics."

On the OneSky Australia project set to replace the existing national air-traffic control system with joint systems with the Defence Department, Ms Staib said tenders had closed and were being evaluated.

She was asked by South Australian senator Nick Xenophon about the scathing Civil Aviation safety Authority report that found there were 233 non-compliance notices between May 2003 and June last year.

The report made 35 proposals, about 20 aimed at management problems, in areas such as staffing levels, air-traffic control training, traffic information broadcast by aircraft (TIBA) incidents and the ability to provide air-traffic services. Senator Xenophon said it made disturbing reading and as a passenger he had a vested interest in what had been done to address the report.

Ms Staib said she received the report about a week after starting her job at Airservices and was also "very concerned about the report".

"Some of the detail in the analysis one could argue with, but I took the approach that the recommendations certainly could not be argued with," she said.

The Airservices chief said she implemented a plan to address the recommendations and all but one, the introduction of the Metron traffic flow software at Melbourne Airport, were complete.

She said a Nav Canada review found Airservices' staffing and rostering was sound and that it had an appropriate number of air-traffic controllers to provide the service. But it also said the way Airservices employed its workforce could be improved.

:D:D

Sarcs

28th Nov 2013, 05:54

While the TASRR initiative, on the thread with that name is debated, derided, deflated , dessicated etc..etc let us not forget that we still have the PelAir report to be responded to.:uhoh:

Like Albo's GWEP did with the Pilot training inquiry, let's not allow the Truss ASRR white wash the 26 recommendations of the PelAir inquiry. The TASRR barely covers off on one recommendation (i.e. recommendation 13) and only smears the edges of several more. The PelAir recommendations are almost solely designed to return reason to the ATSB, get them back on track to be once again amongst the world leaders of transport safety investigation and to get them out from under the evil Empire's shadow of pending doom and decimation as an effective safety watchdog...:ugh:

So a couple of excerpts from the recent Senate Supp Estimates:
CASA inquisition:

Senator XENOPHON: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Perhaps I will ask the secretary. Given the communication that was sent from CASA to the department what difficulty would there be for the department and CASA to provide us with a copy of CASA's response?

Mr Mrdak : The minister is currently finalising his consideration of a response to the Senate inquiry. I will take that on notice. I do not think there is an issue in principle but I would need to take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)For instance,—I am not saying this would be the case—if the majority of this committee was minded to ask for that response at some stage, whether it waits for the minister's response to the Senate inquiry with recommendations, you do not see any particular difficulty with that as a matter of principle?

Mr Mrdak : Without pre-empting the minister's consideration of the matter, we have put an extensive amount of material and a draft response to successive ministers. Without prejudicing that process I will take that on notice.

& this....
Senator XENOPHON: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I just wanted to ask you, Mr Mrdak and the minister, about the Senate report Aviation accident investigations of May 2013, otherwise known as the Pel-Air report. That report contained a number of quite scathing findings both in relation to CASA and the ATSB, in particular the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB, about his competence in the handling of that investigation. It raised a number of serious issues in terms of the exchange of information between the two agencies and whether that, in fact, compromised or could potentially compromise air safety. Can the minister indicate—you may not need to take this on notice—when the government will be responding to quite a damning report that was unanimous in its findings across any party lines about—

Senator Sinodinos: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fbv7%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)My advice was we would respond before the end of the year. Are you aware that last week the minister also released the terms of reference and members for an international panel to undertake a fairly comprehensive review into aviation safety regulations in Australia?

And finally after Mrdak dumps Albo in the pooh:
Mr Mrdak : Following our conversation at the 29 May estimates, I provided advice to the minister on 5 June 2013.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?

Mr Mrdak : It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.

{Query: I wonder if the committee could get a copy of the Dept previous/present Minister advice & options for handling of the Senate inquiry report}

Senator FAWCETT: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?

Mr Mrdak : It certainly drew to the minister's attention the findings of the Senate committee report.

So maybe the 4Ms (Minister, Mrdak, McScreamer & mi..mi..mi..Beaker) are all hoping the PelAir report can be lost in the flotsam of the TASRR, to be soon a small insignificant speck on the horizon??:=:= However as a fully-fledged four bar member of the IOS I am here to inform them that it is not going to happen!!:E

Note1: Perhaps Truss should be seeing his response as a test case to see how fair dinkum he is and to provide confidence that the TASRR is not just another smokescreen of government obfuscation??? :{

Note2: For further amusement it would appear that we will be soon privy to both the ATSBeaker and FF response, criticism and attempted whitewash of the PA report...I look fwd to documenting that on here..:ok:

Kharon

28th Nov 2013, 18:53

Fair comment Sarcs, the game has gone on long enough, time for a penalty shoot out. Winner take all. Lockhart was buried many years ago but it never really went away. Meanwhile the IOS has used the time and worked out how to play this game. There is hope that this Senate committee will not disappoint. Somehow I just can't see them strolling off the pitch humiliated and embarrassed by a bunch of clerks. Nope, no way; that's a good team out there, lets hope they all keep shooting straight.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Kharon

7th Dec 2013, 01:13

The curious, orphan - FOI-EF 12-8481 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-8481.pdf), - is proving to be quite 'a three pipe problem'. It is curious because:-

It emanates from the then DoIT. The response time from Beaker was 23 minutes (a personal best).

It never saw the light of day in the Pel Air inquiry. But someone, presumably associated with calling the inquiry on, requested a whole raft of associated correspondence documents, this being the only one to escape. It escaped the mass cull under S47 F, being the only one released for the requested period. Further time records were broken by the incredibly short length of time it took to find and analyse the three years of correspondence requested, process elimination protocols, edit the volume, decide to claim sanctuary under S 47, provide a response; and then top it all off by setting a new, world best time to get it onto the FOI disclosure log. Wow.

Aye, it's a puzzle all right; it may go some way to explaining why NX dragged the Information Commissioner into play. So to the questions:-

Was there a serious game of push and shove in the schoolyard going on?

Was Pel Air just being used as a football in serious points scoring manoeuvre and the inquiry was simply never, ever expected to go the distance it did ?

Why was the DAS and other addressees responses not provided in the package?

What sort of truth is it that makes taking the shellacking dished out by the Senate a better proposition than having "it" exposed?

And yes, I am now officially curious. The cock up barrow can only be pushed so far. Clues ? Skeletons ? – anyone????? -.

Sarcs

7th Dec 2013, 22:06

Just to fill in a few gaps with back filler before the cricket starts....:rolleyes:

Kharon:Aye, it's a puzzle all right; it may go some way to explaining why NX dragged the Information Commissioner into play. So to the questions:-

Was there a serious game of push and shove in the schoolyard going on?

Was Pel Air just being used as a football in serious points scoring manoeuvre and the inquiry was simply never, ever expected to go the distance it did ?

Why was the DAS and other addressees responses not provided in the package?

What sort of truth is it that makes taking the shellacking dished out by the Senate a better proposition than having "it" exposed? Yes it is a puzzle and one that on the face of it is quite bizarre...:confused: However when did the schoolyard bully wars ever really make sense when we were all growing up??:(

Anyway back to filling in the gaps while the missus slumbers...:zzz:

To my mind it has always been in the timing, so let's start with the infamous email from DoIT with Beaker's {dobber:ugh:} email reply comment...("with the exception of anonymous rumour sites and some tendentious bloggers"...:yuk:), was first put up on FF's disclosure log on the 5th November 2012, see here: 5 November 2012 EF12/8481 Documents relating to correspondence between specified persons relating to Pel-Air Aviation, the accident or investigation from November 2009 to present (http://www.pprune.org/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-8481.pdf) (166KB) Section 47F Comment: We can only guess at who "specified persons" were but otherwise the original FOI request (presumably from NX) seems pretty straight forward so why the attempted cover-up by FF using section 47F (see below) of the FOI Act? One would have to assume that there was much more correspondence than that one email? Hmm...I also wonder if a DoIT identity was on the list of specified persons?? If not I find it very hard to imagine that DoIT, as a 3rd party to the FOI request, would approve for that email request to be released and subsequently published on the FF disclosure log...very 'passing strange'??:confused::confused:

Oh well onwards and err..backfilling on the timeline of intrigue..:rolleyes:

Albo's senior adviser from DoIT refers to a "motion" by NX but as we all know the calling of the AAI inquiry was made the next day (13th September 2012 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F9cab25e9-f789-48e4-87b6-0d4134c2c124%2F0041;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F9cab2 5e9-f789-48e4-87b6-0d4134c2c124%2F0000%22)). When the SA says that..."We are opposing this motion"... he is simply referring to Albo and the former governments minions in the Senate and the motion by Sen X was in NOTICES (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff502bfd4-d8d6-47d0-9876-bc76488b1b81%2F0064;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ff502b fd4-d8d6-47d0-9876-bc76488b1b81%2F0000%22) (12/09/2012):
Senator Xenophon to move:
That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
(a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island airport on 18 November 2009;
(b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
(c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in a timely manner; and
(d) any related matters.

Hmm...there was not a lot of opposition to NX's motion was there??:hmm: What I find disturbing is that DoIT was so submissive of the Senator's call for inquiry and was quite prepared to kibosh the issue and go into cover-up mode on a matter that really should have had little direct impact on the department.:ugh: Even more disturbing is the fact that such proposed actions by DoIT would appear to be in direct conflict with Albo's mantra at the time that..."aviation safety is my number one priority"!:=

Hmm...all quite bizarre and a truly strange puzzle to mull over while watching the cricket.."go Davey get your ton mate!":ok:..it seems that DJ, MQ, BA and NX (at the time) quite unwittingly stepped into a schoolyard brawl, a brawl that is still a long way from being sorted and has very little to do with AVIATION SAFETY...:mad:..FFS!
Public interest conditional exemptions--personal privacy
General rule
(1) A document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) is conditionally exempt (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#conditionally_exempt) if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#personal_information) information (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#personal_information) about any person (including a deceased person).
(2) In determining whether the disclosure of the document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#personal_information), an agency (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#agency) or Minister (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#minister) must have regard to the following matters:
(a) the extent to which the information is well known;
(b) whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document);
(c) the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources;
(d) any other matters that the agency (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#agency) or Minister (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#minister) considers relevant.
(3) Subject to subsection (5), subsection (1) does not have effect in relation to a request (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#request) by a person for access to a document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) by reason only of the inclusion in the document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) of matter relating to that person.
Access given to qualified person (http://www.pprune.org/s47f.html#qualified_person) instead
(4) Subsection (5) applies if:
(a) a request (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#request) is made to an agency (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#agency) or Minister (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#minister) for access to a document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) of the agency (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#agency), or an official document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) of the Minister (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#minister), that contains information concerning the applicant (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#applicant), being information that was provided by a qualified person (http://www.pprune.org/s47f.html#qualified_person) acting in his or her capacity as a qualified person (http://www.pprune.org/s47f.html#qualified_person); and
(b) it appears to the principal officer (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#principal_officer) of the agency (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#agency) or to the Minister (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#minister) (as the case may be) that the disclosure of the information to the applicant (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#applicant) might be detrimental to the applicant (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#applicant)'s physical or mental health, or well-being.
(5) The principal officer (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#principal_officer) or Minister (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#minister) may, if access to the document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) would otherwise be given to the applicant (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#applicant), direct that access to the document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document), so far as it contains that information, is not to be given to the applicant (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#applicant) but is to be given instead to a qualified person (http://www.pprune.org/s47f.html#qualified_person) who:
(a) carries on the same occupation, of a kind mentioned in the definition of qualified person (http://www.pprune.org/s47f.html#qualified_person) in subsection (7), as the first-mentioned qualified person (http://www.pprune.org/s47f.html#qualified_person); and
(b) is to be nominated by the applicant (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#applicant).
(6) The powers and functions of the principal (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#principal_officer) officer (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#principal_officer) of an agency (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#agency) under this section may be exercised by an officer (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#officer) of the agency (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#agency) acting within his or her scope of authority in accordance with arrangements referred to in section 23. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/foia1982222/s23.html)
(7) In this section:
"qualified person" means a person who carries on, and is entitled to carry on, an occupation that involves the provision of care for the physical or mental health of people or for their well-being, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes any of the following:
(a) a medical practitioner;
(b) a psychiatrist;
(c) a psychologist;
(d) a counsellor;
(e) a social worker.
Note: Access must generally be given to a conditionally exempt (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#conditionally_exempt) document (http://www.pprune.org/s4.html#document) unless it would be contrary to the public interest (see section 11A). (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/foia1982222/s11a.html)

Comment: Think we now all know why NX called on the IC to appear, he was quite obviously severely pissed that his perfectly reasonable FOI request was obfuscated by FF and their use of section 47F. In the end the obfuscation mattered for naught as it all came out in a flood in the Senate confessional box!:ok:

Kharon

8th Dec 2013, 18:59

Cheers Sarcs – now the big question can the 'worms back into the can' team muzzle Fawcett, Hefferan etc. through party lines. I expect NX will keep hammering away, perhaps Stearle will run with Xenophon (even if just to annoy and score points off the LNP cop out). I expect time will tell as the good work done is diminished by time, overshadowed by disinterest and industry keeps bending over, accepting the crumbs dropped from the masters table.

So many worms, so little time. Insert Creamy's (now legendary) Chook noises.

Sarcs

8th Dec 2013, 21:14

Note: HOP abbreviation for 'Head of Panel'

Compliments of the MMSM:
Safety panel no place for rage: David Forsyth

INDUSTRY players making submissions to the federal government's review on aviation safety regulation need to leave the vitriol at home and respond constructively, panel chairman David Forsyth warns.

In an exclusive interview with The Australian, Mr Forsyth also advised people to be patient about airing their views during the next five months of the inquiry.

Submissions open today and the panel is expecting a similar number to the roughly 300 made to Labor's aviation white paper.

Mr Forsyth and fellow panel members Roger Whitefield and Don Spruston have been poring over previous reports on the industry and will kick off the investigations in Australia next week when they visit major airlines and general aviation airports in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

But the chairman emphasised this would be just the start to a long process that would take shape with a visiting program once submissions had closed on January 31.

"We will get to other people and particularly we encourage people to put submissions in," Mr Forsyth said. "The better their submissions, the more likely we're going to be talking to them at some point and expand on what they've put in their submissions.

"The submissions are important, and I think February and March and possibly some of April we're going to be pretty busy talking to people."
Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss announced the review last month as a systematic and strategic examination of how well Australia's regulatory system was positioned globally.

Mr Truss said yesterday the aim was to make sure Australia remained at the forefront of aviation safety. "The general and regional aviation sectors, in particular, have told the government they are concerned about the costs of regulatory compliance and how our regulatory system compares to other countries.

"This review will place us in a strong position to ensure our aviation safety standards remain up to the challenge of meeting the predicted expansion of aviation over the next 20 years."

The committee on Monday and Tuesday will visit Canberra to meet departmental officials as well as those from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia.

They will be in Sydney on Wednesday, Adelaide on Thursday and Melbourne on Friday, when they will meet operators as well as visit Bankstown, Parafield and Moorabbin airports.

Mr Forsyth said the committee would aim to finish a draft report by the end of April so it could submit the final document to Mr Truss before the end of May.

"That's our timeframe and at this stage, although it's early days, we're hopeful of sticking to it."

He said the panel was open to anything industry players wanted to tell it; however, Mr Truss had been clear in the terms of reference that he wanted a strategic review that did not re-examine investigations or look at individual complaints.

The investigation would be in three major parts. "The first bit is the relationship between the agencies, which (Russell) Miller had a look at in 2007, and clearly there are still some questions surrounding the relationship, particularly between CASA and the ATSB," Mr Forsyth said.
"So we'll be having a bit of a look at that.

"The second part, which is a fair bit of work, I think, is to look at the regulatory reform program.

"We've already had a few people give us some interesting leads about how that could be improved, so we're going to be looking at that fairly early in the piece.

"There's lots of things: the way the regs are put together, the way they're written and the issue of why it takes a long time in the consultation program and so forth.

"And that regulatory review thing has been going on for 20 years; it's a bit of a saga.

"The third main plank is CASA's audit and surveillance program of industry. And that and the second piece is where a lot of the vitriol is."

He said he understood some smaller operators were particularly cranky about the way CASA operated, but that the panel was not a witch-hunt and he would be seeking CASA's viewpoint.

"As with all of these things there's never any one fault," he said. "When you've got a relationship breakdown it takes at least two and sometimes three, so it will be interesting to hear both sides of it."

Admitting that managing the review would need "a fair bit of diplomacy", he said people would need to recognise that the panel was attempting to try and improve the situation. Being vitriolic about CASA or other players was not going to be seen as being particularly helpful.

"The panel obviously wants to get to the meat of these things and deal with it and maybe look at some options for improvement," he said "It isn't here to sit down to hear people rant and rave so people need to be measured in the way they put their responses together."

Commenting on his high-powered panel, the Qantas engineering veteran, chair of Safeskies Australia and former Airservices chair said his fellow panellists would be available to provide valuable insights into the Australian industry.

Mr Spruston is a former director-general of civil aviation at Transport Canada as well as an ex-director general of the International Business Aviation Council. Mr Whitefield is a former head of safety at British Airways, a former UK Civil Aviation Authority board member and was a safety advisor to Qantas.

Both men are pilots.

"I think it should be a good panel," Mr Forsyth said. "I've spoken to them both on the phone a few times and they're both very knowledgeable guys and will be able to give us that litmus test or benchmarking, if you want to call it that, of the regulatory situation here and the agency situation here coppered to at least two other jurisdictions. So I think that will be very helpful." From 10 o'clock today the true 'rules of engagement' should start to be sorted :rolleyes::
RRAT Committee Meetings: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2920c44d-a6eb-4db5-99ca-95422bf3aa7c%2F0066;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2920c 44d-a6eb-4db5-99ca-95422bf3aa7c%2F0000%22)

Senator McEWEN (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5e%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)(South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:39): At the request of Senator Sterle, I move:
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to meet during the sittings of the Senate for private briefings, as follows:
(a) on Monday, 9 December 2013, from 10 am; and
(b) on Tuesday, 10 December 2013, from 4 pm.
Question agreed to. After that, coupled with the government response to the PelAir report, the 'chook shed' battle lines will be officially drawn and we will either be resorting to civilized fowlomacy or a guerilla cockfight!:E

Media brief NX (Chicken Little) scenario one:

Chicken Little: "Today is a new day, today is a new day...":ok:

Media brief NX scenario two:

Chicken Little: [repeated line] "The sky is falling!":ugh:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78JLAaiBhF0

Kharon

9th Dec 2013, 19:10

Interesting study is journalist and tendentious blogger Mr. Farmer (No not calendar one, 'tuther one). Before the great white elephant paper disappointment following the colossal industry effort for reform in 2008, he published several very good articles. The extracts from the one below (Our air traffic control insider writes: Jul 14, 2008 12:00AM) was typical, he has been relatively quiet since then on matters aeronautical. Probably same as the rest of those who contributed in good faith, only to see their efforts rewarded with the Albo, soft white paper elephant – disgusted. Now we have the vicars tea party scene from the Forsyth saga to look forward to. Are we ever to hear the minuscule response to Pel Air?, may be Barnaby Joyce could deliver it – maiden speech and all that??

It would appear that the first independent review of TIBA from an ATC point of view has concluded that TIBA is not as safe as it would appear on paper. Well, we at the “coal face” are shocked. Shocked that all it took was one simple visit to work out what the controllers have been saying has substance. Where have CASA been? 300+ closures/reductions in the year and they finally take a look after media pressure. CASA is a joke.

Bruce Byron stated last week that he didn’t want to hear about controller shortages next year and appears to have given the CEO of ASA, Greg Russell, an ultimatum; Bruce, tip for you, we aren’t 19 short we are 75 short. We are going to lose 20-odd before Christmas, so the 35 people currently being trained, assuming that they all get a licence (which they won’t) will still leave us 60 Short; I guess that’s only 4 short under the fuzzy maths that is being used now by the ASA executive. Bruce, it takes 18 months from off the street to getting a licence, add six months for recruitment.
We are in a heap of pain — and there is much more to come.

When “Big Tony” (the Minister) takes his broom out, maybe Bruce Byron should go too along with Greg Russell and the ASA Board; it’s a joke that a first world nation has less ability than most 3rd world nations relating to air traffic control coverage.

Great vintage was 2008 and can only improve with time.

Sarcs

10th Dec 2013, 04:56

Dick Farmer (of the Crikey variety:E):When “Big Tony” (the Minister) takes his broom out, maybe Bruce Byron should go too along with Greg Russell and the ASA Board; it’s a joke that a first world nation has less ability than most 3rd world nations relating to air traffic control coverage. Hmm..wasn't one Mr Forthright from the TASRR panel on the ASA board back then while being the Chair on Safeskies??

So let's see Byron went, Russell eventually went but what happened to the ASA board??:rolleyes:

And Safeskies well...??:confused: Taking a look at some of the presentations from 2011 (if you can bear it..:yuk: :yuk:) you will see some of the usual suspects...

Safeskies 2011 webcast (http://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Catalog/catalogs/safeskies2011/?state=2Ltg8x3hd2JUQH5nOaGW)

You'll see Beaker tripping the light fantastic with his beyond all sensible reason mantra...:ugh: ...coupla of quotes..:oh:

..."Don't get me wrong: we pass information from all the occurrence reports we receive to CASA on a daily basis and this informs their regulatory scrutiny of the system of safety. That's as it should be. My point is more that the concepts of just culture are embedded in the overall system of safety and how roles are allocated within it..."

&

..."We're getting better at putting our investigative attention where it should be, at scoping our investigations and completing them more quickly without reducing quality. And we're heading towards a sustainable level of investigation activity - and some reasonable prospect of giving each significant occurrence the attention it deserves..."

& the first signs of the 'Beyond reason' methodology..:*:

.."While we issued recommendations, the key point here is that there is no single party that is able or can be held to account for fixing a set of issues that start with design and certification, move through operator-specific configuration decisions to maintenance procedures and their oversight and extend to flight training and procedures.

The no-blame investigator can specify the problem, but we need to find better ways of getting all the relevant parties alerted to the issue and active in resolving it. We've got to get beyond recommendations to communicating safety issues in a compelling way...."

The current DAS surprisingly looked a bit like a roo in the headlights but he stuck to the task and prattled on about the introduction and safety advantages of new technology..(GNSS/ADSB etc), UAVs and interestingly enough the GA Task Force...:confused::confused:..err a coupla quotes:

"In recognition of the significant changes and challenges facing the general aviation sector in Australia, today and in the future, CASA has established a General Aviation Task Force to review regulatory issues affecting activities and participants within the GA Sector..."

&

"The task force’s engagement with the industry is intended to complement and supplement CASA’s existing consultative and outreach mechanisms, not to supplant or supersede those activities..."

As for Mr Professional Chair well the jury is still out (till at least May 2014) but he certainly makes an excellent MC..:ok:

This year's safeskies conference has yet to publish key note speeches etc but it is interesting to look at who made presentations (besides the usual suspects..:E), see here: Safeskies 2013 Speakers (http://safeskies2013.com/SPEAKERS/?IntCatId=46)

On the 'Safe to report to us', PP article this quote obviously comes from an IOS bored member (probably the Chair would be my bet..:D):
A cynical viewer from the industry whose views we respect, isn’t so sure:

“Well, we’ll see. The Panel acknowledges that all the submissions including confidential submissions may be made available to ‘interested government departments and government instrumentalities under certain circumstances.’ I personally think [CASA] are so thick-skinned, and so full of the ‘we’re the authority, so you can all get lost’ attitude, that they won’t care how open it is, because it will never get to the politicians and the general public in a way that will say ‘this is corrupt conduct.’ There are subtle ways they can shaft even somebody who’s made a genuine submission and set out all sorts of genuine and provable problems, but CASA can still just keep doing what they’ve done before: ‘Oh! This bloke’s got such a problem that we’d better conduct a special audit,’ and we all know that a lot of his problems are actually found in a special audit and draconian limitations put on his business. That’s the real problem the panel faces.”
Got my vote at the next AGM...

Question Mr PC..what about a couple of public hearings in the mix??

Maybe the Senate Committee could facilitate that? After all R 13 suggested..

..."The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes...."

That way people who feel they need confidentiality will get it by being able to give evidence 'in camera'...just a thought??:confused: Hate to think we would have to revisit R13 at a later date just to salvage the integrity of the Minister...now that would be a waste!:=

aroa

10th Dec 2013, 07:30

the GA Task Force gets a mention. A few Qs....
Is still going? did it produce a "report"? How many man hours dollars involved.
Is it a secret?

Or is it like so many other CAsa upchucks.....fades away to nothing.?

Any news?

Sarcs

13th Dec 2013, 00:27

Ben's latest brings the spotlight back on the matter of the Govt response to PelAir report..tick bloody tock! :ugh::ATSB chopper emergency inquiry contradicts Pel-Air report

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Dec 13, 2013 10:24AM | EMAIL | PRINT (http://javascript<b></b>:window.print();)

This is another reminder to the Minister for Transport, Warren Truss, that the two aviation authorities for which he is now responsible did not carry out their duties according to law, or fairly, and have left in place a Pel-Air crash report that is an embarrassment to Australia and detracts from its reputation for air safety oversight and administration.

The ATSB has contradicted its decision making in the case of the Pel-Air crash in 2009 near Norfolk Island in a final report just released into an incident involving a helicopter at Barrow Island, WA, in February this year.

The Barrow Island incident which can be studied here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-034.aspx#.Uqj1sr73yWE.twitter) involved a night training flight in a Super Puma whose pilots were mislead by a weather forecast that was not amended when conditions deteriorated.

The Super Puma was left without sufficient fuel to land at an alternative location, but was able to return safely to its base with less than legal fuel reserves remaining.

The notorious Pel-Air crash involved an air ambulance flight that flew past its point of no return to alternative runways between Apia and Norfolk Island when the weather deteriorated so badly that the captain ditched it in the sea in the dark, where all six people on board were eventually rescue by a fishing boat.

A Senate inquiry into the ATSB handling of that crash investigation discovered that CASA had withheld from the investigator documents that showed the crash could have been avoided had it carried out its duties of oversight over Pel-Air.

The ATSB also totally discounted the relevance of the weather information provided to the Pel-Air flight as it approached Norfolk Island to refuel, and refused to recover the data recorder from the wreckage, which is recoverable for the sea floor where it remains to this day.

Instead, the testimony given to the Senate committee into air accident investigations indicated that the ATSB and CASA conspired to frame the blame for the crash entirely on the pilot whose decision making and skills saved all on board, despite flying a jet that Pel-Air ought never have deployed on the mission it was undertaking, under inadequate CASA rules that persist to this day.

Comment This is another reminder to the Minister for Transport, Warren Truss, that the two aviation authorities for which he is now responsible did not carry out their duties according to law, or fairly, and have left in place a Pel-Air crash report that is an embarrassment to Australia and detracts from its reputation for air safety oversight and administration.
There is a compelling case, added to by the Super Puma report, for the Pel-Air report to be set aside and redone. There is also a case, based on the testimony given to the Senate by the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan, and the Director of Air Safety for CASA, John McCormick, to be variously censured or terminated for what they admitted to in those proceedings.

The all party committee which wrote the Air Accident Investigations report included a detailed account of its reasons for not having confidence in the testimony given by Mr Dolan, something rare if not unprecedented in the history of Senate relations with the public service.

The issues are summarised in this report (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/11/15/pel-air-fiasco-about-to-be-dragged-back-into-spotlight/), which includes hyperlinks which will lead the curious back to additional material.

:D:D No comment needed...:ok:

Kharon

13th Dec 2013, 18:32

No wonder the Forsyth Saga cast is aimlessly wandering about the country side, desperately seeking something positive to report.

Sandilands : "[This] is another reminder to the Minister for Transport, Warren Truss, that the two aviation authorities for which he is now responsible did not carry out their duties according to law, or fairly, and have left in place a Pel-Air crash report that is an embarrassment to Australia and detracts from its reputation for air safety oversight and administration.

The stark unpleasant facts are all there; we could save a shed full of time, tears and public money if the Minuscule would get off his cushion and reply to the Senate inquiry, give the hapless review panel the Senate briefing and say (in suitably miniscule tones) start there boys and work backwards ten years; no need to look forward, nothing to see there.

A display of internal political fortitude and some respect for a financially crippled, legally hide bound, administratively embuggered industry would be a fine place to finish an otherwise lacklustre career. Or, better still, turn Barnaby loose, now that would be worth watching.

PAIN_NET

14th Dec 2013, 23:14

Two of our associates working from the testimony provided by the Information Commissioner during the recent Senate inquiry into the Pel Air began an exploration of the way in which the FoI system operates and how it may best be used. Initial enquiries began with a detailed examination three individual cases, the results prompting further examination of an additional four cases from within the group.

To expand the analysis we would like to establish contact with those within the wider community who have experienced difficulty satisfying their requests for documents made under the FoI Act. Particularly those who have been refused access to documents under the following sections :-

42. (Documents subject to legal professional privilege).

47F. (Public interest conditional exemptions—personal privacy).

47G. (Public interest conditional exemptions—business).

Should you wish to participate, please make initial contact through the Pprune PM system. Please note that we do respect your anonymity and there will be no discussion related to an event on Pprune, or any other public forum. It is intended that the final report will be of a statistical and 'generalised' nature rather than personal (case by case) analysis, primarily focused on sections 5.134 through to 5.138.

The ‘real harm (http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-archive/foi-guidelines-archive/part-5-exemptions-original#_Toc286409261)’ test

5.134 Agencies are advised not to claim exemption for a document under s 42 unless it is considered that ‘real harm’ would result from releasing the document. A ‘real harm’ criterion is not an element of the common law doctrine of legal professional privilege, but has been acknowledged within government as a relevant discretionary test to apply in FOI administration.101 The phrase ‘real harm’ distinguishes between substantial prejudice to the agency’s affairs and mere irritation, embarrassment or inconvenience to the agency. However, an agency’s decision on the ‘real harm’ criterion is not an issue that can be addressed in an IC review. Section 55L of the FOI Act provides that the Information Commissioner cannot decide that access should be given to exempt matter in a document.102. Copies or summary records

5.135 Records made by officers of an agency summarising communications which are themselves privileged also attract the privilege. Privilege may also attach to a copy of an unprivileged document if the copy was made for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice or for use in legal proceedings.103

Exception for operational information
5.136 A document is not exempt under s 42(1) by reason only of the inclusion in that document of operational information of an agency (s 42(3)).

5.137 Agencies must publish their operational information under the information publication scheme established by Part II, s 8 of the FOI Act which commenced on 1 May 2011. ‘Operational information’ is information held by an agency to assist the agency to perform or exercise its functions or powers in making decisions or recommendations affecting members of the public or any particular person or entity or class of persons or entities (s 8A). For further information see Part 13 of these Guidelines.

Severance
5.138 If only part of a document contains material that is privileged under s 42, s 22 requires disclosure of the part that is not privileged.104

P18. a.k.a. Blind Freddy.

Sarcs

15th Dec 2013, 23:04

Although Fort Fumble are not on their own in taking the Mickey Bliss when it comes to the FOI Act, they are perhaps close to the best at it and have a long and checkered history of doing so...why?? Put simply they have much to hide and protect from the prying eyes of 'Joe Citizen' and many members of the IOS.:=

The FOI Act has a relatively short history (1982) but much like the RRP it is very much convoluted, debated, reformed...err deformed and reformed...:yuk:. So much so to actually outline a full history timeline would put most on here to sleep..:zzz:..by first session drinks on day four of the Ash's test.:ok:

Therefore let's just go back half a decade to the year 2009 where there was a Rudd government initiative, message from (former) Cabinet Secretary Senator Faulkner....

"....A key Government election commitment was to restore trust and integrity in the use of Australian Government information, and to promote greater openness and transparency.

One of the ways the Government intends to deliver on this commitment is through major reforms to the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Both in practice, and as a symbol, ‘freedom of information’ represents the pinnacle of citizens’ right to know: a legal requirement to give the Australian community access to information held by the Australian Government....

....To fulfil the rest of our election commitments the Government will later this year introduce further bills into the Parliament containing broader reforms. These bills will deliver the first substantial overhaul of the Freedom of Information Act since the Act’s inception in 1982.

Information held by the Government is a national resource and should be managed in the public interest. Access to government information increases public participation, and leads to increased scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of government activity.

Given the importance of the FOI Act in making this possible, it is essential that these proposed reforms are discussed and evaluated as widely as possible.

To this end, I am pleased to release exposure drafts of the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 and the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 for public comment...."

{Note: There were 45 FOI reform exposure draft submissions (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/79623/20100624-1009/www.dpmc.gov.au/consultation/foi_reform/submissions.html#subs), some of which are well worth a read...:cool:}

This initiative led (amongst other things) to the introduction of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), however the jury is still out on whether we are left with a better functioning and principled FOI Act as per Senator Faulkner's message??:rolleyes:

Trolling the submissions I came across one in particular (ps Thanks to the IOS member who pointed me in the right direction....:E) which is significant in light of the PAIN request: Whistleblowers Australia (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/79623/20100624-1009/www.dpmc.gov.au/consultation/foi_reform/pdfs/PDFs23.pdf) (my bold)...
"... The first problem was that the bureaucrats were given extra ordinary discretionary powers which enabled them to deny or frustrate public access to information. Exemptions were claimed because they were available, and not because they were "necessary for the protection of essential public interests".

In fact, most exemptions claimed were simply for the protection of bureaucrats, and in some cases, their political masters. Or in other words, the exemptions were persistently claimed to avoid transparency and evade accountability.
But simply claiming exemptions for those matters would highlight those accountability issues and attract attention to them. In so doing, it would actually cause questions to be focused on those particular exemptions. So the trick used by bureaucrats was to claim every exemption possible, thereby burying the specific accountability issues in a forest of other exemptions.

The second and more important problem was that there was nothing to stop bureaucrats from following this course of action. It was not an offence to wilfully and deliberately obstruct access to information which should have been provided under the act...."

And this is where it gets interesting (i.e. PAIN initiative) so hang in there...:E

"...The 1986 Brazil Direction was a direction of Cabinet. It required that “agencies are not to assert legal professional privilege unless real harm would result from disclosure of the information (see Brazil Direction). The phrase real harm distinguishes between substantial prejudice to the agency’s affairs and mere irritation, embarrassment or inconvenience to the agency.”

The direction was binding on all agencies and it remains in force (see FOI Memorandum at PMC web site).Yet it has been totally ignored by agencies since 1986. Agencies flagrantly disobeyed that direction at will. As a consequence that unchallenged disobedience has rendered impotent the powers of the Parliament, Cabinet, Ministers, and the courts and tribunals. Yet not one bureaucrat has been held to account for a breach of that lawful direction. This conduct is clearly a breach of the Code of Conduct yet no disciplinary action has been taken against any bureaucrat for breaching that code.

This is a single but powerful example of the contempt shown by bureaucrats for directions, policy statements and guidelines issued by the Government, the Cabinet and Ministers.

Because bureaucrats or agencies were never sanctioned for non compliance with lawful directions they have continued to flagrantly ignore the Objects of the Act, the FOI guidelines and Memoranda, the model litigant policy and/or the directions under the Judiciary Act.

There is no record of any bureaucrat being held to account under the Code of Conduct for abuse of process under the FOI Act. This is despite repeated complaints by the courts and the media and the public about the abuse and misuse of the FOI Act by bureaucrats.

Neither of these problems have been resolved in the Exposure Draft. Most importantly, the Information Commissioner has been denied powers to directly act against such misconduct...."

History will show that the WBA submission and recommendations (like so many other excellent, insightful, constructive, submissions in similar type consultation processes..:D), was duly ignored :ugh: by the powers to be andthe Exposure Draft was largely left untouched/ unamended. Subsequently the WBA prognosis/ prophecy, as outlined above, has come into fruition.:yuk:

In the case of Fort Fumble's obfuscation of the FOI Act, we went from loading up a train of sometimes totally irrelevant exemptions, to a case of selective interpretation of individual but still largely irrelevant FOI exemptions to thwart the possibly embarrassing release of certain FOI requested information.:ugh: How we progress..not..:{

Therefore I fully support the PAIN initiative, you have to start somewhere and S42 (LPP), S47F, S47G is as good a place as any....:ok:

{Comment: Might I suggest that 47E (see below) should be added as I came across a disturbing case where (once again) the smoke screen of the mystique of aviation safety has reared its ugly head, in this case the Information Commissioner was a victim of MOAS Syndrome...more to follow on that fairy tale}47E Public interest conditional exemptions—certain operations of
agencies
A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act
would, or could reasonably be expected to, do any of the
following:
(a) prejudice the effectiveness of procedures or methods for the
conduct of tests, examinations or audits by an agency;
(b) prejudice the attainment of the objects of particular tests,
examinations or audits conducted or to be conducted by an
agency;
(c) have a substantial adverse effect on the management or
assessment of personnel by the Commonwealth, by Norfolk
Island or by an agency;
(d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient
conduct of the operations of an agency.
Note: Access must generally be given to a conditionally exempt document
unless it would be contrary to the public interest (see section 11A).

Addendum: Link for pdf - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982:FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES (http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/FOI/Documents/Disc%20from%20PMC%20website%20info%20-%20FOI%20-%20FOI%20Memorandum%2019.pdf) (ref: Brazil Direction Appendix 2)

Kharon

16th Dec 2013, 18:01

Had a chance to coffee with P7 TOM and asked about the PAIN analysis of FOI; "not deeply involved" (evil grin) "but a couple of the others have been chipping away for a while now". Picture me sat thoughtful like, he with a half smile and a challenging eyebrow cocked. "Ok" say I "tell me you old bugger". "Not your cup of tea old son" he says, so I gives him 'the look'. "Well" says the oracle with a sigh; "seems some folk have been having problems, the Senate got about 13 truckloads of useless information and had to ask twice, with threats to get to the stuff they knew was there; a lot of the information buried or incorrectly filed". "Other folk, like the ABC were told a fee of AUD $10,000 would apply for the information they wanted, lots of other people get messed about, endless delays, extensions etc". "But, the big ticket issue is the slightly jaundiced application of the exemptions and the spin CASA can get on the regulatory ball".

So that, in a nutshell is the problem the boys are tackling. Where the analysis may best be used was not discussed, but the IC review facility was. It seems that when the hurdles of waiting, extension and fees have been cleared, and the avalanche of reasons and exemptions have been considered; if you are still unable to get the information there are a couple of options. Do what the Senate did and use your parliamentary clout, or you can seek a review.

It seems the IC review has extensive waiting lists, which in its self is interesting. But be warned - a review may not necessarily reverse a decision. All in all, it seems you can spend a lot of time waiting about and still not achieve satisfaction.

Linton Besser (http://www.icij.org/journalists/linton-besser)

FoI Review. (http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-reviews)

Quote from Besser and Department of Infrastructure and Transport: "On 1 November 2010, Mr Linton Besser applied to the Department for access to (amongst other documents) all internal audit reports undertaken by the Department during a specified period. Mr Besser added that he was seeking material ‘which examines cases of fraud, corruption or other serious cases of non-compliance or breaches of protocol, by [Department] employees and its contractors and consultants.’ He also requested that ‘any processing costs beyond the preliminary five hours are discounted on the grounds of the public interest’."And, doing a Sarcs – the words above are a passage from a Besser review, the subject, by the by, is not about acquiring the requested documents, but about how much the information will cost to gain.

The text below presents a fair example of what you may expect when and if you ever decide to have the IC review a departmental decision, affecting your business or career. It begs the question - can the regs only ever be interpreted as all aviators are proven criminals; guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Reference ‘Y’ and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AICmr 42 (12 April 2013).

Certain operations of agencies exemption (s 47E)

13. Section 47E provides that ‘[a] document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to…(d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency’.

14. The long title of the Civil Aviation Act 1998 (as was in force on 3 February 2010) provides that it is ‘[a]n Act to establish a Civil Aviation Safety Authority with functions relating to civil aviation, in particular the safety of civil aviation, and for related purposes’. The Civil Aviation Act 1988 further provides that one of the central functions of CASA is to issue certificates and licences.2

15. Regulation 5.04 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (as were in force on 3 February 2010) provides that it is a requirement of a flight crew licence (including a commercial pilot licence) that the holder of that licence has a medical certificate that is appropriate to that licence. Regulation 5.04(3) further provides that the appropriate medical certificate for a commercial pilot is a class 1 medical certificate.

16. Table 67.150 to Regulation 67.150 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (as were in force on 3 February 2010) details the criteria for a class 1 medical certificate, including a mental fitness criterion.

17. Regulation 67.265 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 further provides that the holder of a class 1 medical certificate and a flight crew licence is required to notify CASA of any medically significant condition that he or she may have where the condition would impair his or her ability to do an act authorised by the licence.

18. Regulation 67.230 provides that where CASA has concerns about whether the holder of a medical certificate continues to meet the relevant medical standard, CASA may direct the holder of the certificate to submit to examination by a medical practitioner, specialist psychiatrist or clinical psychologist.

19. In submissions to this office, the applicant argued that ‘…taking an unsolicited “complaint” from the member of the public about their perception of a pilot’s medical condition’ is neither part of CASA’s operations nor of such importance to CASA’s operations that disclosure of the complaint would have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of these operations.

20. In light of the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 mentioned above, I am satisfied that it is a function and operation of CASA to both issue licences and medical certificates and investigate possible breaches of such licences and medical certificates, whether at CASA’s initiative or following a complaint from a member of the public. I am also satisfied that it is a particular function of CASA to ensure safety of civil aviation in Australia, including by ensuring that those holding such licences and certificates are medically fit to do so.

21. In this case, I am satisfied that the complaint raised concerns about civil aviation safety by bringing into question whether the applicant had met the medical requirements of their licence.

22. I agree with CASA that disclosure of complaints about possible breaches of licence conditions could discourage others from raising legitimate public safety concerns and therefore impede CASA in both the exercise of its functions and its ability to test and respond to such concerns. I consider that this would impair CASA in the exercise of its particular function relating to the safety of civil aviation.

23. In this case, the complainant provided the information about a possible breach of the applicant’s licence conditions on the understanding that it would be used to investigate any breach but kept confidential. When providing the information to CASA, the complainant requested that the information be treated confidentially and in its acknowledgement of the complainant’s correspondence, CASA confirmed that it would treat the information confidentially.

24. I am satisfied that disclosure, under the FOI Act, of this type of information would affect the willingness of others to make similar safety-related complaints in the future. This would have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of CASA’s licencing and certification operations as it would be likely to result in safety concerns not being reported to CASA and, therefore, not being investigated by CASA. If potential air safety issues, including those related to pilot licensing and certification, are not considered and, where necessary, remedied by CASA, then CASA would not be able to fulfil its functions in relation to the safety of civil aviation.

25. Accordingly, the documents sought by the applicant are conditionally exempt under s 47E.

26. Because the document sought by the applicant is conditionally exempt under s 47E, it is not necessary for me to consider the application of s 47F (personal privacy exemption). However, I do note that, having examined an unedited copy of the document, it would not be possible to provide an edited copy of the document to the applicant without disclosing the personal information of the complainant.
TOM was right. All a bit too much for my wooden head, but there it is.

LeadSled

17th Dec 2013, 07:49

Folks,
The above discussion on the FOI, or more to the point, the bureaucratic misuse of the law, is nothing new.

Indeed, there is nothing new about the behavior of the bureaucracy in completely subverting the intent of the Senate inquiry into PelAir, or any of the many other inquiries into CASA and its predecessors, which, big and small, number more than twenty over twenty five years or so.

This including the biggest parliamentary inquiry since Federation, the Morris inquiry, which sat for over 300 sitting days.

The Rule of Law Institute and Robin Speed also receive well deserved honourable mention from time to time in these pages.

But there is nothing new, and Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the United Kingdom in the 1920s, even wrote a book about it in 1929: "The New Despotism". In fact, everything Robin Speed says about the "rule by law", as opposed to the "rule of law" is said by Hewart in the above book.

Lord Chief Justice Hewart enunciated "Hewart's law" , which, slightly paraphrased, says: "the aim and intent of the bureaucracy is to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme".

As a review of the book, The New Despotism" says:

THE NEW DESPOTISM, a book of quite exceptional importance, is, in effect, the sequel to that speech. Every citizen of this country, from the least to the greatest, is directly and personally concerned with the encroachments of bureaucracy on public life. "Very few laymen are aware of the wide difference which exists between the rights of these parties (the Crown and the subjects of the Crown) as they survive to this day under the traditions of antiquated law and practice; and still less do they realise the gross injustice not infrequently inflicted upon individuals by the harsh and unconscionable exercise of certain rights which Executive Departments enforce, and which the Courts of law are powerless to disallow. . . . The existence of the fundamentally false and unconstitutional idea that the bureaucracy are a privileged class, not amenable in their official acts to the jurisdiction of the courts, is a danger to our traditional liberties which is obvious," said *The Times* in a leading article, and it is "these wide differences" and "this danger to our traditional liberties" which the Lord Chief Justice examines and condemns.
THE NEW DESPOTISM is fully documented and deals with these vital questions in a technical as well as a popular manner.

<https://archive.org/details/LordHewart-TheNewDespotism1929>

Does all of the above sound a bit familiar ??

Tootle pip!!

PS: Hewart is also responsible for one of the most common quotes on the law, frequently misquoted as "Not only must justice be done, but must be seen to be done". The original was far stronger, " ----- but must be seen to be well and truly done">

Creampuff

17th Dec 2013, 19:33

… and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme.And what is ‘the Executive’ old chap?

It’s the government!

And successive governments have been very happy with the way in which CASA and ATSB have rendered the government’s will and caprice. For example, the regulatory and investigatory response to Pel Air was a very neat and tidy answer to some very messy political problems.

Frank Arouet

17th Dec 2013, 20:13

Perhaps should be read in the full text, you omitted "to subordinate parliament".

"the aim and intent of the bureaucracy is to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme".

Creampuff

17th Dec 2013, 22:02

I did read the full text. And, unlike some others, I understand what it means. ;)

The point of His Honour’s statement is that the bureaucracy does its best to ignore and avoid the Parliament and the Courts, preferring instead to do what pleases its political lords and masters. i.e. the executive.

The regulatory and investigative outcome of Pel Air was very pleasing to the executive. :ok:

Frank Arouet

18th Dec 2013, 02:05

Subordinate: 1. the lesser order or importance, 2. under the authority or control of another; (a subordinate functionary). 3. a person or thing that is subordinate. 4. to put in a lower rank or position. 5. to make subservient.

Ref: Collins English Dictionary. Third Edition circa 1991.

Given my Dictionary is hopelessly out of date and obviously not to be relied upon for accuracy I concede illiteracy on the understanding that the "real" and "legal" definition be applied by someone so articulate, as yourself perhaps, (or Sir Humphrey), for us mortals not privy to the legal phraseology.

But I'm not a Lawyer. (yellow smilie with band aid over mouth).

Creampuff

18th Dec 2013, 02:36

Your dictionary is correct. The word “subordinate” in the context of Leaddie’s paraphrasing of Lord Hewart’s statement is a verb, meaning to “put in a lower rank or position” or “to make subservient”.

What’s your point?

The outcome is still as I (and Lord Hewart) have described.

How do you reckon CASA and the ATSB get away with “subordinating” the Parliament? The answer is that CASA and the ATSB enjoy the protection of the executive (i.e. the Minister and his Department, and the rest of the government), while ever they don’t affect the political fortunes of the government.

Up-into-the-air

18th Dec 2013, 04:55

creamy, FF is not smart enough to do this on their own [nor the beaker] - but not the mighty mrdack.

mrdack is the best Sir Humphrey I have seen!!

You can fool some of the people some of the time, not all of the people all of the time.

Sarcs

18th Dec 2013, 05:27

From a thread drift of bureaucratic (in particular Fort Fumble..:ugh:) obfuscation of the FOI to Executive government's deliberate promotion of bureaucratic obfuscation generally??? Hmm...personally it is a bit out of the league..:confused:..of a simple knuckle-dragger :E but I'm up for it so let's bring it on! :ok:

Let's start by referring to a certain former HC Judge speech back in '97 (the Hon Justice Michael Kirby), to the Poms section of the International Commission of Jurists (http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_justice.htm). Although long winded in parts and given over 16 years past, IMO this speech should be read and analysed in context of the now long history of the RRP & the many (as Leadie refers in his post) subsequent inquiries into the administration of aviation safety in this country. All this for very little gain in improving aviation safety while decimating GA in the process..:=

Ok to Kirby's speech and a quote of relevance perhaps..:rolleyes:

.."It is true that in many things, in government, the law, in literature and sport, England has taught the nations of the world. But it also taught them the business of bureaucracy. It was a stern lesson. Its officials throughout the Empire were almost wholly uncorrupted. After the 1850s they were chosen by open, competitive examinations. They followed steady routine. They observed the rule of law, not the whim of rulers. But they also followed a regime of high secrecy. However suitable that regime of the 'Official Secrets Act' was for imperial and colonial times, it became seriously unsuitable for times in which political theory, egged on by information technology, preached that the century of the common man had arrived..."

Kirby's speech was primarily focused on the Poms, who were about to enact the FOI in Parliament. Kirby was pointing out the pitfalls, lessons learnt (so far) from the Australian experience. Hence the title of his speech..'FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS'

So to the sins, with some quotes..;)

Sin 1 Strangled at birth:
The first sin is the danger that this brave but novel idea could be strangled at birth. One of the most popular of British television exports has been Yes Prime Minister! In Australia it was said that Prime Minister Hawke and the Head of his Department, Sir Geoffrey Yeend, used to watch it together each Monday night. They were observed to laugh; but at distinctly different times. All of us have seen the way the unforgettable Paul Eddington portrayed the intermittently idealistic politician, Jim Hacker, as an occasional proponent of FOI legislation. How frequently, and comparatively easily, Sir Humphrey led him on. Only to win the last battle on grounds of supposed principle, urgent economy or the dangers of political embarrassment.
Sin 2 Retaining secrets: The second deadly sin is to pretend to FOI but to provide so many exceptions and derogations from the principle as to endanger the achievement of a real cultural change in public administration. Sin 3 Exemptions {relevant to the PAIN inquiry}:The third deadly sin consists of surrendering to too many requests for exemption from the application of FOI legislation. Sin 4 Costs and fees: The fourth deadly sin is to render access to FOI so expensive that it is effectively put beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. This is a development that is becoming of concern in Australia. The critics of the administrative reforms in Australia (of which FOI was one) tend to find ready allies in the government of the day. Sin 5 Decision-makers: A fifth deadly sin to watch is the threat of undermining the essential access to an independent decision-makers who can stand up to government and require that sensitive information be provided Sin 6 Interpretation The sixth deadly sin is one for which the judiciary, and not the politicians, may be accountable. Judges also grew up in the world of official secrets and bureaucratic elitism. Sometimes they may share the sympathies and the outlook of the Sir Humphreys of this world. In the way in which the common law often follows a course harmonious with statutory law, it is desirable that judges, in their decisions, should also embrace the culture of FOI. It is a culture which asks not why should the individual have the information sought, but rather why the individual should not - at least where the information concerns the government of that individual's country or documents in some way relating to the individual personally.Sin 7 Changing administrative culture: This brings me to the to the seventh deadly sin. This is the notion that the passage of FOI legislation is enough of itself to work the necessary revolution in the culture and attitudes of public administration. Going on Australian experience, it is not. In a series of lectures in 1994 and 1995, Sir Anthony Mason, the past Chief Justice of Australia, confessed to a doubt that a "significant change in the administrative culture" and "an improvement in the quality of administrative decision-making" had actually been achieved as a result of the administrative reforms in Australia, including FOI. Apart from anything else, if little is done to promote knowledge of the FOI facility and to enhance the citizen's view that this is a right (and not an exceptional petition), an FOI Act is unlikely to be put to general use. Hmm..multi-guess question: So was Kirby a ; (a) great sage or; (b) a prophet or maybe; (c) he carried a crystal ball in his robes..??:confused: If in doubt my pick would be; (d) none of the above!:E

Comment: Kirby is a very astute learned gentleman, who had the wisdom, experience and knowledge of many years of the vagaries of various, numerous new Acts/ Amended Acts & laws going from theory, to draft, to legislated, to becoming live laws of the land. Therefore his summary of the pitfalls of the FOI (the seven sins) still stands the test of time...well sixteen years at least..:ok:

Question: I wonder if the AG Senator Brandis has considered the potential 'can of worms' he may open by initiating last week's inquiry referred to the ALRC (reference: post #283 from RR thread (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/490723-merged-casa-regulatory-reform-15.html#post8203616))??:E

Creampuff

18th Dec 2013, 08:45

Hmm..multi-guess question: So was Kirby a ; (a) great sage or; (b) a prophet or maybe; (c) he carried a crystal ball in his robes..??Out of the alternatives you’ve nominated, the correct answer is (a).Question: I wonder if the AG Senator Brandis has considered the potential 'can of worms' he may open by initiating last week's inquiry referred to the ALRC.Wonder no more. He knows precisely what he’s doing.

Frank Arouet

18th Dec 2013, 09:08

And Truss only knows what he thinks he's doing.

I don't have a quote wrap function anymore so in answer to your question to me, "what's your point", the answer is that your education of this mortal individual only exemplifies what is wrong with CASA. It's run by Lawyers and everything is written for and by Lawyers to confuse people like me who aren't Lawyers.

That's a bit like subordinating me by the way.

No Christmas card for you mate and I'll drink the beer that I'm not giving you for a pressie. (yellow smilie with finger waving derr).

Creampuff

18th Dec 2013, 09:33

Which achieves precisely nothing.

I’m disappointed that my attempts to point the way to the only glimmer of hope are unwelcome. :( But I’m used to that…

Good luck with your crusade. :ok:

Kharon

18th Dec 2013, 19:25

Cheer up Creamy – at least you always try to make sense of the puzzles. Some of your attempts are flourishing, for example – non aligned independent Senators. When you first floated the notion it intrigued me and being a self confessed political ignoramus, I asked some not as thick to explain. It's quite a game this political lark, but once you get the blinkers off some of it at least becomes clear (sometimes).

I listened very carefully to remarks made by Sen. Fawcett during the AMROBA meeting Friday last. Then I listened twice more, once you get the cotton wool out things become much clearer. I respect Fawcett, but you can see (or hear in this case) where he's hamstrung and although he tries to show the way, he really can't push the barrow too far. The disappointing thing is realising this as a fact of political reality.

Fawcett did advocate submissions by all, even if you just grab (for example) the AMROBA offering, write a brief covering letter to the effect that their submission is 'your' submission, it seems that helps the numbers game, which appears to be an essential element. Crazy ain't it, but if you want to win, you must know how to play.

Part of the Fawcett opening remarks involved not lashing CASA but explaining 'how' dodgy legislation has affected you. Now this opens a basket of snakes; a 'he said – she said' legal argument about 'law' rather than a discussion on how bad law is being subjectively applied; or how the administrative policy hammer is used to enforce rule sets which do not remotely affect 'safety'. So good intentions once again pave the way to hell's gate.

We need the reform, we must reform the regulator and to do that, 'we' must ensure that the executive will power nerve is touched. It's a shame the review is all trussed up in party politics. It's a disgrace that the final Truss contribution to Australian aviation is dishing out the wet lettuce leaf whips with strict instructions to play nice; what a weak note to end a lacklustre career on. It's sad but true, Fawcett would have been a bloody handy asset, no doubt he'll do the best he can; but I fear Creamy has the right of it. It's the independent, non aligned or Sunny's PMC that will turn the trick. Well, let's at least try to win the first rubber, if numbers are needed then our end of the deal is to supply them.

I don't however think we should be conned into believing that no matter what, the powers of darkness will win this event; no matter how many previous disappointing games have been lost. Sure, it's just another attempted fit up, trick is to work out how to beat the buggers. "I'll get the first round in Creamy".

Frank Arouet

18th Dec 2013, 21:38

Creampuff;

The fact that we even communicate is an achievement given our interaction over a very long period. It's OK to forgive, but one never forgets. That will probably be too cryptic for most readers and I apologize for that. I drank your beer last night and mellowed to the stage whereby I will drink another of yours tonight. So you see, it achieved much. You may give some thought of sending more for me to drink. Ring me for delivery details.

Your attempts to point the way are not lost on me and I have advocated political pragmatism for many years. Indeed I have practiced to a fine art the "leaking" to opposition party's things that benefit me and my "therapy" which you so wrongly call a "crusade". Who can forget the letter from The Deputy Prime Minister of the day to CASA Chairman of the Board accusing them of loosing evidence?

If I may be so bold, and at the risk of being ridiculed, my pragmatism would extend to including The Greens as they appear to support "minority groups". A change of strategy would need to occur for them to take note as they only support radical and noisy minority groups.

Do you see the problem?

I once advocated civil disobedience at a significant GA meeting years back and all but a few laughed at me. CASA were in attention and I was talked to.

Imagine the headlines?

Age may have wearied me, yet my memory is intact and I do have much to educate other up and coming "criminals waiting to be caught". Trouble is they ask for your advice, you give it, and they do something else 180 degrees to where you steered them.

Oh well, it keeps CASA in business.

Creampuff

18th Dec 2013, 22:28

Of course the lobbying effort should include The Greens!

That’s why I keep saying “the non-major party aligned Senators”. That includes The Greens! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.

Ask all the other non-major party aligned Senators to do the same, come 1 July 2014. They’ll get chances to give the government their ‘wish-list’ as well.I listened very carefully to remarks made by Sen. Fawcett during the AMROBA meeting Friday last. Then I listened twice more, once you get the cotton wool out things become much clearer. I respect Fawcett, but you can see (or hear in this case) where he's hamstrung and although he tries to show the way, he really can't push the barrow too far. The disappointing thing is realising this as a fact of political reality.You see: Now that you’re past the denial, anger and depression phases, you’re now into the all-important realisation and renewal phases.

Politics has almost nothing to do with what’s right or wrong. It’s almost entirely about what’s expedient. Come the day that the government desperately wants something passed through the Senate, and all the non-major party aligned Senators say: “Not until substantive actions have been finalised to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry in Aviation Accident Investigation”, that’s when something substantive will happen. Until that day, forget the government. If the government cared about the recommendations, it would already have done something substantive about them.

4dogs

19th Dec 2013, 02:13

:ok: :ok: :ok:

Sarcs

19th Dec 2013, 06:28

Yes top post Creamy...:ok:
That’s why I keep saying “the non-major party aligned Senators”. That includes The Greens! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

The next time the government asks The Greens for its ‘wish-list’ in return for support for some government legislation (as has already happened with the ‘debt ceiling’), what is the risk to The Greens and how hard would it be for them to add to the list: “Finalisation of substantive actions to address the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations”? You might find this a revelation, but members of The Greens may have the smarts to work out that it’s in the public interest for those recommendations to be properly addressed.
:D:D

Speaking of Creamy's “non-major party aligned Senators” and all that?? I see that Senator X has definitely not given the game away when it comes to the PelAir report, from QONs index :ok::142 ATSB 02

XENOPHON Pel-Air (written)

It is now over four years since the ditching of VH-NGA off Norfolk Island, and nearly seven months since the committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has the ATSB formulated a response to this report?

a. If so, please provide a copy of the response provided to the Minister or department.
b. Will the ATSB be implementing any of the report’s recommendations? If so, when?
c. In particular, will the ATSB be withdrawing its report into the Pel-Air incident and conducting a further investigation?
d. Does the Chief Commissioner still maintain the ditching was the fault of the pilot, and that there were no systemic issues involved?

143 ATSB 03

XENOPHON Pel-Air

The ATSB recently completed a review of loss of separation incidents in Australia, and concluded that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame.

a. How does this compare with the CASA review of Airservices Australia, which found serious regulatory breaches and resulted in CASA revoking ASA’s ongoing approval? Isn’t this in contrast to the ATSB’s findings?
b. Given the findings of the Pel-Air report, what confidence can the Australian public have that the ATSB was thorough and rigorous in its investigation, and did not seek to mitigate any impact the investigation may have on CASA or Airservices Australia?
c. Does the ATSB acknowledge that the significant failings of the Pel-Air report, and the lack of response to those failings, puts the ATSB’s reputation at risk?

144 ATSB 04

XENOPHON Pel-Air

I note that the Canadian TSB has been commissioned to undertake an independent review of the ATSB’s reporting processes.

a. Who commissioned the review?
b. Why was the TSB chosen, and who made that choice?
c. What is the process for the review? Regardless of the "differences of opinion" and in order to support Creamy's one glimmer of hope with the NAS come July '14 IMO it is about time that the IOS put the blowtorch under one Minister Truss and held him to account on his rhetoric back in May: ...“MINISTER Anthony Albanese (swap Albo for Truss..:E) must urgently respond to the recommendations flowing from a Senate Committee investigation into a ditched Pel-Air flight off Norfolk Island in November 2009,...

...“The recommendations, handed down last Thursday by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in their Aviation Accident Investigations Report, make disturbing reading....

....“The Report raises serious issues of process that must be addressed. Minister Truss must restore public confidence in our accident investigatory bodies and deal with the concerns raised in the Inquiry as a matter of urgency...”
So Minister get on with it please??:rolleyes:

ps And if you can't handle the heat Minister maybe you should get off the pot and let Barnaby have a crack..TICK TOCK!:E

Sarcs

23rd Dec 2013, 06:21

Love the 12 days of CAsAmas by Cactusjack plus the IOS pictorial calendar for 2014!:ok: Merry CAsAmas (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/530473-merry-casamas.html#post8229419)

However on a more serious note I have some concerns :( for the DAS with more evidence of symptoms pointing to a prognosis of FIMD (Foot in Mouth disease)...:E: CASA factual corrections (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1314/infra/CASA_factual_corrections.ashx)
16 December 2013

Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan
Chair
Senate Standing Committee on Rural and
Regional Affairs and Transport
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Heffernan

Clarification of statements made at Estimates hearing on 18 November 2013

I write regarding certain statements made during the appearance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) at the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates hearing on 18 November 2013.

In response to a question from Senator Xenophon on the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 172 report into Airservices Australia, the following statements were made (at page 64 of Hansard):

Senator Xenophon: Yes, the 172 report was quite critical. lt was quite significant that you renewed ASA's license on a conditional basis. That is right, isn 't it?'
Mr McCormick: Yes.

This is-not strictly correct. I would like to clarify that, in this regard, Airservices previously held a perpetual certificate issued under Part 172 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. That is, the certificate had no expiry date. Following the Part 172 review, CASA varied the certificate by including an expiry date. lt otherwise imposed no conditions on the holder.

On another matter relating to recommendations in the Pel Air report, I advised (at page 59 of Hansard):

I do not know if anyone was more actively involved in this than myself, but we would say what that recommendation meant as to where we are today and its effect on us.But whether it is accepted or rejected is not something we recommend.

I wish to clarify the record to advise that, while the Government formulated its own responses to the recommendations, CASA did provide advice, via the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (as it then was), as to which recommendations, in CASA's view, might be accepted, which ones might be rejected, and which ones might either be accepted or rejected with certain qualifications. My advice during the Estimates hearing may have given the impression that CASA did not and would not provide explicit advice of this kind to the Minister-whereas, in fact, CASA did so, via the Department.

I apologise if my comments have been in any way misleading.

Yours sincerely

John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
Hmm..wonder why he didn't put his moniker on the Heff letter..:confused:

Maybe the DAS should get that looked at early in the New Year, I hear his PMO is something of an expert on Tourettes Syndrome and other sensitive psychological issues...:rolleyes:

Sarcs

4th Jan 2014, 01:09

Kharon post #198 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-10.html#post8245102)on TASRR thread :D:D: Apart from estimates, the Pel Air committee don't have a platform to work from and Fawcett is hobbled by party lines. That leaves NX independent to carry on the work. As Sarcs points out, even a PM had trouble getting answers, this combined with the unpardonable delay from the miniscule in responding to the Pel Air recommendations, despite some serious questions being asked of Mrdak and McComic does not auger well. Transparency, truth and resolution are already running at diminishing rate of return on the industry investment. Yesterday there was a new thread started on the GA forum that was extremely relevant to the "K" Conundrum post, it was headed Civil Aviation Order Amendment Instrument 2013 (No.1). So I went to refer to it this AM and I discovered that it has mysteriously disappeared :{...hmm..so went to history picked up the link and got the following message...

..Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator...

So that perked my natural curiosity even more :cool:?? So I went to find this amendment that the now non-existent thread was referring... COMLAW link : Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L02192/Download)- F2013L02192 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L02192/Download)
The explanatory statement is of interest....:rolleyes:

"Purpose
The purpose of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Amendment Instrument 2013 (No. 1) (the CAO amendment) is to delete from the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (the new CAO 48.1) 3 references to “4 December 2013” and insert “1 September 2014”.

This is consequent upon the registration of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Flight Crew Licensing Suite) Regulation 2013 (the date amendment regulations) on 25 November 2013.

These regulations changed from “4 December 2013”, to “1 September 2014”, the date of commencement of the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) (the licensing suite regulations).

Background
The licensing suite regulations establish a new legislative regime for flight crew licensing. To do so, the licensing suite regulations repeal Part 5 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) which contains the current legislative rules for flight crew licensing (see item 5 in Schedule 2 of the licensing suite regulations).

However, Part 5 also contains regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988, under which CASA may give directions establishing flight and duty time limitations for holders of flight crew licences. Such directions have been given in CAO Part 48 (comprising CAO 48.0, CAO 48.1, CAO 48.2, CAO 48.3 and CAO 48.4).

As a result of the date amendment regulations, the licensing suite regulations will repeal regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988 on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013), and replace it with a new and similar directions power under regulation 210A of CAR 1988. However, a new regulation 335 of CAR 1988, inserted by the licensing suite regulations will have the effect of continuing in force CAO Part 48 as if it had been made on 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013)."

All reasonable I guess, so why the skullduggery??:ugh: CAsA (yes the "s" is shrinking..:E) maybe all on hols but surely something of reasonable significance, such as a CAO 48.1 instrument amendment, could be notified via at least the t.w.i.t.t.e.r guy who still seems to be working??:confused:

I also question the veracity of this eleventh hour amendment, the cynic in me suspects that this maybe heralding a pre-emptive manoeuvre to counter the NX DM on 48.1??:=

Note: The following quote from VIPA perhaps highlights the significance of Nick's CAO 48.1 Disallowance Motion and why it could possibly be the watershed moment for the future of aviation safety regulation in 2014 (provided the Senators remain angry and united:D): New Regulations (http://www.vipa.asn.au/member/new-regulations)

The VIPA Flight Safety, Technical and Regulatory Compliance subcommittee has been looking at a number of changes in the CASA regulations over the last year. Significant rule changes are in progress at the moment that will have a significant impact on not just VIPA members but all professional pilots in Australia. Of particular concern to our profession are the changes to CAO 48, Flight and Duty times for flight crew. CASA has seemingly deliberately watered down the ICAO recommended Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARP) in this area, which has lead to a more fatiguing rule set than we currently have in CAO 48.

We are not alone in this damning assessment of the changes to CAO 48. Aus ALPA, AIPA and the Federation along with many others have all raised serious objections to the new rules. Regardless, the new rules have all but been signed into law and are waiting ratification through parliament albeit with one noted caveat. In Parliament, the legislation is subject to a motion to disallow. What this effectively means is that if a member raises objections to the new rules they will be reviewed and are then subject to ‘substantive’ change. It is our understanding that that there are members of Parliament unwilling to allow this legislation to go through Parliament unchallenged.

CASA has previously stated that the current CAO 48 is devoid of sound scientific principles to define the prescribed Flight and Duty limits cites this inadequacy to advocate for its new rule set. The new CAO 48 is supposed to be based on currently recognised and credible fatigue science. Sadly the new CAO 48.1 does not come close to satisfying the scientific principles. For example the scientific studies that ICAO relied upon to develop the SARP for FDP limits recognise that flight duty should not exceed 8 to 9 hours at the controls. The new rules routinely allow for this, which is no different to what we currently do.

Other jurisdictions around the world have adopted this ICAO SARP, which is applicable to augmented as well as unaugmented operations. Most Virgin flight crew would be well aware of the fatigue associated with 8 hours of flight time in a duty period doing return transcontinental flights. Under the new rules CASA will allow pilots to extend out to 16 hours of duty time and up to 10.5 hours of flight time.

The new FDP rules are divided into 3 tiers. (1) Basic operations for small operators, (2) Airlines with prescriptive FDP limits and (3) Airlines with no prescribed limits but a full Fatigue Risk Management System. During the consultation period for the new rules it was argued that the need for an airline to adopt an FRMS was virtually non-existent as the prescriptive limits in tier (2) were so lacking in constraint and scientific principles. Perhaps CASA designed it this way so they would not have the regulatory burden to provide oversight for such a complex system?

Should these regulations be subject to a disallowance as we expect, it may give the industry and proponents like Senator Nick Xenophon further avenue to push for meaningful changes to the new FDP rule set. VIPA FSTRC has committed to getting a seat at the table of future Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Working Groups facilitated by CASA.
Good work VIPA :D...here's hoping you make a submission to the TASRR as well...?? Meanwhile it should be every IOS member's solemn duty to throw support behind Senator X and his 48.1 DM, as it would appear to be a touchy subject in the halls of Fort Fumble...:E

Kharon

4th Jan 2014, 01:26

Sarcs, I too was puzzled by the CAO 48 thread being arbitrarily dismissed, I had hoped for an open discussion on the subject. When you get down into the weeds on 48, there are some interesting legal 'twist and turns'. The boys (and girls I note today) at – PAIN (http://www.pprune.org/8245577-post199.html)- are on the ball with a link to the document; deuced hard to find. Perhaps the TWLR panel could take it on first as an example of what we are all cranky about. Viz:-

CAA NZ Part 121. Subpart K. Page 90 through to 93 defines FDR. =3 pages.

CAA NZ Part 125. Subpart K. Page 78 through to 80 defines FDR. = 2 pages.

CAA NZ Part 135. Subpart K. Page 66 through to 68 defines FDR. = 2 pages.

Essentially NZ contains both operator and flight crew FDR to less pages than the amendment to CAO 48 which cites :-

CAO 48.0; 48.1; 48.2; 48.3; 48.4; Part 5, Schedule 2; CAR 5.55; Car 210A; new CAR 335: Act 98 (5) 98 (5 AAA); CAR 215; sections 24, 38 and 42 of LIA 2003; sub regulation 11.068 (1); paragraph 28 (BA); subsection 98 (4A) and, just for additional clarity.

Heads of power.
Regulation 5.55 of CAR 1988, and its replacement in regulation 210A, were used among the heads of power for the new CAO 48.1 to facilitate the eventual repeal of CAO Part 48 which was made under regulation 5.55 and which, from 1 September 2014 (not 4 December 2013), is continued in force under regulation 210A by virtue of regulation 335.

Definition of flight crew licence
Similar considerations apply to the definition of flight crew licence in the new CAO 48.1.
Previously, the licensing suite regulations would have commenced on 4 December 2013, meaning that for the purposes of the new CAO 48.1 (which formally commenced in April 2013), the definition of flight crew licence would have 2 sources:

(a) the definition that applied for CAR Part 5 purposes before 4 December 2013; and

(b) the new definition that applied on and from 4 December 2013 as a result of the new licensing rules to be established by the licensing suite regulations.

The mentions of “4 December 2013” are, therefore, amended to become “1 September 2014”.

Conclusion.

This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.

As neither we, nor anyone else has a clue where CAO (new) 48 is up to in the Parliamentary process and the latest amendment was launched at 10 24 on Christmas eve; and, given that the Senator blocking the order was probably taking a well earned siesta. The IOS were just wondering if the WLR could perhaps start with this regulation; so honest operators can make the required changes to FDR protocols in a timely manner, preventing inadvertent breaches of a regulation (or order if you like).

Busy, busy. busy. No time left now for pulling crackers or eating left over Christmas pudding - Good catch that man..

Prince Niccolo M

4th Jan 2014, 10:43

Karon,

someone else commented on the lack of drama in the procedural issues... :ok:

CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved, when the probability of a good outcome is tiny (due to the standard party line nobbling and the traditions of government)... :mad:

what we really need is for everyone who believes the new CAO 48 rules could be improved to get off their arses and have their say - the Senate needs a sound basis to disallow and the more sectors that offer amendments and the greater the commonality the stronger the case :E :E :E

Kharon

4th Jan 2014, 17:54

Another poster pointed out the amendment was Made 19 Dec 2013, Registered 24 Dec 203, and then Repealed/Ceased 26 Dec2013. Reason; Repealed under Division 1 of Part 5A of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved,
One of the reasons for raising the subject is the quoted above; which may prevent the follow through, as quoted below.

"[what] we really need is for everyone who believes the new CAO 48 rules could be improved to get off their arses and have their say" –

I agree,

"[the] Senate needs a sound basis to disallow and the more sectors that offer amendments and the greater the commonality the stronger the case."

Again, I agree but where do you imagine the folk who get off their arses go to say their say; and, who will do the saying??

VIPA – "Should these regulations be subject to a disallowance as we expect, it may give the industry and proponents like Senator Nick Xenophon further avenue to push for meaningful changes to the new FDP rule set. VIPA FSTRC has committed to getting a seat at the table of future Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Working Groups facilitated by CASA. (My bold).

Lets assume we can generate enough industry scientifically supported objections: where and to whom should they be addressed ? – the Truss WLR perhaps and hope that review will sort out the issues. Or, perhaps convince a couple of parliamentary types to debate whether CAO 48 is a crock or not. Or, perhaps expect Sen. NX to do a virtuoso solo performance with a magic wand and make it all go away? Of the thin selection of choices available, NX is probably the best bet. Much will depend not only on the bi-partisan determination of his colleagues but also on the quality of information supplied by industry. Remember, the 'debate' must be convinced that the responsible government agency, quoting ICAO with operator support has got it all wrong, and made bollocks of the whole thing. The NZ CAR make a strong argument for the Ayes.

If 'industry' is not aware that the necessary debate to repeal the CAO has not occurred, let alone done and dusted, we may just be saddled with more 'bad law'. And that, Prince Nick, is the problem as I see it and my reason for posting. Happy to stand corrected.

Perhaps Creampuff, Leadsled or Sunny have some suggestions. Seeing the problem is not quite the same thing as knowing how to fix it. That puzzle just makes my poor old wooden head hurt.

Sarcs

5th Jan 2014, 05:36

Prince:what we really need is for everyone who believes the new CAO 48 rules could be improved to get off their arses and have their say - the Senate needs a sound basis to disallow and the more sectors that offer amendments and the greater the commonality the stronger the caseKharon:If 'industry' is not aware that the necessary debate to repeal the CAO has not occurred, let alone done and dusted, we may just be saddled with more 'bad law'. And that, Prince Nick, is the problem as I see it and my reason for posting. Happy to stand corrected.
Yep I think you nailed it "K"...:D

Here's a possible scenario...

All interested industry stakeholders do get together and propose a Senate petition in support of disallowing the current CAO 48.1 instrument...tick!:D

The petition garners a couple thousand signatures and gives the ammunition required for the Senators to get up NX's DM..tick!:D

So the Minister is forced to pull the instrument and then what??:confused:

He sends it to the department to be fixed and the department sends it onto Fort Fumble :yuk: (as they are recognised by government as the experts on all things that fly)...:*

Then FF do another bogus consult with industry:ugh:, Hoodoo Voodoo and his cronies change the wording a little bit, maybe add another dozen or so pages and send it off to be re-drafted by the AG's department, the end product is eventually re-entered into parliament a couple years later...:ugh::ugh:

Hmm..."round and round the garden runs the teddy bear..." :E

Fantasy Land solution: To circumvent the teddy bear routine if (big if..?) industry could collectively get together and rewrite the instrument to the NZ regs or FAA regs and then hand to Senator Nick to present, with the petition, a private members bill to be put to the Parliament. Hmm..well it is a fantasy...:bored:??

Reality: Unfortunately until someone grows some pretty big cohunas and is prepared to take a gas axe and a couple of grinders to the bureaucratic iron-fist of aviation safety (or there is at least two smoking holes with mass casualties:{) we will be stuck with the bear running around the garden.:ok:

Prince Niccolo M

5th Jan 2014, 07:53

Boyz,

I raised what I think is the real issue when I thought that others were off chasing procedural rabbits. I probably should have been clearer.

The procedural issue of the automatic repeal of an amending instrument - in this case, a consequential amendment to reflect the delay in the licensing suite - is, and quite properly should be, of no real concern to those folks who are following the progress of the document that was amended.

The amendment is quite unrelated to the CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 disallowance matter.

I had no intention in suggesting any connection between the events - I just wanted to take the opportunity to raise the need for further action from us to support Senator Xenophon.

As I said earlier, CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is still law until the disallowance debate is resolved. I understand that the current plan is to debate the Disallowance motion on 06 Mar 13. There are 3 possible outcomes:

1 - if the motion lapses without debate then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law;

2 - if the motion is debated and voted in, then the Instrument is disallowed and ceases to have the force of law; or

3 - if the motion is debated and voted out, then the Instrument continues to have the force of law.

Senator Xenophon moved the motion and he will have to lead the debate to convince the Senate that, despite the improvements in some areas, there are enough dangerous bits to force CASA to amend the Instrument. He clearly needs industry advice to develop a compelling argument - after all, he is not an aviator and he is not a fatigue risk expert. What is he? He really is a voice for aviation safety in the Senate and his opponents, once noisy in Opposition but now traditionally prevented from criticising Government agencies, will be extensively briefed by CASA.

This will not be a debate marked by each speaker being a SME, but rather a debate that depends on the quality of the briefings. The Skull will treat it like any other forum in which CASA (and, by default, he) may be criticised - blitzkrieg and belittle any opposition regardless of any obvious or potential merit that might be found.

Senator Fawcett may be out of our reach - he will be on a tight leash from Warren and may even be suborned as CASA's mouthpiece - and his aviation experience does not extend to several years of the daily grind operating commercially under the current FTLs. Nonetheless, he also needs to be well-briefed as to the consequences of the Instrument and how it will be delivered at the coalface.

Rewriting the rules on what we think is the way it works in NZ will never wash with AGs or CASA - there have been plenty of opportunities to adopt that path and none have been taken up.

For mine, tell Nick first and Fawcett second - I do not think that there is any other viable pathway. :ok:

Kharon

5th Jan 2014, 18:30

Ok, so far, so good.

PNM # "The Skull will treat it like any other forum in which CASA (and, by default, he) may be criticised - blitzkrieg and belittle any opposition regardless of any obvious or potential merit that might be found.

We may (reluctantly) have to grant the Sleepy Hollow crew some latitude here. Sure ol' McComic may get a chance do the usual routine but; for the back room boys, there are a couple of problems which, by nature are poles apart. Warning, tongue in cheek Extreme Interpretation (EI) follows.

Operators, like the Roman galley masters of old, would love nothing better than to have a slave crew chained to the oars 24/7. The slave crew union, not thinking much of this idea would demand ice cream every day, seat cushions, no more than 2 hours on the oars in any given 24 hour period and restricted use of flogging as an incentive to do better. (End EI).

Now both sides can produce all manner of 'scientifically' supported data to prove their argument, both are prepared to argue their valid case. The regulators (bless 'em) not only have to referee this bun fight, but draft rules to suit and ensure that if fatigue is ever part of an accident, then their collective asses are covered. I would imagine that there would be some rather large guns pointing in their direction if – it could ever be proven, that the rules for fatigue management were defective. So, despite a natural urge to hammer the administration I feel we have to at least try and see their problem. The gods help them if their good intentions are ever shown to be unduly influenced, one way or t'uther.

I notice that the FAA, who can legitimately claim safety sovereignty, have shown the way (again) with their revised fatigue rules which have apparently managed to reach a most satisfactory conclusion. They probably have not satisfied everyone's wishes, but the interested parties have, in a democratic fashion, achieved a greatly improved regulation based on modern thinking. So Bravo the FAA. Meanwhile here at home – "round and around the garden" – seems an apt description and 25 years in not really a long wait in the life of a glacier; is it ?

Industry choice, FAR, NZ CAR; or, piss about for another few years and spend another million or so dollars on the CAO 48 imbroglio. Following on from Sarcs suggestion - let's suppose (just for fun) that every one signed a "We hate 48" petition, pilots, cabin crew and operators. Then 'someone' provided a 10 page explanation of why "We hate 48", backed up by a five page solution. All good solid stuff etc. To whom would the package be delivered ?:-

Miniscule Truss; to pass onto DoIT, to hand off to the WLR panel who would hand it straight back to the Miniscule who would; surprise, surprise ! flick it, like a hot potato back to CASA to fix.

Perhaps Nick Xenophon – an independent, he may get it to the debating stage, win the round and hands his results back to – you guessed it, the Miniscule who will look all grave and concerned, then, flick pass and around and around she goes, again.

Bollocks - the NZ CAR do it in half a dozen easiology pages, the FAA close behind: pick one and let's be done with it.

Frank Arouet

5th Jan 2014, 23:38

History supports the notion that a carrot in front of the donkey works better than a bayonet up the bum. Some of these carbon tax mob are starting to realize this and it pertains to any form of persuasion. Abbott appears to recognize this, but I doubt all his team, including bureaucrats appreciate this, and find it an alien conception.

I've come to the firm conclusion over the break that governments of both persuasions, appear to have the same party line/ platform on CASA and I further believe, it is due to "elitism" whereby they don't want anybody flying in their airspace because their bums are precious. Little do they realize the big sky theory isn't just about 7.5 million sq km of Australian continent, but is multiplied many times by hemispherical levels.

Politicians, Bureaucrats and everyone else that sits up the front and drinks freebies should do a course on three dimensional risk analysis and forget about every aircraft being in the air at the same time.

Perhaps they know it all, in which case they are as responsible as CASA for the predictable "smoking hole".

A pox on them all!

No Hoper

8th Jan 2014, 02:42

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/531270-new-us-rest-duty-regulations.html
Read what USA pilots think of FAR 117 rules

Sarcs

8th Jan 2014, 04:14

2 posts on two threads on subject somewhat related...:confused:

But I followed your suggestion and took some good goss from the exercise...:D It would seem most of the pushback was on restricting pilots on how or where they live/commute from. Seems some feel it is an infringement on their rights i.e. Bill of Rights. But then you had examples of 'take it in your stride' and good common sense to it all....:cool:

Especially liked this poster's approach: #23 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/531270-new-us-rest-duty-regulations-2.html#post8252671)
When I was an F/O, the worst day I ever had was with a Captain with whom I'd never flown.

We departed a mid-US airport for the west coast approx 1700.

Enroute to the first stop, the Capt began to descend from cruise altitude without clearance, in order to make a published crossing restriction on the arrival. When I asked what he was doing, he insisted that we had to descend in order to make the restriction.

I repeated that we hadn't yet been cleared and suggested that he slow in order to make the restriction, once cleared. He snapped at me that he didn't need any flying lessons. A commuting Captain in the jumpseat had really big eyes.

Second leg (mine) was nominal.

Third leg, the Captain blew a level-off altitude while hand flying a circling departure from a major city, even after I reminded him about the restriction. I pushed forward on the yoke and leveled a hundred or so high, since he was looking at his side console, reading the departure plate. He never even saw the inbound heavy restricted 1,000 above pass directly over us.

During the subsequent night VOR approach to a mountainous destination, he got far behind in the descent while making a lengthy PA to the PAX.

The approach controller asked if we were going to make the field. I asked the captain if he had the field in sight and he said, "Where?" I pointed directly over the nose. We made the field, but just barely.

Once in the hotel room, I considered waking up a chief pilot, but decided to wait and see how he was the next morning.

The next two days of the 3-day trip were absolutely normal - like flying with a totally different captain. I asked him where he lived and he named a west coast city. He then related how on the first day of the trip he had commuted in on an early morning flight and usually got a hotel room for a nap, but had run into some buddies and had spent the day in ops instead. I calculated that by the time of the last landing he had been awake some 21 hours.

I decided then and there, that when I upgraded I would get my own commuter place (with no other crew) and always commute in the day before my trips. I made good on that decision and never, in 12 years as captain, commuted in on the day of my trip. It made for a much less stressful career.
So kudos to you No Hoper there is a lesson to be learnt from the Yank experience...:ok:

PAIN_NET

23rd Jan 2014, 00:24

IOS member request

Given that the thread on the Minister Truss initiated ASRR has recently revisited the Senate AAI inquiry findings & combined with several requests from certain IOS members, PAIN has decided to release (with approval from Mr James) some of the publicly available documents held on the Captain Dominic James (under CAR 265) licence suspension matter.

The following zippy link is for a chronological order of all, that PAIN is aware, of the CASA delegate documents, including the original ‘Notice of Suspension’, the variations etc to the James licence suspension and subsequent lifting of that suspension with the current caveats on his ATPL.

DJ decision maker docs chronology (http://www71.zippyshare.com/v/1856449/file.html)

Usual precautions apply i.e. DOWNLOAD NOW button only, click once to avoid the spam etc.

Cheers

P2 (a.k.a ‘the quiet achiever’)

Sarcs

23rd Jan 2014, 06:29

Ahh PAIN..'thanks for the memories' ...;)

Warning: GOFs (Geriatric Old Farts) turn down the volume on your hearing aids..:E The rest of us.. "turn it up loud OK!":ok:
[YOUTUBE]Fall Out Boy - Thnks fr th Mmrs - YouTube
Hmm..remember this..(c/o Senate clangers file)?? {my bold in relevant parts}
Mr McCormick : I cannot speak for what the then regime did 12 years ago with those recommendations—

Senator XENOPHON: But you can tell me, surely? CASA obviously dealt with this pretty promptly. It was back in 2000. When was the review in relation to the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands concluded by CASA?

Mr McCormick : As far as that report goes and the recommendation and what the disposition was, we will have to take that on notice. None of us were involved, unfortunately, in the year 2000. There is a project at the moment involved in fuel for remote islands—

Senator XENOPHON: Surely, it cannot be the same project? Surely, it cannot be the same project from a recommendation issued on 22 February 2000? It cannot be!

Mr McCormick : That is the first I have heard of that recommendation, myself personally, so I do not connect the two. As I said, we will take on notice that particular report—

Senator XENOPHON: I reckon that we are going to have to have you back here, because it relates to a number of incidents in relation to a BAe 146 aircraft, a Piper Navajo Chief, a Chieftain and another BAe 146; it gives a number of instances where things got pretty hairy because of the unreliability of weather forecasts at Norfolk Island. CASA was undertaking a review in relation to fuel requirements for flights to remote islands—this is over 12 years ago—surely, it has been resolved? It must be! Please do not tell me that there is still an ongoing review of fuel requirements for remote islands 12 years after it was raised—nearly 13 years, rather, after it was raised.

Mr McCormick : Senator, I appreciate that what you have raised there is that people should be very prudent when they are flight-planning to Norfolk Island. I agree with that, whereas the project—

Senator XENOPHON: No, no, no! I am sorry, Mr McCormick—there was a role for CASA to take:

… the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands.

Can anyone at this table please tell me what the review involved? When was that review concluded?

Mr McCormick : Sorry, Senator, we were not involved in this. We were not in these positions in the year 2000. I do not know what has happened to that report; I will find it out on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though, Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?

Mr McCormick : I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009....blah..blah..blah

Senator NASH: Was anybody at the table employed by CASA in 2000?

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?

Mr Boyd : Yes, but not in that position.

Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?

Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.

Senator FAWCETT: You've got an alibi!... Going to the terms of reference here, though, looking at an ATSB report into this incident at Norfolk Island, here are two regulatory issues, one to do with the categorisation of aeromedical flights—and that should have been upgraded to charter so there was more protection granted, and that did not occur—and that we should be more prescriptive about fuel requirements for remote islands. I understand that Pel-Air has actually implemented that, post your special audit, and I understand CASA has undertaken again to look at that issue—both of which point to the fact that here is a regulatory issue that, if implemented 10 years ago, either of those, this accident probably would not have happened...

Mr McCormick : I think—and someone may have said it earlier; we did not get to hear all the testimony—the more that is in an incident report, not to be used for punitive measures but information which informs people of the background of what has happened, what some of the other factors are, even if they have no real bearing on the outcome, I think that is all to the good. That is a move to the good...Yeah right!:yuk: The more that is in the report the better. That is my personal view, but I have no control—as I have said, and I will now say it again. You know I am going to say, 'I have no control over what the ATSB puts in the report.'...Yeah right!:yuk:...blah..blah..blah

CHAIR: We took evidence this morning that 13 per cent of the flights into Norfolk Island had a fuel critical issue when they got there.

Mr McCormick : From Pel-Air or in general?

CHAIR: In general.

Mr McCormick : We would not have that information—

CHAIR: We will get it to you.

Senator XENOPHON: Chair, could I just go back to this issue, and I will read the analysis to you of a report that is now almost 13 years old—the ATSB report:

Reports to the Bureau, including those detailed in the factual information section above, indicate that the actual weather conditions at Norfolk Island have not been reliably forecast on a number of occasions. Current regulations do not require pilots of regular public transport aircraft to carry fuel reserves other than those dictated by the forecast weather conditions. The safety consequences of an unforecast deterioration in the weather at an isolated aerodrome like Norfolk Island may be serious.

The present level of reliability of meteorological forecasts and the current regulatory requirements are not providing an adequate level of safety for passenger-carrying services to Norfolk Island.

Very serious matters were raised in that report. Is it fair to assume that in fact CASA has not, after almost 13 years, reviewed the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands?

Mr McCormick : In actual fact, we have reviewed the fuel requirements to remote islands, but not Norfolk Island. We have reviewed them to Christmas Island in relation to some of the flights being conducted on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator XENOPHON: But not Norfolk Island.

Mr McCormick : Norfolk Island as a specific issue is now included, as you said earlier—or somebody said in the committee on Pel-Air's list of remote island air fields, et cetera. The regular public transport that you are referring to there, of course, carry an alternate if required and carry the contingency fuel required, which is the difference to aerial work... blah..blah..blah

...What we have in place as far as regulatory development goes, and again I cannot talk about what happened in 2000, is the removal of that anomaly. But we are also cognisant of ICAO's requirements.

Senator XENOPHON: Let's not take it any further, other than to ask you to please advise us on notice what action CASA took following recommendations made on 22 February 2000.

Mr McCormick : Yes, we will take that on notice.But now, reading the latest released DJ docs, we get an anomaly on the standard FF motto of.."I was in Montreal" or "I wasn't responsible!". In the delegate action chain we get the following sent to DJ on 14 January 2011:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1140111DJ.png

Skip to last page...

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/3140111DJ.png

Note that it is written in a very similar style (template) to the original NOS...so any guesses to who the signatory (delegate) should be...:confused:

Warning: I nearly choked on my beer but here it is...:{

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/4140111DJ.png

Kharon

23rd Jan 2014, 21:37

Couple of things that still get my panties in a bunch with the DJ tale of woe. CASA suspended license and ratings after the accident, why?. The company should, could and would have suspended him as a matter of routine. Internal and external investigations to follow, decisions made and considered action taken. Having identified where the problems lay, a training module, pertinent to those issues could be developed by any competent HOTAC. Pel Air have access to a Be 20 simulator, why was this not considered an option?. Why was any further 'legally justified' additional testing for ATPL deemed necessary?. Sure, test the bloke, test him hard, throw the whole lot at him. The guy stuffed up the flight planning, plenty of curly questions in that subject. But if he survives a fair, legitimate test, game over. Should there be any lingering doubt related to flight or instrument skills, there is the trusty base check. Don't want to use company staff ?, fair enough then use an independent ATO; why is only a hand picked CASA hit man acceptable?, why not allow an independent observer?. A pass is a pass. Game over. Even if CASA had proven grounds to suspend, the word of a HOTAC or independent ATO should be ample evidence of effective cure.

It's not so much what was prepared for James, which although a bit harsh is understandable. It's the caveats and 'sufficiently' rigorous standards to be subjectively assessed against a non published, non existent flight check benchmark, with the specially selected CASA 'examining officer'; pass or fail to be at the discretion of this one individual. It Is evident from the two Notices that the in-flight assessment was to be conducted with a degree of rigour consistent with the type of operation of accident flight.
While these aircraft will allow the CPL and CIR flight tests to be conducted against the prescribed assessment criteria, they are not sufficiently sophisticated or complex for CASA "to make an effective assessment of skills, ability and competence to hold an ATPL ".

In making this concession, CASA must ensure that the integrity of the necessary ATPL-level assessments is not compromised. The following modification to the Notice of Suspension is therefore suggested:-
A pass assessment would be at the discretion of the assessor.
To reiterate, this is not a change in the ground rules or goal posts, but a trade-off. The use of 'simple aeroplanes' for the CPL and CIR flight tests should be off-set by a rigorous ATPL assessment which, in all probability, would have taken place if the original in-flight assessment had been conducted in the Westwind aircraft as had originally been required

Based on the advice of the FTE and FO is I am satisfied that the approach proposed will address the flight test requirements and recommend this course of action. I also consider that we seek advice from LSD regarding the need or otherwise to amend the notice. I will wait for your thoughts prior to discussions with LSD.

We also need to discuss what if any conditions should be 'considered on James licence should he be successful ln the remaining examination requirements.
Please refer to the advice from Dr Aleck below.
My bold.
Now unless I've missed something, most of the physics applying to flight are about the same for all aircraft. So the recovery from stall technique, or speed control on final, or steep turns, or unusual attitudes etc. could be demonstrated in any light twin. There is little 'technique' difference in flying an ILS or NDB approach in any type, unless of course 140 knots in a jet is faster than in a King air. In any event the man passed the 'normal' tests CPL/MECIR (again). This charade should have ended there, company base check, clear to line operations: end of story.

But no, this pilot must be isolated and must fail, in support the pilot error tale; otherwise there may just be some blowback on the company and CASA. Can't have that, therefore 'he must fail'. The spell weavers get busy and out nothing provide caveats and outlandish, home made tests, which set up the preordained failure. The caveats, procedures and benchmarks are scripted by a non pilot, invented by his two sidekicks and probably the tea lady. All to re qualify a reasonably competent, qualified pilot who had already ticked all the mandatory boxes not once, but twice. He may be the roughest, laziest most hopeless driver in history, but a pass is a pass. Since when was it accepted that any fair test could be hammered into a no pass at any price scenario. The mutt was qualified, but now he has to jump through even more hoops of an extraordinary nature. Remember, there is no flight test required for the issue of ATPL.

Layer upon layer of justifying non existent requirements which, even if they could be parlayed into some form of legitimate 'additional testing requirements, could be met in the normal course of events, in house through the HOTAC or independent ATO.

Sarcs

24th Jan 2014, 00:02

Well said that man….:D:D

Kharon:But no, this pilot must be isolated and must fail, in support the pilot error tale; otherwise there may just be some blowback on the company and CASA. Can't have that, therefore 'he must fail'. The spell weavers get busy and out nothing provide caveats and outlandish, home made tests, which set up the preordained failure. The caveats, procedures and benchmarks are scripted by a non pilot, invented by his two sidekicks and probably the tea lady. All to re qualify a reasonably competent, qualified pilot who had already ticked all the mandatory boxes not once, but twice.
Remember the 014 catchcry from Coroner Chivell..:confused:.. fits neatly with the DJ embuggerance….:ugh:

….“I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved….”

If the DJ blasphemy was so abhorrent, so despicable and so totally unacceptable to all professional pilot standards why didn’t the wascally wabbit and his cohorts resort to r269..?? R269 is much..much more potentially punitive and restrictive..etc..etc..like a cyanide bomb down a wabbit warren, Wodger and his backers could have potentially eradicated DJ from the industry forever…no licence..no go??:=

Well it would appear that when DJ, after sitting the required testing, had the audacity to apply for a CPL chopper licence….well that was the final straw and subsequently this was issued (excerpts from the PAIN released docs, letter 22 June 2011)…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1220611DJ.png

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/2220611DJ.png

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/3220611DJ.png

Then r269 (threat) makes an appearance...

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/4220611DJ.png

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/5220611DJ.png

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/6220611DJ.png

FFS..:mad:..it beggars belief really….:ugh::yuk:

Kharon

24th Jan 2014, 19:42

Spend some time and carefully examine the Len Veger statement, that which would have been presented at the AAT; if CASA legal had not smartly headed the proceedings off at the pass. It distresses me greatly that a 20, 000 hour pilot could sign his name to such deceptive, homespun claptrap. CASA couldn't even play fair with the fuel planning data even when they had James bang to rights. Make no mistake, the pilot error gun was indisputably well and truly loaded; in advance.

Veger is all 'legal', if extreme; of course. Truth carefully married with spin to provide an 'impression' designed to scare some lay AAT member witless. The slippery, narrow, spin carefully manufactured for the sole purpose of working against any pilot in the AAT potentially resets the benchmark. Much is made of the CASA version of proper assessment of PNR/CP (well at least those who could agree what it was). CASA would have by using the Veger statement essentially declared all sensible, operational bets off.

If we are to accept the CASA 'all things anticipated' (probable or possible) tenet, the accepted 10,000 (depressurised) datum for calculations goes out of the window (literally). Many medivac flights must be conducted with a MSL cabin; given that on any one day the MSL QNH may change by 20Mb x 30 = 600 feet, must we now plan for and descend to 500 for every medivac PNR. Find me an aircraft that can maintain a MSL cabin at 10,000' with a window blown out. Save you the headscratichin, there ain't one. (10 to minus six probability rings a bell, but you see where we are headed, if you play the game with the CASA loaded dice).

The Veger missive implies that PNR 'planning contingencies' for various, multiple failure scenario based examples not normally 'planned' are essential. What the CASA missive fails to mention is (as he well knows) that any PNR milestone is a little like V1; existing for but a fleeting moment. Once past any significant 'milestone' the options reset, tilt, new game. Ask any proper pilot who has flown long haul to describe PNR, a moveable feast conjured by black magic would be a fair assessment. You cannot, as Veger insists you must, plan for every possible circumstance imaginable. But not to do so is heinous says the Veger. (10 to minus six probability rings a bell, but you see where we are headed, if you play the game with the CASA loaded dice).

So then, suddenly, right at one of several possible "PNR" datum's, zero cabin differential: instant pressurisation failure. What is carefully not mentioned is that by the time the "oh close the front door" moment has passed, so has the PNR. Which reduces the turn back options somewhat.

CASA calculations fail (dismally IMO) to account for 'drift down' options. The Veger method calls for calculations based on instant figures for 10,000. So are you going to go for the emergency descent, or assess the entire situation? - there is of oxygen for the punters (say 20 or 30 minutes, just for a number). Can the descent be managed at a rate conducive to arriving a 10,000 (F140 if you know your stuff) just as the oxygen supply expires. Do the maths. F400 < A010 over 30 minutes = 1000 fpm,= power back = fuel saved, therefore SGR improved (30 minutes at even at 300 knots is 150 miles). So we arrive A010, first questions. What is the wind, what is our 'effective' TAS, what SGR are we making and how many miles are there left in the tanks. Do we need a MSL cabin?, speed reduction, LRC, MPC, what if, what then; when will it all end?.....What if can be played all day, and what happens to the best laid plans of mice and men when Murphy takes a hand? (10 to minus six probability rings a bell, but you see where we are headed, if you play the game with the CASA loaded dice). Correct answer Grasshopper; you're wrong, no matter how many calculations you did or did not do, you can't win.

It's this type of operational bollocks that James was to be fitted up with. Sure, James should have nutted out the basic milestones, but Veger very carefully omits the factors which don't suit the CASA pilot error argument and salts it with the esoteric. Mind you, he probably didn't write it all that way, some of the worked wording is easily discernable, paw prints, key words and phrases etc. Anyway Davis decimated the Veger fuel calculations, the erroneous Nadi Metar is conveniently forgotten. Did James make a bollocks of the flight planning – Yes. But the very one sided arguments espoused for the benefit of the AAT did not leave it there.

The Veger statement degenerates into a snide professional cruci-fiction. Past failures are carefully interwoven into a really ugly hand crafted assassination. The way the entire James/Pel Air debacle was managed is utterly despicable, without any semblance of honour, integrity or of plain old fashioned honesty. In court I believe that the prosecution is not allowed to mention previous crimes and may not get away with too many fairy tales; but to the CASA in the AAT all's fair. The prearranged, forgone conclusion barked out by the masters voice must be upheld, no matter what. Aye, the happy life of a willing accomplice eh.

Toot toot.

thorn bird

25th Jan 2014, 01:23

K' the DJ saga makes me feel sick to my stomach and to be frank rather ashamed to be an Australian.The Pollies waffle on about the Australia ethic of fair go, as illustrated by the DJ cronicles, an absolute LIE.
That CAsA a government institution can manipulate facts to deflect the spotlight away from their own deficiencies by creating a scapegoat, to destroy someones livelihood and career to cover their own asses, to me is just another example of the level of CAsA corruption that Truss's enquiry should be examining.

Did DJ contravene any regulation's ???.

I heard a Poll was hastily called amongst the FOI's and the answer was tied!!, which perhaps is a reflection on the reasons for the level of frustration around the industry ie....

Seagoon " Thinks???How can I scew this lot around?? Aha!! I dont care what the previous FOI said, you are not in compliance, rewrite your Ops Manual"
Bluebottle "You dirty rotten swine!!! cant you #@$%^#$ As..h.les agree on anything!!

Did DJ comply with company SOP???..
would appear so given there was a history of flights by pelair out there, including by the Chief Pilot, now CAsA delegate, so if DJ was guilty...so was the CP and if DJ was to be thrown to the lions then surely the CP was not a fit and proper person as well??

Ah had a dream last night..."Total fantasy of course but plausible looking at the timeline"

Skull.." Wodger for gods sake do something those Bast..ds in the senate are smelling a rat and this could affect my pension"

Wabbit.. "Fear not oh Exhaulted one, I'll crucify the pilot just make sure the hooded one signs the death warrant"

Hooded One.."Wodger that damned pilot is still hanging up there bleeding all over everything and his lawyers are threatening all sorts of stuff, including my pension, I'll have a amend your death warrant, even I thought it was a tad draconian, get him down off the cross we'll just hang him a bit instead".

Wabbit.. "As you command, I'll write a new death warrant"...Thinks... "How dare that pilot question my divine authority..okay we'll just hang him with a bungy cord so he bounces back and forth, weighed down with a few inserted pineapples, and after that ....hmm (insert cackling laugh)"

Hooded one.. "Sorry Wodger, those lawyers are still threatening my pension so I'll have to go easier on the pilot, get him down off the scaffold
we'll just make him to do a little test instead"

Wabbit.. "As you command Oh superior...Minion!!, stop grovelling man!!
I know nothing of this piloting stuff, I want you to dream up a test, a test that not even a homesick angel could pass. It must be plausible, summon the spin doctors to assist, make it appear reasonable, spin it so a lay person would think any pilot could do it, but so full of improbables that we can slip a knife or two through".

In reality, if DJ is required to submit to this travesty the Pelair CP, now CAsA delegate, should also be required to submit to it, but then given the probity of CAsA he'd pass and DJ would fail, it would be pre-ordained.

The Davis submission to the senate pretty much puts a lie to CAsA's fuel calculations, and I have to wonder if DJ had have diverted to Noumea after he had passed his calculated PNR, CAsA plays that down but he had calculated a PNR, would DJ now be facing an inquisition for running out of fuel short of Tontouta, damned if he did and damned if he didnt.

Frank Arouet

25th Jan 2014, 03:40

CRITICS COWARDLY: CASA boss.
October 30/ 2009. Steve Creedy The Australian.

AIR-SAFETY supremo John McCormick has hit out at "mean-spirited, injudiciously self-serving and frequently false" attacks on Civil Aviation Safety Authority staff.
In a fierce defence of his staff, Mr McCormick said the vindictive public disparagement of individual CASA officers by names or station was wrong, unfair and, in some cases, "downright cowardly".
"It does nothing to advance the interests of our safety or organisational improvement, and it almost certainly is not intended to do either," Mr McCormick told a Senate estimates committee.
"If left unaddressed, it impugns the reputations and integrity of committed, capable and professional individuals who are dedicated to the critical, and sometimes thankless, regulatory and other safety-related tasks.
"And it takes a serious toll on morale of the entire staff in ways, dare I say, some of those who try to conceal what is often nothing more than demagogic vitriol behind the facade of appointed evaluatory critique could not begin to understand."
CASA has often been the target, sometimes justifiably, of industry criticism and has been the subject of repeated investigations and highly critical reports. But the growth of the internet has seen the emergence of websites allowing people operating under pseudonyms to launch angry, disparaging and sometimes defamatory attacks against each other and industry figures.
The CASA boss emphasised that he welcomed balanced, reasonable and constructive advice about where CASA had gone wrong or was perceived to have done so.
Well-meaning criticism, even that which was wide of the mark, would be helpful because it gave a better understanding of the way the authority's actions were perceived and experienced.
"So let me be clear. I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA's actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government's attention, or to the attention of the Australian public," he said.
"As I said, I welcome and embrace this.
"At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA's actions as an organisation and what cannot be fairly characterised as other than mean-spirited, injudiciously self-serving and frequently false accusations, and vindictive public disparagement of individual CASA officers by name and station."
On wider issues, Mr McCormick told the committee he had made organisational changes within CASA and a review of the authority's documentation, procedures and practices was under way.
This had involved consultation with the industry, other stakeholders and staff, and he expected "other refinements" to CASA's structure would follow.
The organisation would also provide the industry and wider aviation community with a clearer understanding of how and why it regulated.
It was also moving to address issues about technical training identified in the 2008 International Civil Aviation Organisation audit with a new range of programs that included on-the-job recurrent and specialist training for technical staff.
The new CASA board had formally met twice and Mr McCormick said he was working with members to prioritise ways of finalising the regulatory reform process.
"Four key areas of regulatory reform we are concentrating on are airways, licensing, maintenance and flight operations," he said. "In this process, the industry will be consulted but the practice of the past -- consultation with a view to the achievement of consensus, where consultation frequently resulted in paralysed action, sometimes for years -- cannot and will not continue.
"Consultation does not equate to agreement and, while all views will be seriously considered and taken into account, at the end of the day CASA, as the regulator, is responsible for making, and will make, the final decisions."
The CASA boss said he hoped to have new maintenance regulations made in the first half of next year and that the complete legal drafting of the operational passenger transport licensing rules would be completed by the end of the year.
On the controversial changes to the six GAAP airports, Mr McCormick conceded the moves to reduce the number of aircraft allowed in a circuit and to boost air traffic control clearance requirements had received mixed reviews.
But he said it was a decision that had to be made in the best interests of safety.

"We are committed to closely working with Airservices, as well as with pilots and operators, in the management of each of the six aerodromes to ensure that the changes are implemented in a safe and structured manner."

CASA had also moved a step closer in boosting its presence in northern Australia by identifying new sites on Horn Island, Gove, Kununurra and Broome.

"These stations will all provide better on-site support to CASA inspectors working in the Torres Strait, Arnhem Land and the Kimberley regions. All four of these workplaces are in the process of being opened or very close to being opened."
Low reading on drink and drugs

RANDOM drug and alcohol tests have uncovered few signs of abuse in the aviation industry.
Body: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority revealed last week that 14,273 alcohol tests had thrown up just seven positives, a hit rate of 0.04 per cent.

More than 4000 drug tests had resulted in 17 positives, a rate of 0.4 per cent.

Mandatory drug and alcohol testing of people working in safety-sensitive jobs -- including aircrew, engineers and air-traffic controllers -- took effect in May after a delay caused by worries about false positives.

CASA chief executive John McCormick told a Senate committee the authority had conducted 1245 of the 4091 tests to that point using a saliva test.
When a subject tested positive, Mr McCormick said an accredited laboratory performed a second test.

"If the second test is positive, it returns to the drug and alcohol management program of the organisation and they then conduct an interview and further research into whether there are over-the-counter medications involved, such as codeine, which could have led to a positive test," he said.

"Then there is an assessment carried out about how the person who is positive is treated, and the person who is negative, of course, returns to work in a safety-sensitive position."

Asked about the program's confidentiality provisions, Mr McCormick said he was unaware of any breaches.

He said subjects were given about an hour's notice and tests had been conducted as far away as Broome and Horn Island.

Kharon

25th Jan 2014, 20:25

Bad Frank, naughty. There exist many strange and wondrous beliefs and creeds in the world; there are acres of floor space dedicated preserving the life functions of people who believe they are the Queen's own corgi (bless), or were Ghengis Khan in a previous life, some hear funny voices, some have strange vices: Gods creatures all. There are zealots and harlots, Laurel and Hardy; hell my Grand Mama has some pages stuck together. Folk believe all kinds of strange nonsense and if a bloke wants to believe any old rubbish, he is constitutionally guaranteed that right. There are of course certain subjects which should be avoided in social situations, like the conversation you had with the March hare, or your all expenses paid trip through the looking glass; and even a mention of the fairies at the bottom of the garden will have 'non-believers' looking askance. Aye, there's nowt so queer as folks. I do however find the eccentrics diverting and mildly amusing; most of the time.

You see, you are in no trouble at all, provided you know stories are just that: some of my most treasured books are pure fiction, some are even pure fantasy; but I know that. It is rather lovely to immerse your mind in a well written tale telling of strange creatures living on different planets with hero's, beautiful heroines, and dastardly villains. When you leave the book world, (or walk out of a theatre) (or turn off the TV) – grim, stark reality awaits. The men in white jackets will only turn up when you start to truly believe that the fiction is indeed 'facts and circumstances'.

Titania - “My Oberon, what visions have I seen!
Methought I was enamored of an ass. AMND 4.1.

aroa

25th Jan 2014, 23:52

thanks for the trip to 2009 and the das's classic upchuck gems, Frank

Let me re-jig Creedy's headline. It should have read..

CAsA boss COWARDLY: CRITICS..

....and "supremo" in what you might ask????. :eek:

This is at a time when this ceo didnt have the balls or the integrity of a "ceo" to sack three lying, perjuring idiots aka as SAWIs. I'd define that as cowardly.
"A" class LIARS and FOOLS...just the sort people the GA Industry needs to have to deal with..:mad::mad::mad:
Gives you a good indication of the quality of "staff" he believes should be on the public payroll.

Still, CAsA has to minimise any bad pr for itself, cover its ar$k, and imo corruptly protect the evil doers/mates/sons/ rellies, whatever.

And for the record perp#2, J RETSKI is now Team Leader ! ( sic...very sick), in that house of Infamy, Townsville office. FFS !!!

Yep, folks...we're in safe hands.:mad::mad::mad:

thorn bird

26th Jan 2014, 21:38

Aroa, mate there are lots of "them" out there.
Rumour of a particular one in AD who thrives on making life impossible by
demanding junkets to foreign climes at the operators expense of course then writting NCN's against non existing reg's, or his opinion on operational matters he is not qualified to interfere in.
Rumour has it he escaped CAsA prosecution in his GA days by agreeing to have no further involvement in Aviation..hmm? seems there is redemption if you join CAsA...."Praise the lord he's been saved"

Frank Arouet

26th Jan 2014, 23:00

DAS: "beware the Ides of March".

Kharon

27th Jan 2014, 01:56

TB # 1700 "Rumour of a particular one in AD who thrives on making life impossible by demanding junkets to foreign climes at the operators expense of course then writing NCN's against non existing reg's, or his opinion on operational matters he is not qualified to interfere in."

TB was this the great FAOC issue 'proving flight - from hell'?. One of the BRB occasionally visits Darwin and had us all in stitches last time we had a quiet, cold one; telling us a tall tale about a flight which has become somewhat of a legend up there. As we were having a drink and the yarn well told, no one queried the 'context or facts', thinking it was just for a laugh.

The way we heard it was that an AWI and FOI determined that a proving flight (for an airwork/ charter operation?) would not only provide a nice week end away, on expenses; but, would set a new precedents, being the first time this was ever done (outside of airline operations). This first of it's type 'safety' initiative would have to be a pearler, to impress the boss; and, as there were no costs for CASA to justify, this was deemed a cracking good idea. Personal motivations or spiteful payback were tactfully omitted from the brief (no box to tick; neat eh?). It's an improbable yarn; but just for fun lets do the operational sums.

Uhmm, that's two pilots for 3 days, aircraft ferry WA to Darwin, back to WA. Ground handling fees, customs fees, clearance fees, landing and navigation fees outbound. Dead leg out to Dilli, inbound ground handling fees, paperwork fees, navigation fees, landing fees, oh and lunch all around x 4. Outbound departure fees. Dead leg Dilli to Darwin, inbound navigation fees, customs fees, ground handling and overnight parking fees. A few cold beers and a steak or two all round, accommodation and transport, for aircrew, for two nights. Not to mention or consider that the operator had two men away earning nothing, an aircraft tied up for days earning nothing. No one home to cover revenue flying or even an aircraft to do it in.

Then it's the turn of those assess and issue; you see, it appears that the FOI in Darwin despite being type rated and 'locally' qualified were not acceptable. Nope, only the non type rated 'cat in a hat' from Adelaide could do this 'job' and get it done 'proper'. So, off we go again with the sums, return airfares AD-DN x 2; accommodation x 2, wages for 6 days (2 x 3), expenses, transport and incidentals. All up; a fairly hefty wallop, all charged back to the operator of course.

But they did indeed establish that Dilli is right where it should be; that the GPS could find the requisite 'dot' on the map; that the crew could indeed find said aerodrome, land, do the paperwork, find a fuel man and lunch and even (surprise, surprise) manage to find Darwin again.

Old mate reckons the highlight of the entire trip was the good sense shown (or luck) in avoiding Foreign Affairs department involvement; you see children, the FAD do remember the 'arresting' Chinese affair and the PNG meltdown; it was decided, despite the FOI insistence, that the operator should not to get on the next jet North and give the Indonesians a right royal bollocking for their allegedly (FOI opinion) PP radio procedures and lack of 'understandable English'; huge sighs of relief all around were heard. (Apart from our erstwhile FOI).

Alas, despite a good effort the crew 'failed'. Apparently there should have been a CP delegation North to insist on 'better' English, but not only that, the crew should have been properly supported and qualified, by attending 'strangely accented' English lessons (diploma and everything) before being sent 'international'. The fact that there was a forbidden bottle of water in a cup holder and the FO turned off two switches singularly, rather than 'together' has produced a storm of NCN and all manner of nasty paperwork; related to these and similar, monumental crimes.

True or not, it was a bloody good yarn, and it do beggar belief. But I can see it all, cartoon quality, Aussie FOI bollocking the crap out of the Indonesian General (full fig uniform and sidearm) our home grown civil service looking cool, holding the FOI jacket. Is our aviation industry in good, safe, sane hands?; 'course we are miniscule, just ask your advisors, they know.

Nah, couldn't happen - Toot toot.

thorn bird

27th Jan 2014, 02:33

Frank old mate, dont think there's a knife sharp enough to puncture his ego.
..err sorry armour!

Sunday bloody sunday K, the industry clings by its fingernails above the abyss, while people like that stamp on the fingers.

Question: what do these clowns do when there is no industry?

aroa

27th Jan 2014, 04:37

March, Ides of, about to happen. Now that will give me great cause for celebration. End of contract. Finito...and not before time.

Review or Revolution...the ASRR might spell it out for us.

If its a sh*te-wash..it should be the latter.

As for the Dili yarn...its interesting to note how operators concurred...presumably on the basis that if the CASA wallies dont get what they want...the operator doesnt get what he needs to have a business.

Its gross abuse of power, its bull****, and it has to stop. From many other "pub stories" around the traps...I can quite believe it.

It does show that the loonies really are in charge of the CAsasylum.!:eek:

LeadSled

28th Jan 2014, 03:44

Nah, couldn't happen - Toot toot.

Folks,
'Tis all true!! Unbelievable you might say --- believe it, nothing surprises me any more.
Tootle pip!!

Kharon

28th Jan 2014, 18:31

When the Senators get their turn to bat, which they must after the Truss team is bowled out for a miserably low score, the quote below is from the ATSB of the day (BASI) in 1993 and is (IMO) a very succinct appraisal of several important issues.

The investigation found that the circumstances of the accident were consistent with controlled flight into terrain. Descent below the minimum circling altitude without adequate visual reference was the culminating factor in a combination of local contributing factors and organisational failures. The local contributing factors included poor weather conditions, equipment deficiencies, inadequate procedures, inaccurate visual perception, and possible skill fatigue. Organisational failures were identified relating to the management of the airline by the company, and the regulation and licensing of its operations by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The same quote would have applied to Lockhart in 2004 and it's not too long a stretch to apply it to Pel Air. The thing is, (IMO) the change in the ATSB attitude, they fought like hell during Lockhart to make the same point and got stuck with Miller and MOU for their pains, the ANA was side stepped and CASA slowly but surely gained the upper hand. It does not seem be outlandish to suggest that by the time PA came up (or went down, as you like) the ATSB had just given up on an uneven battle, beaten down by money, power and ever increasing political clout of the CASA.

Had the same amounts of time, money, effort and intelligence been put into addressing the issues, would we sitting here waiting for a sensible response to Pel Air; would Lockhart River have occurred, would Hempel be dead?. The problem seems clear enough, but the solution has been patiently waiting since 1993. Hello, anyone home???.

Sarcs

3rd Feb 2014, 00:52

While we are waiting for…the Miniscule’s (Government) response to PelAir report, the numerous Estimate QONs & the WLR games to begin...maybe a brief examination of how we’ve got to this abominable, watershed point in time i.e. the PelAir embuggerance...??

Para377 post # 323 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-17.html#post8291901):One of the greatest concerns is the power, obstinance and free will of the LSD. Although they purport to be relatively hands off from most non legal decisions made at CASA that simply isn't true. And their powers, authority and decision making is not clear within CASA's charter or structure.
Part One: AAI ‘blame game’ (SOP) according to Jonathon.

Remember this…:confused:
…. “I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA….”

That was a rather interesting insight into the FF LSD rationale for the PelAir shenanigans, especially given the Doc freely admitted that he was one of the main architects of the 2010 MoU...:{

Passing strange then that nearly 18 months after the release of the 2010 MoU, of which the Doc was a co-author, there was an article published in the Sept/Oct 2011 Flightsafety mag titled.. Accidental Justice – Just culture and criminalisation of accidents (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Fwcmswr%2F_assets%2Fmain%2 Flib100059%2Fsep-oct11.pdf&ei=3yzrUue8Aca2kgXjhIGQAg&usg=AFQjCNFYjvHRp4UiPDFzEWXBvHiVsB40XA)..that would seem to put at odds both the evidence given in the Senate inquiry and the subsequent treatment of the DJ since the day of the ditching.

So to some JA quotes from that article…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck1.png
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck2.png

Note: Keep in mind this was in 2011 and smack bang in the middle of the DJ shafting by Wodger Wabbit & other DIPs.

Moving right along…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck3.jpg
Note: Rather past experience/humiliations with cases being chucked out by the CDPP on dubious evidence has led to a preference for admin shaftings via the AAT..:ugh:

The Doc’s views on ‘just culture'…:rolleyes:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck4.jpg
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck5.jpg
And..
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck8.jpg
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck9.jpg
And more on the Doc’s preference for shafting pilot miscreants…:yuk:
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck6.jpg
Oh and on safety risk mitigation…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Aleck7.jpg
The most disturbing part, in regards to the PelAir aberration, is that the Doc (with all these conflicting messages) apparently chaired the ICAO multi-disciplinary task force (reference: pg 13 ‘Part 4: The ICAO response’) that looked into the protection of safety information (& supposedly the criminalisation of aviation accidents)…hmm wonder whether the taskforce members are now fully aware of the PelAir embuggerance…??

More to follow….:ok:

Creampuff

3rd Feb 2014, 03:50

But DJ wasn't prosecuted.

What is your point about Dr Aleck's stated views? :confused:

Sarcs

4th Feb 2014, 00:10

Creamy:But DJ wasn't prosecuted.
What is your point about Dr Aleck's stated views?Firstly I know DJ wasn’t criminally prosecuted, if that enforcement approach was ever really an option it would have occurred almost instantaneously.

The early evidence chain that was assimilated (& the circumstantial evidence since), plus the fact that DJ was supposedly operating within a ‘just culture’ that was SMS, CAR217 & FRMS etc compliant, would never have supported such an approach...:= {Note: Perhaps refer to Kharon’s posts at #1693 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-85.html#post8280621), #1695 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-85.html#post8282225)for the disconnect aspects of a working ‘just culture’ vs the PelAir case}

My point(s) in regards to the stated views by Dr Aleck are that they would appear to be in direct conflict with; (a) the 2010 MoU {of which the Doc was a principal architect}; and (b) the first real test case for that MoU which was the (supposedly) parallel investigation of the PelAir Norfolk ditching.

To paint the picture remember this…??:ugh:
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/PelAirampMOU1.png

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/PelAirampMOU2.jpg

Meanwhile across town FF were realigning their ducks on the pond as per..
Internal CASA email (dated 4 February 2010) ATSB identification of a 'critical safety issue' may have ramification for CASA actions in relation to Mr James, received 10 October 2012;(PDF 913KB (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=a1ea837b-a88c-4d4e-a629-346a5d9a25ce))

And by August 2010 the ‘fix’ was well and truly in place & eagerly supported by the MALIU, with his CAIR 09/3, & the Veger proposed AAT statement (see “K” post #1695)…

Internal CASA email regarding the discussion with the ATSB over the content of the ATSB report (dated 18 August 2010), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1193KB (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=92db334f-4504-42fb-a6fc-6effeddbc299))

{Comment: The following is interesting in light of the fact that CAIR 09/3 was never made publicly available until discovered in a CAsA attachment to their original AAI submission}
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/PelAirampMOU3.jpg

I also question whether in DJ’s case that the Doc’s comment..

… “that under Australian legislation, information you provide to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) can’t be used against you in criminal prosecution, civil litigation or administrative actions..”

...is in fact true, especially in light of the Fijian ATC transcript & the infamous 0801 METAR error that was originally (& conveniently) missed (by the FF expert investigators) in the CAIR 09/3 report and in the ATSB final report.

Maybe the stated views of the Doc are a true representation of his beliefs and values in regards to..‘Just culture and criminalisation of accidents’..??

However in the case of the PelAir ditching the other pieces (players) on the chessboard would seem to have differing and diverse opinions on the concepts of ‘just culture’ and the intended purpose/principals of the 2010 MOU…:ugh:..more to follow..:ok:

Comment: Dr Aleck’s statement on page nine…“it’s a criminal offence, a very serious criminal offence, if you don’t report certain matters to the ATSB if required to..” is from personal experience a furphy…

I know of several instances where less than scrupulous Chief Pilots/Operators have threatened sanctions to flightcrew if they submitted factually correct, potentially embarrassing, safety incidents to the ATSB (in some cases the crew have been obliged to not report at all or else). Subsequently on reporting (confidentially) these matters to the relevant authorities no effective investigation nor action has been taken.

Creampuff

4th Feb 2014, 00:28

What information did DJ provide to the ATSB that was then passed on to CASA and used in the administrative action against him?

Sarcs

4th Feb 2014, 11:49

Creamy: What information did DJ provide to the ATSB that was then passed on to CASA and used in the administrative action against him?Okay Creamy I’ll bite just a little bit…not so you can pooh bah, from a legal perspective, my naïve layman assumptions but perhaps to expose some more bizarre actions/reactions by FF in the embuggerance saga of DJ…:ugh:

To begin with I said that I question whether the Doc’s comment was in fact true in the DJ case i.e. I have my suspicions. I know, from a legal perspective, that FF are the masters of intimidation in all matters pertaining to impending or ongoing enforcement action, no matter whether such actions appear to be insanely absurd :8 or over the top for what would normally be minor contraventions/non-compliances of the CAA/CASR...:rolleyes:

Therefore Creamy I question??

The veracity of FF’s parallel investigation, especially when it would appear that their interview of DJ (16 December 2009) was given under the false pretext of helping with the accident investigation {CAIR 09/3 reference: 1.5.5 Interview}….

…. “As part of the accident investigation, the Captain was interviewed and questioned on aspects of the flight…”

Note: I also have information, on good authority, that the three individuals who conducted the DJ interview were not (as per FF enforcement manual for the conduct of investigative interviews) recognised Part IIIA investigators and although there was a written ROI, there was no audio recording and DJ was informed that it was informal and could not be used for future legal enforcement action….and yet it would appear that they did??:ugh:

The fact that the MALIU was operating under the, yet to be signed off on, 2010 MoU (section 4.1 ‘Parallel Investigations’) when it would appear that he should have been still operating under the guidance of the 2004 MoU, is somewhat irrelevant as the MoUs are not essentially legally binding.

Probably what is more important is the FF executive policy in regards to ATSB accident investigations and CAsA involvement with those investigations. The following encapsulates that policy…Australian Transport Safety Bureau (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_92599)

This year CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are working on a revised memorandum of understanding (MoU) that sets out safety objectives and underlying values to guide the ongoing relationship between the two organisations. The MoU will maximise aviation safety outcomes and enhance public confidence in aviation safety.

As part of the MoU, CASA reviews and comments on ATSB reports into aspects of aviation safety, including investigations into aircraft accident or incidents. CASA is considered a ‘directly involved party’ who may be either directly involved in the occurrences or their immediate aftermath or who may be affected by the findings. In 2007–08, CASA responded to 204 such reports.

CASA also responded to 41 requests for information, as required under section 32 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. Section 32 requests can require the appearance of people or the provision of documents by a specified date to assist in an investigation.

Under the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006, administered by the ATSB, CASA is required to respond to safety concerns reported through the Aviation Confidential Reporting Scheme (REPCON). REPCON is a voluntary scheme, which enables any person who has an aviation safety concern to report it to the ATSB confidentially. In the event that the concerns are relevant to CASA’s business, these reports are forwarded for comment back to the ATSB. In 2007–08, CASA responded to 23 such reports.

Complementing activities under the MoU is CASA’s Accident Investigation Report Review Board (AIRRB—the Review Board), established in November 2007. The Review Board is a monthly forum, designed to review material released by the ATSB, using CASA’s aviation expertise to provide commentary on draft reports. Advice provided by the Review Board assists the ATSB in developing practical recommendations that can be implemented by industry, ensuring the continuous improvement of aviation safety standards. The Review Board meets monthly and is chaired by the Deputy CEO, Operations.
There was also an exec protocol (which I’m yet to find), which laid down the essential rules of engagement with the ATSB. Basically this stated that on all accident investigations the ATSB had primacy and if in the course of their investigations they noted possible serious and imminent risks to safety through regulatory non-compliance then they were duty bound to pass on this intel to CAsA (something that the bureau never did with the Norfolk ditching investigation), from above post...

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/PelAirampMOU2.jpg

Comment: Which begs the question on why (especially with a Special Audit instigated) the, not legally sanctioned, parallel investigation was instigated on the very same day as the ATSB investigation?? Also note the irony & almost psychic IIC comment... "tried to prosecute the probably indefensible and hardly relevant..."

But I diverge…so questions;

Q/ Was the FF interview of DJ part of the bureau investigation and FF were actually part of the hired help (as per attachment A of the 2004 & 2010 MoU)??

Q/ If so wouldn’t that mean that the Fijian ATC transcript was also essentially unavailable for FF use & abuse ( as per attachment C 2004 MoU or D 2010 MoU) till the bureau called in the FF storm troopers to investigate serious concerns about the pilot??

I know, I know, Creamy that from a legal perspective the point is moot but it does make for a fascinating tale (gap filler)…pity there is a fellow pilot’s livelihood and professional reputation hanging on the end of it…:{ :yuk::yuk:..maybe more to follow?? :ok:

Addendum: The following extract is from the DJ reply letter to Hoody's Xmas eve '09 NOS...

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/DJreply1.jpg

"Procedural fairness" & "natural justice"...yeah right!:ugh: Wodger would be laughing over his carrot daiquiri over that one...:E

Creampuff

4th Feb 2014, 22:48

I preface my comments by reiterating that I consider the regulator’s treatment of DJ, compared with the operator, to be a travesty.

If an aircraft accident occurs, anyone, including anyone in CASA, can ‘investigate’ what happened. However, unless a person has statutory powers of entry, seizure, questioning etc, it may be difficult for the person to obtain key pieces of evidence in a form admissible in a prosecution. But that’s only usually a problem if you want to prosecute someone.

When NGA ditched, the identities of the operator and crew members would have been easily found out by anybody, including anyone in CASA, within about what … a day? PPRuNe would be a good place to start the ‘investigation’…

The regulator would reasonably be concerned about the circumstances that resulted in the ditching, and whether shortcomings in the operator’s systems and procedures and the crew members’ competence contributed. When the regulator finds out that the ditching was an inevitable consequence of fuel exhaustion, the regulator’s gaze would reasonably shift to the crew. (The single biggest cause of commercial GA hull loss is fuel exhaustion, due to shortcomings in fuel planning and management by ….. ATPL holders.)

If the regulator considers a pilot does not reach the requisite standard for fuel planning and management, the regulator is justified in taking administrative action to ensure the pilot regains the requisite standard of competence. There is nothing contrary to or inconsistent with the concept of “Just Culture” in the regulator taking that action.

All of this can happen without CASA saying ‘boo’ to the ATSB, and vice versa, and all of this can happen without utilising a Part IIIA investigator.

We can all be of the opinion that:

- the eventual regulatory focus on NGA’s PIC’s shortcomings alone was a travesty, and

- the number and diameter of hoops that DJ had to jump through to get his licence back were extraordinary and unreasonable,

but no one should be labouring under the misconception that the regulator wasn’t allowed to investigate the accident in the way it did and wasn’t allowed to take any regulatory action against DJ.

Frank Arouet

5th Feb 2014, 02:19

Given that, why wouldn't the regulator seize the hull from the sea to aid anything it may have had on its mind? Being mindful of personalities, business dealings, politics etc. it makes one wonder if perhaps an element of cronyism isn't at work here. Any denial of cronyism should be accompanied with the recovered wreck at least. CASA are known for loosing evidence once it's been seized, but I guess if it stays where it is, it's effectively lost.

thorn bird

5th Feb 2014, 02:52

[Quote] "If the regulator considers a pilot does not reach the requisite standard for fuel planning and management, the regulator is justified in taking administrative action to ensure the pilot regains the requisite standard of competence. There is nothing contrary to or inconsistent with the concept of “Just Culture” in the regulator taking that action."

Given what came out in the senate inquiry its perhaps the CAsA "expert" who should have had administrative action taken against him.

Stasi Hunter

5th Feb 2014, 03:19

Frank and CP agree with both of you. In the case of no prosecution CAsA knew it had no chance. By not rescuing the recordings both ATSB allegedly for financial reasons and CAsA for yet another form of withholding evidence, this time it wasn't misplaced but inaccessible. So the typical persecution, but only of the PIC?
What evidence did the co-pilot provide, we don't need to know her name but surely she could back up what really happened, is this another case of withholding relevant evidence or was it all discussed in camera??

Was this also a case of cronyism or selective investigation?

Ignoring the pre accident audit, the PIC appears to have followed an inadequate company procedure to the letter. Had he used some initiative he may have uplifted more fuel but with different performance consequences which had he got away with it may have been picked up by a professional audit. So he did wrong by following theoretical flt planning procedures or alternatively not following company (approved) policy.

Conclusion the aircraft was unsuitable in the first place for such transoceanic flights.

Assume the Skull has compensated DJ out of his own pocket?
S.H

Sarcs

5th Feb 2014, 04:54

Creamy...." I do not think we are talking at cross-purposes"..."I think we are in furious agreement..." to quote a certain Miniscule Senate rep;)

I agree that FF are quite within their rights to investigate the pilot on concerns that he doesn't reach the 'requisite standard for fuel planning and management'... and to take..."administrative action to ensure the pilot regains the requisite standard of competence".

Although I have some serious concerns about the due process followed in arriving at that administrative enforcement action (i.e. 'the Notice'). I also still believe that in a 'real world' the same objective, as outlined in the original NOS, could have been achieved internally with a FF observer along for the ride..:ugh:

It is almost like FF has no faith in the robustness of their own regulated & approved systems, such as SMS ('just culture') , CAR 217 (including their own ATO delegates..:ugh:) & FRMS. Perhaps this is because they know that DJ was, in reality, a 'normalised deviation' within one of their own fully approved AOC holders??

Comment: For a short, interesting read on 'normalised deviation' the following link is worth a peruse: "Normalization of a Deviation" (http://www.safetymattersblog.com/2010/03/normalization-of-deviation.html)

There is also much research and commentary on Just Culture & SMS in aviation, but perhaps for an up-to-date perspective from a (god forbid..:oh:) Human Factors mob, the following is worth a read: Safety Culture…Is not just part of your SMS, it is your SMS (http://baldwinaviation.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/safety-cultureis-not-just-part-of-your-sms-it-is-your-sms/)

Funny how these current experts (unlike Beaker) still espouse the teachings of James Reason..:E: Aviation expert, Dr. James Reason said, “If you are convinced that your organization has a good safety culture, you are almost certainly mistaken… A safety culture is something that is strived for but rarely attained – the process is more important than the product. But moving right along with a downwind tack..:O, came across this article c/o SMH yesterday :confused:: App bottom line no wheezy mark (http://www.smh.com.au/business/app-bottom-line-no-wheezy-mark-20140203-31xbm.html)

Here is the relevant bit: The Singapore-backed regional airline gifted $70,000 to the federal Libs and $95,700 to the Nats in 2012-13. Its largesse to the right side of the politics might not surprise too many, given its deputy chairman, John Sharp, was a transport minister under the Howard government. But what is a surprise is that its biggest donation - $250,000 - was to Labor.
It would appear that a former, right of centre, pollie & transport miniscule was having a quiet interlude..tiptoeing (with Albo :rolleyes:), on the LH side of the fence, at around the time that FF were putting in place the PelAir fix...:ok:

thorn bird

5th Feb 2014, 06:39

Sarcsi,

couldn't be construed as the end of the month "Brown Paper Bag" could it?

Na, no way, that would imply the whole system is corrupt.

Sarcs

5th Feb 2014, 21:59

Although the Senate Estimate AQONs were still overdue (10 January), the release yesterday would still have to be close to an all-time record for the DoIRD (formally DoIT)…:D

DoIRD AQONs (Supplementary Estimates November 2013) (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/rratctte/estimates/sup1314/infra/index)

On a cursory review it would appear that most of the DIPs answers contain the usual (SOP) spin & obfuscation (i.e. taking the mickey of the Senators QONs).:ugh:

However there are one or two notable exceptions…:D

In particular, Hoody’s adopted mob, the ASA take out the golden cheroot award for most directly answering the bloody questions..:ugh: : ASA AQONs (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1314/infra/AA.ashx) & attachments for QON 160 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1314/infra/160_Att.ashx)

Moving right along it would appear that the ATsBeaker (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1314/infra/ATSB.ashx) are still in denial over the PelAir report….:confused:(my bold): Senator Xenophon asked:
It is now over four years since the ditching of VH-NGA off Norfolk Island, and nearly seven months since the committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has the ATSB formulated a response to this report?
a. If so, please provide a copy of the response provided to the Minister or department.
b. Will the ATSB be implementing any of the report’s recommendations? If so, when?
c. In particular, will the ATSB be withdrawing its report into the Pel-Air incident and conducting a further investigation?
d. Does the Chief Commissioner still maintain the ditching was the fault of the pilot, and that there were no systemic issues involved?

Answer:

Yes.

a. The ATSB provided advice to the Department on 31 July 2013, to assist it in briefing the Minister on a proposed government response. The various agency contributions, including the ATSB’s, to assist in the preparation of the Government’s response to the Senate Inquiry, are internal working documents provided to the Department as part of a deliberative Government process.

Each Government aviation agency cleared parts, pertaining to their organisation, of the proposed Government response to the Senate Inquiry before the response was provided to the Government. Accordingly agency views on the Senate Inquiry’s report will be reflected in the final Government response, which will be provided to the Committee as soon as it is approved by the Government.

b. The ATSB will implement those elements of the government response which are relevant to it and are consistent with the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. The timeframe for implementation will depend on the publication of the government’s response as well as the outcomes of the review of aviation safety regulation announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 14 November 2013. The review team is expected to report to the government in May 2014.

c. The ATSB has no power to withdraw the Pel-Air report or plans to conduct a further investigation.

d. The ATSB stands by the findings of its report. Neither the Chief Commissioner nor the ATSB have apportioned blame for the ditching.The report identified systemic issues against which action has been taken by the relevant organisations. And on Nick’s QONs in regards to the Canuck’s review etc of ATsBeaker:Senator Xenophon asked:

I note that the Canadian TSB has been commissioned to undertake an independent review of the ATSB’s reporting processes.
a. Who commissioned the review?
b. Why was the TSB chosen, and who made that choice?
c. What is the process for the review?

Answer:

a. The ATSB Commission agreed to enter into an MOU with the TSB of Canada to facilitate the review, on 24 July 2013. The MOU was executed by the ATSB Chief Commissioner and the Chair of the TSB on 29 July 2013.

b. The TSB was identified by the Chief Commissioner as well placed to conduct the review because the TSB has a similar legislative framework to the ATSB and a long-standing commitment to systemic investigation to improve safety.

c. The review will involve the TSB conducting a comparative analysis of ATSB and TSB investigation methodologies, including a comparison against ICAO Annex 13.

As part of the review, the TSB will analyse a selection of ATSB investigations,including the Pel-Air investigation, to assess how the investigation methodology was applied.

The review will also assess the ATSB’s approach to the management and governance of the investigation process, the investigation reporting process and external communications.

The TSB expects to publish its report by May 2014.
Also of interest (& somewhat more informative :rolleyes:) was the AQON to Nick’s QON on Loss of separation occurrences and Pel-Air: Senator Xenophon asked:
The ATSB recently completed a review of loss of separation incidents in Australia, and concluded that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame.
a. How does this compare with the CASA review of Airservices Australia, which found serious regulatory breaches and resulted in CASA revoking ASA’s ongoing approval? Isn’t this in contrast to the ATSB’s findings?
b. Given the findings of the Pel-Air report, what confidence can the Australian public have that the ATSB was thorough and rigorous in its investigation, and did not seek to mitigate any impact the investigation may have on CASA or Airservices Australia?
c. Does the ATSB acknowledge that the significant failings of the Pel-Air report, and the lack of response to those failings, puts the ATSB’s reputation at risk?

Answer:

The ATSB’s review did not conclude that issues with military ATS were primarily to blame for loss of separation incidents in Australian airspace.

a. The CASA Part 172 audit solely looked at Airservices Australia and used an audit methodology concerned specifically with regulatory compliance.
In contrast, the ATSB’s Loss of separation (LOS) between aircraft in Australian airspace, January 2008 to June 2012 research report analysed safety data in relation to reported incidents and associated ATSB investigations. Using an evidence-based approach, it aimed to document the level of safety in relation to aircraft separation across all controlled airspace. In doing so, the ATSB examined CASA’s involvement in aircraft separation as well as that of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence.

The ATSB research report found that most (80%) LOS incidents involved aircraft under the control of Airservices. The report highlights areas of concern relating to Airservices in relation to these occurrences; it also identified a safety issue relating to Airservices not actively monitoring or investigating LOS occurrences deemed attributable to pilots. This resulted in a recommendation to CASA, who currently do not require Airservices to report on pilot-attributable LOS occurrences. The research report also makes reference to other safety issues involving Airservices that were concurrently identified in ongoing ATSB occurrence investigations, two of which were released on the same day and identified a range of safety issues relating to Airservices and included recommendations to Airservices (AO-2011-144, AO-2012-012).

The research report also noted that:
While a number of the above investigations are ongoing at the time of writing this report, and more detailed findings and associated safety actions will be included in those reports when published, most of the issues are consistent with some of those identified in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Review of CASR Part 172 Air Traffic Service Approval of Airservices Australia, which was finalised in January 2013.

The ATSB research report also examined LOS occurrences involving military air traffic control, which is currently not regulated or overseen by CASA. Analysis found that there was a disproportionate rate of LOS incidents in military terminal area airspace, and that these occurrences involved contributing air traffic controller actions more often than for equivalent civil airspace occurrences. The ATSB considers that, although small in terms of the volume of aircraft controlled, military airspace currently carries a higher risk of a separation loss than civil airspace and attention should be directed to reducing this risk. Two recommendations were made in relation to this, one to the Department of Defence, and the other to CASA.

b. Consistent with international conventions, legislative obligations and the expectations of government,the ATSB operates independently of regulators and other safety agencies.The ATSB has negotiated Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with these safety agencies that recognise their separate and independent roles but confirm a shared commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for transport safety.

Noting the concerns of the Senate References Committee Inquiry, the government has announced a review of aviation safety regulation which will consider the relationships between safety agencies.

Not withstanding the Reference Committee’s concerns, the ATSB makes a significant contribution to the safety of the Australian aviation industry through investigation, analysis, open reporting and education on civil aviation safety matters, free of any conflict of interest and without fear or favour.

c. The government is considering its response to the Senate References Committee report into Aviation Accident Investigations. Separately, the ATSB has invited the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada to review the ATSB’s investigation methodologies.The Australian public should have every confidence in the ATSB’s ability and commitment to carry out its functions fully. The ATSB looks forward to the outcomes of both the government review and the TSB review as an opportunity to further improve the ATSB’s contribution to transport safety.Hmm..I get the impression that the clock is well and truly ticking..:zzz:..for poor old Beaker and the Miniscule response to the AAI report is (finally) imminent…:ugh:..TICK TOCK! :ok:

PS Forgot to mention the FF AQON on the Barrier embuggerance.:{..for those interested here you go :rolleyes::Senator Fawcett asked:

Senator FAWCETT: Do CASA hold any records of what the content of those verbal outbriefs are?

Mr Campbell: I think you are talking about an exit meeting. I believe that we still have an exit meeting under our current processes and our current surveillance manual, and I believe there would be records of that meeting.

Senator FAWCETT: Are you able to provide those to the committee? Again, I am only getting one side of the story at the moment, and my understanding is that the exit meeting did not indicate any serious problems that would indicate a show cause notice forthcoming.

Mr Campbell: I would not expect our inspectors to be talking about show cause at an exit meeting, quite frankly. I think that is a decision that we make as part of our coordinated enforcement process, and it requires input from more people than just the inspectors to start talking about things like a show cause notice. I would expect them to say, 'We found this and this and this,' and we will be in touch with them.

Senator FAWCETT: I believe Horn Island was the area where the most concern was. I think there was an audit done—I think Twin Otter was the aircraft that was of concern. Can you tell me how many defects were found on that aircraft when you did the audit?

Mr Campbell: I do not recall the Twin Otter. I will have to take that one on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: My understanding is that it was less than a handful of things like landing lights. Again, there is no AAT process we can look at to understand the balance of this argument. Are you able to provide me—even if it is in confidence—with a record of what the deficiencies were that caused the concern in CASA, because I am certainly not seeing the same story from the other side that would lend weight to a grounding situation, which is essentially what has occurred?

Mr McCormick: Yes, we will take that on notice and provide you with all the documentation we can. I am cognizant that the committee had a discussion earlier today with Mr Mrdak about FOI versus committee requests, and we acknowledge that anything we give to you will be in confidence. We will do our utmost to give you anything we have available on that, and we will certainly find the reports you refer to and the recommendation paperwork that came to me which led to the serious and imminent risk decision. Is it satisfactory that we go up to that decision point?

Senator FAWCETT: Yes, that would be good.

Mr McCormick: We will do that. We will take that on notice.

Answer:
CASA is not aware of any Twin Otters operating in the Torres Strait/Horn Island area and have not carried out any audit or aircraft inspection on any Twin Otters in that region in recent years. It is possible that the question may be referring to another aircraft type, the Britten Norman BN2 (Islander), which was operated by Barrier Aviation (Barrier) at their Horn Island base.

A number of aircraft including the Britten Norman BN2 were found to have defects during CASA audits and subsequent investigations, and details of those matters were considered with regard to CASA’s serious and imminent risk decision.

As a result of a special audit of Barrier from 29 October 2012 to 12 November 2012, a total of eleven Aircraft Survey Reports (ASRs) were issued in relation to aircraft operated by Barrier. ASRs are directions relating to the maintenance of Australian aircraft for the purposes of ensuring the safety of air navigation. Of significant concern was that four of the ASRs were issued under Code A which requires the serious maintenance issues identified to be rectified before any further flight of the aircraft.

It should be noted however that it was not simply the identification of aircraft defects which led CASA to decide to suspend Barrier Aviation’s Air Operators Certificate (AOC). Barrier’s practice of preventing its pilots from complying, or directing them not to comply, with their legislative obligations, and flying aircraft on numerous occasions in charter passenger carrying operations with known airworthiness defects, many of which were major defects, gave rise to a serious and imminent risk to air safety.

The view was reinforced by the systemic deficiencies identified during CASA’s audit activities, the serious aircraft defects identified and Barrier’s poor safety record as evidenced by numerous safety incidents. This was also corroborated by the contents of the diary which was seized on 18 December 2012 when a search warrant was executed on Barrier’s Horn Island offices.

Justice Rares of the Federal Court of Australia on 22 February 2013 delivered a judgement stating he was satisfied that Barrier Aviation had engaged in conduct that either constituted, or contributed to, or resulted in, a serious and imminent risk to air safety, and as such the Court made an order that prohibited the holder from doing anything that was authorised by the AOC. Barrier Aviation did not oppose Justice Rares making such an order.
The results of further investigation and analysis were considered in relation to subsequent actions, including the cancellation of Barrier Aviation’s AOC on 13 March 2013 and the refusal to re-issue an AOC on 31 July 2013. :yuk::yuk: All clear as mud now?? :E

Sarcs

11th Feb 2014, 00:20

Comment: Was going to work this in to a more general post but thought I couldn't do Ben's dot joining true justice..:rolleyes:

So here is his article in full...:ok:

REX begs for Govt help, but what about Pel-Air victims?

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) Feb 11, 2014 11:53AM

There is something very rotten about the Pel-Air crash, the treatment of its victims, and the conduct of CASA and the ATSB in relation to their respective duties to the public and to air safety.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2014/02/800px-Saab_340A_VH-KDK-610x327.jpg (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/02/11/rex-begs-for-govt-help-but-what-about-pel-air-victims/800px-saab_340a_vh-kdk/)

The outbursts by REX (http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/rex-mayday-call-to-tony-abbott-as-profit-slides-industry-collapse-looms-20140209-32a0m.html) in recent days claiming that the aviation sector could collapse without government assistance raises the question as to what Labor values it found so compelling in July 2012 as to cause it to donate $250,000 to the ALP.

It may well be of interest to the Coalition Government, too, since despite vocal support for its policies, both when in opposition, and after its defeat of Labor (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/rex-chief-lim-kim-hai-warns-more-regional-airlines-at-risk/story-e6frg95x-1226784135812http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/rex-chief-lim-kim-hai-warns-more-regional-airlines-at-risk/story-e6frg95x-1226784135812) last September, the parliamentary register of political donation doesn’t, so far, register commensurate generosity toward the government of tough love toward businesses in trouble, whether car makers or airlines.
The REX rhetoric was strongly anti-Labor. Yet the REX money was pro-Labor.

In the last year for which there is a public record Regional Express gave $70,000 to the Liberal cause, $95,700 to the National cause, and a quarter of a million dollars to support, one might assume, Labor causes.
Except that REX doesn’t support the carbon tax, and its chairman, Lim Kim Hai, has made no secret of his detestation for Labor in general.

After the end-of-the-world commentary from REX burst into full fury yesterday Plane Talking sought in writing answers from the airline to a series of questions exploring the rural aviation crisis (which is not to be underestimated) and the company’s costly infatuation with Labor.

It was a pretty straightforward request, but it has gone unanswered.
Which raises the poor optics for REX of an over the top donation to Labor coincidentally when the ATSB was close to publishing its final report into the Pel-Air aerial ambulance charter crash of a Westwind corporate jet near Norfolk Island on November 2009.

Pel-Air is a subsidiary of REX. All six people on board the Westwind miraculously survived the ditching of the jet in the sea in the dark after it was unable to land at Norfolk Island for refueling on its way from Apia to Melbourne.

There may of course be absolutely no connection between the donation, and that report, which was so obviously deficient in integrity and diligence that it became the subject of a scathing Senate inquiry and report which the previous Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his successor, Warren Truss, seem incapable of addressing.

The Senate inquiry’s report includes an entire chapter devoted to the committee’s unanimous lack of confidence in the testimony of the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.

In an incredible development, in as far as Senate committee inquiries go, the Senators concerned uncovered a secret document that CASA the air safety regulator had withheld from the ATSB, the safety investigator, in which CASA was told of the unsafe state of the Pel-Air operation at the time of the crash, and a lack of regulatory oversight which could have prevented the crash happening.

It is now more than four years since the crash. None of those injured in the accident have been compensated. None of the regulations which CASA said would be changed concerning the fuel and diversion rules for charters like that being flown by Pel-Air at the time of the crash have been changed.

One of the victims, nurse Karen Casey, who has lost her capacity to work, and has been in pain since the crash, and has three children, has yet to receive any recompense from Pel-Air.

There is something very rotten about the Pel-Air crash, the treatment of its victims, and the conduct of CASA and the ATSB in relation to their respective duties to the public and to air safety.

When REX starts begging for financial assistance from government, perhaps it could consider those who are begging for it to address the damage done to the victims of its unsafe operation of the Pel-Air charter, an operation so unsafe it voluntarily grounded it in the aftermath of the crash.

REX needs to explain what was so admirable in the Labor government it so publicly despised yet so generously supported at the time the donation was registered.

Sarcs

12th Feb 2014, 21:43

Although slightly less damning of the ATsB (than Fort Fumble) in their WLR submission, the AAAA critique is nonetheless representative of mainstream IOS concern :D:D:
ATSB

AAAA still has some concerns with the lack of competence/expertise/experience of some investigators, especially when confronted with an aerial application accident. In particular, AAAA expressed strong concerns to ATSB management with previous attempts during investigations to attempt to mould evidence to fit a theory, rather than objectively analysing and presenting the evidence available.

ATSB has also demonstrated this approach in squarely stating that a particular issue (the example being agricultural weights) had nothing whatsoever to do with the particular aircraft accident being investigated, but that they thought an additional report was required – despite there being no evidence of an ‘issue’. This preoccupation by ATSB continues despite many more of these aircraft types operating safely at the same heavier weights in the US, Canada and NZ.

The practical challenge of having ATSB staff with experience across all areas of aviation operations should suggest that a different business model may be a useful approach, where existing independent industry expertise can be called up as required. Similarly, there may be other ways of capturing or utilising industry expertise – such as a joint venture with AAAA, for example – whereby investigators will not have to learn ‘on-the-job’ or by their mistakes and wrong assumptions, as is occasionally the case.

The Transport Safety Investigation Act allows for ATSB to recognise other organisations and their programs for fulfilment of responsibilities for reporting under the Act. Unfortunately, this avenue has never been genuinely pursued, despite various offers from AAAA to work with ATSB to develop such a program.

ATSB itself has identified underreporting of aviation safety incidents as an issue, but seems unable to link underreporting with the most obvious likely cause – the fear of regulatory or administrative action by CASA because ATSB reports are not adequately de-identified before publishing. Inclusion of VH registration numbers and very specific locations in ATSB reports means that ATSB reports are NOT de-identified, and certainly not de-identified enough to provide protection to reporting pilots.

This is a very significant safety issue that goes to the heart of the reporting system and the Australian aviation safety regulation system. Ongoing CASA efforts to undermine this system will simply further damage the essential protection pilots and maintainers require to report aviation safety incidents and accidents.

There is considerable sympathy and support from industry for ATSB efforts to protect the confidentiality of reporting from being ravaged by CASA.
There is also significant industry support for the ATSB’s turn-around in focus to provide more useful safety promotion products through improved analysis and reports.

AAAA also fully supports the addition of safety promotion responsibilities and resources to ATSB that are currently held by CASA, as recommended in the Forum policies.
And Miniscule the IOS consensus on your response to the PelAir report/recommendations is growing, example from AFAP submission…

“….25. We note that the Minister whilst in opposition supported demands for the immediate implementation of those recommendations and request that this Review revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend the implementation of those recommendations as a matter of priority…”

Miniscule ‘bite the bullet’ and respond to the PelAir report :ugh:, at least it will give you some clear air prior to the WLR ‘Mayday’ report…:E

Sarcs

14th Feb 2014, 07:56

Ben's passionate diatribe sums up the DASkull tenure best...:D:D

CASA director of aviation safety to stand down (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/02/14/casa-director-of-aviation-safety-to-stand-down/)

Ben Sandilands | Feb 14, 2014 5:45PM | EMAIL | PRINT

The Chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board, Dr Allan Hawke, has today announced that Mr John McCormick will not be seeking a further term of appointment as Director of Aviation Safety.

Mr McCormick has, however, agreed, to the Board’s request to stay on in the position until 31 August 2014.This will allow for an executive search process to fill the position and enable the Director to assist the Board’s initial consideration of the Government’s Independent Review of Aviation Safety Regulation scheduled to be completed around the end of May.

The CASA statement says “Mr McCormick’s leadership over the last five years has been the critical factor behind the significant improvements to Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime and CASA’s performance.”

The full, effusive, and ridiculous statement can be read here.

In the more than four years since the Pel-Air ditching near Norfolk Island CASA has failed to make any changes to the safety regulations relating to aerial ambulance flights like that being performed by the Westwind corporate jet involved even though it recognised they were deficient and vowed to change them in a timely manner.

Four years and three months is not timely. Or acceptable.

McCormick admitted during a Senate committee hearing inquiry into the final report into that accident by the ATSB that he had with held certain CASA documents from the safety investigator which said that the accident could among other things, have been prevented had CASA carried out its obligations to air safety and the oversight of the Pel-Air Westwind operation.

Mr McCormick apologised for his actions. However the actions of CASA in not making available to the ATSB a document relevant to the crash of the jet, which referenced the lack of a suitable refuelling policy for such operations at Pel-Air, was referred by the Senate committee to the Australian Federal Police for advice as to whether or not CASA had offended the Transport Safety Investigation Act of 2003.

That reference has not as yet been returned to the Senators who made it. The Senators also heard testimony as to possible collusion between the ATSB and CASA over suppression or dismissal of evidence related to the crash. The committee issued a report which was highly critical of the ATSB and CASA, and made recommendations with the then Transport minister Anthony Albanese ignored, and which his coalition replacement and deputy PM Warren Truss has yet to respond to.

(The same committee took the unprecedented step of devoting an entire chapter of their report to their dissatisfaction with the testimony of the chief commissioner of the ATSN, Martin Dolan.)

Under McCormick’s tenure the Queensland Coroner John Hutton said it was “unbelievable” that CASA had allowed an aerobatic pilot, Barry Hempel, pilot to keep his private licence up until the day he killed a joyflight customer, Ian Lovell, by crashing their aircraft into the sea near South Stradbroke Island.

The coroner found that CASA was fully aware of Hempel’s history of seizures and safety breaches but did nothing about them.

The inquest raised key parallels with CASA total failure of duty in relation to the Lockhart River Transair crash which killed 15 people in 2005, in which the safety authority knew that Transair was unsafe and in breach of the regulations but did nothing material and told a Senate inquiry that it had no duty of care to warn the public of unsafe operations.

That incident preceded McCormick’s appointment. Aspects of the Hempel crash and the Pel-Air crash strongly suggest that CASA’s culture of indifference to public accountability or the enforcement of safety rules haven’t materially changed under his tenure.

There is widespread dissatisfaction and alarm in the aviation community as to the competency, fairness and accountability of the safety regulator. McCormick’s replacement and the more timely and sensible and effective overhaul of air safety regulations have been long argued for in the aviation community.
No further comment required accept a word of advice..."don't let the drawbridge hit you in the ar**!"...:E

Sarcs

18th Feb 2014, 01:26

….over the hill and far away…??”

The Senators chronology conundrum??

With regard to the PelAir report & Miniscule responses/non-responses we had some very mixed messages coming from the main players (DIPs)….:rolleyes:

1st cab off the rank was the head Crat with this response to a DF question on when Albo first received the Dept brief:Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)The last time we met in estimates, you were anticipating giving a brief to former minister Albanese about the Senate report into air accident investigations. You anticipated giving that to him, I think, within 10 days of the date of the estimates. Could you confirm what date the department did provide that brief for action to the minister?

Mr Mrdak: Following our conversation at the 29 May estimates, I provided advice to the minister on 5 June 2013.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Did that have recommendations for a response to the Senate report?

Mr Mrdak: It provided advice on the Senate report, including options for handling of the Senate inquiry report, yes.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Did it flag the fact that there were safety implications raised in the Senate report?

Mr Mrdak: It certainly drew to the minister's attention the findings of the Senate committee report.
Next we had the byplay with Fort Fumble, the bureau & the Dept, which led to basically the same QON (152-154) being received and ultimately being answered (refer QON index (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1314/infra/Infrastructure_final_qon_index.ashx)):
Answer:
The various agency contributions to assist in the preparation of the Government’s response to the Senate Inquiry are internal working documents provided to the Department as part of a deliberative Government process.
Each Government aviation agency cleared parts, pertaining to their organisation, of the proposed Government response to the Senate Inquiry before the response was provided to the Government. Accordingly agency views on the Senate Inquiry’s report will be reflected in the final Government response, which will be provided to the Senate as soon as it is approved by the Government.

AQONs for QON 153 & 154:

Answer:
See answer 152. Okay so far all the ducks were well and truly in alignment and accounted for in regards to dobbing in the previous Miniscule Albo…:E

It wasn’t till Senator X started asking for an expansion of the government (non-) response timeline that the ducks started to wander off…:{

“….Senator XENOPHON: But there were various recommendations and you have given your views as to those recommendations to the department?

Mr McCormick: Yes, we have.

Senator XENOPHON: When did you do that?

Mr McCormick: I would have to take the exact date on notice. It was before the election…” Answer:

In response to a request from the Department, CASA provided initial comments on the recommendations to the Department on 7 June 2013. Formal comments on the proposed response were provided to the Department on 19 August 2013.

After the election, CASA received a draft Government response on 25 September 2013 from the Department inviting any final comments and CASA advised it had no further comments on 26 September 2013.
And from the bureau:Senator Xenophon asked:

It is now over four years since the ditching of VH-NGA off Norfolk Island, and nearly seven months since the committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has the ATSB formulated a response to this report?
a. If so, please provide a copy of the response provided to the Minister or department.
b. Will the ATSB be implementing any of the report’s recommendations? If so, when?
c. In particular, will the ATSB be withdrawing its report into the Pel-Air incident and conducting a further investigation?
d. Does the Chief Commissioner still maintain the ditching was the fault of the pilot, and that there were no systemic issues involved?

Answer:
Yes.
a. The ATSB provided advice to the Department on 31 July 2013, to assist it in briefing the Minister on a proposed government response. The various agency contributions, including the ATSB’s, to assist in the preparation of the Government’s response to the Senate Inquiry, are internal working documents provided to the Department as part of a deliberative Government process.

Each Government aviation agency cleared parts, pertaining to their organisation, of the proposed Government response to the Senate Inquiry before the response was provided to the Government.

Accordingly agency views on the Senate Inquiry’s report will be reflected in the final Government response, which will be provided to the Committee as soon as it is approved by the Government.

b. The ATSB will implement those elements of the government response which are relevant to it and are consistent with the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. The timeframe for implementation will depend on the publication of the government’s response as well as the outcomes of the review of aviation safety regulation announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 14 November 2013. The review team is expected to report to the government in May 2014.

c. The ATSB has no power to withdraw the Pel-Air report or plans to conduct a further investigation.

d. The ATSB stands by the findings of its report. Neither the Chief Commissioner nor the ATSB have apportioned blame for the ditching. The report identified systemic issues against which action has been taken by the relevant organisations.
Okay so timeline with comments…:cool:
Not time lined: The interim period between Senate Estimates and the calling of the election; where there was numerous press releases, media reports {including a rather humorous moment where Albo was caught trying to escape out the back door to avoid embarrassing questions on the non-response to the AAI report}, tendentious blogger commentary etc.

23 May 2013: AAI report released.
{Note: Remember that apparently before the report was released the AFP accepted for investigation a referral by the Senate for possible breaches under S24 of the TSI Act. Now rumour has it that the AFP investigation, more than 10 months later, has subsequently stalled awaiting statements from the Dept, bureau & FF i.e. busy trying to find those damn ducks.}

29 May 2013: Estimates Dept/Govt serious/urgent undertaking to responding to AAI recommendations & significant safety issues highlighted in the report…

“…Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) …. That three-month period will fall right in the middle of the caretaker period, which means that significant safety issues could potentially be stretched out beyond four or five months before resolution, which is unacceptable.Could you tell the committee what your plan is to make sure that those issues are addressed in a timely manner, given the overlapping of significant time frames?

Mr Mrdak : We are certainly aware of the seriousissues raised by the committee's report that was tabled last week in the Senate. The minister has sought urgent advice from agencies in relation to the matters raised by the Senate committee.We are now in the process of providing that advice to the minister. The minister certainly does recognise the need to urgently review and address the recommendations...
...I can only say to you that the government is giving this serious and urgent consideration and looking to expedite its response as best it can.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I accept that you cannot speak for the minister and when he will release his response but can you give the committee an undertaking that the department's response to the minister will occur in sufficient time so that he can respond before the caretaker mode?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly that would be our intention. As I said, the minister has sought advice. In preliminary discussions with him on the issues involved he has sought that advice as a matter of urgency and we are doing that now, along with our portfolio agencies….”

5 June 2013: Department advice to Albo on AAI report.
Comment: However it would appear that the Dept advice was devoid of any ‘portfolio agencies’ advice…??

7 June 2013: CAsA provides initial comments on the AAI report recommendations to the Dept.

24 July 2013: ATsB Commissioners meet.
Beaker thumbing his nose at the AAI report…
“..Mr Dolan : There is a possibility—in fact, there is the certainty—that the commissioners will reconsider it. That is part of our review of the recommendations of the committee. Once we have done that, we will report back on the results of our consideration.

Senator XENOPHON: And when do you think that will be reconsidered?

Mr Dolan : At this stage—and I need to have further discussions with my fellow commissioners—we have a scheduled formal commission meeting on 24 July. At this stage, that is when we would expect to consider all the recommendations of the committee…”

31 July 2013: The ATsB provides advice to the Dept, to assist it in briefing the Minister on a proposed government response.

19 Aug 2013: FF provide formal comments on the proposed Govt response (i.e ‘draft’) to the Dept. {Note: Which was incidentally 2 weeks after the federal election was called..WTF??}

7 Sept 2013: New Govt & Miniscule.

25-26 Sept 2013: FF receives a draft Govt response from the Dept inviting any final comments & FF advises it had no further comment on 26 September 2013.
{Note: Interesting that the new Miniscule had a ‘draft’ response back in September but is yet to release the final version…WTF is the hold up??}

14 Nov 2013: WLR is announced by the Miniscule.

18 Nov 2013: Senate Estimates where Senator Sinodinos said…
“…My advice was we would respond before the end of the year…”
{Note: In the Miniscule’s Senate rep defence, he didn’t quantify ‘this year’ :rolleyes:}

So there we have it, now a further 3 months down the track, we are still yet to see the Govt response…:ugh:

IOS member: “Parliament House is on fire!!”

Secretary to the PMC: “ Standby, just drafting an urgent response for the PM…{30 minutes later}… “ there we go..forwarded to the PM’s chief of staff who is suggesting to the PM to call an urgent Cabinet meeting and to recall Parliament!”

3 months later…
Secretary to the PMC thought bubble (while picking through the rubble of his former grand office in Parliament House): “..Oh well at least my arse is covered..”:ugh:

“Three little ducks went out one day…QUACK..QUACK..QUACK” (& TICK..TOCK)!:ok: