Merged: Senate Inquiry [Archive] - Page 9

Sarcs

8th Jul 2014, 22:56

While we continue to wait for the miniscule to blink on the Forsyth report it should not be forgotten that Fort Fumble’s now feeble (and much poorer) sister is in much need of reform and (much like FF) a re-establishment of IOS trust...:(

If the rumour be true on bean counter Beaker??:ugh:

If the miniscule is not prepared to extract his hand out of the Beaker muppet, I’m with “K” let’s save the dosh and completely disband the ATsB (at least for the aviation section of their remit).

Even as a media spokesman Beaker cannot hide his true colours (BASR philosophy) and it appears that the international community is catching on. Quote from a recent article published by the Malaysia Chronicle titled - MH370: Why have searchers refused to check out UNIDENTIFIED WRECK (http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=312322:mh370-why-have-searchers-refused-to-check-out-unidentified-wreck-spotted-in-bay-of-bengal?&Itemid=2#ixzz36ujMrLh4)spotted in Bay of Bengal?:

“…The main reason for ignoring the location is the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) Chairman Martin Dolan making a statement that GeoResonance methodology cannot do what we claim. This is without ever having anyone contacting GeoResonance for a technical presentation. This slanderous and ignorant statement by a senior public servant is unfathomable when GeoResonance regularly produces accurate results for commercial clients around the globe…” If the ATsB is to regain a fraction of its once enviable reputation the muppet simply has to go. Perhaps, as “K” says, this will inevitably be left to the Senate to hammer home, because I have no doubt that Senator X & Fawcett will not entertain the idea of Beaker remaining in the position.

From Nick’s adjournment speech 04 March ’14…

“…The committee was so concerned with Mr Dolan's comments on this front that it stated in its report:

Mr Dolan's evidence in this regard is questionable and has seriously eroded his standing as a witness before the committee.

This is an incredibly strong statement in regard to a senior public servant. I do not understand how Mr Dolan's position in the ATSB is tenable. And yet, neither the previous government nor the current government has formally responded to the committee's report—but I understand it is coming shortly…”

Senator Xenophon adjournment speech 04/03/2014 - YouTube

Nick then goes on to mention the TSBC peer review, the report of which is now long overdue :=:

“…However, it emerged in Senate estimates just last week that the Canadian TSB have only reviewed the investigation on the documents. They have not interviewed the individuals involved in the incident and those individuals who provided extensive evidence, such as Mr Quinn and Mr Aherne, even though those individuals are very critical of the ATSB's processes. As I understand it, they have not spoken to members of the Senate committee or even to CASA.

Given the many issues regarding oversight and transparency that were raised in the committee report, this is incredibly concerning. It is hard to understand how the Canadian TSB can produce a useful or meaningful view without digging further than the surface documents. This should not be a tick and flick exercise…”

IMO even if the TSBC report (when it finally arrives) is slightly favourable to the ATsBeaker regime, the muppet is still a muppet and should be returned to the toy box from which he came.

The miniscule needs to realise that there is much more than the reputation of the ATsB riding on this; & if mishandled by playing petty politics, the whole reputation of Australia as an original signatory to ICAO could be put at jeopardy, not to mention it could see his Dept Head Red with his head on a stick.

From Red’s blurb (foreword) in the State Safety Program (Annex 19): Foreword (https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/foreword.aspx)

“…Australia supports the efforts of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish Safety Programs for member States to better ensure effective integration of aviation safety standards and practices. This builds on the approach endorsed by ICAO to have air transport operators, airports, air navigation and maintenance service providers and other critical aviation operations establish comprehensive safety management systems to guide the management of the range of activities involved in ensuring safety…”

Besides a ‘Just Culture’ philosophy (which requires industry trust with CAsA & the ATsB), what is integral to a successful SSP (Annex 19) is for the State to have a fully independent Aviation Accident Investigation organisation. Under the annex the State (miniscule and his Dept i.e. ‘Red’) must insure that the ATsB is sufficiently funded to meet its obligations under Annex 13 and (Annex 19 Attachment A para 1.3)…

“…In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations…”

I would argue that until such time as the recommendations of the AAI inquiry report are adequately addressed and Beaker is replaced, that Red & the miniscule are putting at severe risk our compliance with ICAO and Annex 19.

TICK…TOCK miniscule and FFS get on with it mate!:{

MTF..:ok:

Kharon

10th Jul 2014, 01:33

Senator Xenophon has found one of three who have felt the hot breath of 'revenge' for being a witness or participating in the Truss WLR.

This is serious stuff; anyone who has been 'touched inappropriately' after daring to criticise or bear witness should contact the 'good' Senators a.s.a.p. They are interested.

A matter of privilege. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W01ogdgcfFQ&feature=youtu.be)

Don't be shy...

Sarcs

10th Jul 2014, 02:42

PelAir Inquiry & Senator X notice of motion 10/07/14

Interesting development, first cab off the rank in the Senate this morning was a NX NoM for the following to be referred to the Senate Committee of Privileges for investigation & report:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/One.jpg

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Two.jpg

Poohtube link…

Senator Xenophon matter of privilege AAI inquiry - 10 July 2014 - YouTube

Any bets anyone??

MTF..Sarcs

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/10/intimidation-motion-concerning-pel-air-raised-in-senate/) – Quick off the mark – as usual.

Frank Arouet

10th Jul 2014, 06:45

Intimidating any witness is a criminal matter is it not?

This will sort out the "privilege" aspect we were all so worried about. Perhaps we can also get to see who had access to the "confidential" submissions. Time lines and applications for extensions suddenly seem important.

If criminality be so, I have a notion that at least one Lawyer is going to have a field day with what he has. I'm guessing any correspondence would be signed so the "buck" can be apportioned to where it stops. I hope NX gets to the nub of this.

These people have no moral compass.

A pox in the lot of them!

thorn bird

10th Jul 2014, 07:11

CAsA treating the Senate with contempt???

Yes of course they have.

Will anything be done about it???

No of course not.

Why not??

See John Quadrio, Polair, Hardies, Airtex, Barrier, etc, etc, etc, etc.

So ??

When they can pervert the course of justice, manufacture evidence, thumb their nose a court orders, commit perjury..etc,etc,etc,etc...without sanction. Why would they be concerned with the Senate?

Surely not!! Has anything ever been done about it??

Nope

Anybody Interested??

One or two but the majority seem too apathetic.

Unfortunately that would seem so.

Supposedly 34,000 pilots in Australia.

A paltry 1400 have signed the petition in support of their fellow pilots. Just shows the me! me! me! its all about me, I'm all right Jake attitude amongst the aviation industry in Australia is alive and well supported by our regulator.

If these things were happening in the US there would be riots in the streets.

Aviation is no different to any other small fragmented industry in Australia, bureaucrats do what bureaucrats do..REGULATE!! err and BREED!!

Which is why so many of our smaller industries, you know the ones that used to employ most people, are collapsing under the burden of over regulation and what is becoming rampant corruption, and its happening because of apathy. Australia is one of the most expensive country in the world to live in. The aviation industry is at the tipping point of sustainability, the whole country is rapidly approaching that point.

When our most educated and wealthy people are talking about emigrating from Australia we have some serious problems.

Frank, the Pox can successfully be treated by antibiotics, lead poisoning is a far better sorter outer!!

Jinglie

10th Jul 2014, 12:46

Frank,
Breach of Parliamentary Privilege is a very serious issue, as i'm sure you're aware. I wonder who provoked the good senator into action? The Screamer has to be odds on favourite, although Beaker is dumb enough to step over the line.
With the rumoured ATSB staff cuts, I wouldn't be surprised if someone within dumped! Should be interesting to watch..........:=

004wercras

10th Jul 2014, 13:33

Indeed an interesting development, but I wouldn't get too excited yet, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely so I doubt if any agency executive leaning upon someone else will result in anything significant happening. Don't forget these people are above the law and aren't held accountable for anything....Eddy Obeid, Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper, we all know what they are really about, but nothing gets done.
It wouldn't surprise me though if the Skull is having a hissy and making somebody's life hell in his last two months in the job, then again that fool Beaker is a complete wombat and is stupid enough to also lean on an employee, perhaps over an expenditure issue of $3.00?? And don't forget lads, the GWM are renown for their harassment and bullying exploits. But then again, so is Flyingfiend!

I dunno, so many bullies and hen packed managers with nil spine and small penises to choose from, who could it be???? At least it is fun to watch the Miniscules life being made robustly lame :ok: Aagh well Warren, you know how to make all this annoyance go away := You can't say you haven't been warned, tosser.

TICK TOCK MINISCULE.

Kharon

10th Jul 2014, 20:17

In the Sandilands - Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/10/intimidation-motion-concerning-pel-air-raised-in-senate/) – article – Ben cites "examples of such offences include":

1) Refusing without reasonable excuse to answer a question;

2) Giving false or misleading evidence;

3) Failing to attend or to produce documents when required to do so;

4) Intimidation of a witness;

5) Adverse treatment of a witness;

6) Wilfully disturbing a committee while it is meeting.

I know of three industry guys under the CASA spotlight, but I'm not betting the house boat that Xenophon is even aware of their existence – as yet. Based on the scant information and looking at the list above, if I were to have a flutter I'd take a trifecta on items 2 and 3, the hard choice would be the stable, both ATSB and CASA publicly indulged their arrogance and contempt for the Senate proceedings, although the ATSB chose to wriggle and slither around the 'law', CASA simply believed themselves – above it.

The pick of the outside chances is from the Quadrio stable – perhaps the intimidation by CASA of their own witness has come to the attention of the Senate; another dark horse is the threat made to some mutt who wanted to meet with the Bored, the response to that also qualifies; also in the running is the Repcon leak and subsequent intimidation of the submitter. Plenty of choices.

So, money where mouth is – Items 2 & 3 – CASA in the box. An off tote (SP) bet on Whistle blower to cover the outlay.

Toot toot ._.
ProAviation (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/07/10/casa-hiring-transparency-lost-in-obfuscation/) has been told that the Dr Hawke wrote to one industry association refuting its submission to the ASRR, and that the organisation rejected what it believed to be “bullying” on his part and brought the matter to Minister Truss’s attention.

tolakuma manki

10th Jul 2014, 21:10

A paltry 1400 have signed the petition in support of their fellow pilots.
Does this mean that 32,600 pilots agree with CASA in regard to the danger of CDV pilots?

Creampuff

10th Jul 2014, 21:50

Whatever it might mean, tm, it isn't helpful for the cause of people who want to reign in the zealots in AVMED.

As to all this nonsense about breach of privilege and "offences", the Privileges Committee will conduct an inquiry and produce a report, just like the RRAT Committee conducted an inquiry and produced a report on aviation accident investigation. Paper and hot air ...

tolakuma manki

10th Jul 2014, 22:07

Whatever it might mean, tm, it isn't helpful for the cause of people who want to reign in the zealots in AVMED.Perhaps one man's zealot is another's rational being.
Then again, could this is a "closed" conversation amongst a few people on the interwebs and of no interest to outsiders? Even those one would consider fellow travellers

Sarcs

10th Jul 2014, 22:41

CVD & IOS Senator Fawcett hears your angst!

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:55): I rise to make a few comments this evening on the state of aviation and its regulation in Australia. But first I wish to note the appointment of Jeff Boyd to the CASA board by the government, which I welcome. Mr Boyd has a long history in the aviation industry, as a LAME —understanding the engineering and the mechanical side—as an in-flight instructor and with his ownership and running of Brindabella Airlines. He has a depth of experience which will be very welcome on the board, and I look forward to the government's appointments of other board members in the near future—particularly as the board will have a key role in implementing the recommendations, as the government approves them, from the Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation.

The issue I would like to touch on tonight though is about a small group of people in the aviation environment. One of the characteristics of a plural liberal democracy such as we have here in Australia is that we respect and look after the rights of minorities. Amongst the pilot population in Australia—the estimates vary, but it is well over 30,000—there is a small group, numbering in their hundreds, potentially around 400, who have a colour vision deficiency. For many years—in fact going right back, I think the first publication that dealt with this was in 1926. People made the assumption, as they looked at aircraft deriving from the days of sailing ships and steamships where they had red and green lights for navigation lights, that if a pilot could not discriminate colours, then he was not safe to fly by night. And since 1926, that document has formed bodies of thought that have flowed through into regulation.

The current ICAO—the international organisation that looks after aviation—document recognises that, to use climate change terms, the science is not settled. They are not actually sure what difference a colour vision deficiency makes to an individual's ability to safely pilot an aircraft by day or by night. Despite that, regulators around the world have tended to err on the side of safety and say, 'We won't let people fly by night unless they pass one of a number of tests'. What that has meant is that for around nine per cent of the male population around the world, those who would aspire to be pilots or even air traffic controllers, are often denied that opportunity.

That changed here in Australia about 25 years ago. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal there was a case that has become known as the Denison case where a colour-vision-deficient pilot took the regulator to the tribunal saying: 'This is unfair. I can demonstrate that I'm competent to fly.' The Commonwealth, because of the degree of interest, funded the applicant as well as the defence, through the then CAA, and so you had a test case where both parties brought in lots of experts. At the end of it, the judgement was made that in fact pilots who had a colour vision deficiency should be able to demonstrate their competence and be licensed to fly. The only condition that was put on that was that they could not captain high-capacity airline aircraft.

As a result of that, Australia is unique in the world in that we now have some 25 years of experience of people with a colour vision deficiency who have been flying, and they have been flying everything from light aircraft by day through to regional type airliners; single pilot, for example overnight freight or the Royal Flying Doctor Service, through to co-pilot roles, particularly in regional type aircraft. We also have—because a number of the principal medical officers within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority have sought to facilitate people with a colour vision deficiency to fly and have implemented things like practical flight tests for people to demonstrate their competence—some people now captaining large capacity aircraft and they have been doing so quite safely for a number of years and in some cases have well over 10,000 hours of flying. That says that, despite the theory, much of which has its origins in that 1926 document, practice shows that people with a colour vision deficiency can operate aircraft safely.

There are four key areas that people raise concerns about. One is to do with the tower. If you lose your radio and there is a control tower, you have to look for the red, green or flashing lights to tell you whether you can land, take off et cetera. People are concerned that if you cannot distinguish the lights then you would not be able to land safely. Again that was probably valid in 1926, but the reality is that on the top of the approach plates that I and other pilots use when we fly is the phone number for the tower. It says, 'If you lose radio contact, phone the tower.' The headset I use, like many others, has a bluetooth connection for a phone so you can quite safely, if you need to, have a redundant system that is specified in the publications to call the tower. So I think that argument is somewhat outdated.

There is also the argument that, with the advent of EFIS screens or glass cockpits, the increased use of colour means that you must be able to distinguish the colours in order to be able to operate safely. One pilot recently underwent a test in a simulator with a CASA flying operations inspector. He specifically asked to be tested on all the night sequences information from the cockpit and he was assessed as being quite safe to operate. In my own experience of modifying aircraft and certifying them for use with night-vision goggles one of the common applications in the cockpit is to put a large green filter over the glass displays so all the colour hierarchies are essentially diminished and yet we certify the aircraft, and pilots fly quite happily by day and night with no incidents. So, whilst the colour is nice to have, clearly it is not an essential characteristic of the cockpit.

There is also concern about traffic and whether you will see the position lights on aircraft. The reality is that many aircraft now have bright white strobe lights for collision avoidance. The interesting part is that the aircraft that most these people have been able to fly over the 25 years are aircraft that do not have automated systems to support the pilot. The one type of aircraft they are not generally allowed to fly in Australia—your larger airlines—has things like white strobes; predominately flies in controlled airspace where air traffic control provides a degree of separation; and has traffic collision avoidance systems, TCASs, that give automated warnings of proximity to other aircraft. So there appears again, both in practice and just conceptually, to be a problem with the restriction that has been placed on people there.

The last area is the PAPI, the precision approach path indicator, which is a glide slope indicator that is positioned next to a runway for pilots to use at night. Because it relies on a combination of red and white lights there is a concern that certain kinds of colour-vision-deficient pilots would not be able to interpret those lights. Again, the confound for that theory is that over 25 years hundreds of pilots have flown thousands of approaches at night using PAPIs quite safely, which says that either the PAPI itself has additional cueing, such as the intensity of the lights, or, more probably, there are enough redundant cues in the surrounding environment that the pilot can land safely. That is backed up by the fact that CASA will provide an exemption if the PAPI is unserviceable: you can still fly your aircraft and land it. That says that the PAPI is a nice thing to have but it is clearly not essential for landing an aircraft.

For this minority group of pilots there has been a change in CASA's view. They have decided to review the safety of these people flying aircraft. They have written to the individual pilots and to employers saying that research, which they have not published, has shown that these pilots may be unsafe. But they have not clarified what that is. The history over the last 25 years shows that that is not the case. Previous principal medical officers in CASA have shown a willingness to support pilots. I am concerned that the attitudes of a few within the regulator may be putting at risk this group, albeit a minority group. In our democracy we look after the rights of minorities. There is an injustice being done to this group. I will be working with the government to fund either another test case or research to make sure that this group receives the justice that the last 25 years have shown that they are due.

004wercras

11th Jul 2014, 12:29

And so Mr Black Hand or "tolakuma manki"; in whatever guise you wear this day: know this, you are wrong. The philosophy is flawed, we fought wars to protect what you would take away – simply to be right.
C'mon K, ignore Owen Meaney, he is just a bored troll. Besides its fun watching him trying to play with the big boys in the big sandpit, but in the end he always gets belted back down into the little sandpit with the preppies :ok:

Frank Arouet

15th Jul 2014, 03:56

004wercras. May I intervene to "rescue" this thread from immersion in the troll pool (406 with GPS in hand);

In the past 25 years the case for the CVD pilot has been made.

CAsA are in error attacking this proof -"WHICH IS IN". Providing further "opinion" to alter the known scientific conclusion is simply a pathetic mischief and a vexatious act. It is the act of a desperate animal in its death throes.

By the same margin of time, CAsA cannot quantify how many "tragedy's" have been prevented by their intervention with reprehensible strict liability offences and "opinions". They can highlight the known "incidents" which had tragic consequences, however, as there is no such thing as an "accident" any more, they can only claim their prosecutions or wins in the AAT are quantifiable evidence of a perverted prevention.

I'm happy to be roved wrong if anyone can quantify how many lives have been saved by CAsA since 1989. Until this proof is conclusive we have "un-affordable" and nebulous safety.

Jinglie

15th Jul 2014, 05:13

Well said Frank. A parting kick in the guts from Herr Screamer!

Sarcs

15th Jul 2014, 10:50

…said this (#1021 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-52.html#post8561408)):Minuscule – in very real terms, the ATSB is an essential part of air safety much more so than the 'regulator'; but don't rely on the BRB, ask the Americans, the Brits or the Canadians how they would feel about a toothless, irrelevant Transport Safety Board. Make the ATSB independent, free of obligation and funding wrangles: Oh, and please, lend me a cannon from the lawns on parliament hill, for a short ceremony; you can watch. And on the CVD petition sticky “K” linked to a 2010 Ben Sandilands PT article titled - Independent push for better air safety standards in Australia (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/09/15/independent-push-for-better-air-safety-standards-in-australia/)

Perhaps the key word in the PT article title and the “K” post is independent. Under Beaker the ATsB has brought us the Hempel non-investigation; the PelAir debacle; the ATsB arranged YMIA incident love-in event; and recently the strange tabloid style prelim report on a certain grounded ATR..aaand the list goes on and on..:ugh::ugh:

Which is all evidence that the ATsB, in its current form, is disturbingly & severely lacking in any form of being a transparent & fully independent State run AAI.:{

004 sums up best the current conundrum of the bureau…

“…Although most attention is on CAsA and its misuse of power for decades, we cannot forget Beaker. He has managed in less than 5 years to take the once well respected and well reputed ATsB and turn it into a spineless limp wristed penny pinching accountancy firm. The quality, content and effectiveness of its investigative reports and processes are laughable and lamentable, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe providing a higher quality and higher standard than our ATsB. Dolans experimentation with 'beyond Reason' methodology is a failure and a complete joke. Placing budget ahead of the Pel Air aircraft retrieval is outright lunacy and incompetency at the highest level, not to mention having 3 commissioners of whom none have an aviation investigative background…”

Throughout the 5 year tenure of Beaker, & his systematic dismantling of the once proud ATSB/BASI reputation, Senator Xenophon has been the one consistent, nagging voice highlighting the deficiencies of CAsA, ASA and the bureau in the administration/oversight of air safety in this country.

NX has also had a strong ally and confidante in AIPA, who undoubtedly have provided many behind closed door briefings to NX, while always contributing and appearing at all of the aviation related Senate inquiries initiated by the good Senator. AIPA’s message on the importance of maintaining a fully independent ATsB is also consistent.

Unlike many of the ASRR submissions, which largely focused their attentions on the big R regulator, AIPA‘s submission highlighted their very real concerns with the continuing demise of the ATsB.
Excerpts from the AIPA submission -197 AIPA (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/197_aipa_31_jan_2014_redacted.pdf):
The ATSB

In October 2012, AIPA made a submission to the Australian Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations (the “Pel-Air Inquiry”). The Committee’s final Report is a vital document for the Review.

However, we believe that our submission for the most part addressed a range of issues that remain directly relevant to the Review’s Terms of Reference and we strongly recommend that you read it separately from the Senate’s final report. It can be found at:
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=31a52199-58c6 (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=31a52199-58c6)-4cd8-ad9e-646f2356b23a
For the present purpose, we do not believe that we need to quote large slabs of our Pel-Air Inquiry submission. However, the following brief synopsis will not do justice to the detail of the argument in our submission nor will it establish the full context. Subject to that caveat, what we said was:
• the ATSB report on the ditching was too little, too late to improve aviation safety as a result of that event;
• the standard of the report was the antithesis of that expected from the ATSB by the broader aviation community;
• the report appeared to have been rendered of little use by the dead hand of bureaucracy, which then raised questions about why that might have been the case;
• we questioned whether an over-emphasis on the ”no blame” philosophy has overshadowed, if not obscured, the importance of the ATSB’s primary role to improve transport safety;
• we then examined the seismic shift in the relationship between ATSB and CASA from the Lockhart River Coronial Inquiry and the publication of the Pel-Air report;
• the Miller Review was commissioned to redress the “serious, ongoing animosity between” CASA and the ATSB;
• Miller came from the law, which is all about allocation of blame and
punishment, to review the relationship with an organisation that eschews those very tenets;
• Miller’s recommendations were adopted by Government and the ATSB was pushed into the background;
• Miller, undoubtedly for all of the right reasons, stated:
“…Ultimately, the ATSB's contribution will be judged, not by the quality of its analysis, conclusions and safety recommendations per se, but by the influence those recommendations have on improving the aviation safety system.”
• we didn’t think it appropriate to judge ATSB against the inaction of those to whom the safety recommendations are addressed; and
• the ATSB became “institutionally timid” and essentially stopped making safety recommendation of any note, but enjoyed a vastly “improved” relationship with CASA.

While clearly AIPA’s submission straddles the first and second objective of this Review, the reality is that the Senate Inquiry largely underlined that the effectiveness of the ATSB had largely been sacrificed in the interests of not upsetting CASA. Had the same Senate Committee inquired into the Lockhart River accident investigation, it is highly likely that it
would not have been the ATSB that was side-lined in the aftermath.

AIPA maintains the view that the large scale adoption of the Miller recommendations has had the effect of negatively influencing the true intentions of paragraphs 12AA(1)(b) and (c) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSIA) by repressing the independence of
the ATSB and suppressing holistic examination of the aviation safety system.

AIPA’s submission specifically questioned whether CASA’s role in the aviation system was being adequately scrutinised, but the harsh reality is that the same question could be asked in relation to any of the agencies directly or indirectly influencing aviation safety. Current
knowledge, post the Senate Inquiry, suggests not.

AIPA believes that the ATSB has a very clear duty under the TSIA to independently and holistically examine the aviation safety system. Pandering to the ego or behaviour of any stakeholder is anathema to the principles under which the ATSB was established and AIPA strongly believes that the safety message should never be lost in the telling. We strongly support the notion of the ATSB as the watchdog of agency influence on aviation safety.

Nonetheless, AIPA recognises two important factors: first, the current generation of senior ATSB managers may find it difficult to step out of Miller’s shadow;and second, the ATSB is not and never should be a routine auditor of the aviation safety system. AIPA believes that the latter function requires a Machinery of Government change to redress a number of aviation safety governance issues. We will elaborate on that proposal later in this submission.

In regard to the appointment of the ATSB Executive, AIPA is very conscious that ‘profiling’ has its limitations and that the key to success is very much about ‘the right stuff’’ and less about career paths. We will always have a preference for operational experience in executive positions of entities that have a profound influence on aviation safety, regardless of what type of entity is involved. ‘Operational experience’ includes experience as a safety
specialist or as a regulator that can be shown to be appropriately proximate to the actual conduct of flight operations. AIPA recognises that there may be a need for appointments within the ATSB Executive for career public servants, but, subject to our ‘right stuff’ caveat, we have deep reservations about such appointments at any level above Deputy CEO (however designated).

Recommendation 3
AIPA recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development issue a directive to the ATSB clarifying that paragraphs 12AA(1)(b) and (c) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 require holistic examination of the aviation safety system, including the regulatory framework, and that cooperation and consultation with stakeholders must
not be permitted to compromise the independence of the ATSB or the making of safety recommendations.& from page 14 of the AIPA submission:The widespread industry view is that ATSB has largely lost its way post-Lockhart River and post-Miller and is now subservient to CASA.As usual, the truth has now become irrelevant under the weight of perception. The reality is that someone needs to watch the watchdog and, not withstanding the narrowly focused legal review mechanisms, that role currently can fall only on the shoulders of the ATSB.

AIPA views the unseemly public battle between CASA and the ATSB over Lockhart River to be predominantly a behavioural failure of CASA senior management but, most importantly, it was a major failure on the part of the Department in supervising two critical portfolio agencies on behalf of the Minister. To be fair to the Secretary, for whom we have the greatest respect, the outcome and the perceptions generated by the Pel-Air Inquiry were undoubtedly unexpected. Nonetheless, AIPA is of the strong view that the Secretary should advise the Minister that it is proper and appropriate for the ATSB to critically examine the role of the regulator and the regulatory framework as part of its functions under the TSIA and, furthermore, advise the Minister that it is proper and appropriate for CASA to expect and accept such scrutiny.Well Red (M&M) are you up for the challenge on briefing the miniscule on the AIPA (& some IOS) strong view(s) on the ATSB; or will you continue to deny the findings of the myriad of industry & Senate findings/recommendations. Recommendations that more than adequately prove that you have in fact a very big, out of control problem that can only end in tears, a decimated industry and a series of big smoking holes in the ground with a baying public calling for the miniscule & your (pumpkin) head???:E

TICK..TOCK RED! :{

Addendum for Jinglie benefit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twIwwg5ZMw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXA0IjYVwdY

Jinglie

15th Jul 2014, 11:50

There have been a lot of comments here about removing several layers of CASA. Also a lot of commentary that the ATSB is easily fixed, and Beaker is the fix. It goes way beyond that as demonstrated in the AAI Senate References Committee report and Hansard. Actually, Beaker may have just been a "muppet" covering the F'Ups from those below, feeling pressure to appease him - the new bean/accident investigator on the block. And to add to SARCS comment, this is from Quinn's submission quoting the Miller Review.

“Tension between safety regulators and accident investigators is not unusual – there are international examples of such tension and, in any case, some degree of constructive tension between the ATSB and CASA should be expected given their respective roles. Although they are both important contributors to Australia's aviation safety system and share the same long term goal (improving aviation safety), they have quite different powers and functions. The very nature of the role of the ATSB often places it in the position of reviewer of CASA's regulatory and other actions where there has been an accident or serious incident. There can also be tensions arising from legitimate differences of opinion. Information about what happened in an aircraft accident or incident can be fragmented, allowing for a variety of hypotheses about what actually happened. The causes contributing to an aircraft accident or incident can often be diverse, leaving ample room for debate over what actually caused it. Differing professional judgements will inevitably lead to different views, often firmly held.”
“Creative tension can be a positive force. Professional disagreement, properly expressed, can lead to better outcomes overall as each party examines the views of the other and the expertise available to each is shared, debated and evaluated. A clearer picture can emerge and a better outcome may result.”
Doesn't seemed to have happened with Pel-Air! the simple question of how a "Critical" safety issue was downgraded to "Minor"! No intelligible explanation from Beaker, and no minutes of meetings! The man in the back of the room has left to vomit!
If you look at the video of the ATSB testimony, its a very nervous crew.

Sarcs

16th Jul 2014, 07:04

This am in the Senate the RRAT committee Chairs Sterle & the Heff weighed in with their own privilege motion...:=

Here is the Senate President statement:

MATTERS OF PRIVILEGE RAISED BY THE CHAIRS OF THE RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AND REFERENCES COMMITTEES – STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

By letter dated 11 July 2014, the Chairs of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees, Senators Heffernan and Sterle, have raised a matter of privilege under standing order 81.

The matter of privilege concerns the possible imposition of a penalty by the taking of disciplinary action, either on a witness before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee or on a person providing information to the committee, in connection with its inquiry into aviation accident investigations which reported in 2013 and in connection with questions asked at the 2013 Budget estimates hearings.

Apart from the last element, this is essentially the same matter of privilege raised by Senator Xenophon , in relation to which I made a statement and gave precedence on 10 July 2014.

For the same reasons given in relation to the matter raised by Senator Xenophon, I am also satisfied that this matter meets the criteria to which I am required to have regard.

I have therefore determined that a motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee should have precedence over other business for the day on which it is given.

Before I call Senator Heffernan / Sterle, I remind the Senate that this determination of precedence is not a judgement of the substantive issues or merits of the matter, beyond the threshold judgement that:

 it is not of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate;
 it is necessary to take action to protect the Senate and senators against improper acts;
 there is no satisfactory remedy for dealing with the matter other than the contempt jurisdiction.
It is for the Senate to make a judgement whether this matter also merits referral to the Privileges Committee.

I table the correspondence and call Senator Heffernan / Sterle to give notice of the motion.
RRAT Chairs matter of privilege AAI inquiry - 16 July 2014 - YouTube

Link for the motion HERE (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/22%20Chamber%20Documents/Dynamic%20Red/16%20july_notice_privilege)

MTF...:ok:

004wercras

16th Jul 2014, 07:44

Sarcs, thank you for coming off the back bench and throwing such a robust curve ball at just the right time :ok:
Obviously the issue must have been hatched in Fort Fumbles basement. The Beaker, although a fairly political animal in his own right, is too busy counting coins and too stupid to 'badger a witness'. But, the Iron Ring, well that is a much different story. You are dealing with individuals more confident in their abilities than the Night Stalker or the Unabomber! Seasoned experts who have spent decades honing their skills in malfeasance, bullying and intimidation. Yes decades of experience obsfucating, stonewalling and deceiving. Yes these 'fallen angels' are used to being untouchable, coated in multi layers of Teflon, as slippery as a schoolgirl at band camp. Why are the Senators or any member of the IOS any challenge to them, I hear them ask? Who do these pesky Senators and dibber dobbing IOS think they are, I hear them ask? What Senator and IOS informant actually thinks he can out win, out last and out play us Regulatory survivors, I hear them ask?

One might hypothesise that those guilty of contempt jurisdiction must be crazy, smoking herbal medicine, maybe senile, perhaps even have a hint of testosterone left in their crinkly old beanbags? But no, nothing so simple. They operate with impunity, they know they cannot be brought to account as accountability isn't in their framework. They are comfortable within their own skins, confident that the decades of experience in metering out payback and engaging in sociopathic actions, for which successive governments have approved, sanctioned and encouraged by their inaction.
Then again, is this Custers last stand? Are Fort Fumble meeting the IOS head on at Little Bighorn - "Hurrah boys, we've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home".....hoping to finally destroy the perceived to be under prepared IOS enemy?

Who knows. After all it is just a game. A very serious game, but just a game. Forget the football, forget the tennis, and forget late night SBS world movies. It's time to crank up the home brew kit, import a ship load of popcorn, phone the Gobbledock, Stoke the Styx Riverboats engines and settle in for reportedly one heck of a finale!

Toot toot of the houseboat, crack crack of a bottle top, pop pop of the popcorn.....

Sarcs

16th Jul 2014, 08:44

{Warning: Sarcs short post coming up}

Top post 004 and have already stocked the larder with popcorn...:E

Yes all passing strange this Privilege Motion (x2) thingy...and has me busily (& happily) reviewing old files and googling old leads...:cool:

Came across one that, in all the hoohhah at the time, I must of only given a cursory glance but on 2nd inspection, well????..:rolleyes:: CAsA Second Supplementary Submission (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=11acb754-8001-4605-a7be-23ae867932cd)

{Hint refer to paragraphs 2.6-2.10 ;)}

MTF...much more apparently..:ok:

004wercras

16th Jul 2014, 09:55

Very germane indeed :ok:

Kharon

16th Jul 2014, 20:06

Warning longish post.
It took a while for the penny to drop; but this is curiously intriguing. So first question – WTF is this?. I found some cut and dried answers –HERE (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_20) – typically, dry as dust but of interest.

5. Matters of privilege
What is a matter of privilege?
A matter of privilege is any action which may constitute a contempt of the Senate and which the Senate may refer to its Committee of Privileges for investigation. The potential or actual improper interference caused by such conduct with the ability of a House, its committees or its members to perform their functions is a key factor in adjudging whether a contempt has been committed.
The following are examples of possible contempts:
• a witness gives evidence to a committee that he or she knows to be false;
• a government agency punishes one of its officers for giving evidence to a committee that goes against the official agency line;
• a potential witness is given an inducement not to give evidence to a committee;
• a key witness is uncooperative at a committee hearing and refuses to provide documents sought by the committee;
• a person threatens legal action against a senator to prevent him or her raising a particular issue in the Senate;
• a member of a committee gives a copy of the committee’s draft report to a journalist; the journalist writes an article about the implications of the committee’s proposed recommendations and the article is published before the report is tabled;
• a member of a committee gives a copy of a confidential submission received by the committee to a Minister’s office.
The Privilege Resolutions set out procedures for the investigation of contempts and the criteria for determining matters relating to contempt. Resolution 6 sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters that may constitute contempts.

Raising matters of privilege
Standing order 81 sets out the procedure for raising matters of privilege in the Senate for investigation. The first step is for the senator who intends to raise the matter of privilege to write to the President of the Senate describing the matter.
The President is required to consider the matter against criteria which are also set out in the Privilege Resolutions (Resolution 4). In determining, as soon as practicable, whether to give precedence to a notice of motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, the President must consider:
• the principle that the Senate’s power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and
• the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt.
The President’s decision is conveyed to the senator and, in most cases, to the Senate. While the matter is under consideration by the President the senator concerned must not take any other action in relation to the matter or refer to it in the Senate.
In most cases, the President decides that the matter should be given precedence. After this decision is notified to the Senate, the senator concerned gives a notice of motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report. The notice appears at the top of the Notice Paper on the relevant day, under the heading “Matter of Privilege”. It is usually dealt with as formal business (see Brief Guide No. 8—Notices of Motion) but if debate is required, a matter of privilege is dealt with ahead of all other categories of business (see Brief Guide No. 4—Categories of Business). The question whether the matter be referred is then determined by the Senate.

If the President determines that a matter of privilege should not be given precedence, it remains open to the senator concerned to take any action that is in accordance with the rules of the Senate; for example, referring to the matter in debate or giving notice of a motion seeking specified action, including a reference to the Committee of Privileges. Again, it is then up to a majority of the Senate to decide if that action should be taken.
While only a senator may raise a matter of privilege (other than a right of reply or adverse reflection in committee evidence—see below), aggrieved persons may ask senators or committees to raise matters on their behalf.

Other common contempts
By far the most commonly investigated contempts involve conduct by or in relation to witnesses appearing before Senate committees, including:
• the giving of false or misleading evidence
• interference with witnesses (for example by punishing them for having given evidence or by giving them an inducement not to give evidence).
The Privileges Committee publishes summaries of the many cases of possible contempt which it has investigated.

Apparently, (I'm informed) this is a 'big deal' and unusual, can't get accurate figures but it seems there have only been 44 (or so) of these things since federation; but don't hold me to account on the very second hand numbers.

When Xenophon fired his Matters of Privilege (MoP) big gun on July 10, like Creamy, I thought fine, (ho-hum) yet another wet lettuce censure which will be water off a ducks back. Thought process error – I should have taken it in, with a little less cynicism. It seems these MoP have priority and can 'stop the works' until they are addressed, if those who raise them claim precedence. So, it's no light matter and with the parliament embroiled in the carbon tax debate and other 'serious' business, a thing like this, at this time, with the potential to hold up proceedings means someone, is very serious about the matter. When Heffernan and Searle popped up yesterday with a second almost identical MoP shout, any doubts about this not being serious vanished.

It's now up to the Senate to decide the MoP fate; they can turf it out, discuss the matter; or, flick pass it to the Privileges Committee, who will deliberate 'sub-rosa' and decide what's to be done. Lots of money for the flick pass option.

So to the puzzle, what's it all about? There are some thin clues.

"The matter of privilege concerns the possible imposition of a penalty by the taking of disciplinary action, either on a witness before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee or on a person providing information to the committee, in connection with its inquiry into aviation accident investigations which reported in 2013 and in connection with questions asked at the 2013 Budget estimates hearings." my bold

The 'When' is clear enough; the 'What' same-same: that leaves 'Who dun Wot to Whom'. Which is most unsatisfactory. Lots of possible runners for those trying to work out the field. But it has to be a 'big hitter' in the gun sight; they don't stop parliament for a storm in a tea cup. As Sarcs points out; perhaps someone rolled over and spilled the beans; or someone complained (not unusual); or, someone has done something really silly and been sprung. Telling the Senate fairy stories would qualify though, wouldn't it? and if that's ever proven, then someone needs to duck for cover, (or off) PDQ.

There are lots of choices for the connoisseur; have CASA been making life difficult for those who dared testify or provided evidence?, the answer is yes; not for anyone 'heavy' but I know of three lightweights' who were involved, who are receiving some unwelcome attention. But that, standing alone does not merit a MoP; nope, not even the three together would cause the Senate to break wind, let alone raise a MoP. There's also rumour of some undignified behaviour and hair pulling as a result of the WLR, but as that carried no parliamentary privilege and was not 'Senate' business, it's hard to parlay that into a MoP, anyway the date line is wrong.

A look at the winners and losers board does not provide much insight, but if you follow that line, you have to start with the heavyweights, here again the Senate is not going to raise a MoP for the sake of hammering a clerk who was rude to someone on the phone; it has to be a big, juicy morsel to make it all worth while. I agree with 004, Dolan don't signify. So, what are we are left with; McComic, Mrdak, Farkuhardson, Aleck and Anastasi – all were in attendance at one time or another; a date check may reduce the numbers; all were economical with words; all towed the party line. A beef with any or all of these 'executive' guys could, potentially trigger a MoP. If the Senators have nailed one; he'll 'peach', sure as eggs, and that boys and girls, could be very interesting. See the Sarcs link above; plenty of food for thought right there. Then there is the farce of the DAS selection process to consider?, that's got to be worth a second thought.

CASA made two strategic 'boo-boo's: one, by underestimating the Senators intelligence, sense of purpose, unity and integrity; then further infuriating them, dismissal by open contempt is not a recommended option. Compounding this error is the assumption that they, CASA, are indeed 'above the law'. Secondly, they grossly underestimated the anger and hostility from industry, arrogantly choosing only to hear what their selected handmaidens, Casaphile's and Casasexuals told them.

Truss clearly don't give a rats and is in no hurry to do anything for aviation, (Spring is the latest, precise best estimate) but has he also has underrated this Senate crew and industry determination?. He is certainly not well advised. Then again, maybe this is all just part of some Abbott generated scheme to get his bills through parliament. Not that it matters, just yet...

We shall have to wait and see. Happily, the day is my own and like Sarcs, I shall have quiet read through the pertinent parts of the Hansard; see if I can pick a winner. But, you'll admit, it's a worthy puzzle, a challenge not to be missed. Maybe it's a storm in a tea cup, but my Grand Mamma can read the tea leaves; perhaps I'll visit her today – tea and biccy's with Grand, my favourite.

Aye - the curse of curiosity strikes again...Is it to be the silence of the lambs, or the squealing of the three little pigs for a bedtime story? -.-

004wercras

16th Jul 2014, 21:33

CASA made two strategic 'boo-boo's: one, by underestimating the Senators intelligence, sense of purpose, unity and integrity; then further infuriating them, dismissal by open contempt is not a recommended option. Compounding this error is the assumption that they, CASA, are indeed 'above the law'. Secondly, they grossly underestimated the anger and hostility from industry, arrogantly choosing only to hear what their selected handmaidens, Casaphile's and Casasexuals told them.
Agreed. However the reason CAsA took the Mickey bliss out of the Senators is because they know the system, and figured that after decades of being slapped with wet lettuce leaves nothing will stick. Now if the Senators have proof, tangible evidence that Fort Fumble have been lying or bullying then the Senators may be in a position to finally have the last laugh? A small victory perhaps, claiming a scalp, but one scalp on the mantle piece is better than none I say! But solid proof is what would be required and I don't believe that two contempt jurisdiction requests would be tabled if the Senators had nothing more robust than the verbal ramblings of the IOS or some tendentious blogs read on Pprune? Perhaps they do have some written evidence? A video tape or a recording? Maybe a missing document that didn't exist now exists and has magically appeared??? After all, aviation is a mysterious industry. This may turn into a battle Royale, a winner takes all cage match.... Ding ding Senators and lets get ready to rumbbbbbbbbbble..... Oh dear, someone could truly get wodgered over this..

Tick Tock Mr Truss. Tick Tock.

004wercras

16th Jul 2014, 23:40

My source tells me that Beaker has signed on for another two years as Chief Commissioner, confirmed. Heaven help us.
So that now makes two reappointments, Beaker and Pumpkin Head. Of course MrComick is out the door, which is good, but I have been told that the Witchdoctor will also depart later in the year. Unconfirmed but meant to be true.
There are many more rumours floating across the field of Little Bighorn at the moment, including that the Geriatric A380 endorsed executive will also be leaving, but the smoke signals can't be verified at this point in time and nothing is being printed out of Sky Sentinel.

To be con't.........

"Toot toot, and it looks like the economy has changed and the pax figures for the Styx River Queen are improving" :ok:

halfmanhalfbiscuit

17th Jul 2014, 08:29

Sarcs {Hint refer to paragraphs 2.6-2.10 }

Seems an interesting place to start. The discussion about why the chambers report didn't get to the Atsb was frosty. Not sure if in the inquiry or later in estimates. I seem to recall Senators telling casa to think very carefully about their responses.

.

Sarcs

18th Jul 2014, 02:59

004: My source tells me that Beaker has signed on for another two years as Chief Commissioner, confirmed. Heaven help us. Maybe this disgusting, underhanded, bureaucratic morsel was what caused the good Senator Nick to suddenly bolt from the Senate Chamber on Wednesday and to have a sick note supplied on the Thursday, for it would be news that would cause any reasonable (man at the back of the room) person to want to vomit...:yuk::yuk: : Hospital visit for ill Xenophon (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/hospital-visit-for-ill-xenophon/story-fni0xqi3-1226991518044?nk=4f52e261c9b74bd8f5eaf95926255af3)

Word is the good Senator has recovered and is back in the saddle...:ok:...what may have hastened his recovery was the fact that not only was his MoP..Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (16:02): I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
In the context of an inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations:
(a) whether disciplinary action was taken against either a witness before the committee or a person providing information to the committee; and
(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in respect of those matters.
Question agreed to. ...flick passed to the Privileges Committee..:D..but so to was the Heff & Sterle relayed pass eagerly accepted.. Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:01): At the request of Senator Heffernan and Senator Sterle, I move:
(1) That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
In the context of an inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations and Budget estimates hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in May 2013:
(a) whether disciplinary action was taken against either a witness before the committee or a person providing information to the committee; and
(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in respect of those matters.
(2) That, for the purpose of providing further information to the Committee of Privileges, the Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport have access to the records of the committee in the previous Parliament.
Question agreed to. ..in amongst the carbon tax repeal white noise...:ugh:

If nothing else this years budget estimate ATSB hearings, the Senate and now the MoP x2 more than adequately display that the RRAT Committee Senators palpable anger and sheer contempt for Beaker has not dissipated with the passage of time...

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - ATSB on UAVs & liability - YouTube

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - ATSB Safety Issue Methodology - YouTube

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

RRAT Estimates 24/02/14 - ATSB Part 2 - YouTube

If the 004 source of info be true, then I have no doubt that the unified (still angry) Senators will not let that miniscule decision slide through, unchecked and not commented on, especially with the TSBC peer review report still pending and now a Privileges Committee inquiry in tow....:=:=

MTF...:ok:

ps HMHB still exploring the FRMS Special Audit angle but as a matter of passing interest, I noticed that the ATsB have recently updated the "minor" safety issues. With what exactly I am not sure??

AO-2009-072-SI-01 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072/si-01.aspx)

{Comment: Interesting that although CAsA are still actioning this SI, that the ATsB have listed the SI as "closed"??}

AO-2009-072-SI-02 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072/si-02.aspx)

{Comment: Bullet point two Q/ What happened in between?? Did FF actually follow the former HF expert considered opinion that PelAir be bumped back to CAO 48.0 until the reactive culture and certain individuals were replaced or ???}

Kharon

18th Jul 2014, 03:33

With moderator forbearance and a solemn no Chanties promise...

"Your presence is requested and required at five bells in the last dog watch; sharp; be there etc. etc". read the BRB missive. How strange thought I; BRB is normally pitch up if in town, when and as best pleases; most unusual to receive a 'requested and required'. So I toddled off arriving on time, to be met at the pub door by one of the 'new boys' – "they're upstairs in the ballroom" says the young gun. It's not really a ballroom, just a big-ish room where the junk is stored; old tables, knackered dartboards, old promotional stuff; but it serves well for serious sit downs, thus forewarned I headed up the stairs, about half way up I became slightly alarmed; there was so very little noise. Not a good omen.

I slipped in, and sensing the mood, just nodded to a few and sat down at P7 's table (much admired for it's Limerick graffiti, cigarette burns and 'artistic' carvings) – "Wuz up" says I: "Shhh !" says TOM. On the dot of 1830 one of the senior, retired members stood up and asked for quiet; "thanks for turning out" says he "I have asked for this special indaba so we can discuss the potential field for the Senate Ordinance Cup". Looks were exchanged and a crackle of electric interest passed through the two dozen odd assembled BRB. Oh ho, thinks I, as TOM gave me a crafty wink.

"The Senators have sponsored a very rare, heavy duty Matters of Privilege event": says our worthy, "I propose we place a substantial wager on the outcome" pauses - sip of red and continues. "It's to be a mystery event; they are not declaring the entry field, so we have no idea of the who the potential entrants may be; further, we have no idea of distance or indeed which hurdles may be used". "This is their right: however, I believe if we can narrow the field down to a few potential runners, we may see a substantial return on a modest investment; all those in favour say Aye". Carried - Unanimous – game On.

Well, it was a long evening and I dare say the bar suffered for it, but in the end it came down to a choice of four favourites; it was agreed that individual wagers could be made on a personal fancy, but the BRB 'pot' would be placed on the final selection. Herewith, the BRB form guide for the event. In reverse order:-

At #4. each way bet (4/1) with the BRB tote. Wodgers Wocket: Gelding, by Gas Chamber out of Sleight of Hand. Raced well last season, but with several disputed wins. The gelding prefers to run in the middle of the pack and has been accused, but never convicted of interference from behind. The infamous win in the Pel Air classic was a master stroke of deceptive running worthy of his infamous dam, Sleight of Hand. Track side gossip has it that dodgy 'paperwork' (pedigree and patents of nobility) have been 'shuffled' to provide, at least on the surface, a notion of racing credibility. At the last outing (Pel Air stakes 2013) the protest by the Cooked and Christmas stable lost traction when much of the required paperwork was 'lost' and other documents being unsigned were ruled out; but had that protest been upheld, the tote odds on the gelding would be much less liberal than we see at the SP bookmaker. A horse to watch.....

At #3. (3/1) with the BRB tote. Pumpkin Patch. Horse, by Magic Minister out of Bishops Queen. A stayer, suited the longer distances, larger tracks and 'big races'. Well managed by the connections, this crafty campaigner prefers a rails run without interference but has been distracted in the past and lost by not paying attention to the tactics employed by the rest of the runners. Last outing the horse nearly took a tumble at the Pink Bat sponsored gully fence, which slowed the approach to the final straight up Airport hill. An inability to increase pace during the final gallop tempts the betting to favour a strong third or close second.

At #2. (even money) with the BRB tote. Pearly White. Gelding out of Pinch-a-Penny and Sandsong Castle. First real outing for the gelding was the Pel Air classic and being raced in blinkers didn't assist. Experts assess the herd instinct in the animal to be very deep which restricts ability to lead and being reliant on the herd for guidance only accelerates when threatened directly from behind. A noted lack of agility makes this entry one of the firm favourites with the bookies, not the punters...

At #1. (5/4 odds on) with the BRB tote. Dark Horse. Horse out of Voodoo Rhythm by McComic's Folly. Only trackside gossip available due to lack of public racing experience. Word is that in the world of private racing, the Iron Ring connections will back the horse to the hilt until a first loss after which it will be put out to pasture used to train potential future stars and provided a quiet life.

Those are our picks for the Senate Matter of Privilege event, the winner earning it's connections the High Ordinance trophy and the Contempt of Parliament plate. Not bad for an afternoons work.

We remind all IOS readers that it is your shirt and you can do whatever pleases you best with it.

Jinglie

19th Jul 2014, 04:21

K,
My money is on Pearly White. Dark Horse is about to be put out to pasture so the drive won't be there for the win. Pearly White has a lot to lose, and the pressure is on due to recent appalling form.
No doubt the stewards will be watching this one closely. Pumpkin Patch has a habit checking, running wide and causing interference in the home straight.:=

Kharon

21st Jul 2014, 21:16

Recent events have diverted attention away from our domestic mini tragedy and the anticipated release of the Canadian TSB report on the ATSB. Perhaps we worry needlessly; it could be that 'Beaker does the Ukraine' has a happy ending, the one where someone shoots him in the arse and shuts him up.

Sarcs –" AIPA’s message on the importance of maintaining a fully independent ATsB is also consistent.

AIPA‘s submission highlighted their very real concerns with the continuing demise of the ATsB.

004 My source tells me that Beaker has signed on for another two years as Chief Commissioner, confirmed. Heaven help us.

Sarcs "Maybe this disgusting, underhanded, bureaucratic morsel was what caused the good Senator Nick to suddenly bolt from the Senate Chamber on Wednesday and to have a sick note supplied on the Thursday, for it would be news that would cause any reasonable (man at the back of the room) person to want to vomit.."

"If the 004 source of info be true, then I have no doubt that the unified (still angry) Senators will not let that miniscule decision slide through, unchecked and not commented on, especially with the TSBC peer review report still pending and now a Privileges Committee inquiry in tow".

TSB report - embarrassment or blessing in disguise? It is going to be interesting to see whenever (or indeed if), it does gets published. Will the TSB report mirror what the majority of professionals think – that the ATSB is an essential, invaluable weapon in the air safety arsenal? Neither the British, Canadian or the USA governments have a subservient handmaiden to regulator, only Australia seems to have allowed this travesty. One question to ask is, how would the other NAA have responded to Pel Air?. Considering this leads you to ask how can the CTSB report possibly fail to utterly damn Beaker: if gross, indecent hypocrisy is to be avoided, that is.

It is worth your time to examine SR A-14-022 from the NTSB – not from an 'operational' perspective; but from a 'systems' perspective. The way the NTSB and FAA have set about actually 'sorting' and addressing the issues. There is not any Wodger sleight of hand, no selective distribution of paper work, no manipulation of 'facts', very few deliberate omissions and absolutely nothing swept under the carpet. This is, IMO what we have lost in Australia and should be demanding it back, seeing as how we pay for service.

As long as the Beaker posterior is firmly planted and until the Minuscule gives ATSB real leadership the IOS can only assume that the Forsyth review and the TSB report are simply window dressing, the rhetoric, hot air and any chance of real safety system improvements or action; diluted, to a fare the well. Impartiality, integrity or education all fed to the voracious wolves at Sleepy Hollow as a morning snack...

(Jingles – PW is indeed a good bet, BUT, don't forget – last outing the beast was blinked and only accelerated due to some severe, expertly done interference 'from behind' – no other option available. There's still some Steward interest in the last event. Who knows? perhaps new evidence of this from the Dark Horse is in play). Either way - you pays your money and takes your chances._.

Toot toot.

Sarcs

22nd Jul 2014, 01:10

Kharon:Recent events have diverted attention away from our domestic mini tragedy and the anticipated release of the Canadian TSB report on the ATSB. Perhaps we worry needlessly; it could be that 'Beaker does the Ukraine' has a happy ending, the one where someone shoots him in the arse and shuts him up. 004: What a farce (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-53.html#post8573119), the Beaker flew out to the Ukraine today to assist with the investigation of MH17!!! TB:Good old Beaker will sit around the hotel sipping Lattes, maybe do a bit of sightseeing, with a bit of luck get popped by a drunken separatist, but I doubt he'll get to see a bit of road kill, let alone anything else… “K”, 004 & TB my sentiments exactly…:D

Despite the Jinglie statement that Beaker is simply a muppet put in place to cover up the multitude of failings (at all levels) of the bureau & Fort Fumble, IMO it is simply unacceptable that this muppet, while expounding his (penny pinching) BASR philosophy, continues in the bureau CC/spokesman position…:ugh:

TSBC peer review report overdue??

Taking up on the “K” post with a Selleys (gap filler) moment…:E

“…It is worth your time to examine SR A-14-022 from the NTSB – not from an 'operational' perspective; but from a 'systems' perspective…”

“K” is referring to a NTSB SR that I first drew attention to at post #1966 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-99.html#post8501790):
Which is followed by…

“…The NTSB is vitally interested in these recommendations because they are designed to prevent accidents and save lives. We would appreciate receiving a response from you within 30days regarding A-14-22 (Urgent) and 90 days regarding A-14-23 detailing the actions you have taken or intend to take to implement them…”

Through the user friendly NTSB SR system, it is also possible to actively monitor the outcomes of these SRs…
Within the 30 day requirement (unlike FF who have been known to obfuscate SRs for up to a decade or more..:=), the FAA ‘immediately’ actioned the NTSB ‘urgent’ SR and sent the following correspondence in response:Response Date:
5/30/2014
Response:
-From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has reviewed the Board's concerns and its questions related to operators owned by HoTJ-1, Inc. An independent team of Flight Standards National Field Office (AFS-900) Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs) from outside of Alaska was assembled and immediately dispatched to Alaska to conduct an audit on Hageland Aviation Inc.’s (EPUA) Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 operations. The evaluation was conducted from April 28 to May 9, 2014. at the EPUA main base of operation in Anchorage and Palmer. Alaska. Station and aircraft ramp inspections were conducted in Anchorage, Barrow. Bethel, Deadhorse, Fairbanks, Palmer, and St. Mary's, Alaska. Multiple enroute inspections were also conducted on the various fleet types operated by EPUA. The results of the EPUA audit are being reviewed to determine appropriate action. Several areas of concern within the broad areas identified by the Board were documented by the team and communicated to EPUA key management personnel and the FAA certificate management team responsible for the oversight of EPUA. Era Aviation (ERAA), a part 121 certificate holder owned by HoTH, was the subject of a national Air Carrier Evaluation Process (ACEP) audit conducted by an independent team of AFS-900 ASIs from outside of Alaska. The ACEP, which concluded in June 2013, revealed weak areas within the broad categories identified by the Board. As a result, follow-up actions have been taken and continue to be implemented by HoTH and the FAA. AFS-900 plans to send another independent team of ASIs to conduct a national ACEP audit on ERAA in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2015. This audit will include a review of the discrepancies previously identified in the June 2013 ACEP audit. Additionally, the FAA's Director of Flight Standards Service and his Deputy will travel to Alaska in July 2014 to meet with regional and office personnel to discuss the HoTH situation and assess progress being made by the certificate holders to correct the identified deficiencies. I will keep the Board informed of the FAA's progress on this safety recommendation and provide an updated response by August 31, 2015.
Notice that the FAA don’t argue the TOSS on the NTSB findings, nor do they question the NTSB suggested SR actions, in fact they expand on the SR with planned further actions.:D

Compare to Beaker’s BASR with Pel-Air, from my post #1966:
..In the ATsB final report of the investigation into the ditching of VH-NGA under the heading Organisational and management information the bureau made the following cursory summary of CAsA’s oversight of PelAir…

“…The regulatory requirements affecting the flight were administered by CASA and established a number of risk controls for the operation that were promulgated in the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) and CAOs. Those controls related to the operator, the pilot in command (PIC) and the conduct of the flight. Surveillance was carried out by CASA of operators’ procedures and operations to ensure that such flights were conducted in accordance with those approvals and the relevant regulations and orders…”

…but after the findings of the Senate AAI inquiry and on CAsA’s own admissions (& the Chamberpot report), there were many obvious deficiencies in the regulator’s oversight of the PelAir Operation that were contributory to the ditching.

However in the ATsB’s blinkered view these safety issues were not significant enough to issue either a significant safety issue or SR to the regulator and the rest is history.
I could pick up on many quotes from the PelAir inquiry that go to this issue but the following from Bryan Aherne captures the Beaker (politically correct) BASR methodology vs the rest of the AAI world methodology...

"...Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Can you give us any insight into the relationship between CASA and the ATSB? There was a report in 2007 and there are MOUs and protocols between the two. From your knowledge of the interplay between ATSB and CASA do you think that that balance is right or that there are issues there?

Mr Aherne : If this report is anything to judge that by, no.

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

Mr Aherne : CASA and the ATSB must necessarily cooperate, but it does not mean that they lie in the same bed. What they need to do is have a very healthy respect for one another, but you need a distance to stand off. You need to be strictly independent in this game because you only get one shot at this stuff, and clearly in this case the ATSB has not even mentioned anything about the failure of the life jackets…"

Hmm..not sure what political games that RED & the miniscule are playing at by keeping Beaker in the CC position?? Maybe it is the adage that it is “better the devil you know”?? However the IOS & Senators will not accept Beaker as a permanent fixture for too much longer…:=:=

Even the international media are fast catching on that the veracity of Beaker (as the bureau spokesperson) is questionable, surely it is only a matter of time before this muppet passes his use by date??

TICK..TOCK bring back ‘Reason’ miniscule & FFS release the TSBC report! :ugh:

MTF…:ok:

ps I’m with Jinglie for the MoP Stakes..;) Despite recent form PW finished fast for a credible 2nd in the 2010 MoU Cup, which is raced over the same distance and on a similar track. So my pick is ‘Pearly White’, who was incidently sired by ‘Aloo’, winner of the 2004 MoU Cup….:E

Algie

22nd Jul 2014, 01:58

To whichever moderators may be concerned.

I can manage the fact that little of either Kharon or SARCs posts are intelligible. And I can mange that of those bits that are intelligible little is factual.

However it is unacceptable, at all times and all places for either of them to cruelly waste those few words which are intelligible by mentioning the Ukraine while grieving relatives and friends are still seeing pictures of body bags on the TV.

Comic demonstrations of their glibness with an Encyclopaedia of Greek Mythology and a Thesaurus are one thing. I expect no wisdom, sense, logic or even facts. But common decency is another thing and I hope they can be counselled to remove any offending posts and go find a church somewhere where there's a memorial service and sit quietly.

Algie

Frank Arouet

22nd Jul 2014, 02:15

While not intending to trespass on your grief Algie, may I respectfully point your attention to the following link that has 708 replies and 835,742 hits as I write.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk-36.html

There appears to be a significant amount of hand wringing on this topic and it's probably best to treat the matter as educational and unemotional as possible. I like to ask the simple question first, "what can we learn from all this" and that answer should point you to who had the duty of care.

In my opinion, and I'll say no more, Dolan will not achieve anything for those grieving, let alone arrive at the conclusion so obvious to all but politically insignificant.

I doubt the previous posters considered your grief. I certainly had no idea until your emotional post. I'll pray with you if it helps.

Algie

22nd Jul 2014, 03:41

Ah Carrion or whatever, as they say you set low standards and woefully fail to meet them. Yet in your own lunchbox....a real legend

Sigh.....

Jinglie

22nd Jul 2014, 09:29

Algie,

That twit Beaker will do nothing but cause those grieving more grief! What on earth were they thinking even letting him talk to the camera. He loves the camera (except the Senate one). The CPT was a mate of mine from way back. I hope he rests in peace! Beaker being involved has infuriated me. How dare we serve the deceased passengers and experienced crew with an expert on hot coffee spills and falls from heights.

Don't get upset with Kharon, SARCS etc. Send your grief to Minuscule Truss for embarrassing our great country.

RIP alls souls onboard.

004wercras

22nd Jul 2014, 09:43

Aagh yes, must be a full moon, Algie has come out to play. What's the matter Algie, you getting bored posting on the Victoria police facebook page? It's been a while since you called for moderator intervention, complained about Kharon's method of writing, you know all the usual gripes.

Back to the thread. Sarcs old chap, my source tells me that the Miniscule does not want the Canucks report released. This could be very significant because if true, why would the Miniscule want it buried? Well why not I say. This is a government of deception and lies. They pulled the plug on making the Senate submissions public, they pulled the plug on reporting about asylum boats, so it makes sense that if the Canucks report even remotely smells like a fart it will be locked away! But in reality I was suspecting it would be more of a wet lettuce slap if anything. After all we are dealing with scrutiny of a government agency and you can't have that. Remember that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so of course they are using all of their bags of tricks. So naturally a governments agency's are going to act in the same way as their masters.

Time will tell, tis all a fun game....I was thinking of ending my post with some Geek mythology or a shanty, but I don't have time as its BBQ time on the Houseboat. Kharon is doing the cooking, Gobbledock is bringing the beer and Sarcs and myself are doing the pole dancing!

dubbleyew eight

22nd Jul 2014, 09:46

gee whiz minister truss. not prepared to admit that you are watching 300 million dollars being wasted by the shamans of safety.

gutless warren. totally gutless.

Jinglie

22nd Jul 2014, 10:41

004,

I think I can add to your info. Opinion, of course.

Pumpkin Head tells Truss to re-appoint Beaker. Truss approves, after a G&T and some cucumber sandwiches. "Good with the money" says Warren as he smiles at Pumpkin Head and his string of advisors writing furiously, trying to come up with a 5 point plan to fix aviation safety. Amongst the skilled advisors are;

three 23 year olds on uni research in marketing,
two 27 year old lawyers who can't get a job in the real world, and
three 70+ year olds smoking cigars, wearing eye-patches, Canberra's finest no doubt.

The Senators find out, and Fawcett goes ballistic. He can't do anything though as his political hands are tied to Truss. Fawcett speaks to NX who decides to raise an MoP. All good, but NX on his own is not enough, so they rally Heff (who has no regard for Beaker) and doesn't care too much about party politics, Then the clanger, Sterle goes in to back Heff and NX (opposition now so no issue there)!!!

Doesn't it seem odd that the key detective in this whole shambles, i.e "good Dave" hasn't raised an MoP with NX, Heff and Sterle????

Well played good Steward's.:D

Game Over Beaker!

Opinion, of course.

dubbleyew eight

22nd Jul 2014, 11:06

this qantas guy who is being touted as a very respected australian aviator :yuk:
he wouldn't happen to be the qantas requester of all things synchronised with easa so that qantas could get maint done in the east european shops would he?

heeees not going to get much respect.

004wercras

22nd Jul 2014, 11:16

this qantas guy who is being touted as a very respected australian aviator he wouldn't happen to be the qantas requester of all things synchronised with easa so that qantas could get maint done in the east european shops would he?It would be very unusual for anybody at QF to engage in such a covert plan to achieve self served interests and receive highly lucrative bonuses! Surely not? Besides, Australian aviation revolves around the Roo. All Joyce has to do is say to CAsA "we would like EASA because it works out better for us" and Fort Fumble would approve, with the blessings of its Masters of course.

Jinglie

22nd Jul 2014, 11:45

004wercras

22nd Jul 2014, 12:08

Does anyone know what sort of life jackets NGA had on the night? Also if Israeli Ind have changed the spec on the aircraft regarding the raft? Do they still have the spec or is it in Canada or the US now?
Would have been nice to know in the report beaker!
Not sure, I just phoned him and all I could hear in the background was the sound of a coffee machine, and when I posed the question to him he responded with "mi mi.....mi......mi mi mi", so go figure, I sure as hell couldn't understand him!
Either way it is irrelevant as ATsB have already concluded that the ditching was a minor occurrence, a glitch in the matrix, nothing of real interest to be found. Just like Lockhart....the pack of fools led by a bumbling nupty.

Jinglie

22nd Jul 2014, 12:22

I wonder if he has the current version of ICAO Annnex 13 with him?? He may be using the edition that Fawcett pineappled him with! That was a great day to watch that smug prick Beaker, with the wrong edition.

Lookleft

22nd Jul 2014, 12:53

Just like Lockhart....the pack of fools led by a bumbling nupty.

You sure about that 004? Go back and have a look who was in charge during that investigation.

Kharon

22nd Jul 2014, 20:31

Sarcs " Certainly is a lot to like about the NTSB/TSBC board system and it is obvious that they are truly operating independently and unencumbered by the regulator.

Ayup: and for mine, one of the most impressive aspects of the NTSB, FAA and operator response to SR A-14-022 is the easy balance of tension between potentially conflicted parties. The approach taken was – Hey, we do have a problem; and, they all rolled up their sleeves and went to work on a solution. That is the very healthy attitude I would like to see Australia adopt; NTSB identified some issues; FAA fixed those issues and the Operator embraced the fix – job done, no foul, no penalty, just an improved safety outcome. Well done. No aberrations there..

Lockhart was a watershed (tick for Lefty). But, whoever was 'running it', it is the top of Quinn's pendulum swing, Aherne amplified it and AIPA defined it. The pendulum arc tracks the diminishment of ATSB; from Lockhart through Whyalla to Pel Air. The take on the MoU same thing; the notion that the Miller report has been progressively manipulated almost to the point where ATSB may, essentially, be 'told' what the required outcome of a report is to be and they cooperate, has merit. The few published responses to the WLR indicate that, almost everyone is opposed to CASA being trusted with ATSB information, until some maturity is achieved and confidence restored that is...

It's part of an issue which must be addressed by the new DAS, down at grass roots level. There are several letters floating about in which CASA insist that built into a company operations manual must be a statement which 'mandates' that a copy of any report (IRM or RRM) provided to ATSB must be sent to CASA, at the same time...'nuff sed.

Now is the right time for the TSBC report to be released, warts and all (if any). We have a positive review, a change of DAS, the support of a very plugged in Senate committee and a once in a life time 'true' expert in David Fawcett to 'balance' that change, there's even some unity in industry. There has never been a better time, nor opportunity for significant change to happen; and the next chance may be a long, long wait away.

Lets just get this done...Now would be good; right now better still.

Toot toot.

PS. Slippery Pole dancing video gone viral on U-bend tube – lurv the outfits...

Frank Arouet

23rd Jul 2014, 01:27

QUOTE: "In relation to the retrieval of the VH-NGA flight recorders, it was considered that the data would offer little information directly relevant to the key safety issues in the investigation that were not already available from other sources. In addition the ATSB advised that any information obtained would not likely lead to any commensurately significant safety learning or improvement in transport safety." QUOTE.

If the likely significant safety learning advice from the Ukraine disaster is not to fly through war zones, why is everybody so focused on the FDR's of that aircraft? Isn't there enough available evidence to identify a lesson to be learnt and react to that? I'm only quoting from the Truss letter. One should also ask why the FDR was installed in VH-NGA in the first place.

Dolan wouldn't be able to identify a stolen Ukrainian BUK missile from a Russian one and neither can the Americans or Australian Politicians.

Jinglie

23rd Jul 2014, 10:25

Beaker would think a BUK is a strong blend of Ukrainian coffee! Fool. What a low in the proud history of aviation in this country having that twit up front. How did it get so bad, and why is he still there??

Kharon

25th Jul 2014, 21:41

The MoP thing is a fascinating puzzle, but I'm not convinced Fawcett could raise the issues – directly – I expect the proper form was followed; Heff and Sterle are 'joint' chairs. That only leaves the independent NX, perhaps he has different matters for consideration, dunno. Either way – it's got some pretty wise heads being scratched. All kinds of bets on – from Pot plants to A380 ratings. Information is hard to nail down, and even the traditional offers of bags of sweets or nights with nubile sisters are having no effect. Curse it...

Jinglie "I wonder if he has the current version of ICAO Annnex 13 with him??

Oh yes, that was a grave error, trying to out fox Fawcett, who actually had the correct version. That one smart arsed bluff, for me, clearly defined the Beaker character. Game call though; pulling the tail of a man the calibre of Fawcett is not for the feint hearted. But, I reckon it's the Annexe 19 bluff Beaker needs to be watching out for – I hear the FAA/ICAO are calling bollocks on compliance and are not happy campers. Poor old Beaker – needs a reality fix. He provokes the same reaction as the Gillard creature, cringe (or change channels). When MH 370 was in the news - the boss of the AMSA was interviewed and it was a pleasure to see a calm, honest, competent, professional individual doing the best job possible. Then Houston pops up, and again the same thing; integrity and competence writ large. Same again with the two fellah's despatched to the Ukraine, rock solid. It's way beyond my humble skills to sketch a comparison between Beaker to these professionals.

IMO - Between CASA and Beaker people like Ben Cook and Mal Christie have been treated abominably by those with very few qualifications and much less integrity. Any accountant can run the books, hell a qualified book keeper could do it. We have no need of these administrative types to be running critical safety investigations or managing essential organisations. Look at the buggers muddle Pel Air turned out to be if you think they should.

Would a Houston have recovered the Pel Air black box?

Would a Ben Cook have smudged the ledger to make the page add up?

Would either have manipulated facts and ignored evidence?

Would they tell the world about the life vest issues?

Yet it smugly stands there, the Beaker; reappointed and with enough neck to slither in front of a camera at every opportunity and flap his jaw. Perhaps there is a case for military or AMSA intervention if the minuscule can't see where the ATSB is heading. Why persist with Beaker?, why does he stay where no one, bar the co conspirators want him? Why do we keep him, let some one else mind the tea money while all the real, qualified talent and front line investigators have gone to the Ukraine. I'd bet a beer that when they come home, Beaker will be puffing out his chest, capering about the place picking up the kudos crumbs, like a puppy at a BBQ. It's disgusting, truly, really, absolutely disgraceful.

Selah..-.-

Sarcs

26th Jul 2014, 01:38

Kharon at post #1062 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-54.html#post8578574) of Truss thread said:
There are three (in total) Matters of Privilege before the committee. No one knows who or what is involved, clues are hard to find, information even harder. This is unfair of course, the public service has a duty to leak, but, alas, not this time. There are a few well founded speculative arguments, my personal choice is the tricky business with the Pel Air inquiry, which drags White and Chambers into the funny coloured light of the MoU, unsigned NCN, the gross insults to Ben Cook and Mal Christie which led to resignation. Couple of bright, highly qualified, skilled, dedicated honourable men cannot tolerate or be associated with an aberration such as CAIR 09/3 and other 'manipulated' documents. If the Senate have uncovered any sort of skulduggery, there'll be hell to pay and ferry fares to find.
Three MoPs on the Senators APH dining room table, I can only count two “K”, but then (after reading on) the penny dropped. Although I am not sure if it counts as a contempt of the Senate but could be significant in the running of the ‘MoP stakes’...:E

Backtracking a little: Before the RRAT committee finally handed down its report and even before FF discretely made their 01 March 2013 sup submission, I was happily trolling through the Senate Submissions webpage when I came across an interesting discrepancy. However due the late hour of the AAI inquiry proceedings, I was otherwise distracted and was unable to return to scratch the itch. It wasn’t till I read the late FF sup submission that I experienced a déjà vu moment.

To begin with here is an extract from the 2004 MoU & 2010 MoU that is of significance:
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1-1.jpg

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/2-1.jpg

It can be seen that besides the addition of para 9.3 the two MoUs basically remain in effect for the same period of time, with the same conditions for varying, extending or terminating. From that one has to question how it was possible for the PelAir parallel investigation to have been conducted under the guidance of the 2010 MoU, when it was yet to be officially executed. Maybe there had been an ‘exchange of letters’ between Beaker & McComic which had terminated the ’04 MoU. However that would have meant that such agreement between parties would have necessitated bringing forward the official execution of the ’10 MoU and we know that didn’t happen. We also now know that FF were at least operating to the DRAFT version of the ’10 MoU in conducting their PelAir parallel investigation...:ooh:

From the infamous (previously hidden) CAIR 09/3 report:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1.jpg
The veracity of which was backed up by the 01 March 2013 FF sup submission:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/2.jpg

Now I know that there is ample political/legal wriggle room in all this and that the MoUs are not in fact legally binding, but it does bring me to my déjà vu moment i.e. the mysterious 3rd MoP.

Here is the original FF PelAir submission attachment (B, C & D): Original (http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/MOU.pdf)
Which you can see had 102 pages & contained the 1996, 2001, 2004, 2010 MoUs & the infamous CAIR 09/3 report.

Now here is what is supposed to be the same document that continues to be readily available off the Senate PelAir inquiry webpage: Current (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=413251f8-d4e2-4cb1-a4c0-3d61087ba291) (B, C & D i.e. Attachment 5). Except the attachment has shrunk and is now only 82 pages?? Some may think that this is merely the RRAT committee Secretariat cleaning up the files (i.e. getting rid of blank pages or double ups). However I seriously don’t think that any officer of the Secretariat, no matter how OCD they may be, would even contemplate altering a published & protected under Parliamentary privilege document, it would be akin to career suicide.

So what pages are now missing??

Ok page one still lists the contents of attachment B – CHECK
Then we have the 1996 MoU till page 20 – CHECK
However then the ‘current’ doc jumps to attachment C, completely omitting the 2001 & 2004 MoU...:confused:

So there you go, has a person or persons unknown (& for reasons unknown) deliberately altered a Parliamentary document ?(i.e. a possible third MoP??)...:=

Q/ The next question is why?? After all the MoU is not a legally binding document.

Q/ Does it matter?? Probably not but considering the timeframe for this deliberate act (between the dates 15 February ‘13 to 01 March ‘13) and some of the references contained within the FF sup submission, I have some strong suspicions on motive…:ugh:

Moving along on to the other part of the “K” quote (plus his above post) on the matter of Ben Cook. In the above extract from the FF sup submission at subpara 2.12 it mentions that there were 4 CAsA officers tasked with conducting the PelAir accident investigation. What the submission failed to mention was that one of those officers was in fact Ben Cook (reference page 3 of CAIR 09/3). Which is quite interesting given the obvious antagonism towards BC on display in subpara 2.5 – 2.10 (see HERE (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=11acb754-8001-4605-a7be-23ae867932cd))

Extract subpara 2.9 – 2.10

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_072614_094553_AM.jpg

Presumably (as stated in 2.10) BC was afforded the same courtesy to comment on the DRAFT version of CAIR 09/3, which made the following cursory statement in reference to the comprehensive & rather damning findings of the PelAir FRMS that were published in the FRMS Special Audit report (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=85c80709-44ed-4551-a236-c1e55326f5ce) (authored by BC & MC):

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_072614_104909_AM.jpg

Put yourself in the shoes of BC at the time & you were the FF Manager of Human Factors and resident guru on FRMS, who was currently sitting on the ICAO Fatigue Risk Management Systems Task Force (FRMSTF) (see his CV here (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ben-cook/8/923/3b8)). And you were faced with the prospect of having to sign off on that report, what would you do?? Personally I’d jump ship and that is exactly what BC did and as they say the rest is history:
Experience
Deputy Director Human & Systems Performance (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&title=Deputy+Director+Human+%26+Systems+Performance&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&currentTitle=CP&trk=prof-exp-title)
Directorate of Defence Aviation & Air Force Safety (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&company=Directorate+of+Defence+Aviation+%26+Air+Force+Safety&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&trk=prof-exp-company-name)
August 2010 – Present (4 years)

Human Factors, Safety Analysis, Safety Education & Training
Air Safety Investigator (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&title=Air+Safety+Investigator&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&currentTitle=CP&trk=prof-exp-title)
Directorate of Defence Aviation & Air Force Safety (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&company=Directorate+of+Defence+Aviation+%26+Air+Force+Safety&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&trk=prof-exp-company-name)
August 2010 – Present (4 years)

Manager Human Factors (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&title=Manager+Human+Factors&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&currentTitle=CP&trk=prof-exp-title)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&company=Civil+Aviation+Safety+Authority&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&trk=prof-exp-company-name)
October 2007 – July 2010 (2 years 10 months)

Human Factors Field Operations (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&title=Manager+Human+Factors+Field+Operations&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&currentTitle=CP&trk=prof-exp-title)
Airservices Australia (https://www.linkedin.com/company/162350?trk=prof-exp-company-name)
June 2006 – September 2007 (1 year 4 months)

Pilot, Flying Instructor, Aviation Safety Officer (http://www.linkedin.com/search?search=&title=Pilot%2C+Flying+Instructor%2C+Aviation+Safety+Officer&sortCriteria=R&keepFacets=true&currentTitle=CP&trk=prof-exp-title)
Royal Australian Air Force (https://www.linkedin.com/company/946571?trk=prof-exp-company-name)
May 1991 – May 2006 (15 years 1 month) Various
Observation: All woads seem to lead to that wascily, wabbit Wodger’s wabbit hole, therefore I am now leaning towards Wodger’s Wocket as my personal favourite for the ‘MoP Stakes’..:E

MTF…:ok:

Kharon

26th Jul 2014, 02:33

No doubt about it, Sarcs – you're a bloomin' legend mate; solid gold on a stick. That was no easy puzzle to nut out. I hesitated to put similar material up, not wanting to influence independent research; or head scratching.

Your reading of the form guide and observations match my own and Wodgers Wocket certainly must be considered a real contender. I agree; I just couldn't see a highly qualified, honest Cook making kau tau to Wabbit pooh, particularly in his own specialised area. You may also vaguely remember from the Pilot training inquiry that Senator X had received (via the Willyleaks system) the FRMS Special Audit report on the Jetstar Darwin base. That was authored by Ben Cook and coincidentally, was equally lambasted by McComic and his happy crew of willing accomplices.

Nope, as previously stated, if the stewards review the tapes, there's every chance of the interference protest being upheld and that will take Wodgers Wocket in odds on territory.

Have a large chocolate wabbit from the Gobbledock' s secret stash: on account of solving a tough one.

Toot toot..

004wercras

26th Jul 2014, 04:14

Wodger isn't too phased. Last week he was strutting around Sleepy Hollows Sydney chapter, looking rather smug, confident and unashamedly proud. Didn't look like a man about to walk the green mile, looked more like a man who had just received his 2013/2014 bonus, or a reach-around, one or the other!
Very little evidence of fear or concern.

Toot toot

thorn bird

27th Jul 2014, 02:43

Classic Psychotic Sociopath behavior wercras, they are immune to any criticism, and pathologically certain of their own superiority.

If the Wuss found a backbone and Wodger ended up in Jail, he'd still be convinced he was right.

He'd have to be kept in isolation because he'd have everyone at each others throats in very short order if he was allowed to mix in.

dubbleyew eight

27th Jul 2014, 03:52

sorry for some thread drift here.

I'm just looking at the CAsA CD "human factors for engineers"

prominent on the front is the following...
Disclaimer: CAsA accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material contained in this presentation. Additionally CAsA disclaims all liability to any person in respect of anything, and the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon any information presented in this presentation.

CAsA if you won't even stand by your words why should anyone listen to anything you say?

hmmm. back in the box, display prominently on the shelf and ignore the lot.

Frank Arouet

27th Jul 2014, 04:14

CAsA have become insignificant.

No Hoper

27th Jul 2014, 04:49

Disclaimer: CAsA accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material contained in this presentation. Additionally CAsA disclaims all liability to any person in respect of anything, and the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon any information presented in this presentation. Appears to be a defence against "bush" lawyers

Frank Arouet

27th Jul 2014, 05:59

I thought CAsA had everybody covered. Gives one hope if they feel threatened. CAsA are insignificant in hindsight, never really were significant.

They certainly are a threat to aviation safety if people prefer not to tell AVMED about medical conditions in case they have an opinion. Pilots with CAsA induced stress and depression are flying because they are fearful of what will happen if they say anything to anybody. The mishandling of CVD is proof they can't be trusted to maintain aviation safety.

I wonder what the poor bloody travelling, fare paying public would say?

Perhaps someone should tell them.

dubbleyew eight

27th Jul 2014, 09:17

I relented and watched the dvd in the pack.
"human factors for engineers"

I thought the entire presentation was contrived and infantile.
the recommendations are the greatest waste of time and energy possible, a great enemy of productive work and guaranteed to send a company bankrupt.

CAsA do not live in the real world.

Kharon

27th Jul 2014, 19:14

W8 - Here you go – Register and you can even meet the author, get a copy signed in the hallowed halls and even mingle with elevated, qualified company.

The Sydney branch of the Royal Aeronautical Society advises that Wednesday 30th July is its next event, entitled ‘Aviation Safety Evening’, will be held at the University of Sydney. The evening will commence at 1730 with a presentation by Roger Chambers, Manager Sydney Region, Operations Division, CASA, followed at 1830 hours by a Panel Discussion entitled “Contemporary Aviation Safety Issues”. Registration is required for this key event. Please register here.

Extract:
Roger Chambers will be presenting a seminar about team factors, the opportunities to harness those factors to improve safety within the an organisation through the Safety Management System, and the hazards that can manifest within and between teams that history shows can lead to incidents and accidents. Roger will also provide an update about safety promotion material that has been developed by CASA in the past 18 months that is now available for industry. CASA Safety Promotion staff will be on hand to provide safety materials to participants.

To get some background on the speaker have a little read of the 'Chambers report' and you will see, clearly, why riff-raff like Mal Christie and Ben Cook are never invited to speak on safety matters to the cream of aviation society. You see, they have too many real qualifications on the subject matter, have written their own, original works to attain their qualifications and apart from occasionally advising ICAO and Australia's Air Force, actually do work at the leading edge of aviation safety. With those meagre qualifications they may only sit in the audience, all agog, listening in wonder to an insightful, original lecture being delivered, selflessly by a true expert in aviation safety. It should be the highlight of an enlightening evening....

At one time, until quite recently actually, I held the Royal Aeronautical Society in high regard and valued my shortly to be resigned membership. Epiphany - I worked it out - I can watch the shopping channel – at no cost – when I am seized with a sudden, irresistible urge to listen to snake oil salesmen and I don't even have to leave home on a cool winters evening to do so. This leaves me free time to pursue selling the Harbour bridge on E-bay. Magic.

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” Connan Doyle.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

27th Jul 2014, 19:42

Roger will also provide an update about safety promotion material that has been developed by CASA in the past 18 months that is now available for industry.

Coincidently developed in the last 18 months! As Beaker has termed 'beyond Reason' could this be referred to as 'beyond Christie and Cook'.

Sarcs

27th Jul 2014, 22:48

For those IOS members (especially those currently unemployed or off work while waiting for their pending AAT hearing or Avmed medical wenewal), here is a chance to be duly enlightened by an up and coming FF doyen of HF & SMS, air safety expert Wodger Wabbit...:EWodger has been a licenced aircraft engineer in military and general aviation, and involved training, safety and projects including the introduction of the C130J Hercules to service and the early phase of the A330 Air Wefuel project. Since joining CASA Wodger has held a number of woles including airworthiness inspector, safety systems support for airworthiness and for the past 4 years as the Wegional Manager for Sydney Wegion.With only a couple of days to go wedgister your interest ASAP (HERE (https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/safety-qa-panel-and-lecture-tickets-12120965133)). This is a ware opportunity not to be missed, find out what 'Just Culture' weally means according to the acclaimed author of the (plagiarised) 'Chamberpot Weport'.

Be there or be square, bags of peanuts are sold at the door, a percentage of the cost of which will contribute to the essential (twough) funding of future lectures by Wodger...:D

ps With a CV like that Wodger would be a shoe in for the FF HF Manager position don't you think??:E

004wercras

28th Jul 2014, 01:55

Sarcs, an event not to be missed! Is it a black tie event or perhaps a leather mask event? I just got my steel cap boots, IOS t-shirt and Guy Fawkes mask back from the dry cleaners (hard to get those blood spatters removed), so I need to know in advance! Appreciate your help.

Lookleft

28th Jul 2014, 04:01

You blokes don't seem to know your history very well. Guy Fawkes was part of a failed plot to insert a Catholic monarch on the British throne.

Then again the analogy does work quite well with the group of conspirators that regularly meet on this thread to plot the downfall of the CASA monarchy. Just make sure that your first consignment of powder doesn't go moldy like Guy's did.BTW Richard Hammond did a great program on what would have happened if the plot had been successful. :ok:

004wercras

28th Jul 2014, 06:36

Yes yes yes, ok Lookyloo, you feel better now?
Back to the thread......

Frank Arouet

28th Jul 2014, 06:43

So it's a conspiracy against a CAsA monarchy.

I always thought it was a Principality, inhabited by a gaggle of overpaid, pompous, primrose tainted, meta ethics challenged, mincing prat's, calling themselves prince's, who deserved preserving, so future generations can chuck rocks at them.

Bring on the revolution.

Ziggychick

28th Jul 2014, 07:54

Hi all.
After an absence from pp, due to a lot of crap, as I'm sure you're all aware of the "goings on".
I am going to the Aeronautical Meeting in Sydney July 31st. Just registered.
Who will join me and voice without fear. Justice and truth need no rehearsal. The bumbling comes when one lies. The bumblings, I feel, I have witnessed for too long.

Have voice-will use.

It's time...safe skies for some...is not safe, fair or just. To stand by a statement of ..."safe skies for all"... is clearly not upheld.
The ATSB, I have four words regarding the "big knobs".
The last three words are .... the big knobs!
Hopefully the outcome of this disgraceful, insulting and soul destroying saga is real safety.
Aviation leaders that lead with integrity, knowledge, honesty and can admit when there is fault. Then, have the insight to see the macro and micro problem, remedy and learn. Tough job description. Suited to the current Av.Leaders...I think not.

Take a pledge
Ignore the bench
Now in a wedge
With Dishonours' stench

As I had a forced plunge into the inner web of Aviation, I have learned so very much over the past four plus years.
What a friggin' mess. Yep, think that sums it all up.
Main-stream media only tickle the facts. Little do they know.

Any one care to join me?

Lookleft

28th Jul 2014, 07:54

Yes 004 thanks for asking! How is the peeping tom caper going?;)

thorn bird

28th Jul 2014, 07:56

Had a look at the Wabbits CV!!

Aint it remarkable how an ex RAAF baggage handler can pack such a wealth of aviation expertise into a CV yet still maintain a pathological hatred for anyone who actually commits real aviation.

Suddenly those psych. tests the airlines conduct make a lot of sense...

Desperately trying to prevent a lunatic taking over the asylum??

Hmm?? maybe CAsA HR should institute the same requirement!!

Na, cant see it, they would probably find half their staff should be committed, the rest probably should not be allowed out unsupervised!!

thorn bird

28th Jul 2014, 08:02

Ziggy, go you good girl go!!!

I vote Ziggychick an honorary bloke, got bigger balls than a lot I know!!

Lookleft

28th Jul 2014, 08:04

Good luck Ziggy! I'm sure that the regular posters who have all sorts of names,insights and solutions into the workings of CASA will be joining you in Sydney on Thursday. If they don't, it will only confirm what I have long suspected. I won't be there as I don't meet the above criteria and I don't live anywhere near Sydney.

Are you going Thorn Bird you live in Sydney?

thorn bird

28th Jul 2014, 08:29

Hey Leftie...before we get started, correct the thread drift and put your Guy Fawkes comment on the Wuss thread.
You may be assured that every word will be recorded by at least one of the IOS and I hear a whisper that PAIN will naturally be represented.
Its pretty certain that every word will be analyzed against any publicly available text in order to ensure that the author is properly acknowledged when quoted.
and lefty you'll never ever know, if you don't man up and go, watch this space,
luv and kisses TB.

Jinglie

28th Jul 2014, 08:32

Ziggy,

I suggest you turn up wearing and un-inflated life jacket. A big statement with having to say a thing! Keep the faith!

Ziggychick

28th Jul 2014, 09:20

Half Inflated life-vest a torch and some FOI extracts etc.

I have some ideas which I will think about over the next couple of days. Great shirt which gets to the point that I will wear, proudly. (I'll selfie and post)

Unity would be great. Politicians advocate change but it is unified people strength that create the change. History shows this.
The momentum is gaining velocity yet still no lift. Time to fly in a different way guys.

I'll sit front row with intense eye contact and take notes. Might even make a paper plane, fly it until it falls then say "oops, was just following regs". "Never mind, if any flaws point towards our regs or investigators, fixable, um, lie"
Pick up plane, put it in my life-vest for safety, then smile.

Jokes aside. I'm going.
I'll drag my honourable balls and use my nut to speak with some crackers.

Jinglie

28th Jul 2014, 09:51

Ziggy. I had a graphic artist design a logo for us, the Ills' of Society, Society. Let me know if you want the image in a JPEG so it can be printed on a T Shirt. I'm getting several made! If anyone wants one, PM me.
Proud to be an IOS!
http://i.imgur.com/PNnJeyC.jpg[/IMG]

Lookleft

28th Jul 2014, 11:47

You are a gutsy man Jinglie. With an image like that on a t-shirt you will certainly attract attention and I'm not thinking of any amused onlookers. Quite possibly someone, somewhere working for a government security agency wants to know a bit more about what is behind the thinking of someone wearing a t-shirt with images of a skull and passenger aeroplanes on it. Best of luck!

Creampuff

28th Jul 2014, 12:04

Intentionally or otherwise, it is a truly bizarre and disturbing image that is almost entirely unhelpful, if not positively damaging, to the IOS cause.

Ziggychick

28th Jul 2014, 12:17

Hey, each to there own. Cool art work, but I couldn't wear it and not be immediately labelled. (As they would not understand).

Whilst there, I'd like to bring attention to facts and justice. Which I believe I have the right to do. So I will.
Presence and connecting with others to speak of the truth regarding the shortcomings of the distorted system/s. Ask logical questions.

Going for the right reasons. To listen, then question.

Anyone else going?

Just hang outside the venue, anonymously. Gather. Support. Grow. Change.

The opportunity is ripe. Let it go?

Negative.

Creampuff

28th Jul 2014, 12:33

More power to your arm.

However, I'd keep a distance from anyone wearing a shirt with that image on it, if you want to avoid being labelled a loonie.

004wercras

28th Jul 2014, 12:37

Frau Ziggy, good to have you back, even if only for a short spell. I am sure Flyingfiend and friends will be monitoring your posts enthusiastically, so don't fear them, feel free to embrace your 'limited' freedom of speech, just keep your wording 'safe' :ok:
Herr Jinglie, love that art work son :ok: Of course 'big bother' won't appreciate it, they see anybody that speaks out or doesn't eat cucumber sandwiches or doesn't live in Can'tberra as a threat. Screw them, I'm gonna get that tattooed on my ass cheek and moon the Skull as he leaves Fort Fumble for the last time!!

Now there is a moderate rumour circling Can'tberra that several IOS have purchased front row tickets to Wodgers speech Wednesday night, and they intend to lob eggs and bags of fresh faeces at him the instant he mentions the word 'robust' for the first time of many....please behave yourselves boys and girls, there may be kiddies in the audience, ok?

'Safe speeches for all'

dubbleyew eight

28th Jul 2014, 12:41

splat.

excuse me. I'd like to ask an IFR question first posed by Richard Collins in his book "Flying IFR". How do you unscramble an egg? :E:E:E

aroa

28th Jul 2014, 12:55

All power to you.:ok::ok::ok:

A couple of T shirt suggestions

Safe skies for None

CAsA = Corrupt Authority, Safety an Afterthought.

Too far away to be there, as a distant IOS member, in spirit tho

Do post after the "event"

Best wishes

Lookleft

28th Jul 2014, 12:56

No one other than Ziggy has actually said they are going. Lots of the usual bluster (just post the receipt from the tattoo parlour 004) but who is going to post on this thread that they will be in attendance at the RAeS on Thursday?

004wercras

28th Jul 2014, 13:00

Hate to tell you this Lookleft but not a lot of IOS around here are really interested in reading your claptrap, nor answering your silly question. There's a good boy, toddle off will you.

Lookleft

28th Jul 2014, 13:07

Sorry, didn't realise that it was an invitation only thread! I'm just laughing at all the regular posters and all your bold statements about you're going to do this and just wait until you get the opportunity then there will be hell to pay. The perfect opportunity and none of you are making a commitment and saying that you will be there. The emperor has indeed been found to have no clothes.:D

Jinglie

28th Jul 2014, 13:27

Lookie,
What's wrong with a cigar smoking skull? It happens regularly at Fort Fumbles! Yes, I have big balls and am not concerned in the slightest about overstepping the mark. I think the Skull, A380 geriatric, and beaker may have more to worry about! I have a long, proud involvement in aviation safety and know my ****e.
You are definitely not a respected member of the IOS'S!
And what pax in the logo???
So do you think Chambers has a clue? I'll be there. You?

Lookleft

28th Jul 2014, 13:40

As I said Jinglie best of luck with it. I notice that you already have a customer who wants it permanently etched on what I assume is his talking orifice.

Jinglie

28th Jul 2014, 14:09

"Look after yourself"

Why don't you spend your time on real issues rather than picking like a gutless prick on people who actuality give a ****e? No doubt you'll be there backing the expert bag chucker!
004 can do what he wants. Good on him for having the spirit.

Jinglie

28th Jul 2014, 14:31

When a DAS (in this case McComic) has the audacity to label ppurnes and Senate witnesses (Quinn and Aherne) as Ills' of Society for having the right of public speech, something is wrong. Bravo to those guys for sticking their necks out. The IOSS will live on.

Ziggychick

28th Jul 2014, 14:34

Reasoning. What's yours? Going to action? Plausible arguments?

Here's mine.

For those that read this and belong to the scrum that I refer to, lower your head in shame as you read. And FYI, I can not be discredited, try as they might.

My stomach churns everyday. The absence of Justice, Fairness and Learning is the vigorous stir that gives me the strength to continue contributing to this matter.
Near five years. Five operations, psych admissions, meds, PTSD and the list goes on. Most profound is the loss of time with my children as they were 12,14 and 16 at the time of the ditching. I have been a single mother for 12 years. Worked three jobs, studied to achieve my dream job and I was physically abled, mentally stable and was happy.
I now wake each day, greeted with endless pain. Excruciating if I do too much. From an International Intensive Care Aeromedical Nurse, Medical Educator and RTO Project Manager, to a limited radius of around 30km now. Super, I know.
Swiftly stolen. As time has passed, I have accepted the disability, manage the pain, know I will never have the physical freedom nor forget in my mind Nov 18. Daily triggers. Breath. Re-Focus. The incident itself has been difficult enough to live with. Add the soap opera. Not pleasant to live through this.
I can not watch my television or listen to the radio at the moment as it provokes flashbacks, insomnia and nightmares. So be it. I have to ride this wave the best I can. Which ever way it leads me.
Emergence of the need to walk my talk is validated I believe.

Did the operator fail? Did the regulator fail? Did the Investigators fail? Did my Government fail me? A few boxes ticked there perhaps?
We have been treated unfairly, as too with others that have voiced.

I was given a medallion from the "Survivors Network of Aeromedical Crashes" from the US. Books, a visit from another survivor from Canada and support.
Nada from my Gov. Just drawn out, unnecessary head butting. Insulting to say the least. Especially when the truth is known.

Good enough reason now to ask such questions as the truth is bubbling to the surface.

My will is good. I ask the same of others with the pure intent of Safety to understand my reason.

I owe thanks to many people for their insight and understanding that has been relayed to me.

"I fell apart, but got back up again"..."to battle is the only way we feel" Jared Leto.

Sums up this time/chapter of my life.

Jinglie

28th Jul 2014, 15:21

So what do you suggest Lookie? Some whale hugging or perhaps a picture of a puppet of Forest Gump (Truss lookalike)? Life is like a box of chocolates.....!

halfmanhalfbiscuit

28th Jul 2014, 16:59

Extract:
Roger Chambers will be presenting a seminar about team factors, the opportunities to harness those factors to improve safety within the an organisation through the Safety Management System, and the hazards that can manifest within and between teams that history shows can lead to incidents and accidents. Roger will also provide an update about safety promotion material that has been developed by CASA in the past 18 months that is now available for industry. CASA Safety Promotion staff will be on hand to provide safety materials to participants.

Interesting all this Human Factors and SMS stuff! The real and only question that needs asking is why was the work Ben Cook did excluded from the Chambers report if it is that important? Follow up why was the chambers report not passed to the Atsb for consideration.

I expect there will be representatives from legal there.

The iOS need to blend in so he has no idea who will ask the questions.

004wercras

28th Jul 2014, 21:00

Thread back on track.

Ziggychick, well said :ok: That is exactly the reason why we need an overhaul of our aviation environment. You have related a reality check of what the outcome of an aviation accident leaves behind. One example from a survivor. You and Shane Urquhart together on the road talking to our industry would be a formidable team and provide much better insight and understanding than someone like Wodger dribbling on about pony pooh.

Our industry desperately needs help, it is sick, it is AOG. Let's just hope that change comes before we end up being the country that is sifting through the ashes of 200 or 300 pax after Sunny's giant smoking hole occurs.

Creampuff

28th Jul 2014, 22:09

Ziggy

The only glimmer of hope for any substantive change is the non-major party aligned Senators. If you want to put your energy to most effective use, lobby them.

CASA as an organisation doesn't care. Protesting at their gab-fests will make no difference.

ATSB as an organisation doesn't care. Protesting at their gab-fests will make no difference.

Almost none, if any, of the chest-beaters on pprune will be there with you.

The Laborials as a group don't care. The Laborials as a group are very happy with the job CASA and ATSB do. Nothing that CASA and ATSB have done or not done has made an iota of difference to the opinion polls. That's why nothing substantive has happened in the wake of the Senate Aviation Accident Investigation Inquiry report or the ASRR Panel report.

The only glimmer of hope is that the non-majory party aligned Senators can be convinced to do something. Talk to the PUPs, the Lib Dem, the Family First as well as Nick X and the Greens.

Up-into-the-air

28th Jul 2014, 22:17

Well put and the iOS is here, we have been head-butted by experts.

BUT:

McComick is gone.

Sen X works on.

Sen. Hef and Sterle are supporting you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT:

Miniscule Truss, where are you??

and the Red one is still trying to de-rail the process [look at the "pink bats" (http://vocasupport.com/mrdak-pink-batts-and-what-did-really-happen/)]

As for the casa legal section - they just de-rail everything.

Frank Arouet

28th Jul 2014, 23:01

The IOS are, from my dealings with many of them, impecunious. CAsA have made them "straw men/women" in their quest for safe skies for all. This little fact seems to be lost on the fat cats who believe they can intimidate, threaten and bully them further.

They have nothing left to loose! This makes them dangerous.

CAsA will never take anybody to a real court of law. Some of the IOS have dared them to do so. Recent administrative audits have been thwarted by legal intervention and still they refuse to take legal action for obstruction. CAsA only have clout via their own perversion of the regs and the umbrella of "safety" in the bureaucrat friendly AAT.

By their own actions CAsA are inviting public disobedience and what better place to demonstrate this than the RAS shindig at "Tammany Hall".

Somebody should ring the police before it gets out of control.

Lookleft

29th Jul 2014, 00:52

If you cut and paste from a couple of different posts you can come up with some good advice for Ziggy.

You and Shane Urquhart together on the road talking to our industry would be a formidable team and provide much better insight and understanding. The only glimmer of hope for any substantive change is the non-major party aligned Senators. If you want to put your energy to most effective use, lobby them.

CASA as an organisation doesn't care. Protesting at their gab-fests will make no difference.

ATSB as an organisation doesn't care. Protesting at their gab-fests will make no difference.

Almost none, if any, of the chest-beaters on pprune will be there with you.

The Laborials as a group don't care. The Laborials as a group are very happy with the job CASA and ATSB do. Nothing that CASA and ATSB have done or not done has made an iota of difference to the opinion polls. That's why nothing substantive has happened in the wake of the Senate Aviation Accident Investigation Inquiry report or the ASRR Panel report.

The only glimmer of hope is that the non-majory party aligned Senators can be convinced to do something. Talk to the PUPs, the Lib Dem, the Family First as well as Nick X and the Greens.

The rest is like watching monkeys in a zoo.

Sarcs

29th Jul 2014, 01:38

004:Ziggychick, well said :ok: That is exactly the reason why we need an overhaul of our aviation environment. You have related a reality check of what the outcome of an aviation accident leaves behind. One example from a survivor. You and Shane Urquhart together on the road talking to our industry would be a formidable team and provide much better insight and understanding than someone like Wodger dribbling on about pony pooh.
Agree totally 004..:D, back on track & very glad to see Ziggy once again able to add to the debate with such a succinct post...:ok: (unlike some on here...:ugh:).

It is sometime self-satisfying to attack the man (or wabbit), especially a wabbit such as Wodger who has been the instigator of many embuggerances of individual industry stakeholders & some, like Ziggy, innocent bystanders. However at the end of the day the likes of Wodger really do not signify, as he really was only doing the bidding of his (soon to be former) Sociopath master in helping perpetuate the PelAir cover up.

The bigger picture, which Ziggy & 004 allude to, is much more important and is best summarised (before we started drifting) by "K" at post #2061 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-104.html#post8579990) IMO - Between CASA and Beaker people like Ben Cook and Mal Christie have been treated abominably by those with very few qualifications and much less integrity. Any accountant can run the books, hell a qualified book keeper could do it. We have no need of these administrative types to be running critical safety investigations or managing essential organisations. Look at the buggers muddle Pel Air turned out to be if you think they should.

Would a Houston have recovered the Pel Air black box?

Would a Ben Cook have smudged the ledger to make the page add up?

Would either have manipulated facts and ignored evidence?

Would they tell the world about the life vest issues?

Yet it smugly stands there, the Beaker; reappointed and with enough neck to slither in front of a camera at every opportunity and flap his jaw. Perhaps there is a case for military or AMSA intervention if the minuscule can't see where the ATSB is heading. Why persist with Beaker?, why does he stay where no one, bar the co conspirators want him? Why do we keep him, let some one else mind the tea money while all the real, qualified talent and front line investigators have gone to the Ukraine. I'd bet a beer that when they come home, Beaker will be puffing out his chest, capering about the place picking up the kudos crumbs, like a puppy at a BBQ. It's disgusting, truly, really, absolutely disgraceful.And from a PT article yesterday (MH17 Admissions of safety failure by Malaysia Airlines (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/07/28/mh17-admissions-of-safety-failure-by-malaysia-airlines/)?)Ben discretely slid this into the mix..

"...They also go to the heart of the ‘accountability’ factor in modern airline managements, which are incidentally, held to be personally liable for safety outcomes under Australian law according to this country’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority when it isn’t suppressing embarrassing internal documents in such cases at the Pel-Air crash near Norfolk Island in 2009, or letting joy ride pilots like the late Barry Hempel fly unsuspecting customers to their doom because it decided to turn a blind eye to its own responsibilities..."

So by all means Ziggy (& whoever) attend Wodger's lecture, as long as people adhere to..

"...Whilst there, I'd like to bring attention to facts and justice. Which I believe I have the right to do. So I will.
Presence and connecting with others to speak of the truth regarding the shortcomings of the distorted system/s. Ask logical questions.

Going for the right reasons. To listen, then question..."

...there can be no harm done...:D

IMO Ziggy your presence at the event will speak much louder than words but if you are after intel for the Q&A that follows I am more than happy to oblige, you could start with reviewing my post...Third MoP sponsor: The case of the shrinking Attachment B?? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-104.html#post8580199)

However until such time as the miniscule decides to blink IOS impatience will continue to grow...:ugh:

I'll finish with a quote from Kharon:
What CASA can't seem to accept is that major change is demanded and industry expects those changes; but the concept is alien to them. They have become very used to, and good at ignoring the likes of coroners, ATSB, FAA and ICAO; but this time the step from the sublime to ridiculous trod on a lot of toes. Since Pel Air and the Forsyth report, the way in which government perceive CASA, particularly in the Senate has changed. Make no mistake – the winds of change are indeed heading towards the ivory tower, like it or not.

In short, perhaps CASA will no longer be able to thumb their nose at industry, Senate and the recommendations of 'other' organisations; not with impunity anyway. CASA have, by a fair minded, impartial jury of peers been weighed, measured and definitely been found wanting. Speculating, but I reckon the Rev. Forsyth wisely allowed to overseas guru's enough latitude to form their own opinions; without his input. Their considered, expert opinion fully justified the Senate findings on the Pel Air ditching. CASA~have arrogantly been the architects of their own demise and must now attempt to be reconciled with industry as the WLR demands.
MTF..:ok:

Lookleft

29th Jul 2014, 02:44

Your request here Sarcs:

So by all means Ziggy (& whoever) attend Wodger's lecture, as long as people adhere to..

"...Whilst there, I'd like to bring attention to facts and justice. Which I believe I have the right to do. So I will.
Presence and connecting with others to speak of the truth regarding the shortcomings of the distorted system/s. Ask logical questions.

Going for the right reasons. To listen, then question..."

...there can be no harm done...

Seems at odds with this:

They have nothing left to loose! This makes them dangerous.

CAsA will never take anybody to a real court of law. Some of the IOS have dared them to do so. Recent administrative audits have been thwarted by legal intervention and still they refuse to take legal action for obstruction. CAsA only have clout via their own perversion of the regs and the umbrella of "safety" in the bureaucrat friendly AAT.

By their own actions CAsA are inviting public disobedience and what better place to demonstrate this than the RAS shindig at "Tammany Hall".

Somebody should ring the police before it gets out of control.

And do you really think the quiet corridors of the RAeS are interested in admitting someone wearing a T-shirt with overtones of terrorism? Although to give some credit to Jinglie he at least has said he is going which is more than other people have so far failed to do.

Kharon

29th Jul 2014, 02:59

When Lefty sets up a derailment, the first thing to do is ignore it; the second and most important is to work out why. This leaves us with two less pages of heroic tattoo's (no pictures - please), wild artwork (yes - but is it art?) and keeps us on topic (Click). The topic, before 'trouble at t' mill' kicked off, was the notion of the RAeS embracing safety culture and having the author of that Senate favourite. "the" Chambers report paraded as the doyen of all safety issues. We have previously discussed the Pel Air 8 day recovery wonder, the CAIR report and the other serious anomalies which the Pel Air inquiry threw up.

It is of course up to the RAeS who they ask to speak; how the society chooses to sully it's reputation is entirely their business. I simply reserve my right to decline an invitation and as insignificant as my absence may be it is preferable. Rather than embarrassing the society with raucous, noisy crowd scenes; much as they are great fun. No, if you feel you must protest make it a silent one, don't dignify this charade by attending. No doubt, in due course a transcript will turn up and we can have a little look at that; just for fun.

Ziggy – good on you; but as brother Creampuff says the odds are slim, but hope springs eternal. If we can keep the Senators respect and interest and if Truss delivers on the election promises, there is a chance things may change for the better. Hang in there – smile whenever you can; shame to waste such a lovely thing.

As an aside. There are three traditional methods for hunting rabbits, the first is aback a horse using a the stirrup and swatting the little buggers with the iron, a polo swing - this whilst potentially lethal to rider is bloody good sport. Another is the shotgun and lamp method, which is wet, cold, dreary, expensive, time consuming and, in the wrong company potentially lethal. The oldest method is the poachers line trap, set and forget; soon or late your dinner will arrive; cheap effective and no patience required; for the well set rabbit trap is the most patient of all.

But - Jorrocks (http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/nov2005.html) had the right of it -

I am a sportsman all over, and to the back-bone - 'Untin is all that's worth living for – all time is lost wot is not spent in 'unting – it is like the hair we breathe – if we have it not we die – it's the sport of kings, the image of war without its guilt, and only five-and-twenty per cent of its danger.

Toot toot..

Lookleft

29th Jul 2014, 03:32

Nice rationalization! "I will be the first to mention it and encourage others to attend but my supreme sacrifice is to not attend in the interests of dignity and promoting the cause.":yuk: You will lead the howling mob but not support the damsel in distress. Not much of a knight in shining armour. More like a silly old git in a Ned Kelly costume.

Frank Arouet

29th Jul 2014, 04:48

Straight out of CAsA industry management 101.

Lesson 1: Divide and conquer.

Lesson 2: Exploit the conservative values, avoid or ignore overt hostility.

Lesson 3: See lesson 1.

Interesting that both the radical stance or the soft option have the same aim. It must be confusing to be hated by both. Chivalry and CAsA are an alien conception and I question your exploration of someone else's motives Leftwing. It would appear you have nothing to offer, now you are resorting to ridicule, so can you go and "ping" somewhere else. You are a most irritating identity.

Lookleft

29th Jul 2014, 05:04

Typical Frank, when you have nothing to say accuse someone of being from CASA, straight out of Chairman Maos Little Red Book.

The only thing irritating you (and others) is a different point of view and highlighting hypocrisy. My crime, according to the howling mob, was asking who was going to attend the function at the RAeS with Ziggy. Who after all these years is still after answers as to why she she was left permanently disabled when CASA should not have allowed the operation to have approval in the first place. She wanted to know who, amongst the loyal K followers who after all these years still talk endlessly about Beakers and Screaming Skulls, was going to join her. A reasonable request given the tone of the regulars posting. Surprise surprise only one has actually said they are attending. The rest just descend into the usual monologue about Wabbits and Wodgers, to my dismay even Sarcs who normally plays with a straight bat but is now very much afflicted by the Stockholm Syndrome.

If I irritate you (thanks by the way that cheered me up a lot), 004, Kharon, Jinglie etc etc etc then there is simply the ignore function. ;)

Sarcs

29th Jul 2014, 08:39

The normally extremely efficient RRAT committee have finally linked the QONs for the 2014-15 Budget Estimates.

As we all know (from past experience & much to the Senators angst) the AQONs are never answered by the Dept & its agencies by the due date. Indeed we will be lucky to see the answers earlier than a week before the next Estimate hearings.

It is quite unusual for the Secretariat not to release the index till after the published due date for the actual answers (25 July). However in this case I think I can see where the delay has occurred. The QONs index, in comparison to last year, has grown exponentially from 49 pages to this year a 107 pages. Most of the additional 58 pages seem to have been gobbled up in a large number of written QONs, some of which would have taken the Senators considerable time to research & compose...interesting??:cool:

Anyhow for those interested here is the link - QON Index (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/QoN_Index_Infrastructure.pdf)

A couple of QONs of interest.
263
40
CASA
FAWCETT
AFM Data

Senator FAWCETT: The runway length required really then comes down to the AFM data factored appropriately—I think it is 1.2 for short grass runways and 1.25 for certain weights of aircraft, and there are a couple of factors go in there. But the bottom line is that it is a greater number than is in the AFM itself and that is the legal requirement for operators to operate to.
Mr Leeds: I could not quote those figures exactly. I do not have that information to hand but those other factors do exist.
Senator FAWCETT: With a situation like the master plan for Essendon, where they are proposing to shorten runways, the assurance to the aviation community is that it is a process that will be considered. When CASA provides its input to that process, is that the kind of process that your people will be going through to say that the minimum strip length, particularly for those non-transport category aircraft, is not just what the AFM has but it includes all those factors that an operator is required to consider to operate the aircraft safely?
Mr Leeds: Yes, we would be looking at those sorts of things consistent with the ICAO standards for aerodromes but the exact details I would have to take on notice.
Senator FAWCETT: What I am getting at is, if the proponent for a master plan said the AFM says, 'We need 1,000 metres,' that the aircraft operator would be quitelegitimately be able to say, 'What CASA requires is the AFM minimum plus the factors,' which might make it 1,200 metres, that that is actually the minimum strip length required or the accelerate stop distance available, as opposed to the 1,000 metres from the AFM.
Mr Leeds: Again, I am not familiar with the exact science. I would have to take that on notice.

264
41
CASA
FAWCETT
Archerfield Case

Senator FAWCETT: Could I take you to the Archerfield case, where there was a proposal to change the orientation of one of the grass runways and make it essentially north-south. My understanding is that CASA has endorsed the consultant's calculation of strip length based on the AFM data as opposed to the factored data. Are you able to shed any light on whether CASA did in fact apply the factors so that the end result is a clear indication of what the operator legally has to have to take off and land—with landing it is even greater—or was that advice purely on the AFM data?
Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice for Archerfield. We will get back to as soon as we can. I know where you are going with this.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, take it on notice, but as a principle the operator's requirement is to comply with his ops manual, which has to take into account engine failure situations in terms of the take-off and landing length available.
Mr McCormick: Certainly for the accelerate stop distance available when we are talking about balanced fields length, I should imagine. The grass case is one where I am not too sure what we have said about the grass orientation. I agree with you, and we will take that on notice and get it back to you as soon as possible. We do not have Archerfield in front of us, unfortunately. Sen Fawcett in regards to CVD/O'Brien AAT hearing:265
42
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal

Senator FAWCETT: …
Mr McCormick, may I move on to answers that you gave at estimates last year about the costs associated with an AAT case relating to colour vision deficient pilots. You indicated that, as of 1 December 2013, the costs were $43,500. Can you tell me, in terms of forecast costs, how many expert witnesses CASA plans to call for that inquiry or tribunal?
Mr McCormick: Are you talking about the upcoming O'Brien tribunal in July?
Senator FAWCETT: Yes.
Mr McCormick: I will ask the manager of the legal branch to give you that figure, Senator.
Mr Rule: There will obviously be a number of specialist witnesses called to give evidence.
Senator FAWCETT: Two? Ten? Fifteen?
Mr Rule: I am not across the precise number that would be—
Senator FAWCETT: Would I be wrong if I said 12?
Mr Rule: I could not say that that number is wrong. We are out of the ballpark, but I cannot give a confirmed number at this stage. The exchange of evidence between the parties only just finished at the end of last week, I believe, so there will be some to-ing and fro-ing as to which evidence and which witnesses are required. I can certainly take that on notice and provide a more settled estimate of that for you, if that would assist.

266
43
CASA
FAWCETT
AAT: O’Brien Tribunal

Senator FAWCETT: …you must also have metrics from previous inquiries. Knowing what expert witnesses charge for their appearances, the travel and accommodation costs, the whole cost of conducting the inquiry in terms of transcript fees et cetera, have you made a provision in your budgeting for how much you anticipate this AAT case will cost?
Mr Rule: Obviously, we do do forward estimates of how much we think a case is likely to cost. Generally we do it across quarterly budget considerations, so total cost can get washed out as you conduct these cases piecemeal.
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to add the figures up, Mr Rule, if you could give me the figures across those quarterly milestones.
Mr Rule: We can certainly take that on notice and provide those figures.

267
44
CASA
FAWCETT
Mandate the CAD Test

Senator FAWCETT: I understand. You did also say in that period that you did not believe there was any intention to mandate the CAD test and that was not the direction CASA was going. But I have subsequently seen a couple of examples where CASA refused to renew the medical of people who previously had multiple renewables of their medical unless they sat the CAD test. Does that not contradict your comment that that is not CASA's intended direction?
Mr McCormick: I will go back and check what I actually said at the time, my recollection of the conversation was that we were talking about using the CAD test as the principal test rather than the Ishihara test or something like that. As I said, I will check that on notice.

What I found most interesting was this written QON from DF...:rolleyes::273
244
CASA
FAWCETT

Cost of Investigations
1. What was the cost of the investigation ‘Antidepressant Usage and Civilian Aviation Activity in Australia 1993-2004’?
2. What has been the financial cost to CASA of the last five AAT Hearings in which CASA has been involved? Please provide the following:
a. Staff involved;
b. Number of witnesses called;
c. Length of time;
d. Legal fees;
Written
But my particular favourite was the Heff's extremely annoyed QON to Beaker after DF's questioning on UAVs...:E:Mr Dolan: I am happy to give you a response on notice.
…
CHAIR: Then will you come back to the committee—or through the secretary or through the department or through the minister—and explain to the Australian public and this committee what their protection is from the growing plethora of unmanned vehicles in the air?
The body language of which was priceless and can be relived at the tail end of this poohtube vid...:ok:

Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - ATSB on UAVs & liability - YouTube

Ziggychick

29th Jul 2014, 09:45

I have the answers I need.
I will challenge the answers with questions.
I have been to many conferences, as a guest speaker too. I can hold myself.
Overall, the aim is for a rather serious cause. Aviation Safety that is transparent and true.
Maybe look to the middle a bit more. Ya need balance.

I slammed into the ocean, high speed impact that broke the aircraft underneath me seat. Plane sinking, seatbelt stuck. Release, in angry, dark ocean, injured, half-inflated life vest, held my patient in shark infested waters for over an hour, terrifying. The aftermath. Disgraceful. Next time you are flying over the ocean at night, think of me. Hypocrisy is really falseness. Therefore the blatant evidence that has been found, after it was hidden, is where the real hypocrisy lands. Safety first. How?
I am not a damsel in distress, nor do I need rescuing. A damsel is a single woman. I am happily divorced. A few may judge me as a "distressed damsel", just let me check. Brain mapping my neuro feedback system via quantum neuro biomechanics. Yep. I'm not a damsel, just Ziggy.
Cosmology, chemistry, politics plus much more. Understood.

"Glimpses of hope" means more to me than you CP. So I ignore the negative blindness to the clear "in your face facts" regarding this matter.
Can't argue the truth. Some try.

I'm just going to the shindig. My will is good. Lighten up fellas.
I shall disappear for a bit.
I do not wish to cause iarguments over such an important issue.
Thank you to all the "Monkeys" for the insight and support.

Keep the bastards honest...escapes me who said it, but, I bloody agree!

Humbly yours,
Ziggy.

"I fell apart, but got back up again"..."to battle is the only way we feel"
Jared Leto.

dubbleyew eight

29th Jul 2014, 09:56

keep the bastards honest was a quote of Don Chip leader of the now defunct democrats.

004wercras

29th Jul 2014, 10:41

I am not a damsel in distress, nor do I need rescuing.
Ziggy, the IOS agree :ok: You are a tough girl and have earned our absolute respect. You plunged into the ocean and suffered serious injury, but you survived. Your mental strength and determination helped you remain afloat while still caring for your patient - you saved two lives in that hour, you both survived. You have stood up to the Beast known as CAsA, amid legal threats and intimidation, and you have survived. You mention the physical and emotional pain, the moments of doubt and the periods of anger, yet again you continue to survive.
You have experienced something that the absolute vast majority of us would likely never experience in a 1000 lifetimes. For that you earn my absolute respect. You are not a 'damsel in distress'. Only a conceited, ignorant, self opinionated sexist batty boy would think that you are.

Ziggy, a lifetime supply of Kharons chocolate frogs is on its way :ok:

Lookleft

29th Jul 2014, 11:20

Nice tribute 004, pity you had to spoil it with the rant at the end. :ok:

Jinglie

29th Jul 2014, 13:40

I spoke to Dom James yesterday. He has moved to DRW an is applying for jobs in a cafe. What a joke. The man deserves much better than that. Is this a democracy? I'm starting to wonder! Watch the Senate hearings and make your own mind up.:ugh:

Dangly Bits

29th Jul 2014, 13:52

Didn't Dom depart the aircraft before any of his passengers and crew? Did he attempt to go back down after the people he was responsible for?

Just asking.

Kharon

29th Jul 2014, 20:25

Sarcs # 2115 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-106.html#post8584663)"Most of the additional 58 pages seem to have been gobbled up in a large number of written QONs, some of which would have taken the Senators considerable time to research & compose...interesting?"

Having a friendly bet on how far a glacier will travel in a given amount of time is a lifelong project; you'd need to go back every decade or so, to check your marker; even then at the age of 70 you could probably kick a football further than the marker travelled. We are watching the great glacier race the Truss Flash v the Senate Speedy Bill. The only interesting part is the Fawcett commentary – have a look at the 'Fawcett 263' question posted @2115. You could reasonably expect a brand new CPL to answer that question – it's not a difficult one. However, the considered response is some months away, but more importantly the impetus and relevance of the question is lost, leaving the simple 'beer mat' calculations required wallowing in the mists of time; waiting only to return as some bland statement saying that CASA will 'check' the runway lengths to ensure robust safety is maintained. Your glacier may have progressed more than the question in the six months it takes to get that predictable answer.

Of course the Senate is in a race with the Truss entry – the poser is "Will you adopt the recommendations of the report you commissioned and we paid for? Once again, not a difficult question: check your glacier, no surprises there – in the same time period it is a racing certainty that the glacier will have actually moved.

The Rev. Forsyth report in recommendations 6, 7, 18, and 34 maps out a perfectly acceptable, do-able system for speeding thing up. With an active board and the reforms in place, perhaps the six month hiatus between questions being asked and answers returned could be diminished. The need to spend Senate time trapping slippery creatures in dark corners could be significantly reduced, just for lack of questions. Then, perhaps we could get progress reports instead of a fortune being wasted on producing obvious answers to questions that should not ever need to be asked.

Time could then be spent productively: maybe even on a review system to prevent the double jeopardy horrors of the Quadrio case or the persistent administrative embuggerance inflicted on James. Neither of these cases can be considered with pride or satisfaction. But stand they do, along with so many other instances as examples of just how the system is manipulated, by the unscrupulous as and when required. Peer review not trammelled by an 'in-house', solo ICC would help. Imagine, Boyd + 2 looking over a charge sheet rather than a CASA employed, career minding lawyer – now that beats watching glaciers moving any day.

Aye well – I expect by this time next year a clear decision on the colour scheme for the executive dunny will have been made; but that's the cost of progress.

Toot toot.

Kharon

30th Jul 2014, 20:23

Jingle – It's not just Ziggy doing it the hard way though is it? What about the passengers who survived the ditching; I hear the patient/husband team have almost gone broke, the wife still requiring psychiatric and medical care, the husband not in good shape. Now I can't verify any of this yet, it's just the way I understand it; happy to be hopelessly wrong. The insurance company which carries their medical insurance, the package including 'medivac' transport (i.e. the insurer arranged and paid for the flight), does not and is not required to insure them against flight risk (prang). It seems that some very old clauses from the 1929 'law' (statute?) mean that for medical evacuation flight – there is no coverage and so no compensation in the event of a prang. (Chances of survival rated at near zero).

It all seems very complex and 'legal' but apparently the Department (MM) has been aware of this 'black hole' for a very long while. There have been many attempts to have the law changed and this insurance company get out of jail free card removed from play, but no action has been taken. While the insurer has probably acted within 'the law', which is fine, this is of small comfort to the people who's lives have been so drastically altered, through no fault of their own; except perhaps by not reading the fine print on an insurance policy. Ziggy's research into the matter is truly awesome (well done), lets hope that with better health we see a more concise appraisal from her, of how exactly the much vaunted Australian safety system let these innocent, trusting folks down so very badly.

It's a sad indictment though; Pel Air slip through the CASA safety net, the insurance company through the legal net and to add insult to injury, the ATSB bypass the nets altogether and fail to produce any one thing toward preventing a similar event. Every protection we believe we have, rendered null and void. Right down to the life jackets; and even they failed this hapless group in time of need.

But, don't worry, newly minted safety 'experts' are on the job. Who knows, perhaps when enough platitudes have been uttered, and when the newly learned 'safety speak' words have assuaged the disturbed masses; and, enough newly published educational material has been distributed, all will be well; until the next time...

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned," W. Congreve.

Selah..

Sarcs

31st Jul 2014, 08:27

"Catching a glimpse of the fabled insurance elephant"

More than a glimpse I would of thought...:rolleyes:

The rumour is it is one hell of a monster bull elephant, with more resources at its disposal than half a dozen third world countries combined...:ugh:

Although..it does kind of make sense of the whole PelAir embuggerance, which quite frankly has never really added up..:confused:

Ok research hat coming on I reckon...:cool:

Kharon:It all seems very complex and 'legal' but apparently the Department (MM) has been aware of this 'black hole' for a very long while. There have been many attempts to have the law changed and this insurance company get out of jail free card removed from play, but no action has been taken. Disgusting really that such a loophole in this day and age can be allowed to exist, kind of makes you ashamed to be Australian...:{

In my limited understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that if the PelAir AOC had of been issued by any of a number of other countries that are signatories to ICAO & the Warsaw Convention (http://static.vayama.com/pdf/warsawConvention.pdf) (as modified by Chapter I of the Hague Protocol and Chapter I of the Montreal Protocol No. 4), this loophole would not have existed and the insurance company would have no other choice but to pay out under the terms of the CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS' LIABILITY) ACT 1959 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cala1959327/).

Perhaps this is better explained by (surprise, surprise..:E) Fort Fumble in their NPRM 1304 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nprm/nprm1304os.pdf):
3.1.1 Interpretation of medical transport flights

Leading aviation nations, such as the UK, Europe, Canada, New Zealand and the USA (for the USA, specifically when the patient is on board the aircraft), recognise that MT flights, including:

patient inter-hospital retrieval
international patient repatriation
emergency medical service (EMS) operations,
are conducted as air transport operations under the authority of an AOC issued by the operator’s State. It is widely understood that this approach to classification and level of regulation has many advantages for the overall context of these flights, particularly from operational and safety systems perspectives.
These nations have applied definitions and applicability of commercial air transport (CAT) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) – as outlined in Annex 6, Parts I and III to the Chicago Convention – to their operations. In Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) defines commercial air transport as:

commercial air transport operation (is) an aircraft operation involving the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.

Clearly, the abovementioned countries have interpreted this to mean that the transport of passengers for MT flights is an AT operation, and have written their legislation for these operations accordingly. CASA is of the view that such an interpretation confers many safety advantages to MT flights, chiefly that the full range of organisational, equipment, flight crew and safety system standards confirmed by the issue of an AOC are applicable to such operations.

ICAO reinforces this through their definition of an AOC:

Air operator certificate (AOC). A certificate authorizing an operator to carry out specified commercial air transport operations
FF go onto describe the 'unique' Oz classification for MT Flights:
Amongst leading aviation nations, Australia is unique in classifying MT flights as aerial work under the prescribed purpose of ‘ambulance functions’, outlined in subregulation 206 (1) (a) of CAR. This classification subjects Australia’s MT operations to a different standard of regulation than would be the case under the ICAO AT standards and those of most other leading ICAO Member States.
Irony of ironies is that the proposed NPRM for "Regulation of aeroplane and helicopter ‘ambulance function’ flights as Air Transport operations" has largely come about due to the findings & recommendations of the Senate AAI inquiry...:D

Though that is small comfort for Ziggy & Co, who will be dealing with personal injuries (both physical & psychological) in the aftermath of the ditching for the rest of their lives...:{

Much more to follow on this..:ok:

Ziggychick

31st Jul 2014, 08:40

Hey PPs,

I did not attend the RAS meeting. I was quite sick and shut down on Wednesday. I thought that's alright, I'll save my energy for the meeting on Thursday. I even had it in my calendar as Thursday. Honest mistake. That's the only reason I was not there.
I will not give up though. I will be a thorn in their side until the truth is on the table.

To Dinglie Bits No Hoper,

First- you weren't there
Second - when you truly believe you are going to die and have accepted your fate, it is a strange sensation when you realise you are actually alive. It was pitch black, disorientating and survival instinct along with shock, it was very surreal. With the certainty of death, given the conditions, when I realised I was alive, personally, it took a couple of minutes to sink in, so to speak.
As for the silly questions regarding Dom, another reminder, you were not there. I would hope you are both on this site for productive purposes not to be immature and be so rude to my Captain. He landed the aircraft, (along with Zoe) in circumstances which I would think you have not experienced.
Dom maintained a calm and encouraged us every time he did a head count. Which was regular, along with asking if we were doing ok. I can not say the same of the CP. I too was injured and unconscious during the second and third impact. My injuries are permanent and hurt like hell the water whilst I held my patient.

To offend a person directly without being there, well, kinda stupid. Not professional behaviour.
Why be on the site if it is to criticise an individual who has clearly, via evidence base facts, been used as a scapegoat.
Please, leave my Captain alone. Do you not think he has been through enough?
As we all have. But I will emphasise it again...
Neither of you were there.
Keep it on the real issues of Aviation Safety.
I certainly believe that the issues of P/As incompetences along with the hidden reports along with the "aberration" of an investigation etc etc etc, are of much more importance than the ridiculous question, after five years, to keep on jabbing him.
Don't either of you see the bigger picture?

Respectfully yours,
Ziggy.

thorn bird

31st Jul 2014, 08:44

Oh dear, "No Hoper"...name says it all!!

Exactly Zig's...but then the Skull said Dom was the only one to blame, therefore those Trolls charged with shutting this thread down will espouse the establishment line, its what spinmeisers get paid for. "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"

Lookleft

31st Jul 2014, 09:36

Way back in the dim dark past of this thread there was a lot frustration expressed by more than a few people that the co-pilots role in the Pel-Air ditching was a missing piece of the puzzle. Dom was wearing the criticism including from the CP who I think appeared on 4 corners.

Now Ziggy has lifted a small part of the lid with the statement:

Which was regular, along with asking if we were doing ok. I can not say the same of the CP.

while defending the Captain. As you said none of us were there so your observations of the crew before and after the event will go a long way in helping the rest of us understand the crew dynamics. Entirely your call whether you expand on your statement or not. However how crews work together in, and respond to, an emergency is something all pilots and crew can learn from.

I will be upfront and state that I have been critical of the Captains actions based on the information that has been in the public domain but I am more than willing to change my view if it comes to light that the support he was getting only added to the stress.

Then again you might want to say "bugger off'' thats okay too, 004 and Kharon are telling me that all the time!

thorn bird

31st Jul 2014, 10:18

"However how crews work together in, and respond to, an emergency is something all pilots and crew can learn from."

That and a hell of a lot more!

That is exactly the point leftie, your mentor didn't want to go there because it exposed his organization and therefore the "Guvmint" to liability.

That can not happen.

The imperative to manipulate the weakness in management of the ATSB, subvert their investigation and install the party line.

All the safety lessons unfortunately sacrificed, because they impinged on the carefully managed scenario, "The pilot dunnit"...we are the experts...therefore there is nothing to see here move along!!

Lookleft

31st Jul 2014, 10:25

That is exactly the point leftie, your mentor didn't want to go there because it exposed his organization and therefore the "Guvmint" to liability.

Who is my mentor thorn bird?
When you can string a coherent sentence together please reply, otherwise put on your tin foil hat and go and shake your fist at the chemtrails.:confused:

Ziggychick

31st Jul 2014, 11:14

Yeah, peace to you No Hoper,

I just explained the mind-bending, surreal shock of trying to get out of a sinking plane in the dark.
My seatbelt was stuck and I was injured. Permanently. I am medically retired and have a permanent disability. With pain everyday.
But I am not on here to bitch like school yard girls regarding who was where or exited in what order. I can't even remember that clearly.
It is a tiny fraction of the incident and from what I believe, the CP has made a full recovery and continues to enjoy employment and physical freedom.

So, once again, sook to someone else. Is that the only gripe you have regarding this matter?
Pretty sure I've answered it.
Also, I do not think that tiny fraction would be the reason why the Captain can not gain employment. Think it may have to do with a few other uninformed sheep.

Ziggychick

31st Jul 2014, 11:27

Lefty,

If you read the FOI's, the Senate report, the submissions and the ASRR, you will no longer be too concerned with the "shock/disorientation etc" that I explained which effects each individual differently. That is enough on that topic unless you gain consent from the CP.

Please read the material with a middle/neutral view. I am sure after some lengthy reading, you will see in plain black and white the evidence and connect the dots as so many others have.
Have your own opinion, but as a professional man, be well informed of the known facts first.

Happy reading. It's lengthy.
50 Shades of Shame
Enjoy.

004wercras

31st Jul 2014, 11:32

Ziggy, ignore the trolls. Every so often No Hoper (and other aliases) and Lookleft (and other aliases) come out of the sewer to stir up some trouble yada yada. One is a pilot and the other an engineer and they work together in industry and on pprune. Anyway, they sook and moan until someone comes along and puts them back on the teat then all is a fine for a little while.
Ziggy, remember you don't owe anybody anything. You don't have to answer any silly questions or probings from anyone, and should you wish to decline answering a couple of Tosser's questions it doesn't make you anything less. Keep your chin up and concentrate on you and your families well being.

Ziggychick

31st Jul 2014, 14:27

...stop fishing NoHo.

For you to know so much of the happenings in the cabin, yet claiming that myself and others fabricated aligning re-accounts even though we were questioned separately, means nothing to you.
For as I have said along with many others, the evidence is written, that the report was an "aberration". That means basically, false.
So please guide me to the rationale of your thinking that your insight warrants the pilot being treated as he is? Just because who is employed and who isn't.
From what I gather, he was following protocol and much more misadventures occurred along the journey. Yet we survived.
What strikes me is the ignorance to see what all can see, oh so clearly, possibly including yourself. Maybe you're obligated to not agree with the majority.
Please challenge the evidence, which there is an abundance of, then deliver your verdict with plausible, evidence that is factually based to substantiate your previous, rather ridiculous conclusion.
Something you might like to know, saves you the trouble of searching for this one.
CP of P/A @ the time of the ditching and during the "spech audit" which found some pretty serious stuff (I have the FOIs, all of them). Wait for it....
The same CP is now an investigator for our regs. What, huh. Thought that would highlight the simple question of...WTF?

Is this safe practice? This cause is Aviation for goodness sakes. Lives depend on the changes so desperately needed. Zip has been learned from NGA. We wonder why? Not hard to figure out.

Honestly,
Ziggy

Kharon

31st Jul 2014, 21:04

Kids, the thing with trolls is as long as you keep feeding them, they'll keep eating. The troll team (tt) is having a feast which will become a banquet if someone gets banned or the thread shutdown. The insignificant efforts made to discredit and decry are too little, too late and bring tt no credit. Good to see the clumsy, transparent, craven tactics failed to get a proper bite. It's a measure of true desperation that there is even a need to engage with Ziggy. The abortive attempt to use her plight, or manipulate her words as a tool is contemptible.

The damage done to CASA and by extension the ATSB was not because of anything the IOS did, noted or commented on through Pprune. No, that was a work all of their own making. The Senate inquiry revealed that CASA and ATSB had much to be ashamed of in the management of the Pel Air accident, this prompted the Truss sponsored Forsyth report; all of which lead us to the Senate supported MoP.

Remember, there is no public statement from the FO available to discuss; the matter was not publicly discussed by the Senate inquiry. It would be both unwise and unfair to comment on hearsay, either for or against the FO, so don't be tempted to join in. The deafening silence on the matter speaks volumes to those who know how to track wabbits; that lesson will keep for another day. From an operational safety perspective, there's no doubt it would have been good to have an impartial appraisal of the crew actions, certainly there are valuable lessons to be learnt from the situation which should be passed on to the wider community. Particularly as a ditching event is relatively rare, even rarer for there to be surviving crew. A great learning opportunity squandered, even if it was a complete shambles, the lessons should be there for the benefit of future crews.

For example, the 'drama' with the last line of defence life jackets (vests), lanyards, inflation tubes, the problems trying to use them, lights and whistles. This alone correctly analysed would (IMO) have provided valuable insight to operators relying on the equipment to protect passengers and crew in any future ditching (gods forbid). An impartial analysis of the fatigue levels would also be handy as would so many other items excluded by the CASA inspired, Wodger managed, ATSB produced aberration. I am not certain which is the greater tragedy; the passengers struggling to live normal lives or industry struggling to get some positive benefit from the event.

It is noteworthy that none of this was mentioned to the RAeS crowd, instead we had a bland 'borrowed' plaintive little effort; designed to flatter a discrepancy in the small audience. It's a great shame that these safety enhancing analysis are not available for discussion. I expect the bonhomie afterwards meant more than the quality of work proffered, such is life on the slippery pole.

However, back on topic the plus side, perhaps (maybe) is the 'flight category' impasse may now be sorted out. The CASA NPRM 1304 is a very good discussion (top marks), and some of the 2004 responses, supporting the CASA proposal present very attractive alternates to the existing system; have a read.

Selah.

Creampuff

31st Jul 2014, 21:56

As frequent readers of pprune will note, No Hoper and I often disagree. But on this occasion I agree with the point he (and LL) is making.

I've said on numerous occasions that my view is the ATSB's report was a sick joke and the regulator's treatment of DJ compared to the operator was a travesty. But rhetorical fist waving and head-butting on this forum achieves nothing.

I've posted on numerous occasions the only glimmer of hope I perceive for substantive change. I recommend, again, that everyone concentrate their energies on that, and merely use this forum and as an 'FYI' tool, rather than an arena for pointless wastes of energy.

slats11

31st Jul 2014, 23:12

Lets hope the facts emerge at some stage.

A good start would be to conduct a new investigation - this time with representation from a credible international body such as NTSB. This investigation should start with the retrieval of the recorders. If the French can get them from AF447 at a depth of 13,000 feet, its odd that the ATSB is so concerned about the dangers of retrieving them from NGA from a depth of 100 feet.

You do have to laugh a little about timing. In November - December 2009 CASA was hosting the FAA, who were in Australia deliberating whether to downgrade Australia to tier 2 status. Right in the middle of this, we have NGA ditching followed a few weeks later by the CASA special audit into Pelair. A special audit which found multiple longstanding systemic deficiencies, and thereby raised questions about CASAs oversight. What luck for this to happen with all this international expertise at hand.

I wonder what the FAA thought of the special audit. You imagine they had a bit of a chat over beers - most of us enjoy talking shop over a beer at the end of the day. Perhaps the FAA and CASA agreed there was nothing much to it and not worth passing across to the ATSB.

CASAs action to ground Pelair following this crash seem odd set against the ATSBs subsequent report. Why ground a company for several months because of single pilot? Why not just pull the pilots licence? Did CASA over-react at the time? Or was CASA right to ground the company, and then gradually permit it to resume operations over the following months? If CASA was right to do this, how do ATSB and CASA now maintain it was a pilot problem?

Not sure about Dom being pushed out by water pressure. Water tends to rush into rather than out of a sinking vessel. In fairness however, the hull integrity was breached, the cabin was filling with water, and the door was jammed. It was night, pro viz due to fog, and there was a moderate see. Having opened an emergency exit, water would have poured in. This was not a big jet with a large exit floating on water. It was a very small jet with a crowded cabin and a small hatch, and it was sinking fast. Even if Dom could have maintained position at the exit in the face of this water, he would have been obstructing the path for the others. Hard to see he could really do much more than open the hatch, get out, and hope others followed. Dom made his share of mistakes that night, but I suspect he has been judged a bit harshly in this case.

Incredible that there seems to be legal loophole making it difficult for survivors to successfully sue. Presumably the sharks are looking for other targets.

No Hoper

31st Jul 2014, 23:29

the regulator's treatment of DJ compared to the operator was a travesty. Agreed, and the two premises are not mutually exclusive. But I suspect you are aware of that, Creampuff.
I suspect the Regulator nailed Dom because he would not admit to his stuffup, but tried to spread the blame, Pel Air seemed to be proactive, albeit after the event so was treated differently.

Slatts, PelAir grounded theyselves, then negotiated a voluntary agreement with the Regulator

Ziggychick

31st Jul 2014, 23:58

Well said Slats.

004, thanks for the care shown with the warning of trolls. My chin is up this morning and I will not be lured by trolls;) Five years, I've learnt.

My previous post: To clarify: the reference of CP that is now with the Regs, is ChPilot. I was not referring to the FO.

Dear NoHo,
In response to your query of what I have achieved and learned. Well, more than you know.
No more responses to you from me. It is pointless.
Honestly, Ziggy

Dear CP,
Please note that NoHo and a few others play a different kind of game on here, but this seems to be justified.
I have recognised the point you're agreeing with re: the FYI tool use of the forum. So far, the fist waving ect includes NoHos post but without the scaffolding supporting it. In particular NoHo stating in post #2141 edit "Foofle Dust - particles emitted when one flatulates"
So deciphered quite simply according to NoHo it seems, please correct me if I'm wrong. That The 3 MoP delivered by the Senators, has been blown out their behinds? The 3 MoPs and AFP inv. to fizzle to poo dust.
Oh dear... These are your thoughts too?
Your glimmer of perceived hope is dragging. I don't view a community of people with genuine concerns uniting as wasted energy. I see reason in many posts.

Again...this is for Aviation Safety, please remember this.

Stay true,
Ziggy

No Hoper

1st Aug 2014, 00:15

Ziggychick, peace on you and yours.
From historical evidence, I have no confidence in the senate achieving anything, Creampuff has said many times the way to get your issues onto the Governments agenda, so won't reiterate his excellent advice.

The Ex Chief Pilot of Pel Air is now an FOI, that is a So What not a WTF.

Those with a different view point arrived at from the same data set are not trolls.

I have not taken part in fist waving or vitriol, others on here do that, as they believe this is a private thread and their view is the only view.

Your steadfastness and bravery in keeping your patient alive in a terrible situation, was yours alone, Dom had no part in it, other than putting you in that situation.

Sarcs

1st Aug 2014, 00:28

Hmm..somewhat ironic how a lot of the antagonistic vitriol displayed over the last page and a bit could quite possibly have been sorted if the CVR/FDR had of been appropriately recovered...:=
Kharon:However, back on topic the plus side, perhaps (maybe) is the 'flight category' impasse may now be sorted out. The CASA NPRM 1304 is a very good discussion (top marks), and some of the 2004 responses, supporting the CASA proposal present very attractive alternates to the existing system; have a read.
Agree read (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nprm/nprm1304os.pdf) it, IMO it is one of the better documents to come out of FF in a very long time. Sure there will be operators that will have reservations about some parts of the FF preferred option...

"3.3.3 Option 3: Reclassification of Medical Transport flights as Air Transport operations
Helicopter and Aeroplane medical transport operations would be moved into the air transport classification and authorised by an AOC issued in accordance with Part 119 of CASR. Medical transport operations would be subject to the requirements of the applicable air transport regulation (i.e. Parts 121, 133 or 135 of CASR) and any overarching regulations from Part 91 of CASR, as applicable."

...especially amongst the smaller operators who have not yet implemented, or have the necessary resources to implement, a lot of the additional requirements of the preferred option:

The potential disadvantages of the proposed policy change include:

Some operators may need to upgrade their organisational systems to meet the criteria of Part 119 of CASR.
Some industry providers who conduct ‘ambulance functions’ as a secondary function may decide to move out of this sector.
Some operators who do not presently have carrier’s liability insurance cover will be financially disadvantaged by the requirement to gain this for their future operations.
Some potential for increased operational costs (over those incurred for aerial work requirements) may arise due to the specifications of Part 119 of CASR and operational Part equipment requirements12. For example:
- additional training and checking
- requirement for an AT level of aircraft equipment fit criteria.
From what I know of MT operators, most of what the FF PO contains have already been put in place by responsible operators that intend to enhance their business by adopting best safety practice etc. Besides which most aeromedical tenders automatically require these additional compliance and relief considerations as conditions of the contract.

The other surprising thing about the NPRM is it is contained within less than fifty pages, is not wrapped up in legalese and is written in plain, readily understandable english...:D:D

From the writing of the NPRM there are also strong indications that Boyd (& the NPRM crew..:D) have already consulted with certain heavy hitters in the MT sector (refer to, committee requested, late Submission 20 (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=c7aa24ef-6e62-425f-9a53-0ba5de123f4c))....

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_080114_091159_AM.jpg

...which would be very much in keeping with Recommendation 12:
Recommendation 12
6.55 The committee recommends that CASA, in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group (eg. Royal Flying Doctor Service, air ambulance operators, rotary wing rescue providers) consider the merit, form and standards of a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. The minister should require CASA to approve the industry plan unless there is a clear safety case not to. Scope for industry to assist as part of an audit team should also be investigated where standardisation is an issue. This should be completed within 12 months and the outcome reported publicly. However the problem is that until such time as the current Iron Ring regime is exterminated, good well founded initiatives like NPRM 1304 will remain as thought bubbles only, or (if eventually actioned) will be so wrapped up in legal weasel words that it will be impractical & unaffordable for most MT Operators to comply...:ugh:

Here is part of the current IRR policy for the classification of operations- (CEO-PN001-2004, 2009 version borrowed from MQ AAI (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=9b52422f-755f-4b23-a244-5d42937762c0) tabled docs as there is no FF version currently available..:=):

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1-2.jpg

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/2-2.jpg

Although in principle this IRR policy could indeed embrace the NPRM 1304 initiative, there is way too much wriggle room for the IR to obfuscate the matter in the interest of their ultimate master lurking in the shadows...:(

Ironically if the NPRM and the relevant CARs were to find their way to legislation, there should be no requirement for such executive policies...:ugh:

MTF..:ok:

Creampuff

1st Aug 2014, 01:08

I’m actually on your side, Ziggy. My point is that my saying that on this forum does not help address the substantive issues.

No Hoper. My guess is that the fundamental systemic failures of CASA and PelAir, that were exposed by the pilot being the last line of defence, were very embarrassing to CASA and PelAir. My guess is that the most expedient way to deal with that inconvenient problem was to muddy-up and down-play the fundamental systemic failures in CASA and PelAir, and shift the focus of blame to the pilot. Burn a practically defenceless individual to save exposure and embarrassment of the powerful and politically-connected: Politics 101.

The question whether aerial ambulance operations should be authorised by a charter AOC and therefore covered by the compulsory carrier’s liability insurance scheme has been bumping around in CASA for decades. Another fundamental failure of the regulatory reform program, but it only burns a few practically defenceless individuals so the government and CASA couldn’t care less.

No Hoper

1st Aug 2014, 01:30

Burn a practically defenceless individual to save exposure and embarrassment of the powerful and politically-connected: Politics 101. This is very close to a conspiracy theory, Creampuff and as such I am loathe to subscribe to it.

Having been involved in AeroMed(Helicopter) operations I can see the new CASR bringing extra costs and change, and locking out of smaller operators from this field. Commensurate increase of costs passed onto the client.

Frank Arouet

1st Aug 2014, 01:39

Coming from someone with multiple personality splits but forced to attend group therapy sessions alone, the concept of a conspiracy theory is interesting.

May I be so bold as to post a link which will lead one to ask who were the Board of Directors- which will perhaps give an insight to any political links. It is also worth noting the moving text which allays any fears about safety. Do these accreditation entities hold any duty of care to people who rely upon the status and insurance obligations of operators of aeromedical operations? I note they advertise contractual relations with Ambulance Victoria for aeromedical services.

QUOTE: "Pel-Air has full Safety and Airworthiness certification from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Pel-Air has also been audited by HART Aviation for mining companies and currently holds Basic Aviation Risk Standard (BARS) 'Gold' registration status. We are also a Defence Recognised Supplier and hold ISO 9001:2008 certification" QUOTE.

http://www.pelair.com.au/

Creampuff

1st Aug 2014, 01:57

This is very close to a conspiracy theory, Creampuff and as such I am loathe to subscribe to it.I’m comforted by the fact that the majority of the Senate Committee subscribe to the same theory, which isn’t a conspiracy theory. But I see you’ve learned Politics 102: Discredit by innuendo. Well done. ;)

As to the standards to be applied to aerial ambulance operations, it’s simply one example of the broader classifications of operations quagmire that CASA is not, and never will be, competent to fix.

Classification of operations is, unavoidably, a balance between risk, cost and availability of service. Classification of operations is therefore a quintessentially political decision. CASA is not competent to decide where that balance is to be set, and governments don’t want to take the responsibility. That’s why the regulatory quagmire has continued to be a stinking mess for decades.

Frank Arouet

1st Aug 2014, 03:29

People in Victoria may like to know such accreditation appears worthless in regard to aerial medevac insurance for accident victims. If CAsA are not up to regulate properly and competently, then I'm sure The Guardian or The Age would do their usual take on journalistic excellence to safeguard the population if it gave them a shot at an NLP Transport Minister.

Third party insurance should be a given for all pax, not a point of legal debate depending on the political or financial merit of The now apparent Nominal Defendant/ and whether he/she is subject to the first or second accident of the day when claiming compensation. Is he covered for the car crash, but not the plane crash? Hang on... did he already had that head injury!

The Minister for Finance should be forced to pay an Act of Grace payment to those who continue to suffer from both hurt and without compensation from the ditching and recoup that from the CAsA trough or bonuses to report writers. There is prima faci evidence of at least a perceived miscarriage of justice. "The "buck" stops somewhere.

"safe skies for everybody" ?

If they were safe, we wouldn't need insurance. (for what that's worth).

aroa

1st Aug 2014, 12:48

Alas, in Cantberra, Dept of Transport and Infrastructure and CAsA the "buck" actually stops nowhere. It just gets passed on:mad::mad:

Its ring a ring a rosie...and it all falls down because no-one is responsible and no one is accountable.:mad::mad:
And no minister has the teeth. balls or interest in righting the wrongs.:mad::mad:

Street posters in Sydney.:ok: More, more! Go you good things.!!!:ok::ok:

Empty skies are safe skies.

Fantome

1st Aug 2014, 21:36

. . . ... now "the lot of you" sounds too inclusive

shame is such a big concept . . . .. .

you could have concluded your excellent

checklist of crucial criteria with the type of quote or

homily you often have so ready to hand . .

like a quote from Bruce Dawe's "After you Gary Cooper" . .

(a poem that speaks of the gun-slinger mentality memorably...

that's why it escapes me for the moment . . . cannot

even 'clear leather')

. . . something pointed . . . something like a caution

. . . something like telling off the bird who will crap in his own nest

Creampuff

1st Aug 2014, 21:57

One of the many, many flaws in your post #2169, No Hoper, is that there are patent errors in the transcript of the radio transmissions. What other errors aren't patently obvious? The CVR might help to answer that. But ATSB, and others, don't want to find out, because the answers could be very inconvenient.

You assume the statements in the report to be fact. They are not fact. They are merely and mostly a cherry-picked, paraphrased, mish-mash of mostly second and third-hand hearsay - and known mistakes in transcription and transmissions - supporting the foregone conclusion. One of the patently obvious safety issues that isn't analysed is that of the performance of the life vests.

It's a sick joke.

Lookleft

1st Aug 2014, 22:45

I would have to dispute the claim that matters have progressed. Certainly lots has happened as listed in Kharon's post but what progress has been made? The illusion of progress is certainly occurring. I'm sure Kharon would have that quote to hand by the Greek General from 400BC observing that the more things changed the less progress was occurring. The fact that Dolan has been given another 2 years at the ATSB is proof that serious progress is not being contemplated.

Lots of choices for open sensible discussion.

Lets hope so.

Kharon

1st Aug 2014, 23:30

LL "Lets hope so.

Indeed Lefty, indeed; there's as good an example right above this post – progress v lack of. Good points. It's all down to Truss and that will depend on what his minders advise. One thing is for sure though, if we carry on like a bunch of school kids – the dreaded "CLICK" will occur and the opposition will have won. This site may only be a small thorn in the arse of the elephant but it's all the IOS have. Now brother Creampuff was purpose built for debate, your own comments often abrasive, pointed and argumentative – but non the less welcome within the spirit and intent of (dare I say it) robust debate between professionals, it is to be expected.

I have no quarrel with another having a point of view and expressing it at strongly as possible; but, the gutter tactics of bullies, cowards and trolls serve no purpose; and can only illicit one response. Play the man – Red card; play the ball – a Try (sometimes – gods and referee willing, weather permitting).

Toot toot.

Ziggychick

2nd Aug 2014, 05:07

Dear Pp's,

I am grateful for so much support, still after nearly half a decade.
Engaging each times with the matter has it's costs to my health.
I am very strong and want to pursue the wrong doings with passion for the safety, protection and fairness for others that may be unfortunate enough to be seized in a sticky web, such as I am.
I need to take a break. So insulting. I have to fight for justice and fairness. It is too difficult to fathom when no protection, no law, the report etc. My own beloved Australia. My leaders doing this for protection measurements. Pure cruelty. No safety learning outcome. Ignorant.

I will continue to battle, but I can not allow this to blanket me every day at this point in time.

I will continue to watch, if, there is any progress.

Need to recharge, physically and psychologically. Then I'll be back to chat to great people. Thank you Pp.

Safe skies,
Stay true,
Ziggy

thorn bird

2nd Aug 2014, 06:27

Zigs,

never let the bastards grind you down.

There are many who will carry the cudgel while you recharge.
Take very good care of yourself.

Kharon

2nd Aug 2014, 22:10

What's on the menu.

Is next week is the start of the long goodbye? We can, for starters (from Sarcs's long list) redefine Haemorrhoids as piles of bleeding paper-work, stacked up on the miniscule's desk. It must be a foot high. This could be reduced by releasing certain items of interest for consumption.

L'Apéritif. perhaps the industry responses to the WLR. I cannot see, apart from practical (undisclosed) reasons, why these have not been published. Yep, a tasty way to start.

L'Entrée Perhaps a minuscule nibble around the edges of whether Truss is going to enforce the WLR salad or just let it droop and slide off the edge of the table.

Le Plat Principal. The Senate MoP surprise meal deal; - will it be meat and potatoes, or some mushy confection covered with a thin, bitter sauce? The chef's have been very coy about this dish, we must hope it's not served too cold due to delayed service.

Le Fromage. Pel Air cheese; this has matured and is now very ripe, to the point where the smell from the kitchen is almost palpable; the crackers have been a long while in the oven and ready to serve. This favourite of the fabled insurance elephant will not be palatable if delayed much longer. Perhaps the Canadian chef can be persuaded to serve it up sooner, rather than later.

Le Dessert. DAS pudding; not done properly, this can be either bitter or incredibly bland; we have had both at this restaurant. Perhaps the new chef from the Brindabella mountains can coax out the finer flavours from this potentially disastrous dish.

Le Café. Medivac biscuits and espresso, although delicious, the biscuits are very fragile, prone to disintegrate especially when exposed to moisture, 'dunking' is a frowned upon practice for the true connoisseur. The bitter aftertaste of the coffee more than offsets the sweetness found in a well made confection.

Le Digestif. Machiavellian nuts, Beaker balls, ICC Ginger curls, chocolate wabbit ears; or, cigar butts and an expensive Montreal brandy. Help yourself.

Toot toot –

A Sunday twiddle; sponsored by the IOS Chapter for "Them wot wotches MKR". A non approved, not aligned bunch of miscreants if ever there was one.

"Skies safe - anybody?"

thorn bird

2nd Aug 2014, 22:24

Kharon,

mate, you forgot that old menu favorite

"The catch of the day"

I inquired of the waiter who replied

"Anyone who orders the fish"

and from the state of the industry, have we been served up some crook prawns???

Lookleft

2nd Aug 2014, 22:37

Lots of choices for open sensible discussion.

Too much to hope for, a bit like a truce in Gaza.:ugh:

Creampuff

2nd Aug 2014, 23:38

Progress so far.

Despite the findings and recommendations of the AAI Report and ASRR Panel and calls from a substantial segment of the aviation industry:

- Mr Dolan has been reappointed
- NGA's OBRs haven't been recovered
- The ATSB's report on the ditching remains the formal position of the ATSB on the accident
- Every CASA executive is in the same position
- CASA Board positions haven't been spilled
- Jeff Boyd has been appointed to one of the two new positions on the CASA Board
- The Regulatory Reform Program is about to take another turn in direction, justifying another decade of expensive paper shuffling.

Did I miss anything?

I realise some people are waiting, with bated breath (in PPRuNe-speak: baited breathe) for the announcement of the new CASA DAS, but even a lot of people in industry have finally worked out that the DAS will never be the Messiah but, instead, just another naughty boy or girl.

If there were six like Jeff Boyd on the Board, I might see the point of the Board. But there aren't, so I don't.

So once the next naughty boy or girl is appointed as DAS and the remaining new position on the Board is filled, it's effectively business as has been usual for the last couple of decades.

What's the IOS's Plan B?

Old Akro

3rd Aug 2014, 00:10

Creampuff,

All I can say, is do you know somewhere I can buy some goats to herd?

004wercras

3rd Aug 2014, 04:03

So once the next naughty boy or girl is appointed as DAS and the remaining new position on the Board is filled, it's effectively business as has been usual for the last couple of decades.
Couldn't agree more......now I have been 'hoping' (not No Hoper) deep down inside that change may occur. Why not? It doesn't cost anything to dream! But the reality is that unless a top to tail cleanup is done we unfortunately will be done. Boyd's appointment is a tease. Skulls demise is a tease. The reappointment of Pumpkin Head and Beaker tells an alarming tale, signals a red flag, alludes to more tautological nonsense by government and it's subordinates.
Unless somebody very very special can click a finger and magically turn Australian politics, culture and it's subordinate departments into generative non-pathological organisations, we are screwed.

Kharon, nice menu my tendentious friend. However I didn't see any robust sized bottles of 'Chateau Le Pineapple' on the menu? Could we please order 3 cases? Cheers.

Frank Burden

3rd Aug 2014, 08:59

On the reappointment of Beaker the following appears apt:

“Being poor is a mere trifle. It is being known to be poor that is the sting.” Jerome K. Jerome

Given the public humiliation so far - and there is more to come - how does he continue to look in the mirror and then go to work each morning?

FAR CU

3rd Aug 2014, 09:13

Unless somebody very very special can click a finger and magically turn Australian politics, culture and it's subordinate departments into generative non-pathological organisations, we are screwed.

if we meet on the barricades we shall die on the barricades

baulked every time tried to post the link to Tracy Chapman and 'Talkin Bout a Revolution

Lookleft

3rd Aug 2014, 12:17

So it looks like Plan B is for some form of anarchical insurrection by the IOS! The Senate Inquiry was held that long ago that babies born at the time are now entering kindergarten. All through the thread people have hung out for the next thing that will bring immediate and lasting change to the way aviation is administered and regulated in this country. The Senate inquiry, the next Senate inquiry into Pel Air, the change of government, the Truss report, the AFP investigation, the Privileges committee etc etc. Each time there has been a resounding chorus of “Its Time”.

I will give the credit to Creampuff but he forecast many years ago that none of the above was going to move the industry an inch closer to genuine reform mainly because both main political parties did not see aviation reform as being a vote catcher or game changer. They liked their Public Servants to run interference for them and supported them by extensions to their appointments when the time came. You might cite McCormick as an example of a scalp but he was never a professional bureaucrat so he was always going to be the fall guy. At least he had once upon a time slipped the surly bonds but what why would some aviation experience save him from getting the boot from an aviation portfolio? Dolan has zero aviation experience and failed badly at Senate estimates and inquiries yet continues to be the Commissioner at the ATSB.

What is the common denominator in all this? One word- Complacency. There have been no Cat 1 accidents in this country so from the politicians and publics point of view all must be well. CASA convince the government of the day, whether red or blue, that if radical change is made then an accident will be the inevitable result. That is why the Senate reports get ignored, that is why the government will conduct an extensive review and ultimately not change anything.

So what will change things? To make the decision makers non-complacent, Simples! One way is through the sheer hard yards of lobbying by various professional and industry organisations. They are the bodies that have the access, the credibility and the data that can influence the decision makers. Organisations like the RAA, AIPA the Ag association etc. These are the people that get treated seriously but it takes an awful lot of effort and an awful lot of time. Think of it in similar terms to the technological advances in aviation between the two World Wars.
So what is the equivalent of WW2?
That is the terrible reality of how aviation advances- fatal accidents. Not just any accidents as Lockhart River proved but a shiny jet with a recognisable brand name on the tail fin. Close calls like Mildura are obviously not enough to get rid of political and public complacency. I doubt that the recent near hit at MCY will be enough. Only pictures on the TV of the scale of MH17 will do it.

It is certainly a cynical viewpoint but cynicism comes through having seen it all before and not witnessing change. As an example the current hours requirements in the U.S. only come about because of the Colgan crash. Fulltime tracking of passenger aircraft will only occur due to MH370. The risk assessment of air routes over war zones will have more conservative assumptions included because of MH17. The importance of pilots being able to actually manipulate an aircraft in an emergency is only given prominence because of AF447 and Asiana 214. All these issues were present for many years before an accident occurred and there were plenty of warnings.

Complacency, get rid of that and you get rid of the people running CASA and the ATSB. I know how it won’t be achieved but that just gets people upset because they think they have found the Holy Gourd through a keyboard.:ok:

slats11

3rd Aug 2014, 13:15

Agree with LL that it will take something major to shake the government and bureaucrats out of their complacency.

A major crash would certainly do it, but no one wants that.

Action by the FAA (i.e. downgrading Australia to tier 2) would certainly do it. I half expected this to happen - it was being contemplated in 2009, and very little of the PelAir debacle since 2009 could have inspired any confidence.

I don't understand the recent comments about lack of insurance for survivors, Could someone here enlighten me?
If this is the case, then a decision by insurers and other customers not to use Australian registered air ambulances (until such time as this issue is addressed) would cause pain. Pain for Australian operators. Pain for Australians overseas. Pain for people from other countries needing air ambulance services in this region - imagine if the US or Europe recommended that their citizens not be transported by an Australian registered air ambulance.
I suspect this would get this particular loophole (if it exists) fixed. Of course I understand you are talking about a much bigger picture, but at least it would be a start.

004wercras

3rd Aug 2014, 19:07

So what will change things? To make the decision makers non-complacent, Simples! One way is through the sheer hard yards of lobbying by various professional and industry organisations. They are the bodies that have the access, the credibility and the data that can influence the decision makers. Organisations like the RAA, AIPA the Ag association etc.
No mention of AOPA???

Frank Arouet

3rd Aug 2014, 23:54

QUOTE: it will take something major to shake the government and bureaucrats out of their complacency. QUOTE.

A major crash would certainly do it. But until then;

"De minimus non curat lex"

"the law does not concern itself with trifling
matters."

004wercras

4th Aug 2014, 12:25

"De minimus non curat lex"
"the law does not concern itself with trifling
matters."
Can't say the same for CAsA and it's CAsAsexuals!

Kharon

4th Aug 2014, 20:28

CP –"What's the IOS's Plan B?"

The whimsical Creampuff emerges, and Akro drives the price of goat herds up. Not too sure plan B is an option, (except for goat herding), reality is that if the two Senate inquiries, the Forsyth review and the 'true' report from the Canadians don't change things, nothing will without a fight to the metaphorical death that is.

David Fawcett and Co have done a magnificent job and never once let the team down, industry is as homogenous now as it ever has been, or is likely to ever be again. Everyone is over the Truss dithering and even the big boys are wanting the reform. Go no further than this unmitigated pile of bollocks – laughingly referred to as Part 61 – if you really want to see what the 'old' system has produced, it is at the pinnacle of total NFI. If industry meekly accepts this, it's game over. With McComic and his bully boys gone (or going) industry can fight against Part 61, without fear of reprisal.

So there would be the start point for Plan B – the Senators know exactly how the old regime worked and will not be caught out a second time. The new bored/DAS will be walking into a **** storm if they 'try it on', a simple request from everyone regarding part 61 would be the trigger for round two.

No one wants to go back to war – but if the industry doesn't catch a break soon there are viable alternatives to BOHICA. Regenerated anger, turned to fury will serve to provide the will and determination to never, ever allow a creature like McComic to ride roughshod over those that paid for the privilege. Industry was only mildly annoyed during Forsyth and placid right now; I would not want to be the one responsible for dashing their hopes, not now. No; It will be much easier to get the reform happening and pacify the industry; rather than risk open rebellion. If a cornered animal can't fly – rest assured it will fight.

We'll know soon enough. Out, out damned doom sayers and take those bloody goats with you. (insert big smile).

Toot toot..-.-

Lookleft

5th Aug 2014, 06:09

reality is that if the two Senate inquiries, the Forsyth review and the 'true' report from the Canadians don't change things, nothing will without a fight to the metaphorical death that is.

If a cornered animal can't fly – rest assured it will fight.

In all seriousness what form does that fight take? Or is it all going to take place in the blogosphere and metaphorasphere? As I asked (before the hackles rise because Lookleft dares to post on this thread) what process is followed that shows industry and individuals are storming the barricades? I don't hold any great hope for a reforming DAS, as anyone with ideas that are going to rock the governmental boat will be immediately struck off the list of suitable candidates.

004wercras

5th Aug 2014, 06:44

I asked (before the hackles rise because Lookleft dares to post on this thread) If posting on Pprune is your idea of daring then you would be better off posting on a site more exciting like 'Victoria Police' or 'solar power'!
Not sure what heckles have been raised. Pprune is an open forum for all people to post their views (in line with the rules of course).

Kharon, as always, a very factual comment about the Part 61 mess that is going to grow into it's very own version of a Frankenstein. Where will it all end?

Lookleft

5th Aug 2014, 07:21

I can see your heckles from here!

Pprune is an open forum for all people to post their views (in line with the rules of course).

Like the Chinese version of democracy.

004wercras

5th Aug 2014, 10:31

Lookyloo said;
I can see your heckles from here!
You must have had a fluoro light explode in your eyes! They aren't heckles, they are just long unshaven back hairs :=

And,

Like the Chinese version of democracyI like the way China does business, they still execute people! Nothing wrong with that, gets my vote :ok:

Back to the important stuff. The Canuck report - My source tells me that the report has indeed been passed gracefully into the eager hands of Pumpkin Head, who in turn has advised the Miniscule of its content, who in turn has sought assistance from the cleaning department to examine the best way to clean the report somewhat! Although the report is now locked away safely in a much stronger CHUBB safe than the ASSR submissions were locked in, it is still being debated how and if to release its content publicly. So with the possible release of the report this month (and subsequent Beaker public interviews and his now famous mi mi mi-ing) plus Herr Skulls imminent departure, and the fact that Styx Houseboat fares are half price for August only, it should at least be an amusing few weeks.

"Safe passage for all"

Lookleft

5th Aug 2014, 13:32

I like the way China does business, they still execute people! Nothing wrong with that, gets my vote

That speaks volumes about your ideology. No wonder you are so vehement in your denouncement of democracy. You know in China they also had the IOS except they were the Innocent Outraged Students fighting for what we take for granted. Which side of the fence would you have been?

I'm guessing driving the tanks driving over the dissenters. Screaming over the engine and grinding tracks "Toe the party line or else!"

Yep your only beef with McCormick and Dolan is they have the power that is rightfully yours. Good to see your Painters and Dockers forebears have passed on Uncle Joe's rules to live by.

004wercras

5th Aug 2014, 16:40

CAsA 2012/13 annual report;

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100228/ar1213.pdf

Page 52, CAsA signed an MOU with China. Good work :ok:
Must be something about the way the Chinese do business that CAsA likes.

'Billy the Texan Longley for DAS'

Kharon

5th Aug 2014, 19:08

004 #2170 -"[Although] the report is now locked away safely in a much stronger CHUBB safe than the ASSR submissions were locked in, it is still being debated how and if to release its content publicly"

IF true, this is a job for the Senate IOS if ever there was one; free the report. Seems to me that the Canadian report belongs to the Senators, had it not been for their efforts it would never have existed. Truss may have every legal right to hide or to release a report, very much in the national interest, as and when it suits. But is denying the Australian air travellers a publicly funded report into their safety a very risky move?. The wretched media should be screaming for this report to be released, –particularly the 'opposition' media, the ABC for example. If Shorten had half a brain he'd grab this large, emotive club and set about beating the Abbott crowd to death with it; "Australians denied critical air safety health report", the guttersnipes and loony left would have a field day.

If the report was a 'glowing' testament, brimming with good cheer and better news, it would be released; Beaker crowing and sneering at the Senate. Clearly this is not the case; and IF the minuscule is sitting on the report he is not only denying the public access to critical safety information, but (IMO) further increasing that risk and defrauding the public at the same time. It may be legal, but it's a dishonourable act.

Beaker always claimed that 'they' would get first whack and right of reply (comment) however, no matter how many myths are perpetuated or clever edits made to ease the passage, the facts and the truth will always be there, waiting.

The perfidious nature of the mythical Australian air safety brag will, one day, be savagely exposed; by burnt bodies, smoking metal, shattered families and ruined lives if this dark comedy is allowed to continue. But hey, no matter – pilot error is so very easy to prove and has never let us down yet. Just so long as the budget is in order and it can be proven that our safety agencies had no hand in the tragedy; all will be well. Arse covering checklist – complete to the line.

Release the F<->king report, before it gets Willy leaked. I'm sure one of the attendees at the Las Vegas 'Black Hat' conference could oblige, if asked nicely.

"[will] force itself back into the spotlight this week at the - Black Hat - hacking conference in Las Vegas". Sandilands. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/08/05/was-mh370-a-botched-hack-attack-that-killed-239-people/)

Lookleft

5th Aug 2014, 22:10

The perfidious nature of the mythical Australian air safety brag will, one day, be savagely exposed; by burnt bodies, smoking metal, shattered families and ruined lives if this dark comedy is allowed to continue.

The people in the front line already know this to be the case. The unforecast fog at Mildura, the circus that is RPT ops into CTAFs and the diminution of flying skills and experience coming through the system.

If the report has been presented to government and not released in a fanfare of "safety on our time" then it does represent a dilemma for the government. The reason the Opposition wouldn't be too keen on exposing it is they are just as culpable.

The big concern would be that a peer review by an overseas agency, that is critical of the national equivalent, cannot be fobbed off as mere sour grapes. International humiliation is a lot harder to cover up than domestic criticism. Now an FAA audit might not be so favourable and if a downgrade was to occur then there might be some movement on getting rid of the deadwood in CASA.

Creampuff

5th Aug 2014, 22:29

The only Plan B with a glimmer of hope is this:

Convince the non-major party aligned Senators that the right thing to do is to implement the recommendations of the Senate's own AAI Report and ASRR Panel report commissioned by the government. Convince the non-major party aligned Senators to make their agreement to government legislation contingent on substantial action having been taken to implement the recommendations. Not hot air: Action.

A number of the non-major party aligned Senators continue to believe that their job is to further the public interest, or at least the interests of the part of the public that is each Senator's constituency. Those Senators may see the obvious public interest in implementing the recommendations arising out of the Senate's own Committee report and another report commissioned by government. Those Senators might ask themselves: "What is the downside in implementing the recommendations of both reports?", the answer to which is: "For the public, no downside and all upside."

Plan B requires people to confront and deal with a potentially painful reality: The Laborials are very happy with ATSB and CASA, and the Laborials have zero interest in doing anything for which the Laborials, rather than ATSB and CASA, could be exposed to flack. The Laborials govern in their own interests, using the Orwellian logic that whatever is in their interests is the public interest, because the public elected them.

The recommendations of both reports would be implemented, in a trice, if the non-major party aligned Senators made the passage of government legisation contingent on implementation of the AAI and ASSR report recommendations. In a trice.

If you're waiting for the Laborials to do 'the right thing', when it's not politically expedient and advantageous to them to do 'the right thing', please don't hold your breath.

Two or three sentences: Dear Senator, there is all upside and no downside for the public in implementing the recommendations of the Aviation Accident Investigation Report made by the Senate's own Committee, and the Aviation Safety Regulation Panel report commissioned by the government. It is pointless going to the time and expense of conducting these inquiries and reviews, if the recommendations are merely paid lip service. Please press for these recommendations to be implemented, in the interests of aviation safety in Australia.

Sarcs

5th Aug 2014, 22:49

Jinglie: White flag! The re-appointment of BEAKER says it all. Is it fact or fiction?? :sad: {Request: 004, Jinglie & co please send me a link for the presso for this disgusting rumour}.

If it is fact then personally I can handle that..:E..cause it sets the guidelines for the next IOS strategic attack...;) And I would suggest that the miniscule and his support crew will have a bigger conundrum than trying to keep a lid on his obvious long term/short term memory loss problem...:=

For example do you think Senator X is also going to have an attack of the forgetteries...:rolleyes::Government soft on Pel-Air findings (http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/media/releases/show/government-soft-on-pel-air-findings/)
20th March 2014

The Commonwealth Government has let down the travelling public by failing to fully implement the findings of a highly critical Senate inquiry into aviation safety, Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, said today.

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee’s report into aviation accident investigations (the Pel-Air Report) found serious failures on the part of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regarding the investigation of the ditching of Pel-Air VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009.

“There are very serious matters raised in this report, including how effectively aviation operators are regulated,” Nick said. “CASA and the ATSB seem more interested in protecting themselves than protecting the Australian public.”

Senator Xenophon said the Government had failed to look at the bigger picture in the report, which shows serious systemic failures in both the ATSB and CASA.

“For the most part, the Government seems to accept that the current processes and systems are enough to make sure the ATSB and CASA are working properly,” Nick said. “But the evidence in this report clearly shows that’s not happening.”

“The Government shouldn’t take assurances from the ATSB or CASA at face value.”

Senator Xenophon said he hoped the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, established by Transport Minister Warren Truss, would back up the findings of the committee. The ATSB’s investigative processes, including its report into the Pel-Air ditching, are also being reviewed by the Canadian Transport Safety Board (TSB). However, Senator Xenophon fears the TSB review could be a whitewash because of its limited terms of reference.

“I hope the committee’s report has opened the door for serious change,” Nick said. “I believe the independent review will vindicate its findings, and I hope the Government will have the courage to act on them.”Moving on, I equally agree with the "K" summation :D...

"...If the report was a 'glowing' testament, brimming with good cheer and better news, it would be released; Beaker crowing and sneering at the Senate. Clearly this is not the case; and IF the minuscule is sitting on the report he is not only denying the public access to critical safety information, but (IMO) further increasing that risk and defrauding the public at the same time. It may be legal, but it's a dishonourable act..."

...it should also be remembered that Beaker said this in regards to the release of the TSBC peer review report:Senator FAWCETT: Will that final report be going to you or the secretary or to the minister?

Mr Dolan : It will be published as a TSB report in the normal report investigation processes of the TSB. So, it will be made available on the website. They will forward a copy to me, because it was done at the request of the ATSB, but the main method of publication is on the TSB website. Senate Estimates 26/05/14 - ATSB TSBC review Part 1 - YouTube

I can kind of understand the delay with the TSBC report allowing a certain amount of reshuffling of the deck (& deckchairs, ailing miniscule etc) before final release...:rolleyes: However, in this particular case, allowing an indefinite period of time for this bureaucratic due process to happen (in the vain hope that the heat on the issue will somehow dissipate - Crat rule 101) is not an option as there is a 3rd independent party who also have their credibility to uphold...:(

LL:The big concern would be that a peer review by an overseas agency, that is critical of the national equivalent, cannot be fobbed off as mere sour grapes. International humiliation is a lot harder to cover up than domestic criticism. Well said Lefty..:D

Therefore miniscule (or rather his minions), warts and all...Release the F<->king report, before it gets Willy leaked.MTF...:ok:

004wercras

6th Aug 2014, 11:37

Creampuff #2175. Bingo!! That post receives a scorecard of 11/10 plus a years supply of chocolate frogs. Folks, Creamy has succinctly laid out for all to see the only way in which true change will come about. We need to remove the current politicians (the rich kids) train set and give it to the poor kids (senators, independents, old mother Hubbard) to play with! There is no other way.

Is it fact or fiction?? {Request: 004, Jinglie & co please send me a link for the presso for this disgusting rumour}.
:= := You won't find that in any press release, yet. He has re-signed for 2 more years. It's better than 5 more years, but still 2 years too many! Sarcs, although you are eager like a schoolboy on prom night, I think you will find a number of announcements (slickly packaged together in the guise of 'sweeping changes') will soon be unveiled. So sit tight my little buttercup, the unveiling of Australia's sweeping reform to government aviation oversight is nigh. But be warned, it may just be delivered in Chairman Hawke style - lots of words, lots of sexy pictures and 200 pages of glossy coloured paper, to produce, in reality ............nothing. A toffee coated turd. In fact the release of all this good news is so close that Lookyloo has been despatched on one of Blackhands postie bikes to deliver the memorandum to News Limited!!
But no real changes except a name or two here and there, a few minor restructures and perhaps even an authority name change! Oh goodie it's Xmas! Oh ****, just another present wrapped up nicely in a huge box containing........hmmmm, nothing, just last years ****e in a different wrapping!
You've been warned. Prepare for the 'anti climax'.

Tick Tock

Kharon

6th Aug 2014, 19:36

004 " [But] be warned, it may just be delivered in Chairman Hawke style - lots of words, lots of sexy pictures and 200 pages of glossy coloured paper, to produce, in reality ............nothing."

Back in the day, when there were 'real' changes being made to the rules; Hawke was involved. The guys on various panels and rule writing groups have nothing but praise for the Mandarins' mandarin. Seems he has a great virtue (IMO) in that he actually hears when he 'listens', is able to reduce a long discourse to it's essentials, make a decision and execute it. Add this to a strong military connection, a well protected minuscule, a canny ability to sniff the political wind, a glaring need for 'real' change and you have the makings of change happening, enforced by a competent board. Before anyone calls "Mary Poppins" syndrome, think on.

It's not unreasonable to speculate that Boyd and Danos (a clever, dark horse) have formed a working relationship and that Hawke will listen to them; both men know that 'change' must be real. It would be politically embarrassing not to and as CP says, it's win-win. The Rev. Forsyth has an active interest and the Senators cannot be discounted or written out of the script. Indeed, with an experts like Fawcett and Forsyth available to take the flack for a duck up; or to aid the minuscule to grab the kudos if it's a brilliant success, even the most jaundiced cynic could expect a good cut of the roast, even if the whole thing is out of reach.

An 'informed', plugged in board allowed to work with the DAS can achieve much, in short order, there is already a pile of good advice not heeded waiting for the new boy. Only a mug with an oversized ego would waste the collective wisdom and guidance available from Boyd, Danos and Hawke. I'd bet a beer that the DAS selection panel were very careful to avoid another 'one man band'. There are those who would lay more blame than is perhaps merited at the boards feet for the debacle of the past five years and the resultant embarrassment. But clever folk won't waste time or wind on a lost cause; they can wait. And wait they have; now if you'll allow that the board are men of good will, it's no great stretch to have hope that by working with the right DAS, change will come. Otherwise, abandon hope, for the rule of the Golden West Mafia club will be enforced by the McComic catamite wabbits and other, hideous, mythical beasts of nightmare.

It's all still in the balance, but I get a good vibe from the whispers I hear. But to show good faith and garner industry support a simple thing like deffering (abandon is better) part 61 would go a long way. This they can do with a twitch of an eyebrow, same-same with LAME tickets.

It's no skin off to make the changes happen, except to the embedded bottom dwellers who will be called to account; or leave the building quietly. With the right kind of DAS the 'decent chaps' (sigh, and Chapattis) who were forced to hide behind the pot plants lest one of the swaggering, incompetent bullies spotted them and used them hard to gather DAS credits; (see Chambers Report) can emerge and shine. With support from the top the troops can and will ensure pay-back; with interest.

Aye well, it's all to play for, but balanced so precariously that a puff of wind could tip it either way. So no farting: Pooh/fart separator checks must be complete pre boarding.

Toot toot.

Lookleft

7th Aug 2014, 09:24

Creampuff- if the non- aligned Senators were of the caliber of Senator X and Fawcett I would agree with you but Senator Muir is already proving to be a loose cannon and Senator Lambie......:confused: let's wait and see what the Canadians come up with, hopefully a reality check for the Minister.

Kharon

7th Aug 2014, 21:10

Sarcs # 2176 "[If} it is fact then personally, I can handle that"
Hmm. While we wait (some more) perhaps the on going Beaker incubus to the ATSB is worth a few words. Just speculating here – but is it actually possible to just dump him? Creamy often says that in the rarefied atmosphere of government administration (where the real horsepower lives), it's judged that he is a 'fine fellah, doing a great job'. The IOS and the Senators may disagree, but dumping him is a decision we (regrettably) just can't make.

But clearly, he must be an embarrassment to his own qualified, competent troops and quite possibly 'the department'. So what's to be done? Well, perhaps, had it not been for the MH 370 tragedy, things may have panned out differently. I note 'they' didn't muck about sending in Beaker to 'deal', 'they' sent in the top pro from AMSA and– Houston, it had to be done right and with the Beaker credibility stinking to the high heavens, he was never an option. It was only after the 'hoop-la' that Beaker slowly and cautiously was brought into the picture, but after the public heavy lifting was done; which may indicate the hatching of a cunning murky Machiavellian plan.

Rather than the embarrassing, public flaying of a 'high ranking' member of the PS tribe, why not keep him on, let him 'manage' the administrative and financial end (nuts, bolts and paper-work) of the MH 370 search. That gets him out of 'the office' without loosing face, keeps him away from 'real' investigations and out of the CASA sphere of influence. This all gives the Forsyth recommendation a chance to flourish; and Bob's your fathers brother, job done with no skin off and Beaker has a nice back door to slither out of.

Good riddance I'd say.

Toot toot – well I'm bored waiting about ain't I and the devil makes work for idle hands, so they say..

Lookleft

7th Aug 2014, 23:38

The man is a consummate bureaucrat! Survived the Senate questioning like a James Bond martini and if the Dutch find MH370 he will probably become head of the Department.

Being an embarrassment to the troops is irrelevant in the big scheme as they are well and truly tied up in maintaining your silence clauses when they signed on. If they want to keep their well paid and secure jobs they will just have to grin and bear it. Of course a moderating influence might be the second Commissioner but when is he/she supposed to be appointed?

Sarcs

8th Aug 2014, 03:05

Green Day - Good Riddance (Time of Your Life) cont/-

...Time grabs you by the wrist directs you where to go
So make the best of this test and don't ask why
It's not a question but a lesson learned in time

[Chorus]
It's something unpredictable but in the end
Is right I hope you've had the time of your life

So take the photographs and still frames in your mind
Hang it on a shelf in good health and good time
Tattoos and memories and dead skin on trial
For what it's worth it was worth all the while..."

The Beaker conundrum aside...;)

There is (IMHO) no doubt that the PelAir inquiry, & subsequent report, was the main driver for Truss to instigate the ASRR. Although perhaps he (like many others) couldn't foresee the huge industry uptake that was to follow, simply expecting the Forsyth report (along with a token Govt gesture to adopt some of the recommendations) would placate the industry until the next big event horizon. After all that particular ploy has worked many times before quite successfully...:ugh:

Besides the damning findings of the Senate AAI inquiry, being a precursor to where we are now, upon reflection I believe there was another defining moment..."turning point a fork stuck in the road"...that took place in the (now infamous) Senate Estimates 29 May 2013 (less than a week after the AAI report had been released).

The setting was in a quiet moment after all the previous hub bub (e.g. 'The battle of the two Big Macks' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0pJv6DNzuo)) & the rest of the main players had left the stage.Senator FAWCETT: In broad terms, dealing with the regulation that CASA oversights specifically, particularly in the context of a regulatory process that has now stretched over a decade, and with changes of CEOs or directors of aviation safety there has been quite a change in approach to that, not just the current but previous. I am looking to understand what strategic guidance, as in long-term vision, comes from the policy area of your department, Mr Mrdak, that guides the people who are involved in regulatory reform in how the government wishes that go forward? Which stakeholders are involved? Can you talk me through how you set the policy directions for that?

Mr Mrdak : The first priority of the aviation white paper is to bring a lot of that regulatory reform process to a conclusion. You are absolutely right, it is a process which started almost a decade and a half ago with various guises. It has been through various iterations. The white paper actually set out an intention to bring some of the key suites of regulatory documents to a close. What we have been involved with is trying to do that.

The stakeholders involved are diverse depending the regulatory package involved be it maintenance, pilot licensing or whatever. There has been a diversity of industry interest. The big elements like the maintenance suite for the heavy end of the industry will come into play on 1 July with the changes. There are other suites which will come together.

The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. We threw additional resources to pay for drafters and the legal processes to expedite that. I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. They have been through various consultative processes.

You are right, what we have tried to do is get a suite of modern regulations that get the right balance for CASA in terms of industry behaviour and the like. We try to be prescriptive where we need to be but less prescriptive wherever we can. We certainly involve ourselves in that element. Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?

Mr Mrdak : To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite. They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)The concern, though, is what I am hearing from certain sections of the industry—and EMS is one, on the rotary side. I did not get time to confirm this with Mr McCormick today, but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that. So my question comes back: why has there been this change to basically have CASA dictating what is going to occur as opposed to constructively engaging with industry? Is that a policy that has come from government or is it something that has just evolved with changes of personality?

Mr Mrdak : I do not know the specifics of that particular regulatory regime. I am just not familiar with that level of detail. I would have to seek advice from Mr McCormick in relation to that matter. I would say it is problem in more likely to be the latter. It probably has evolved as the circumstances of the consultation, industry views and CASA views have formed. But I cannot comment on that specific example, 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)What role do you see for the board of CASA between yourself and the policy level of the department and the actions of CASA? Do you see that they should be setting strategic direction and guidance for the CEO?

Mr Mrdak : Very much, and that is their role. The board is there to provide advice to the director of aviation safety to complement his skill set and to provide strategic direction for the organisation. That is the role of the chair and the board members.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Have they had an active role in this issue of the emphasis and direction of regulatory reform?

Mr Mrdak : I could not comment. I certainly believe that they have been a very active board, but I do not have a level of detail in relation to specific regulatory measures to give you a comprehensive answer on that.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)What level of oversight do you then exercise over the board of CASA in terms of the appointment and the performance of that group of people as a board?

Mr Mrdak : We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the key documents the minister deals with: corporate plan, statement of expectation, statement of intent—we provide advice to the minister in those matters. We certainly provide advice to the minister in relation to the composition of the skills of the board, and the minister will make decisions on appointments. We certainly do provide advice to the minister on how we think the organisation is travelling in terms of meeting its performance indicators. But, at the end of the day, it is a independent statutory body that reports directly to the minister through the board in relation to the discharge of their responsibilities. We provide advice to the minister on what we believe are some of the directions that are being followed by 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)When can the parliament expect to see some of the updates that you have been saying the minister has been getting about the various implementation of the white paper?

Mr Mrdak : We can certainly provide you some advice on the status of the measures. They range, as I said. We have been implementing many measures, such as our approach to bilateral negotiations, right through to the suite of regulatory measures and NASAG. There is a lot. I think today legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives concerning particular elements of protection of assets and the like. A range of legislation has been introduced. We are well progressed in most elements of the white paper. Also, the real achievement of the white paper was to bring together for the first time the comprehensive policy positions around the full suite of industry measures covering aviation and provide a range of objectives going forward. That is where the white paper has served a very good purpose.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Certainly, either individually or as a committee member, I would welcome a more detailed update or briefing.

Mr Mrdak : We would be happy to do that for you. For those interested in the body language indicators (some of which is quite unmistakeable), here is the video footage of that byplay...:D

Senator Fawcett v Mr Mrdak - Aviation White Paper & RRP 29/05/13 - YouTube

There is no mistaking that Senator Fawcett was effectively putting M&M and his Department on notice :=, IMO a definite precursor to where we are now...:E

Sarcs QON: This bit of the Hansard is quite topical at the moment...

"...but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that..."

...wondering if this 'person' is the same individual who the STBR DAS refers to in his MMSM article rebuking the AHIA?? :rolleyes:: CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-says-helicopter-associations-claims-are-wide-of-the-mark/story-e6frg95x-1227017017154)A high level of consultation was undertaken in developing the manual, including workshops, consultation on drafts and amendments to drafts. A CASA officer with helicopter expertise was made available to liaise with the Australian Helicopter Industry Association on the development of both the regulations and the manual. MTF..:ok:

Kharon

8th Aug 2014, 22:08

Sarcs, sorry too much mate; you've got it all wrong, completely ass about.. The boss of the dirty wash made a statement in the Australian, which is much closer to the 'reality' of the situation. You see it's all our fault; quite apart from being terminally thick and unable to translate some 1200 pages of the one simple part (61 to wit) into instant, black letter compliance; we are also recalcitrant, incorrigible and the dregs of society. So, pull your head in and applaud the Emperor when he publicly struts his stuff, in his brand new clothes.

Honestly facts, evidence and plain old bulls<>t detection cannot, possibly compete. If you still harbour any doubts, read the 'Magnificent Self Obsession', drafted by Proffessional PonyPohh-Shambollick (ABC, DEF, GHI, JKL. etc) and for even more persuasive evidence, study 'Just As I Like It 'penned by Wodger (the dodger) Wabbit (NFI, SFA, NABC, etc).

"K" – VD and scar. (Actually, that's CP 's gag, I just 'borrowed' it).

Toot toot:D

triadic

10th Aug 2014, 05:08

The article on Friday was a clear attempt to divide the industry, which is one of the ploys that CASA use when on the back foot. This is a time when the industry need to stand together and push back.......

Sarcs

11th Aug 2014, 06:50

triadic:The article on Friday was a clear attempt to divide the industry, which is one of the ploys that CASA use when on the back foot. This is a time when the industry need to stand together and push back....... And a no more perfect example is the call by the AHIA to defer Part 61, started with: AHIA Calls for Further Delay in New Flight Crew Licensing Regulations (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/training/standards-regulations/AHIA-Calls-for-Further-Delay-in-New-Flight-Crew-Licensing-Regulations_82786.html#.U-hiPkjlrIU)

Which was followed by the, apparently unsanctioned, diatribe from the DAS (STBR): CASA says helicopter association’s claims are wide of the mark (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/casa-says-helicopter-associations-claims-are-wide-of-the-mark/story-e6frg95x-1227017017154)

Then the AHIA stand was backed by some other industry heavy weights: Aviation Bodies Call for New Rules to be Deferred (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aviation-bodies-call-for-new-rules-to-be-deferred)

And then today we get this (also from Oz Flying):Two-year Reprieve for ATOs (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/two-year-reprieve-for-atos)
11 Aug 2014

CASA has deferred the end to Authorised Testing Officers (ATO) until June 2016.

Under the CASR Part 61 rules coming in on 1 September, ATOs would no longer exist and qualified instructors would instead be given a Flight Examiner Rating on the licence.

CASA released an statement today stating "Under the new licensing suite of regulations approved testing officers will transition to a flight examiner rating on 30 June 2016.

"The flight examiner rating is a personal qualification under the new Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 pilot licencing regulations. It is not a delegation from CASA.

"The 2016 transition date will make it easier for both current approved testing officers and CASA to manage the transition to the new rules. Approved testing officers who want to transition before June 2016 may do so."

Industry bodies have been vocal with criticism of the new system because Flight Examiners will not be covered by the Federal Government's insurance, and it is thought there would not have been enough examiners ready to go on 1 September to cope with the demand for flight tests...:D:D

What next?? Maybe the 'powers to be' may adopt the AMROBA idea to use Part 61 to..
To understand what is meant by a 3 tier regulatory system there needs to be an understanding of the Civil Aviation Act. The Civil Aviation Act enables CASA to promulgate, (9(1)(c) Aviation Safety Standards, (98) Manual of Standards, Legisla-tive Instruments and Civil Aviation Orders. What has not been utilised properly is CASA’s function to promulgate Aviation Safety Standards. However, the ASRR Report & Recommendation 30 clarifies how this should be done.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two -tier regulatory framework (act and regulations) to a three -tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:

a. regulations drafted in a high -level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling standards and necessary legislative prov i-sions, including offences b. the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language. (ASRR Page 106) In relation to the standards: – as a first priority, compliance with ICAO SARPs , with any departures from ICAO SARPs to be specifically identified for formal approval by the Steering Committee – plain language in a logical understandable structure – adherence as closely as possible to the substance of rules in other developed jurisdictions (US, New Zealand, Europe, and Can-ada) to ensure compatibility, facilitating bilateral recognition agreements and efficient international operations. – include unique Australian provisions only when absolutely necessary, and only when the Steering Committee formally agrees to their inclusion – take into account the economic impact and a RIS is to be completed – current draft documents are to be used as a starting point to help accelerate the program.

An Act Sec 9(1)(c) ASS promulgating FAR Part 61 would be a a good start with a CASR Part 61 based on (a) above.

(From AMROBA newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 08 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%208.pdf)August — 2014 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%208.pdf))

MTF...:ok:

Kharon

11th Aug 2014, 22:20

Sarcs " There is (IMHO) no doubt that the PelAir inquiry, & subsequent report, was the main driver for Truss to instigate the ASRR."

The MH 370 (lost not found) thread has, naturally attracted lots of discussion. There are some clever fellahin trading there, doing some first class 'research', producing 'theories and supporting them with solid logic and 'alternative' evidence. I have been watching the thread develop and some of the 'guff' is fascinating. Over the last few pages there have been 'aspersions' cast over the probity and 'trustworthiness' of the ATSB, by some seemingly sane commentators. This has, if you check the 'time lines' only crept in since Houston departed the fix. Most of the commentators would not be vaguely aware of the domestic issues relating to the ATSB and the Senate inquiry; but, seems the 'clever' folk have started to voice the same doubts expressed by the Senate.

Still, it's only an international forum read by the IOS and insignificant in the great scheme – what only 11,065 posts and 19,070,361 reads. Perhaps some PR or spin could be provided along with a clear explanation of why 'black boxes' aren't too important, just to save the nations reputation (such as it is)...

Just a passing strange thought.

Up-into-the-air

14th Aug 2014, 05:56

The latest two-finger salute by FF to the Honourable Senators and their PelAir inquiry.

Comments are on their way ppruners (http://vocasupport.com/critical-casa-proposal-on-fuel-and-alternate-requirements/)

to the casa "project"

Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93397)

Sarcs

14th Aug 2014, 08:54

Consultation Draft Proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 subsection 3A (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/summary-proposed-change-cd1413os.pdf)

Nearly fifteen years since the issue was first broached...:ugh:

R20000040 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/recommendations/2000/r20000040.aspx): SAFETY ACTION

As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands. Which in apparently nine years led to OS 09/13...

Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93397) - Project approved. 21 Aug 2009

And with the PelAir ditching the project was expanded to include Aerial Work (Aeromedical flights) and then in July 2010 the NPRM 1003OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os.pdf) was released: 3.3 Reasons for change

3.3.1 The application of the additional remote island fuel requirements in CAO 82.0 which is currently limited to passenger-carrying charter operations was reviewed in the early stage of the project. As the safety of passengers is CASA’s highest priority, it was considered that excluding other passenger-carrying operations in the aerial work and RPT categories from the remote island fuel requirements had no justifiable safety
reasons.

Note: The term “passenger” is defined in CAR 2 as meaning “any person who is on board an aircraft other than a member of the operating crew”. The term “operating crew” is defined in CAR 2 as meaning “any person who is on board an aircraft with the consent of the operator of the aircraft and has duties in relation to the flying or safety of the aircraft”.Four years since then and all it took was this...

"..3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each certificate authorising 1 or more of the following operations in an aeroplane:
(a) charter operations for the carriage of passengers;
(b) regular public transport operations for the carriage of passengers;
(c) aerial work operations for ambulance functions or for functions substantially similar to ambulance functions (medical transport operations);
is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island unless:
(d) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(e) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(f) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island, unless CASA approves otherwise in writing; and
(g) when the flight commences the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight; and
(h) during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its nominated alternate aerodrome if necessary, with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
(2) Paragraph 3A (1) applies to a medical transport operation whether or not a passenger is carried on the flight to a remote island.
(3) An approval under subparagraph (1) (f) may be subject to conditions..."

{Comment: Has to be one of the smallest amendments I've seen in the last 5 years or so..:rolleyes:}

Hmm..it must have been a busy time for FF as July 2010 was also when the infamous CAIR 09/3 & Wodgers Weport were also released (reference my post #2035 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/542738-petition-minister-truss-3.html#post8607276)). And in fact CAIR 09/3 made mention of OS 09/13 at para 4.4
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/CAIR093_para_44.jpg

Strange how the ALIU had a slightly different take on how OS 09/3 was initiated??:=

Oh well good to see that someone in FF is finally taking the initiative to close the loop..:D

Wonder when the other part of the FF intended safety actions addressing the ATsB (closed) minor safety issue will eventuate...:rolleyes:: AO-2009-072-SI-01 (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14080061254006&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&libId=d9be5395-c9f4-4928-a551-e48fd408c6db&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-102.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3D1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%252F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-102.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.atsb.gov.au%252Fpubl ications%252Finvestigation_reports%252F2009%252Faair%252Fao-2009-072%252Fsi-01.aspx%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Faustra lia-new-zealand-pacific%252F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-103.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-103.html&title=Merged%3A%20Senate%20Inquiry%20-%20Page%20102%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=AO-2009-072-SI-01%20) Finally, CASA also advised of their intent to regulate Air Ambulance / Patient transfer operators as follows:

Air Ambulance/Patient transfer operations in the proposed operational Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) will be regulated to safety standards that are similar to those for passenger operations.

While CASR Parts 138/136 will be limited to domestic operations and, if CASA decides to retain Air Ambulance/Patient transfer operations in these rule suites, any such operation wishing to operate internationally will also be required to comply with CASR Part 119. If, however, CASA decides to move these operations into CASR Parts 121/135/133 they will already be required to comply with CASR Part 119. Either way, Air Ambulance/Patient transfer operations will be regulated to the same standard as Air Transport Operations (ATO). In relation to Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands, all ATO which include Air Ambulance/Patient transfer, will be required to carry mainland alternate fuel.

CASR Parts 119/121/135/133 are expected to be finalised by the end of 2012 and are currently proposed to commence in June 2014. CASR Parts 138/136 are expected to be made by June 2013 and are proposed to commence in June 2014. Given that the drafting of these CASR Parts are subject to third party arrangements (Attorney-General’s Department) and CASA and the industry’s ability to effectively implement the new rule suite, these timelines are subject to change.

Hopefully we won't have to wait another fifteen years for that to happen..:(

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird

14th Aug 2014, 20:37

Sarcs,

from what I have read on the Part 121/135 rules, I guess, just as part 61 gifted all the foreign training and shorty all our domestic, these new amendments will gift all our ambo work to Singapore and NZ.

Sarcs

15th Aug 2014, 02:56

Again, although much belated, I applaud the initiative of FF team OS 09/13 to bring fwd, in an obvious period of uncertainty, the Consultation Draft Proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 subsection 3A (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14080645776218&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&libId=e720c568-c1b7-4ad1-88c0-81e5e87366c1&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewrep ly%26noquote%3D1%26p%3D8608534&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Fwcmswr%2F_assets%2Fmain%2 Fnewrules%2Fops%2Fdownload%2Fsummary-proposed-change-cd1413os.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html&title=PPRuNe%20Forums%20-%20Reply%20to%20Topic&txt=Consultation%20Draft%20Proposed%20amendment%20to%20CAO%2 082.0%20subsection%203A%20)...
Purpose/Objectives
The CAO amendment would add Cocos (Keeling) Island to the list of existing remote islands (which are Christmas, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands).
The amendment would substitute a new subsection 3A, which provides that each AOC for passenger-carrying charter, RPT operations, or for aerial work ambulance-type functions (medical transport operations) is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried to a remote island unless the following requirements are complied with:
a. the aeroplane is multi-engined
b. the pilot has nominated an alternate aerodrome
c. that alternate aerodrome is not itself on a remote island (unless CASA specifically approves)
d. the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight
e. during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its alternate aerodrome (if necessary) with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.
In some medical transport operations, medical and nursing staff may not be considered as 'passengers' (for example, because they have flight safety duties to perform). To protect the safety of such personnel who are, in effect, third parties like passengers, for medical transport operations the safety requirements described above would apply whether or not a 'passenger' is carried on the flight to a remote island.
...it maybe small consolation but I am sure Ziggychick and others will appreciate your efforts...:D

However, at the same time, I am extremely intrigued by certain aspects in the history of project OS 09/13 (Project OS 09/13 - Fuel and Alternate requirements Consultation history (http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/projecthistory.asp?session=513702946&pc=PC_93397&project=OS%2009/13)).

So in an effort to join the dots let us start with the 15 July 2010 NPRM webpage (click here (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1293073548:pc=PC_100190)). In the NPRM 1003 OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os.pdf) pdf in the foreword it was stated...

"I would like to thank you for expressing interest in this proposal and emphasise that no rule changes will be undertaken until all NPRM responses and submissions received by the closing date 9 September 2010 have been considered..."

And on previous page...

"...Following consideration of responses to this NPRM, CASA will prepare a Summary of Responses, and make revisions to the draft CAO amendment where considered appropriate.

CASA will conduct further analysis of the extent of the impact these changes will have on operators and pilots to ensure an adequate timeframe is given for implementation. It is envisaged that a transition period of 3 to 6 months will be allowed to ensure operators have revised procedures in respect to these changes..."

Now to the man at the back of the room the obvious question is WTF happened to NPRM 1003 OS in the interim period of nearly four years?? Do FF seriously expect the MATBOTR to accept this as an excuse...

"...Under Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 1003OS (published in July 2010) the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) proposed changes to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 82.0 to include Cocos (Keeling) Island as a designated remote island...

...CASA Project OS 09/13 was re-phased to allow for the inclusion of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) developments relating to...

...With the SARP now effective, and the ICAO Fuel and flight Planning Manual (FFPM) finalised, these standards are being drafted into the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). CASA now considers it appropriate to start to bring forward some aspects into the CAOs and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) prior to the making of the Operational CASR Parts..."

Moving onto Annex A (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os_aa.pdf) - Proposed Amendment to CAO 82.0 - Air Operators' Certificates. And a quick comparison between the 2010 & 2014 versions of the proposed amendments to CAO 82.0.

2010 version:

I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under paragraph 28BA (1) (b) and subsection 98 (4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

John F. McCormick

Director of Aviation Safety

July 2010

Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2010

1 Name of instrument
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1)

2010.

2 Commencement
This instrument commences [3 to 6 months after registration].

3 Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 82.0
Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 82.0.

Schedule 1 Amendments
[1] Paragraph 2.1, new definition, minimum safe fuel
insert minimum safe fuel has the meaning given by paragraph 2.3.

[2] Paragraph 2.1, definition of remote island
substitute remote island means:

(a) Christmas Island; or
(b) Cocos (Keeling) Islands; or

(c) Lord Howe Island; or
(d) Norfolk Island.

[3] Paragraph 2.1, new definition of reserve fuel

insert reserve fuel means the variable fuel reserve and the fixed fuel reserve to be carried by an aircraft in accordance with guidelines issued by CASA for
subparagraph 234 (3) (d) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

[4] Paragraphs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.4.1
substitute
2.3 Unless CASA approves otherwise in writing for a particular flight, the
minimum safe fuel for an aeroplane undertaking a flight to a remote island is the greater of the following:
(a) the total of:

(i) the minimum amount of fuel that would enable the aeroplane to fly,

with all engines operating, to the remote island aerodrome and then to
the nominated alternate aerodrome; and
(ii) reserve fuel;
(b) the total of:
(i) the minimum amount of fuel that would enable the aeroplane to do the
following if a critical event were to occur at the most critical point of
the flight:
(A) fly to its destination aerodrome, or an alternate aerodrome;
(B) fly above the aerodrome for 15 minutes at 1 500 feet at holding
speed under standard temperature conditions;
(C) land at the aerodrome; and

(ii) reserve fuel

2.3.1 For paragraph 2.3, a critical event for an aeroplane means:
(a) the failure of an engine; or
(b) a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft; or
(c) both the failure of an engine and a loss of pressurisation in the aircraft.

2.3.2 An approval under paragraph 2.3 may be given with or without conditions.

2.4 An amount of fuel mentioned in paragraph 2.3 is to be worked out:
(a) for an aeroplane that is a transport category aircraft, by using:
(i) the performance data and the fuel consumption data contained in the
aeroplane’s flight manual; or
(ii) the performance data and the fuel consumption data obtained from a

flight test of the aeroplane carried out in an approved manner; or
(b) for an aeroplane that is not a transport category aircraft, by using:
(i) the following:
(A) the performance data for the aeroplane provided by the
manufacturer of the aircraft’s airframe, or contained in the
aeroplane’s flight manual or the pilot’s operating handbook for the aeroplane; and
(B) the fuel consumption data for the aeroplane obtained from 1 of the
sources mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (A),or provided by the
manufacturer of the aeroplane’s engines; or

(ii) the performance data and the fuel consumption data obtained from a flight test of the aeroplane carried out in an approved manner.

2.4.1 For sub-subparagraphs 2.4 (a) (i) and 2.4 (b) (i), if the issue of a supplemental type certificate for an aeroplane has the effect of amending the performance data or the fuel consumption data referred to in the sub-subparagraphs, the amended performance data or fuel consumption data must be used.

[5] Subsection 3A
substitute
3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands
(1) Unless CASA approves otherwise in writing, each certificate authorising aerial work, charter or regular public transport operations in an aeroplane is subject to the condition that a passenger may be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island only if:
(a) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and
(b) at the start of the flight, not less than the minimum safe fuel is carried by
the aeroplane for the flight; and

(c) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(d) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island.

(2) An approval under paragraph (1) may be given with or without conditions.

Note 1 Under subregulation 2 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, passenger means any person who is on board an aircraft other than a member of the operating crew

Note 2 Subsection 3A, read with paragraph 2.3, means that an AOC holder may not conduct an aeroplane operation carrying a passenger to a remote island except in a multi-engine aeroplane, whose pilot in command has nominated an appropriate alternate aerodrome for the flight, and which at take-off is carrying sufficient fuel to reach the destination aerodrome and then the nominated alternate aerodrome without using any reserve fuel.

[6] Appendix 5, after subclause 6 (3)
insert

(4) If subsection 3A applies to an AOC holder for an aeroplane conducting an
EDTO flight, then:
(a) the amount of fuel calculated for subclause (2) must be not less than the
minimum safe fuel; and
(b) the operations manual must include the calculation of the minimum safe
fuel.

Note Subsection 3A deals with passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands.

Remote island, reserve fuel and minimum safe fuel are defined terms under this Order.

2014 version:

I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under paragraph 28BA (1) (b) and subsection 98 (4A) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

John F. McCormick Director of Aviation Safety

[DATE] 2014

Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2014

1 Name of instrument
This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2014.

2 Commencement
This instrument commences on the day after registration.

3 Amendment of Civil Aviation Order 82.0

Schedule 1 amends Civil Aviation Order 82.0.

Schedule 1 Amendments

[1] Paragraph 2.1, definitions

substitute
remote island means:
(a) Christmas Island; or
(b) the Cocos (Keeling) Islands; or
(c) Lord Howe Island; or
(d) Norfolk Island.

[2] Subsection 3A

substitute
3A Conditions on all passenger-carrying aeroplane operations to remote islands

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each certificate authorising 1 or more of the following operations in an aeroplane:
(a) charter operations for the carriage of passengers;

(b) regular public transport operations for the carriage of passengers; (c) aerial work operations for ambulance functions or for functions substantially similar to ambulance functions (medical transport operations);

is subject to the condition that a passenger must not be carried under the certificate on a flight to a remote island unless: (d) the aeroplane has more than 1 engine; and

(e) before the flight commences, the pilot in command has nominated an alternate aerodrome for the flight; and
(f) the nominated alternate aerodrome is not located on a remote island, unless CASA approves otherwise in writing; and
(g) when the flight commences the aeroplane is carrying not less than the minimum safe fuel for the flight; and

(h) during the flight, the pilot in command carries out in-flight fuel management to ensure that the aeroplane is always carrying sufficient fuel to enable it to reach its destination aerodrome as planned, or its nominated alternate aerodrome if necessary, with the required minimum fuel reserves intact.

(2) Paragraph 3A (1) applies to a medical transport operation whether or not a passenger is carried on the flight to a remote island.

(3) An approval under subparagraph (1) (f) may be subject to conditions

{Note: Still reviewing the subtle differences in para 3A but the obvious difference is that the 2014 version is much more condensed and provides a more distinct definition of MTO flights with the addition of sub para (2).}

Q. What happened to the 2010 responses which in the normal NPRM due process are usually published??:rolleyes:

Still joining the dots...:cool:

Part two to follow...:ok:

ps Interesting how Phase One & Two (as quoted below) from today's version of OS 09/13 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93397) is at odds with the CAIR 09/3 version (see post #2188)...:rolleyes:Phase 1 will involve amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) and a review of CAAP 234-1 for flights to Isolated Aerodromes in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass fuel and operational requirements for flights to Isolated Aerodromes. The review will also consider the provision for flight to an alternate aerodrome from a destination that is a designated Isolated Aerodrome. The CAAP234-1 will also be expanded to provide guidance and considerations necessary for flights to any Isolated Aerodrome, in particular when, and under what circumstances, a pilot should consider a diversion.
Phase 2 will involve amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs) and further review of CAAP 234 in light of the ICAO amendments. This phase will encompass regulatory changes related to the implementation of general fuel planning, in-flight fuel management and the selection of alternate aerodromes. This review will include the methods by which pilots and operators calculate fuel required and fuel on-board.

Kharon

15th Aug 2014, 19:58

Sarcs #2190 – "Still joining the dots.."

Thorny - "Sarcs, mate, you really are a cynical Bast..ard"
Not only that! – he's being very mischievous and setting up a weekend heads-scratcher; but I reckon he's also trying to sneak a late entry into the Senate Ordinance Cup (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-102.html#post8568200) ; which makes him a devious, crafty SOB...;)...:D..:E

I'm going to call his bluff; there is a possible entrant from overseas, little known in Oz but if the connections decide that they will run the horse, it will alter the odds. So let's see, (looking – looking) Ah, howzabout - Canadian Club; horse, out of Federal Plod by Criminal Intent.

You see, I reckon Sarcs has 'inverted' the perspective and instead of wondering why the Canadian form guide has not been published; he has tracked the MoP, backwards; from the Canadian TSB audit point of view i.e. What the CTSB would see when they investigate ICAO compliance. In that context, if Sarcs has started from the compliance with ICAO annex 13 end and worked backwards through to the ubiquitous MoU. Could the CTSB possibly feel that the MoU disturbs the ICAO tenet of ATSB 'sovereignty' during an investigation and the righteous issuing of Safety Recommendations? Could this notion naturally lead to examining the dramatic drop of the Safety Recommendations (SR) from 'Serious' to 'Minor'? In short, have the Pel Air books been 'cooked'?

In a honest world, the MoU should work just fine; ATSB notifies CASA that SR are incoming; the FF 'White hats' grab the spell book and start weaving - preparing a proper response. All good until it was realised CASA were going to have 'egg on their face', had the ATSB not backed down. Perhaps that 'GWM report' was prepared to riposte the ATSB brick bat. "We're on top of this" says Sleepy Hollow.

The consensus (among the BRB) is that the CASA 'White hats' receiving information through the MoU were preparing for a 'serious safety' call from the ATSB on three issues; (1) the serious lack of CASA action on CDP on 82.0; and, (2) CASA oversight of the operator; (3) against the operator.

Enter the FF Black hats – Instead of timely advice being used to prepare the way for a much delayed 'fuel policy' changes; the good intentions of the MoU pave the merry road to perdition. The Black hats take the early advice and set about 'subverting' it so that the mighty blow the ATSB was intending to deliverer became little more than a gentle 'well done' pat on the back. There is good support information for this to be had from the total lack of action taken on ATSB, Coronial and many other 'safety' related recommendations and there is no closed loop system for tracking, auditing or examining those changes. There is certainly no system for audit of those changes – refer CRM 82 time line. What is it now 20 years ? bad law Reg 206 and RFDS and etc. etc. What a witches brew..small wonder 'white hats' leave in droves.

The disconnect is clear enough from the Sarcs post above. Has the benefit of the MoU been grossly misused to undermine the ATSB 'sovereign' authority under the ICAO?; the 'disturbance' of the TSI Act is clearly apparent. If the AFP investigation and the Canadian audit turned up the same conclusions; possibly two things would happen (1) the minuscule would 'sit' on the CTSB report (2) the AFP information prompted Heffernan, Stearle and Xenophon to bring on the MoP. The latest gossip 'on the breeze' is that the PM's department is actively involved (Choc frog Sunny) and that the TSB 'report' is in town but the minuscule has deemed it 'low priority'.

It's a bit of a stretch but could the exposed, cynical manipulation of Pel-Air be parlayed in criminal charges? If that eventuates will Chambers and White along with McComic and possibly Sangston need a little 'legal' advice?

Sarcs you research daemon, let's have a look at part two. It's cruel to torment a curiosity bump (or hump). You can sing the verse below using the - Eton Boat Song - as a tune – quite catchy, ain't it...

The sexual life of the camel
Is stranger than anyone thinks.
At the height of the mating season
He tries to bugger the Sphinx.
But the Sphinx’s posterior orifice
Is clogged by the sands of the Nile,
Which accounts for the hump on the camel
And the Sphinx’s inscrutable smile.

What the hell - it's Saturday, ain't it? Toot toot..:D

Sarcs

16th Aug 2014, 02:26

Kharon: Could the CTSB possibly feel that the MoU disturbs the ICAO tenet of ATSB 'sovereignty' during an investigation and the righteous issuing of Safety Recommendations? Could this notion naturally lead to examining the dramatic drop of the Safety Recommendations (SR) from 'Serious' to 'Minor'? In short, have the Pel Air books been 'cooked'?Bugger “K” stole my thunder…:{ …oh well relegated to gap filler yet again…:rolleyes:

Ok before we start working through the ‘timeline of embuggerance’ (TOE) an update on the MoP Stakes from the Senate: Possible imposition of a penalty on a witness before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee or a person providing information to the committee (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Privileges/rrat_contempt)

{Note the Committee Senators (Stewards) membership (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Privileges/Committee_Membership) includes one loud, outspoken BIG MACK}

Kharon:In a honest world, the MoU should work just fine; ATSB notifies CASA that SR are incoming; the FF 'White hats' grab the spell book and start weaving - preparing a proper response. All good until it was realised CASA were going to have 'egg on their face', had the ATSB not backed down. Perhaps that 'GWM report' was prepared to riposte the ATSB brick bat. "We're on top of this" says Sleepy Hollow.In the eyes of the TSBC: It would first be prudent to refer to what we know they have been scoped to review in regards to PelAir. From ATSB AQON 4 Senate Estimates (24/02/14) RED said:

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has agreed to review the ATSB’s investigation methodologies and processes. Specifically, the review is examining the ATSB’s:
• Investigation methodology and its application
• Management and governance in relation to investigations
• Process for compiling an investigation report
• Approach to communicating with persons and organisations external to the ATSB in relation to an investigation

As part of the review, the TSB has undertaken to examine the application of the ATSB methodologies to the Norfolk Island investigation and two others.
The review was instigated in response to Senate References Committee criticisms that the ATSB investigation of the Norfolk Island accident did not comply with the requirements of ICAO Annex 13 or the ATSB’s written standards. The review is also intended as part of the ATSB response to Inquiry recommendations concerning the adequacy of the ATSB’s investigation policies, procedures and training.

The exercise is not a reinvestigation of the occurrence, and hence the TSB has not sought to reinterview involved parties. Howevers part of eviewing the ATSB’s investigations, the statements and other evidence of involved parties have been available to the review team.

Therefore it would be safe to assume that the TSBC would be reviewing most, if not all, the published under privilege documentation from the Senate AAI inquiry, which would include the following 2 documents:

1. Correspondence from the ATSB to CASA regarding a critical safety issue, received 22 October 2012;(PDF 2663KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=397eabc7-ff66-4c7c-a8df-aac390dba8ee)
2. Internal ATSB email regarding the ATSB and CASA's approach to the Pel-Air investigation (dated 9 February 2010), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1093KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=e2ae91cd-8a14-4f9c-ab41-b9370c2b1a69)

As RED indicates the TSBC will review the PelAir report against the recognised international standards for AAI (as outlined in ICAO Annex 13) and not on any domestic arrangements i.e. the MoU.

On the subject of safety issues identified, in the course of an investigation, by the AAI as needing prompt action and a SR promulgated Annex 13 states:
Safety recommendations
6.8 At any stage of the investigation of an accident or incident, the accident or incident investigation authority of the State conducting the investigation shall recommend to the appropriate authorities, including those in other States, any preventive action that it considers necessary to be taken promptly to enhance aviation safety.

6.9 A State conducting investigations of accidents or incidents shall address, when appropriate, any safety recommendations arising out of its investigations to the accident investigation authorities of other State(s) concerned and, when ICAO documents are involved, to ICAO.

RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE RECEIVING
SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

Action on safety recommendations
6.10 A State that receives safety recommendations shall inform the proposing State of the preventive action taken or under consideration, or the reasons why no action will be taken.

Note — Nothing in this Standard is intended to preclude the State conducting the investigation from making proposals for preventive action other than safety recommendations.The ATsB intent to compliance with the Annex is outlined in s25A of the TSI Act (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00423/Html/Text#_Toc393713891).

So in terms of 1. (Attachment one above) the TSBC would give the ATsB its 1st tick i.e. the investigators have identified a CSI and have basically
written a DRAFT of the soon to be notified SR. However it would probably be seen as passing strange, not normal practice, that the ATsB are essentially giving the intended SR addressee a ‘heads up’.I refer to the meeting between officers of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) that took place by video conference on 3 February 2010, and agreed that a critical safety issue existed in respect ofthe lack of regulation or guidance for pilots when exposed to previously unforecast meteorological conditions on long flights to destinations with no nearby alternates. An outcome of that meeting was that a number of the CASA participants indicated that they understood the issue, and that it should be progressed with CASA management.But maybe this is a good initiative because the letter does goes on to say…

“….In later telephone calls to me, you suggested that the receipt of this letter would allow you to 'kick-start' CASA's consideration of, and response to the issue.

Attachment One describes the nature of the critical safety issue that was identified as a result of the ATSB's initial investigative work in respect of the above accident, and formed the basis of our discussions on 3 February 2010. CASA's commitment to address the safety issue is appreciated…”

And indeed the ‘White Hats’ (as “K” calls them) stepped into action and started proactively addressing what they assumed would soon be a published ATsB SR, published an update to OS 09/13 (see 4.4 of CAIR 09/3) and started writing NPRM 1003 OS (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14081519646236&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&libId=71415901-e2f0-4bfd-97e3-4b1e7db87560&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%2F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3D1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific%252F429828-merged-senate-inquiry-110.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.casa.gov.au%252Fwcms wr%252F_assets%252Fmain%252Fnewrules%252Fops%252Fdownload%25 2Fnprm1003os.pdf%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%2 52Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%252F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Faustralia-new-zealand-pacific-90%2F&title=Merged%3A%20Senate%20Inquiry%20-%20Page%20110%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=NPRM%201003%20OS).

So maybe the TSBC would have given the ATsB leeway and understood that in the interests of better relations (as this was seen as a test case for the newly just minted MoU), that this little divergence from SOP could be advantageous.

However on reading the internal email at 2. this acceptance of diverging from SOP IMO would have come to a resounding conclusion (crash):=:We were discussing the potential to reflect the intent of our new MoU that describes the 2 agencies as 'independent but complementary'. We discussed the hole that CASA might have got itself into by its interventions since the ditching, and how you might have identified an optimum path that will maximise the safety outcome without either agency planting egg on the other agency's face.

Right now, I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support. If we were to contemplate an exit strategy, or an 'out', then CASA would need to recognise that it is 'in' something in the first place. This is my take of how I see their position at the moment.
When the aircraft ditched, both the flight crew and the operator stopped their Westwind Aeromedical operations.

CASA coached and guided the operator very well as they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pei-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn't happened to the flight crew. While they may not have been the 'Aces of the base', they were following the relevant procedure provided by both CASA and their operator. This is an opportunity for CASA to follow the same approach with the flight crew as they have done with the operator.

As a systemic investigator, we see 3 separate slices of 'Reason cheese' with aligned holes ( flight crew, operator & rule-maker), and we want to seal all those holes. The operator has now been realigned, and I think CASA has done a very good job in helping them. For the flight crew, they do need realigning to ensure they now meet the updated Ops manual requirements. For the rule-maker, I would be extremely satisfied if they then proactively realigned everybody's understanding of this operational risk, and how it can be managed in the future.

As we discussed yesterday, following the ditching, everything went (metaphorically) 'up in the air'. CASA has done a good job in realigning Pei-Air while it was still in the air so that it returned to earth with a much better take on how to manage this risk.

Unfortunately, they took action on the flight crew without first contemplating their end-game. If they reframe their pre-emptive action with the flight crew to show that they had managed all the levels of safety management by simply putting the pilots' permissions to fly on hold until they had found the problem and remedied it, then they would look far better than if they tried to prosecute the probably indefensible and hardly relevant.

We will be telling this story in our final report, if not earlier, so why not make the most of this opportunity for both agencies to publicly work harmoniously, in a parallel direction?IMO any good TSBC investigator could well relate and be most disturbed by the angst that this fellow investigator was feeling at this point in time. The massive conflict of interest is beyond obvious and directly in contravention of the spirit & intent of Annex 13.:ugh::ugh:

Hmm…think I’m going to have to have more parts to this as I’ve just discovered a couple more errant dots and I’m yet to look through the eyes of the other investigator…:cool:

MTF…:ok:

thorn bird

16th Aug 2014, 04:08

"CASA coached and guided the operator very well as they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pei-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn't happened to the flight crew. While they may not have been the 'Aces of the base', they were following the relevant procedure provided by both CASA and their operator. This is an opportunity for CASA to follow the same approach with the flight crew as they have done with the operator".

And as we know, there was no attempt to realign the aircrew. The Skulls trained attack dog, Wodger Wabbit, in his personal inimitable style, moved straight to embuggerance.

Couldnt nail the crew with prosecution because they had broken no laws, not to worry, Wodger is a past master at administrative embuggerance.

Unfortunately the captain chose not to lie down quietly, and aced the inutile Wodger mandated requirements. Cost him dearly, losing his house in the process, but he dogedly completed each new imposition Wodger set until CAsA had little choice but to return his licence.

Wodger of course would never leave it there.

There are rumours that, as Wodger has done to others who've displeased him, of a wispering campaign following the captain around Australia, wherever he has sought employment, that it might not be in that companies best interests to give him a job.

Kharon

16th Aug 2014, 20:47

Sarcs – sorry mate; I didn't think my twiddle was more than a fart in the thunderstorm you kicked up. I'm just trying to run a book and a bookie needs to work the SP odds, which means reading the wind and other auguries. So, may I assume that Canadian Club is now an official entry? Even money, down to odds on is the best I can do, if you're quick.

I wonder though, the TSBC brief and remit 'could' be construed a few ways; from tick-a-box through to the full Monty. But I like your research, it makes sense and presents a sound construct of a possible cause (motive- if you like) for the antics we watched during the Senate inquiry. It is a righteous starter – but will the TSBC run it? and will the minuscule see the benefit to having his much vaunted, all powerful CASA dragged through court; does he have any other option?. I'd say it's more a bloody big time bomb, than a thunderstorm – if proven. There are great benefits from the doing of it, but will the minuscule see them ?

One thing though, the 'white hat' troops (those remaining) will breathe a lot easier when the sun returns to Sleepy Hollow. IF the PM department gets involved, I am reliably informed that the top two, if not three layers will achieve 'an altered state'. This can only be a good thing. Without the support of the dark lord, the minions, catamites and willing accomplices become fair game for the 'White hats' and payback is as an evil a bitch as Karma.

Thorny – if Sarcs is on target and he finds the breadcrumbs, well Kevlar is ok for light ordinance, but the big guns are refining the firing resolution, computing coordinates and range. Interesting times – for all I should say.

Aye well, it's all Bliss, wind and speculation; we just won't know until Truss decides that industry is a priority and gets off his arse and blinks. Once for yes, twice for no. Heh heh, unless one of the Senate decides Truss is not the Sphinx, but an ostrich.

The sexual life of the ostrich
Is stranger than that of a man

Toot toot..:D

Sarcs

18th Aug 2014, 02:53

Kharon: If the AFP investigation and the Canadian audit turned up the same conclusions; possibly two things would happen (1) the minuscule would 'sit' on the CTSB report (2) the AFP information prompted Heffernan, Stearle and Xenophon to bring on the MoP.Before we can move on to Part three (i.e. through the eyes of the AFP) couple of loose ends need addressing…:bored:

Previously: For better or for worse the ATsB, in keeping with the newly minted 2010 MoU, have given FF a heads up on a CSI, that would in a normal course of events (& anywhere else in the world) have progressed to the promulgation and publication of an SR. However as history will show this never happened. It would be a further 917 days ('heads up' correspondence 26/02/10 to Final Report 30/08/12) before anyone outside of the bureau, FF and PelAir were any the wiser on any identified safety issues from the Norfolk ditching investigation :ugh::

Fuel planning and en route decision-making (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072/si-01.aspx)

Oversight of the flight and its planning (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072/si-02.aspx)

This would definitely have caused the TSBC some consternation, as it is not their SOP for dealing with identified safety issues (they’re very much in the SR camp). Nor does it reflect the spirit & intent of ICAO Annex 13. So definitely no tick there…:=

Following the chain of the 26/02/10 ATsB CSI ‘heads up’, the TSBC would have also been bemused( & probably quite disturbed) to have read the response correspondence dated 26 March 2010, especially when FF referred to the bureau correspondence as a DRAFT transport Safety Report for AO-2009-072…:ooh:

Reference pg 38 - Answers to questions taken on notice on 21 November 2012, in Canberra;(PDF 4052KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=14535c08-93c3-4fb9-b7b3-ac30b7ef3e04)
Dear Mr Sangston

I refer to your letter dated 26 February 2010 regarding draft Transport Safety Report AO-2009-072.

CASA's comments on the safety issues raised in this report are attached.

Please contact John Grima,

Yours sincerely

Richard White

Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit

Nowhere is it stated in the bureau correspondence that the notified CSI was intended to be a DRAFT version of the TSR AO-2009-072, so what were FF playing at?? Actually, I believe, it to be a very clever (but devious) legal move by FF…:D

In the TSI Act under s25 (Reports) it states…

..(2) The ATSB may, at any time before an investigation has been
completed, publish, by electronic or other means, a report in
relation to the investigation if it considers that the publication of
the report is necessary or desirable for the purposes of transport
safety.
(3) A published report may include submissions that were made by
persons to the ATSB in response to a draft report, safety action
statements or safety recommendations.
(4) A published report must not include the name of an individual
unless the individual has consented to that inclusion...”

And in s26 (Draft reports) it states…

(1) The ATSB may provide a draft report, on a confidential basis, to
any person whom the ATSB considers appropriate, for the purpose
of:
(a) allowing the person to make submissions to the ATSB about
the draft report; or
(b) giving the person advance notice of the likely form of the
published report.

{Comment: I will leave this to the legal eagles (as it is probably a grey area legally & FF LSD are more than likely taking the piss with the definitions) but for this knuckledragger the fact the bureau have not contested the FF assumption, that this was a DRAFT TSR, effectively ceded control of the identified CSI to FF. Again the bureau was outplayed & out manoeuvred...:{}

You can read the rest of the FF reply at your leisure but from the TSBC perspective the debate that ensues thereafter should never have been conducted the way it was. MoU or not, the investigation team should not have been subject to defending their findings, & identified safety issues, prior to the publication of a safety recommendation (as per ICAO SOP). This is tantamount to interfering with an investigation under the jurisdiction of the State recognised (& supposedly independent) AAI and is a serious breach of international conventions i.e. Annex 13 & now Annex 19.

These breaches are best summarised by Mr Bryan Aherne in one of his supplementary submissions (PDF 856KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=e99ee0c6-b962-4798-80b6-7c95160557d9) (which again the TSBC would be privy to):
3. Evidence:

a) Outcome Bias.

Email from Martin Dolan to ATSB Investigator and General Manager Investigations written 10 February 2010:

Thanks very much for this. My discussion yesterday with John McCormick gave me some confidence that CASA was looking for systemic answers and amenable to our approach. Since then CASA has changed its rhetoric and seems to be hardening its view that there has been a regulatory breach that needs to be addressed.
I think it would be helpful if you and other addresses could meet with me so that we agree the best way to manage our relationship with CASA in the course of this investigation.

Analysis:
It is very clear that the ATSB had decided on a systemic investigation approach but that simply because CASA changed its rhetoric the ATSB did too. This is evidence of a weak State safety investigator that allowed itself to be influenced by the regulator whose shortcomings may have been exposed in any systemic investigation.

b) Prejudice and Outcome Bias

Email: Wednesday 18 August 2010 From CASA Officer to Director of Aviation Safety and Deputy Director of Aviation Safety
Re: ALIU Accident report Norfolk Island ditching VH-NGA

The above referenced report is now complete………….I have discussed the report with the ATSB and there are no differences in the key areas which will eventually be published by them in their report. I have aligned the report with the submission made by …our Westwind FOI Subject matter expert in yesterday’s AAT meeting.

Analysis: For CASA to have confidence that there would be no differences from the key findings (made by CASA) in an ATSB report which was still two years away from being complete is strongly suggestive that a meeting of the minds had occurred and an outcome agreed. This is evidence of prejudice and outcome bias.

c) Lack of independence of the ATSB and its investigators

Email: 6 August 2012. ATSB officer to General Manager Investigations

…Many of my arguments that have been rejected have been ones where I have applied safety management methods and tolls and those arguments have been rejected by a reviewer who looks from a regulatory viewpoint instead….To make useful comments on these matters relies on a belief in and use of contemporary safety management theories and methods. To me this was particularly evident when CASA’s Norfolk Island audit report came into our hands and some of the arguments I had tried unsuccessfully to include in the report were subsequently included on the basis of CASA’s findings not mine! When I have to rely on CASA’s opinion to persuade the ATSB how can I claim that the ATSB is independent when it investigates CASA?

Analysis: This shows that the ATSB undermined the independence of its investigator. It also shows that the ATSB is unduly influenced by CASA or it shows a crisis of confidence at the ATSB. Either way the ATSB is clearly not independent of CASA.

d) Breach of International Conventions

Australia is a signatory to article 37 of the Chicago Convention, ICAO, Part IV International Standards and Recommended Practices.

As such, three International Standards (International Standards are defined as 'shall', International conventions intend to foster standardisation, consistency and efficiency and when it comes to safety- shared learning) under Annex 13 have not been complied with, namely Annex 13, 5.4 which states:

"The accident investigation authority SHALL have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the provisions of Annex 13" It is also worth noting (again) that now under Annex 19 it is the responsibility of the State to…

“..In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations…”

Hmm…Part three to follow!:ok:

Kharon

18th Aug 2014, 22:22

Sarcs – good show, again. One thing (amongst the many) which intrigue me is the apparent breach of TSI 24, seems to me it's writ large but gets pushed aside with focus on 25 and 26, even the inimitable Aherne side steps the issues. Applying the Creampuff Cock-up v conspiracy theorem is a tough call on this little episode; lets have a little look-see at what was 'in the bag' before the rip, tear and bust boys got busy. Had CASA played a straight, 'low key' bat, there were gold stars for all.

a) The new MoU and AILU could have had a pre launch test run; to smooth out the kinks. ATSB come up with a CSI, CASA white hats go to work. TICK and gold star and no skin loss.

b) CASA then quietly acknowledge that there were some minor 'oversight' issues, the FOI responsible had been 'tuned up'; they were working on the revised fuel rules and were awaiting industry feed back; they had modified the 'operator' problems and the flight crew had been tested; and, in fact, proactive, deep dish safety culture was breaking out all over. Happy as Claggy, high fives and gold stars all around.

c) The crowning glory - ATSB could have produced a learned briefing on 'safety equipment' and new knowledge on 'ditching survival'; the CSI would have been vindicated, a new spirit of cooperation established and all would be rosy in their garden. High fives and gold stars all around. Bravo; etc. Great return on our safety investment.

So WTF went so horribly wrong with the preordained, carefully planned hatch, match and dispatch of Pel Air? Got me beat. So, while we wait for the next Sarcs chapter; I'll entertain us all with a fairy story. Now, are you sitting comfortably?, good, then I'll begin.
- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - -
Once upon a time (back in the day) in a land far, far away lived a King who had formed an alliance with a powerful Emperor to ensure that his modest kingdom had powerful allies and access to wealth; required to ensure that his little kingdom remained secure. For a while the little kingdom flourished, new trade routes were established and lucrative contracts with other states were negotiated and generally life seemed pretty good. Then came the day of 'the report'; a wet bedraggled minion had inconveniently been rescued at sea, telling tales of a great storm that had swamped the Kings vessel, which was now lost to the depths.

Well, mostly in those distant times, the loss of a ship or two was to be expected and ordinarily, this would be of no great concern to the King; but the timing was inconvenient. There were other matters of great import which depended on safe transportation and the King needed to make certain that this little, insignificant incident didn't upset those matters. So, he sent for the Grand Vizier (GV). The King understood that it was within the power of the GV to make this little incident disappear; unbeknownst to him was the total lack of subtlety with which the GV ran his bailiwick and the creatures he employed to do his bidding.

King – "Look here GV, there are some important matters of state which are delicately balanced and the Emperor is starting to ask difficult questions about financial matters; so I need to have the loss of the 'Nightingale' smoothed over, quickly and neatly; can you do it?"

GV – "No problem majesty; I've got just the man to do it, we'll blame the storm and the Captain; that only leaves the busybodies over at the Mariners Trust to deal with; but they are under control with a new contract so we'll see to it, and you will owe me one – deal?"

So, they shook hands and the King put it out of his mind. The GV disappeared to his dungeon lair, brooded on the puzzle for a little while, then sent for one of his trusted creatures from the Golden West Mafia (GWM) crew. It had been the GV 's habit to recruit his henchmen from the GWM, no past GV would have them in the building, but they suited the GV just fine as they seemed to understand his little ways. The Deputy Grand Vizier (DGV) lumbered into the chamber, wheezing and looking furtive, but eager as always for mischief and gold.

The GV explained the situation and asked who was the 'best' man for the job. The DVG seeing a chance to foster and promote his own clan rumbled "I've got just the man GV, I'll send him a carrier pigeon directly".

GV - "Excellent, I have to take a little trip to the holiday island of Lubby-Loo for a while; so, get this done and watch the shop, there's a good chap".

Now, as it happened the DGV had three of four of his own clan he wished to assist up the ladders, but there were some snakes to beat down and the little game of hide and seek the GV wanted suited his dark purpose, very well indeed. After much thought, a plan was hatched, the pigeon despatched and (as they say) the rest belongs to history. Or should have, however..

The DGV plan was cunning; subtle and effective, but the DGV had underestimated not only the naked ambition of his hand picked clan members, but their inability to resist a soap box and that the plan would only survive until it was handed over. Second and third agenda's were quickly generated and this, as history will show was where it all started to go pear shaped..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is a thread of long pages; and I believe Brother Sarcs has a little MTF, so I'll stop here and, if you're good, you shall have the rest of the tale, tomorrow..

Sponsor; the IOS chapter for why bother with fiction when the truth is more bizarre. a.k.a. TOAST (Totally Obfuscated Agenda Stories and Tales).

Toot toot.

Sarcs

19th Aug 2014, 07:46

Fair call “K”…;) Indeed it is all passing strange but, in the current Sociopathic world of FF, IMO fairly predictable behaviour…:=

After all they’ve got away with embuggerance of industry minority groups/individuals and obfuscating Senate Inquiries for years, so why wouldn’t it work again??

They say the sign of a true Sociopath is they will never entertain the thought that they may actually be wrong...:rolleyes: Even when someone has, quite rightly, locked them up and thrown away the key, a true Sociopath will still argue the toss…:*

But I diverge back to Part three…

Kharon:One thing (amongst the many) which intrigue me is the apparent breach of TSI 24, seems to me it's writ large but gets pushed aside with focus on 25 and 26, even the inimitable Aherne side steps the issues. To be fair to the inimitable Mr Aherne he didn’t have the ability of hindsight; nor a DRAFT copy of the AAI report; so he could not possibly predict that the Senate Committee would devote part of Chapter seven to asking whether there had been a… Breach of the Transport Safety Investigation Act (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/c07):
7.9 The committee remains very concerned by CASA's actions in this regard, and has cause to ask whether the agency is in fact also in breach of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act). Section 24 of the Act clearly states that it is an offence to hinder an investigation:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and
(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.[9] (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/footnotes#c07f9) At para 7.10 - 7.12 it would seem that the primary concern for the committee was the fact that FF had withheld the Chambers Report from the ATsB. Such was their concern that they submitted a referral to the AFP:7.12 This leads the committee to conclude that CASA may have breached section 24 of the TSI Act by withholding the document. To ensure that any appropriate action is taken, the committee will write to the Australian Federal Police, providing a copy of this report and supporting evidence for review.
Without actually being privy to the official referral for investigation by the RRAT committee, we are left in the dark to whether the referral was actually much broader in scope than merely the Chambers Report and Cook’s FRMS Special Audit report.

Bryan Aherne:It appears that at least two documents which had cause to significantly affect a safety investigation, was deliberately withheld by CASA from the ATSB, in contravention of the provisions of the TSI Act 2003, the MOU and International Convention. The provisions of s24 would seem to give the AFP a great more latitude to investigate the full gambit of the AAI report and supporting evidence. Indeed it would be unprofessional, unwise and extremely remiss for the AFP to do other than a full top down investigation, especially as this was a totally non-partisan referral effectively submitted under the authority of the Parliament.:=

Therefore it is more than safe to assume that (much like the TSBC) the AFP, once accepting the referral, would have examined all of the available documentation collated by the AAI inquiry. But unlike the TSBC the AFP would not be limited by a ToR and in the course of compiling a chronology of events/ chain of evidence, would be making further inquiries.

Above in Mr Bryan Aherne’s Supplementary Submission (PDF 856KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=e99ee0c6-b962-4798-80b6-7c95160557d9),under the heading Prejudice and Outcome Bias, Mr Aherne quotes from part of a CAsA officer’s email:Email: Wednesday 18 August 2010 From CASA Officer to Director of Aviation Safety and Deputy Director of Aviation Safety
Re: ALIU Accident report Norfolk Island ditching VH-NGA

The above referenced report is now complete………….I have discussed the report with the ATSB and there are no differences in the key areas which will eventually be published by them in their report. I have aligned the report with the submission made by …our Westwind FOI Subject matter expert in yesterday’s AAT meeting.The full email read something like this (reference - Internal CASA email regarding the discussion with the ATSB over the content of the ATSB report;(PDF 1193KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=92db334f-4504-42fb-a6fc-6effeddbc299) )…

…(redacted)………the above referenced report is now complete and I have signed this and placed a copy on trim….You indicated that the report should not be made available outside CASA until you had accepted the report and authorised it for release should it be asked for by third parties . I have discussed the Report with the ATSB and there are no differences in the key areas which will eventually be published by them in their report. I have also aligned the report with the submission made by (redacted)..our Westwind FOI subject matter expert, in yesterday’s AAT meeting.

Finally the flight plan information supplied by Jeppesen indicates that there was insufficient fuel on board to cater for the worst case depressurisation scenario. Can you please review the final report and advise me that you approve its wider distribution should that be necessary. A coordinated enforcement meeting will take place tomorrow and the report will be discussed in that forum. I will print a copy of the report and leave it with (redacted) for your perusal. Please advise me if you accept the report…

In the eyes of the AFP this email would certainly have piqued their interest but IMO it is the subsequent replies (email chain) that would have red flagged an area of interest (possible breach of s24) and automatically necessitated further inquiries.

Eight minutes after this email was sent…

Thank you. There is no need to print the report. I am awaiting the outcome of the Coordinated enforcement meeting and its subsequent recommendation to EMOPS. I will then consider the 'thing' as a whole with DDAS/ADAS et al. Good work; please do not release the report until we have completed a formal consideration. I am not (redacted) suggesting, by the way, that the report will necessarily need more work, it is merely a case of not wanting a great deal of trepidation in the industry if the report was available for all to read, but the actions/recommendations themselves (if indeed there are any recommendations to come out of the next meeting etc) remain unrevealed and open to massive industry conjecture and 'decision making'. Those sorts of pastimes are not to CASA's long term benefit.

The report being talked about is of course the infamously hidden CAIR 09/3, but back to the email chain where finally we get this Dear John (my bold)…

Date: Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:36

The attached Pel Air report has been finalised. Subject to one final confirmation of the fuel calculations by (being conducted this week) (redacted), is comfortable with the report's content, to the extent that it correlates with the AAT material to be submitted shortly and that there are no differences that can be highlighted by the opposing legal team.

The release of this report will provide Ops with the material to begin consideration of any further action that may be necessary against the any of those involved in the accident.

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

Your approval to release the report is requested.

Q/ Did FF ever give the bureau a full, unadulterated version of CAIR 09/3; or (like many other FF withheld docs) was the report never officially requested by the bureau (s32). Therefore FF simply didn’t send them a copy and merely discussed the more salient points of their own report??

Either way this email chain is very much within the bailiwick of the AFP in their investigation of possible breaches of TSI s24…:cool:

Which brings me to Part four - late entrant(s) of the ‘MoP stakes’ & another possible reason for the TSBC hold up on the release of their review report – all theory of course..:E

MTF…:ok:

Kharon

20th Aug 2014, 03:17

Sarcs – what can I say, terrific work. Brava and unlimited Choc frogs.....:D:D.

Your breadcrumb trail allows the astute reader to find their own pathway; the AFP have a little less (or much more) work to do now methinks. Reading through the story above, as seen through the investigators eyes, rather than the lay perspective, raises some very interesting questions. The most intriguing is why go to such extraordinary lengths and risk so much ?, what was the motive? We have lived, for quite a while now with some of the most unbelievable, unholy cock-ups imaginable; but, (probably much to CP's disgust) either conspiracy, collusion or corruption, all with a capital C seem to creeping slowly, but steadily into the picture. Beating up a pilot or fooling a department head, or beguiling the public is one thing; but messing about with the Senate in this manner is beyond the pale and has ended with a MoP. Theory (Bliss, wind and speculation) being proven correct that is. Even if it's all bollocks, it's an interesting theory and great work....:D

So, lets see what you have entered for the MoP stakes: 'Canadian Club' will be carrying additional handicap weight; so a prudent even money SP, I think.

Now this new entrant of yours has not been handicapped as it has never raced in this type of event before. Good pedigree though, from a line known for stamina, intelligence and a turn of speed when required. Both stable and trainer have a good record and have not been troubled overly much by the Stewards and first class connections. So: a starting price and form guide for 'Chapter Seven'; hmm, lets see not gelded, out of Commonwealth Coin by Sterling Service, raced well overseas and at home, the bloodlines providing the 'necessary' to win @ 3/2 odds on, we shall revise that after studying the track work results. (Best not to mention my little SP book to the connections eh).....;)

It remains to be seen what effect these new entrants will have on MoP field.

(Mods and gods permitting) = = = = = = The Legend of Sleepy Hollow; chapter two..

Well, as you can imagine, it took the pigeon quite a while to reach the GWM outpost, being as the plan was fairly heavy. But eventually, exhausted the bird made it through the portals and into the lair of a subordinate GWM Vizier Wannabee (VW). The DGV had, for various, nefarious reasons wanted to bring his protégé into the spotlight. The rumour, now lost in the mists of legend, was that the DVG wanted to retire after a short spell as GV, something to do with arcane pension rights, but wanted his clan properly placed before doing so – anyway. The ladder selected for VW was strewn with snakes of a venomous, aggressive variety, who had staked a claim to the ladder and were prepared to defend it; in that cowardly way snakes have. Previously, VW had fumed and fussed; unfortunately, as a minor unqualified minion, dependant on nepotism, he had neither the balls or brains to tackle the snakes head on. But, the plan of the DVG assured him that the King had specifically directed the GV to 'get this done', which effectively gave VW a lot of tacit clout (for nothing could be committed to writing).

Not being one to let the grass grow and assured of unlimited support from the GV, he started to 'get on with it' as scripted until later that afternoon when the little devil, which we all have attached to our left ear, spoke in a seductive, husky, whispering tone. "Mate, think a little further than the DVG plan; you can really shake this loose, make a great name for yourself, earn some fear, respect, street cred' and clean out those pesky snakes to boot". On and on it whispered until, filled with a great sense of self importance, ego gratifying blood lust, VW set to work – on his own account with a modified script. Without the little devil's advice he decided that a Captains scalp would look butch, dangling from his sporran, which added a certain piquancy to the wicked brew.

With a twirl of the golden pen, he sent his lackeys (dressed as snakes) to work; the full Monte all stops out. Investigations were ordered, audits conducted, little tweeks here, twerks there, special this and special that until no matter which way it went; his name would shine bright in the halls of Sleepy Hollow, so much so that he decided to sign many documents with it. He knew it was naughty, but he figured bugger process, sod policy and damn protocol – I am protected, "paper-work cut to order" was his catch cry. It was with great dreams and schemes the finishing touches were lovingly painted onto the canvas of vaunting ambition. In the VW mind, this was all such an unmitigated success, such a sure fire winner; and, so impressed with his own work was he that, in his haste for fortune and glory several small details were, unfortunately, overlooked. One was the Maritime Trust another was underestimating the cunning of snakes; but greatest of all was the 'soap-box' trap.

The overwhelming temptation to tell a world, (previously dismissive of the diminutive VW), of his well hidden talent, skill and literary ability and his new messiah status proved too much. The left ear devil had overcooked the few common sense instincts and let the daemon of blind ego out of it's fragile cage. Alone, at night burning the midnight oil, VW toiled to create the 'thesis' to end all thesis; a rip snorting, knock 'en flat sort of thing, full of long words and catchy phrasing. Mind you he does tacitly acknowledge some assistance with the 'big' words' from his GWM mate who had a penchant for using big words in the wrong syntax. His logic would be that those who failed to understand his 'vision splendid' could be derided as not having the native wit to comprehend his masterpiece. To do this he decided to 'borrow' from some of those he considered beneath the need to acknowledge their work and that only he could forge their poor efforts into a mighty testament defining his own sublime talents. As most of it was already written, it was really only a quick copy, paste and plagiarise effort, so he was delighted to also have saved his Mum some of the midnight oil bill. One of the great side benefits to this thesis was that some snakes could be bowled out easily as they could be implicated, complicit by extension in the sinking of the 'Nightingale' as they were to have been keeping an eye on the Kings ships and those that crewed them. His chagrin was almost overwhelming when the DVG refused, point blank, to publish it. "Let's save it for a rainy day" said the DVG to a heartbroken VW. But, it must have been quite funny to watch as the snakes tumbled over each other trying to show that 'they' had always done the right thing.

This boys and girls is where you learn that little things can oft times make a big difference. You see in his haste VW had allowed a couple of wolves, disguised as snakes into his happy little party; in desperation to achieve credibility for his dastardly work he needed a couple of 'expert' opinions, to make it all stack up; proper. It was at this point the first indication that a wheel was about to fall off became apparent; alas, VW in a hurry as always failed to notice the tremor and raced on, fully committed to his fate.

But here we must leave the story for today; will the wheel come off the VW bandwagon. We shall see.

E&OE (Just for laughs) Toot toot...

Creampuff

20th Aug 2014, 09:50

You seriously believe the AFP is going to do anything more than spend 5 minutes pretending to care about this, then get back to something important?

Seriously?

If yes: I have some cheap shares in the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.

scrubba

20th Aug 2014, 10:06

Given the continuing enthusiasm for the thought of CASA being referred to the AFP for investigation, can someone clarify for me how this works?

The RRAT Committee Report said:

7.12 This leads the committee to conclude that CASA may have breached section 24 of the TSI Act by withholding the document. To ensure that any appropriate action is taken, the committee will write to the Australian Federal Police, providing a copy of this report and supporting evidence for review.

Now to me, the way that the report reads is that "the committee will write", a simple statement of intent. Has the RRAT Committee formally made such a request for AFP "review"?

Can the committee make such a request without the support of the whole Senate? I notice that there is no recommendation to that effect.

If such a referral has been made, how does the public know what progress, if any, the AFP has made?

[just saw the crossover in timing with Creampuff (with whom I entirely agree), but I remain curious as to the process]

Kharon

20th Aug 2014, 19:30

CP –"You seriously believe the AFP is going to do anything more than spend 5 minutes pretending to care about this, then get back to something important?

..:D...More chance of selling me shares in the Brooklyn bridge than of convincing me things may change. But, the Sarcs research is very good and as we seem to be stuck in a time warp, it helps to fill in the time by supplying possible solutions to the MoP puzzle. I doubt anyone takes the AFP investigation, any of this charade, my fairy story or even Australian aviation 'seriously'. If they did the body count at the bottom of tall buildings would be much higher. But if you treat it as pure entertainment, realising it's true value is in that, then sanity and a few laughs along the way will be yours.

Scrubba " Given the continuing enthusiasm for the thought of CASA being referred to the AFP for investigation, can someone clarify for me how this works?

How very condescending; and lazy. How about doing your own research 'to clarify' for yourself 'how this works' and then regaling us all with 'your' entertaining analysis. There is great enthusiasm for the entertainment that provides; however if you want to get 'serious', then throw up your research contribution and we shall debate it. Make sure it's all your own work though.....:E

Sarcs

21st Aug 2014, 02:40

Creamy:You seriously believe the AFP is going to do anything more than spend 5 minutes pretending to care about this, then get back to something important?Actually Creamy I couldn’t agree more, in fact I was somewhat surprised that the Feds accepted the Senate’s referral at all but apparently they did?? So even if they were to only spend 5 minutes on a cursory look/see, once accepted they would still be bound by protocol and (unlike CAsA apparently) the HOCOLEA principles (http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/FOI/Documents/AGIS%202011.pdf) to at least appear to do a thorough job…:cool:“K” - I doubt anyone takes the AFP investigation, any of this charade, my fairy story or even Australian aviation 'seriously'. If they did the body count at the bottom of tall buildings would be much higher. But if you treat it as pure entertainment, realising it's true value is in that, then sanity and a few laughs along the way will be yours.Exactly “K”, so while we while away the time…

…the AFP have a little less (or much more) work to do now methinks. Reading through the story above, as seen through the investigators eyes, rather than the lay perspective, raises some very interesting questions. The most intriguing is why go to such extraordinary lengths and risk so much? what was the motive?...

Interesting questions you ask “K”, but for the moment put motive aside because in the eyes of the AFP the primary objective is gathering evidence, tracking down leads, interviewing possible witnesses/suspects and slowly but surely mounting a case that eventually they hope (or not) to present as a brief of evidence to the CDPP. Motive is the job of the prosecutor to establish and not the investigator.

Though I do love the Fairy Story so far and cannot wait for the next instalment…:E

But back to the timeline of embuggerance…

Previously: We were left with a very interesting email chain that had the DAS, in his usual arrogant way, saying this…

“…it is merely a case of not wanting a great deal of trepidation in the industry if the report was available for all to read, but the actions/recommendations themselves (if indeed there are any recommendations to come out of the next meeting etc) remain unrevealed and open to massive industry conjecture and 'decision making'. Those sorts of pastimes are not to CASA's long term benefit…”

Which says to me that the DAS (at least) was expecting the bureau (as is normal procedure) to soon publish an interim report on at least the CSI. It was just a matter of whether that would be in the form of a SR or an SI. This assumption by the DAS was also reinforced by the fact that a month before his ‘white hats’ had drafted NPRM 1003 OS (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os.pdf) and he had personally endorsed the proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 (Annex A (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/download/nprm1003os.pdf)).

To that point in time the situation, although not SOP, was still recoverable and could have seen the various parties (except for DJ) climbing out of a potentially embarrassing situation that had the potential to highlight serious flaws in their newly minted détente MoU.

However the next email reply (4 days later) from the (obfuscating) DDAS seems to be where everything went South for the next two years??

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

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

Quote from Wodger:

“…When: Thursday, 12. August 2010 11:00-12:00 (GMT+10:00) Brisbane.

Where: Vidcon

Folks,

We need to discuss the current actions in relation to Dominic James in light of the ALIU Report and Len Vegar Statement…”

Anyway back to the last part of the DDAS reply email…

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

Besides another possible breach of TSI s24, & the rather bizarre interpretation by the Deputy Dog that all this skulduggery was in keeping with the new MoU, what I find passing strange was all this high level micro-managing of a matter that should have been more than capably handled by middle management identities. Still we all know that Deputy Dog was in deep virtually right from the get go.Here is a reminder from Senator X at the 15/02/13 hearing:Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Mr Farquharson and Mr McCormick, let's go to the email of 20 March 2010 (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=a27d4877-671b-4120-a2e1-17e8a357d0fb) about whether it is a critical safety issue. The whole issue was downgraded from a critical safety issue to a minor safety issue. I query the role CASA had with respect to that. I will remind you that the email says that there is one group of pilots that has one view which leads to a mandatory diversion, and another group has the opposite view. Putting aside the practicalities, both groups believe they are legally correct. If we find ourselves in an AAT or a court, we once again look a bit foolish if we, the regulator, find ourselves in the position where we have to say there are two conflicting views, one of which has to be wrong, and we have done nothing to rectify it over the years. It is very untidy.You wanted this downgraded to a minor safety issue because it would have covered you in terms of any potential litigation.We also know that beyond the above email chain the DDAS was still actively involved in the matter, even acting as the DJ decision maker, on request from Wodger, in the absence of Hoody…:rolleyes:

Quote from email sent 07:04 am, 13 January 2011:In Greg's absence l am referring to you the amended CAR 5.38 notice for Dominic James for consideration and approval.
The amendment is to ensure the objectives of the flight test requirements specified in the original notice can be achieved using simpler aircraft types requested by James due to his financial situation. The attached correspondence provides detailed explanation for the amendment. ·
The draft notice was prepared by Adam and reviewed by Bankstown FOIs and myself. I recommend signing the notice…Moving along through the publically available information (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/submissions), that surely the AFP would have at least reviewed, we find that the timeline of embuggerance from the email chain goes into a time vacuum for virtually two years until we get to the DRAFT report stage of the ATsB investigation. We then get these three internal emails…

16 - Internal ATSB email- reviewer wanting to look more closely at FRMS and re-interview pilots (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 535KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=271d4949-ee61-47cb-b9a5-0cf956c7c7cd)

17 - Internal ATSB email- reviewer indicating they can't deviate at this point and they have to work with what they have (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 360KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=822b8c74-c6a2-418f-b773-bf9798200df8)

18 - Internal ATSB email regarding the inconsistency in safety knowledge of ATSB staff (dated 6 August 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1597KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=fb3d92b0-762f-45bd-9456-ab3f9e064f25)

Which to be honest are probably more of interest to the TSBC and would largely lose any good AFP investigator. Who would probably assess them as largely irrelevant to their inquiries, except maybe for the last part of the 3rd email…:= Many of my arguments that have been rejected have been ones where I have applied safety management methods and tools, and those arguments have been rejected by a reviewer who looks from a regulatory viewpoint instead of a safety management viewpoint. Yes, regulatory arguments are the easiest to defend, but the maintenance of high reliability, complex systems must rely on so much more than only regulatory compliance. To make useful comments on these matters relies on our belief in, and use of, contemporary safety management theories and methods. To me, this was particularly evident when CASA's Norfolk island audit report came into our hands, and some of the arguments I had tried unsuccessfully to include in the report were subsequently included on the basis of CASA's findings, not mine! When I have to rely on CASA's opinion to persuade the ATSB, How can I claim that the ATSB is independent when it investigates CASA?And so ends the trail of evidence (TOE) that we are aware of :confused: (i.e. publicly available), of course the AFP would be privy too so much more and they have the powers to interview etc. if they indeed cared to?? :*

MTF with Part Four & the MoP Stakes…:ok:

Ziggychick

21st Aug 2014, 17:16

Dear PPs

An article in the SMH on 18/08/14 regarding a Pel-Air and me suing.

I found out about the article in Thursday afternoon.
They printed my full name, address, marital sataus and how many children I had.
The only true statement that I remember to the best of my ability are within "quotes"

The rest is unquoted. I did not say any of what they printed.
I have never spoken to the a author, I don't know her.

A clandestine operation.
The aircraft pictured intact. Quick description of events.
The Pissed Off part.
The author and source are literally, all of a sudden attacking me.
My personal details revealed
My alleged blaming of the pilot (he followed the rules and saved our lives, thank you DJ)
Then she bangs on about the MC99 being applicable to us, which it is not.
Finally, walk away with nothing. Pain, struggle financially

How the liars stare into the dark and play
Enjoy it
For now
The light of truth
Reveals
You and You and You and You.......

Media. For as long as my arse points to the ground. I will never speak with you.

Leave me alone.

If any one knows something, please tell me why this would happen
Anyone know this game?

If I have made spelling mistakes, I'm so bloody tired.
Take care,
Ziggy.

Kharon

21st Aug 2014, 20:19

There are those, in positions of power who could, at the stroke of a pen or by making a telephone call end this agony for someone, who through no fault of her own is not only in a world of extreme physical pain; but one of exquisite mental torment.

It's not good enough, no where near.

The Minister could fix it. Mrdak could fix it. Pel Air could fix it. Insurers could fix it. The AsMA could exert enough pressure to get it fixed. For the sake of the cost of one years executive lunches a life of pain, grief and misery could be altered.

Strange place Australia; mountains of public outpouring for those who are dead and cannot be helped; politicians wailing, rending flesh, crying buckets of public tears and no expense spared. Yet to raise a pinky finger to help one solitary soul is a step too far, but gutter tactics are deemed acceptable, even laudable. How cynical, how low, how disgusting is this country becoming? ask Ziggy, for surely she has seen the absolute worst of it and must live each day with that certain knowledge. Shame for Australia.

Othello - If thou dost slander her and torture me,
Never pray more. Abandon all remorse.
On horror’s head horrors accumulate,
Do deeds to make heaven weep, all earth amazed,
For nothing canst thou to damnation add
Greater than that.

Selah....:sad:....:O

SMH link (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/norfolk-island-plane-crash-victims-sue-airline-20140817-104fpy.html)

Pel-Air Aviation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regional Express Holdings, denies Dr Helm, who lives in Britain, and Ms Casey are entitled to damages.

However, Pel-Air says the 1999 Montreal Convention applies, and although the plaintiffs launched legal proceedings within the two-year limitation period, they did not plead a specific cause of action under the convention and are therefore out of time.

Translation - If you’re slandering her just to torture me, then it’ll be no use to pray for mercy or say you’re sorry. You might as well go ahead and commit every unspeakable crime you can think of, because there’s nothing you could that would top what you’ve already done! (Spark)

PAIN_NET

21st Aug 2014, 23:33

As requested – CAIR 09 (http://www7.zippyshare.com/v/90166073/file.html) – and - 'The Chambers Report' (http://www7.zippyshare.com/v/42663916/file.html) - for those with an academic interest in verifying the conclusions drawn from the first class research into the MoP.

P48. a.k.a. Sandman.

From Zippyshare – CLICK once on the large RED download now button, to avoid unwanted spam......

Sarcs

22nd Aug 2014, 06:37

Thank you PAIN makes it so much easier to make quotes of interest...:D

Example: The now infamous gloss over by ALIU and his fellow investigators here:0801 UTC NADI ATC provides the aircraft with the METAR for YSNF issued at 0630 ZULU. This was then updated with an Auto SPEC I for Norfolk issued at 0800 ZULU. Wind 290 at 08 Knots cloud overcast (OVC) at one thousand one hundred ft AGL, 21 oC and the dew point was 19oC and QNH Norfolk 1012.
...and here:The Captain received an in-flight weather report at 0801 which indicated that the weather at Norfolk Island had deteriorated below the minimum conditions which required the holding of an alternate aerodrome. The weather report indicated only a very small difference of 2 degrees between the current temperature and the dew point (21/19)....and again here:
Having commenced the flight from Samoa to Norfolk Island, the transcript of the Captain's communications with Air Traffic Control (ATC) in Fiji revealed that he received a weather report for Norfolk Island at 0801 UTC which showed that the weather conditions at Norfolk Island had deteriorated from those forecast during his flight planning at Apia.
Which we all now know ultimately led to the bureau totally missing the NADI error in the glossed over 0630 UTC METAR i.e. cloud base 600' instead of stated 6000'. The most embarrassing part being that it was the 4 Corners program that pointed out this error...:{

On the despicable SMH article (seem to be getting stuck into the MSM today...:rolleyes:) I find it more than passing strange that this affront to the senses suddenly appears 3 days after starting the TOE & MoP series...:cool:

Slight drift here..:E

I feel I need to clarify something to a certain STSI who had this to say in the 6 August 2012 internal email (linked in previous post):
There has been an alarming inconsistency in understanding about what is an 'organisational issue'. I have successfully argued for statements about the lack of organisational issues not to be included in the Norfolk Island and 'Tiger One' reports, and I was unhappy to see unflattering comments in Pprune about 'no organisational issues' in the analysis of the Darwin Brasilia report.

These facts lead me to believe there is little understanding of what an organisational issue actually is, and when it is, or is not important. I believe this lack of understanding is widespread.
'Begging your pardon your Honour' but at no time was this little black duck (at least) personally critical of the lack of 'organisational issues' in the YPDN Braz report. In fact, on the contrary, I was critical of the fact that after all the good, factual organisational issues highlighted in that report, that the Safety Action section seemed to totally dismiss this evidence as irrelevant to the causal chain...:confused:

Drift over and back to the main game...err I do wonder however if the TSBC would have closely examined this email from an obvious Senior member of the bureau investigative team (that's if he/she is still there??) and had a quiet word or two. As the email IMO more than adequately highlights the dangers of Beaker's BASR approach...:=:=

Creampuff

22nd Aug 2014, 06:44

Which we all now know ultimately led to the bureau totally missing the NADI error in the glossed over 0630 UTC METAR i.e. cloud base 600' instead of stated 6000'. The most embarrassing part being that it was the 4 Corners program that pointed out this error...And there is at least one patent error in the transcript itself. How many more errors are there that aren't patent?

Kharon

22nd Aug 2014, 20:13

Sarcs "[the] rather bizarre interpretation by the Deputy Dog that all this skulduggery was in keeping with the new MoU, what I find passing strange was all this high level micro-managing of a matter that should have been more than capably handled by middle management identities.

Except by then Hoody (absent on a sicky); Cook and Watson had washed their hands of it. They must have been amazed at the speed and dexterity with which Wodger fixed Humpty Dumpty, all back together again in just a few days short of a Christmas fortnight; despite their expert cautions. They must be prescient, or perhaps just qualified professionals who can read and write the signs. It was always going to end in tears, perhaps less so for the ATSB who were, at least until Beaker took his thirty pieces of silver, doing the right thing.

(Mods and gods permitting) = = = = = = = The Legend of Sleepy Hollow; chapter 3.

For VW, his life was complete; rubbing shoulders with the 'big dogs', sending snappy little notes (the pigeons were all just about knackered) to the DVG at silly o'clock with demands to sign this and execute that; positively bouncing with righteous zeal. The idea of a Captains scalp was first and foremost in his happy thoughts; although it must be said that his first attempt was a failure, of sorts. Whether it was love at first sight or just too much mutual admiration, the first if the Kings captains happily sold out his crew and accepted the VW job offer, but that is a story for another day (see Vol. IX : A nest of Vipers). A secondary target (Survivor) was soon arranged. There would be an appearance in the 'high court' with lawyers swanning about, while he looked on, stern and concerned waiting for his turn at starring. He had even taken some lessons from his Mum on public speaking and with a defined talent for mimicry, he felt sure he could 'win' the case; any road, the 'facts and circumstances' were rigged by the spell weavers to work properly, so no worries.

He was, he felt dealing quite well with not having his report published, being as it was so important not only to his future, but it dealt some savage blows to the pesky snakes. He'd been bragging about it in the tea room to his 'new' cronies and how it would rid him of the non friendly, pesky snake crew. He had even contemplated 'leaking it'. There was a nasty rumour in the kitchens that this was done anyway, and somehow or another it had been passed along to those who knew exactly what it was and how best to use it. Whether VW had leaked it or one of the pesky snakes had left a copy in a bar somewhere is not known; speculation abounds. But it is known that the result was always going to be painful.

Anyway – just as all of this glory was heading his way; the specialist wolves struck their blow. They were proud of their work and unlike the other snakes were not prepared to amend as required to suit the agenda. There were some serious words spoken and the GV, now fully rested from laying about on Lubby-Loo island got involved. The wolves were banished, scattered and denigrated. "No, no, no " said the GV: "this was to be 'low key', routine and was not to involve qualified experts who can't be bullied, bought or budged". About this time Survivor's lawyers chimed in, pointing out that the Captains scalp may be forfeit, but it was not going to be an easy task, there were 'irregularities' to discuss and Survivor's inconvenient testimony to consider. Well, tempers were lost, books were thrown, one senior Vizier (SV) was almost involved in a corridor punch up. The GV bellowed, threatened, cajoled and bullied the rebels into silence. The only problem was that now instead of the sinking being quietly slid under the carpet; it became a full dress affair with everyone from the office cat to the GV himself being involved and a half mile wide paper trail following; with the wolves and snakes following that

In time, the GV got the brakes on and most of the cat back into the bag. "Look here" says GV, "we could end up with some blowback on this; the crew over to Mariners Trust (MT) reckon we may have to catch some of the blame for the sinking". Well, they held a midnight meeting or two, to look at what had been done, including the wolves work and decided that yes; they were potentially in deep do-do. What made it worse was that VW had been spoon feeding only the choicest morsels to the brand new, clueless minion who was the 'go-between' for the MT and GV camps. Green as grass, the minion was not just feeding the selected parts of the VW line to MT, but also some of the less savoury parts.

No longer certain of who had what, there was a lot of 'evidence' to slide out of harms way. As you know, VW had covered it from all possible angles to ensure that whatever way the GV wanted to play it; he could produce a line of paper-work to support it. Once the final plot was executed; the 'excess' embarrassing, inconvenient 'evidence' could be shuffled away, incorrectly filed or lost, for in this practice VW had no shortage of expertise (although no formal qualification).

Over at the MT HQ, they had been playing a straight bat and working within the 'new' rule set. This meant warning the GV that they were obliged to issue a stern, safety warning which put the not only the King in a bad light, but the GV as well. Unconcerned at first, the GV 's tame spell weavers had been working to minimise the damage, same as always; the under the carpet spell was tried and tested true. If the GV just nipped over to the MT and smoothed the way all would be well, provided the master mariners could be persuaded to just not mention less savoury morsels they had been inadvertently gifted. And so it came to pass, for two long, quiet years, while the poison trapped beneath the surface festered. VW nearly recovered from not being published, he had a tame captain and Survivor mouse to toy with at will; he had intimidated some of the pesky ladder snakes; established meaningful relationships with the DVG and the GV. (They had in fact become quite friendly; having similar tastes in extracurricular activities, mutual secrets and a need to stick together). To all intents and purposes, the sinking of the 'Nightingale' had been quietly put aside. Left to a watery grave, alone, unloved and unattended.

And so it would have stayed, had it not been for Survivor who kept asking awkward questions and making friends with some lone wolves, who were outcast from the GV inner circle. Slowly but irrevocably the Survivor pieced the true story together, the wolves of course saw what was coming and decided to assist by asking some very awkward questions themselves, related to their work and why their expert opinions were being overridden and dismissed by what was, in their eyes, a jumped up, unqualified office wallah. And so the thick plottened and festered; hidden away from sight, on the back burner.

Now the King was a parliamentary, constitutional type of monarch, tolerated to an extent by the ruling party of nobles and common folk; but he had to mind his manners. One day, Survivor was overheard discussing the 'Nightingale' affair with one of the governing nobles by a reporter. Curious, the reporter offered Survivor a beer. A little later, across the road in the pub soon enough the story was told. Once the reporter realised that there was to be a noble involved, he set to work on a centrepiece story, with deep research, pictures and all the trimmings. The stench of a rotting carcass being irresistible.

Now children, we must leave the land of Faery behind and proceed very carefully in the very real, wicked world of men; for second coffee awaits (and a muffin, if we get lucky)....;)

= = = = = = = = = =

There you go Sarcs – enjoy: you owe me a beer you bugger.

Toot toot.....:D

Sarcs

23rd Aug 2014, 00:58

"K"- There you go Sarcs – enjoy: you owe me a beer you bugger. Small sacrifice for such an entertaining read...:ok:

Goes to show there is a small line between fiction and reality, which brings me to Part Four…:rolleyes: …Beating up a pilot or fooling a department head, or beguiling the public is one thing; but messing about with the Senate in this manner is beyond the pale and has ended with a MoP… Historically Senate MoPs (after all the rhetorical bluff & bluster) largely all fizzle out to nothing, the affected parties say their piece, no contempt is found and everyone kisses, makes up and pronounces the virtues of a plural democracy…yada..yada..:ugh:

However the two MoPs accepted by the Senate and referred to the Privileges Committee…

“…In the context of an inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations and Budget estimates hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in May 2013:
(a) whether disciplinary action was taken against either a witness before the committee or a person providing information to the committee; and
(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in respect of those matters…”

…carry a great deal more intrigue, especially as this motion was carried twice and the 2nd time by the Chairs of the RRAT Committee themselves...:cool:

Which represents a unique situation, as this unified response indicates that there is no politics involved and that the matter is considered of a serious enough nature that it has the full support of the whole committee.

The Committee Chairs in their MoP also took the unprecedented step to:(2) That, for the purpose of providing further information to the Committee of Privileges, the Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport have access to the records of the committee in the previous parliament.These records would not only include all the publicly available documentation but also all the ‘in confidence’ submissions, the incamera evidence given and the confidential interagency documents, basically all evidence held under parliamentary privilege.

Already we can see that the Privileges Committee have quite a job ahead of them...:uhoh:

The biggest point is that the RRAT committee are determined that the PC can examine all the evidence totally unencumbered by outside influence and free from all bias.

CCC moment: Long bow I know, cause the AFP are more than likely just going through the motions with their inquiries, but maybe there is another reason for the Chairs to include para (2) above. Not sure of the legal perspective but it is possible that by freeing up all information held under privilege from the AAI inquiry they can then also legally give access to the same evidence to the AFP.

As an example if we go back and truly analyse the chain of final bureau internal emails...

16 - Internal ATSB email- reviewer wanting to look more closely at FRMS and re-interview pilots (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 535KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=271d4949-ee61-47cb-b9a5-0cf956c7c7cd)

17 - Internal ATSB email- reviewer indicating they can't deviate at this point and they have to work with what they have (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 360KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=822b8c74-c6a2-418f-b773-bf9798200df8)

18 - Internal ATSB email regarding the inconsistency in safety knowledge of ATSB staff (dated 6 August 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1597KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=fb3d92b0-762f-45bd-9456-ab3f9e064f25)

...we can see that there was a very deep & bitter internal rift within the bureau and some of the anger generated was palpable.

A rehash of the final part of 6 August 2012 email: Many of my arguments that have been rejected have been ones where I have applied safety management methods and tools, and those arguments have been rejected by a reviewer who looks from a regulatory viewpoint instead of a safety management viewpoint. Yes, regulatory arguments are the easiest to defend, but the maintenance of high reliability, complex systems must rely on so much more than only regulatory compliance. To make useful comments on these matters relies on our belief in, and use of, contemporary safety management theories and methods. To me, this was particularly evident when CASA's Norfolk island audit report came into our hands, and some of the arguments I had tried unsuccessfully to include in the report were subsequently included on the basis of CASA's findings, not mine! When I have to rely on CASA's opinion to persuade the ATSB, How can I claim that the ATSB is independent when it investigates CASA? The (from for all intents and purposes one pissed off STSI) rant in the (6 August 2012 email) has some very clear messages that (still to this day) have quite obviously fallen on deaf ears in the upper echelons of the bureau & FF (who, it appears, are still hell bent on regulating aviation (big R) to within an inch of its life)...:ugh::ugh:

Simply put, as most of this would have been lost in translation for the AFP, what this STSI is saying is that the ‘white hats’ within the bureau were, very reluctantly, forced to accept the FF version of events (CAIR 09/3) as the final bureau version of events. {Comment: Basically (and thanks to PAIN you can check) the bureau ‘Final Report’ is a fleshed out version of CAIR 09/3.}

In the interest of being at least thorough (even if the AFP don’t give a rat’s arse), I believe that the unnamed STSI (probably former) should have been approached to at least give a statement on his/her version of events in regards to their involvement with the VH-NGA ditching investigation.
I also strongly suspect that this individual will be a late entrant and frontrunner to watch in the ‘MoP Stakes’, all theory of course…:E

MTF…:ok:

Kharon

23rd Aug 2014, 23:02

Sacs –"Long bow I know, cause the AFP are more than likely just going through the motions with their inquiries, but maybe there is another reason for the Chairs to include para (2) above. Not sure of the legal perspective but it is possible that by freeing up all information held under privilege from the AAI inquiry they can then also legally give access to the same evidence to the AFP.

To hit a very small target. Sunday speculation; couple or three options for consideration float to the surface for speculation on 'why' take the MoP road.

The lazy cynics can and do mount a good argument which is grounded in solid fact and evidence. Historically, all manner of 'inquiries' and the like have essentially come nought, except for those 'changes' wrought when there has been solid 'political' i.e. Ministerial support and a DAS who could be persuaded to at least enter the debate. There have been some brief periods where 'good sense' prevailed and reform encouraged. There is no need to regurgitate the sad history, students of that topic need no such lesson.

But I wonder; (Sunday ramble following) – Let's consider that the Pel Air ditching inquiry exposed the tip of a less than satisfactory system. That is plain enough for all to see, what was exposed stripped away much of the gilding on the CASA Lilly and tarnished the previously credible ATSB. That is the whole of Australia's aviation safety system oversight exposed to scrutiny and found wanting. This by extension casts doubt over every decision and edict CASA have made; for an example of how deep the wound is, there is no need to look past the TigerAir, Quadrio, James, Barrier, Airtex, Polar or Air North stories; it's all there writ large. Perhaps, the public, politicians and a good percentage of industry don't, can't or won't see the implications: furry muff; no reason why they should. A man like Xenophon however would intuitively 'smell a rat'. But to Fawcett, an accredited, trained, qualified and gifted expert with an inbuilt sense of duty to protect 'his' troops every warning bell must be ringing. Intuitively, cognitively and logically the 'wrongness' is clearly apparent..

The Senate committee must be hopping mad, in a bi-partisan way. Have they been condescended to?, have they been treated with contempt?, have they been bushwhacked by the Department?, is Truss attempting to derail the good intentions of and recommendations made by that committee?. IMO – yes to all.

To determined clever folk, the seemingly impenetrable barriers, which place CASA above the laws of man and the gods must be breached before any meaningful reform of the regulator, which must come before regulatory reform, can begin.

So, the question – is the MoP the Open Sesame (iftaḥ yā simsim) to the fabled thieves cave?

Don't know the answer, but I've bought a ticket to the show (dress circle). It is, I believe going to be a very interesting month or so.

“We’re eyeball to eyeball,” Secretary of State Dean Rusk whispered to National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, “and I think the other fellow just blinked.”

End Sunday ramble.

Toot toot.....:D

Sarcs

26th Aug 2014, 20:59

While waiting for the miniscule to blink..:zzz:..on any of a number of pending announcements and responses, which includes the release of the TSBC peer review report...:ugh: ..., I was reading through the TSBC clear, concise, no BS and thoroughly readable annual report (see here (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/publications/ann/2014/2013-2014.asp))...:D:D

Compared to the current muppets heading up the show, at our once dearly beloved bureau, the comparison is stark and quite frankly I'm envious. The following article IMO truly outlines the difference between a true (independent) safety watchdog and the muppet show we currently have..:=:TSB calls on government to fix ‘troubling’ aviation safety deficiencies (http://business.financialpost.com/2014/08/20/tsb-calls-on-government-to-fix-troubling-aviation-safety-deficiencies/)

The Transportation Safety Board says it’s “troubled” by unsafe practices in Canada’s air travel sector and called on the government to take action in order to prevent serious accidents.

“The slow pace of movement to address safety deficiencies in aviation compared to other modes of transportation is troubling,” the TSB said in its annual report, released Wednesday. “The board will continue to push hard for change.”

The independent safety watchdog listed four major areas of concern : crashes into land or water; collisions on runways; landing accidents; and the lack of safety management systems at small carriers.

In particular, the board drew attention to the fact that Transport Canada doesn’t require small carriers like commuter airlines, helicopter operators and flight training schools to have safety management systems in place.
Together, these smaller carriers are responsible for 94% of all commercial aviation accidents and 96% of all commercial aviation deaths, the TSB said.

“The board is concerned that, in the absence of [Transport Canada] requirements, the passengers and aircraft of these smaller operators are being placed at unnecessary risk,” according to the report.

The TSB added that Transport Canada has done little to encourage airports to prevent collisions on runways, of which there were 381 in 2013, and called for improved procedures and enhanced collision-warning systems.

The annual report also pointed out that Canada lags international standards when it comes to preventing landing accidents and runway overruns.
Transport Minister Lisa Raitt did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The TSB annual report comes one day after the board released its final report into the Lac-Mégantic derailment and explosion that killed 47 people last summer. It blamed many factors, but singled out Transport Canada for not forcing Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway to improve its safety record.

According to the TSB’s annual report, only 3 of 11, or 27%, of its rail safety recommendations have been addressed by Transport Canada in a “fully satisfactory” manner.

The board said it’s concerned that there is no requirement for on-board video and voice recorders on locomotives. It also said further safety measures should be implemented to ensure signals are consistently followed by train crews and to prevent passenger trains from colliding with vehicles.

In 2013, 1,067 rail accidents were reported to the TSB, up 4% from 2012. Accidents involving dangerous goods totaled 144, up from 119.
There were 275 aviation accidents in 2013, down 5% from a year earlier.

The 57 fatalities was slightly higher than the 2012 total of 54.
Financial Post Another big point of difference with the Canuck system is that their version of FF is completely contained within the Transport Canada and they also have a Transport Minister...:D (again I am envious).

Back to the TSBC peer review report, word is it is on the miniscule & REDs desk (the bureau muppet doesn't signify..:yuk:) and has been for quite sometime, which probably means it is not good..:=

Apparently DIPs were being kept informed on the progress of the report by the bureau's Governance Manager (see here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/pid_scheme.aspx)) but now even this joker has gone to ground...:{

Figures more of the same BS and arse covering by our fully independent safety watchdog?? What a crock!:ugh:

Muppet Show (MH370 series) - Brontosauri (here (http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Brontosauri)) & (head wobble) mi..mi..mi..Beaker take the stage..:E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVT2ENRvfVU

MTF...:ok:

Kharon

26th Aug 2014, 22:29

What I like about the Canadian report is the 'makes no bones about it' approach – they identify a problem and get it sorted.

Minuscule we know we have a problem; Canada, America; the UK; NZ; Europe; Africa; India: China; the whole flaming world and it's wife knows it. Hiding the blessed TSBC report proves nothing apart from Australia will not categorically acknowledge there are massive problems and will do anything rather than admit the fact and sort it out.

The problems are real the solutions have been provided by your Senate and by your ordered Forsyth report. At least allow Australia the dignity of being seen to address the issues and meeting the challenge. Believe it or not; we can do it with style and innovation.

Hell I'm only a tax paying citizen and the embarrassment makes me squirm; how the devil can you, as the responsible miniscule face it down? The publicly viewable Cock-up (aberration) has to be acceptable; the conspiracy to cover up the Cock-up will only expose Australia to more ridicule.

The problem with having ones head stuck in the sand is, that ones arse is stuck up in the air.

Toot, toot bloody toot....Well, I'm over it ain't I...:mad:

Up-into-the-air

28th Aug 2014, 06:37

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQ3wjfBDXkBqxdbWxAONNpwVf8stBZa87hQ7H7pxt Tj843LhvH9Q

Kharon

29th Aug 2014, 02:28

Why was this - ATSB (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-029.aspx#.U__Uc0qIx4M.twitter)- report delayed 30 months? and why was it released under the white noise coverage of Qantas and Virgin reports? Standing alone there is nothing overtly sensitive, except the incident was Feb 2012 the Senate inquiry started in October. It is noteworthy that no SR issued at the time, which is really the main duty of ATSB. But at least another, fluffy politically correct report was issued - eventually.

Why do we tolerate Beaker? he is even excluded from the Ministerial (tri-partite) briefing and left to scrounge what publicity crumbs he could, outside the main game, alone in the rain....

Stellar – absolutely what we have come to expect from the maestro of politically correct, beyond all reason safety reports.

Toot toot....:=

Frank Arouet

29th Aug 2014, 04:11

I believe some high ranking public servants are to be named in the report handed down by the Royal Commission into "pink batts". Be prepared to hear one very familiar to the Senate recordings read out.

Kharon

29th Aug 2014, 20:43

HMHB – 1177 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-59.html#post8629291) - "Send the DAS a Friday 16:59 fax.

Someone whispered in my ear today that there were indeed some 1659' ers despatched to request and require the attendance of several 'black-hats' to an 'independent' tribunal. Seems CASA have 'suddenly' (shock horror) discovered some public knowledge of a serious nature and decided to 'act' on it. The LSD problem of course is evidence, cold, hard, factual and empirical. The AFP, CDPP and the courts system is the right venue, not some cosy back room. None of this is to do with smoothing out the bumps before the reformers take over and those at the pointy end feel the wrath of course. Stable doors and bolting horses etc. methinks. Aye, but no doubt 'hehoodoovoodoo' will be viewed by history as acting 'impartially' in the matters presented; won't he??? Shirley cover-your-exposed-arse has nothing to do with the rush to reconciliation, Nah!

What was that expression – 'you can run, but you can't hide'; not from this story anyway. If you thought Hitchcock's "The Birds" was scary – wait until the Australian version is published. Remember; JQ may well be sworn into confidentiality; but no one else is. The tick tocking persists as three other time bombs await their turn.

Amazing when you think on; McComic buggers off and all of a sudden 'justice, well delayed' breaks out. Sad it's far too little, far too late and far too hard fought for.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.......John Donne.

Selah..

Frank Arouet

29th Aug 2014, 23:16

The acting DAS may have a few scores to settle while he has the reins. Hell! may even sacrifice a few to provide overhead cover, although I think what was whispered to you may be out of his theatre of operations.

I wonder what a "cost share" on an A380 works out at.

Soteria

30th Aug 2014, 00:59

Frank, would those be 'internal scores' to be settled? There aren't a lot of industry scores to settle that are left on the their books. They normally despatch an executioner pretty quickly when they feel the urge to draw blood. Many a chief pilot, airline management or HAAMC can attest to that. With a stacked ICC and equally dubious AAT plus the LSD which has been groomed from birth, along with a bottomless bucket of taxpayer money and successive crooked governments who have supported CASA's systamatic buggery of many an honest and compliant aviator, I see little chance of genuine change. Now 'Internal scores' are more challenging to settle due to that annoying thing called I.R laws and unions etc, so most 'trouble makers' are not easily dispatched to the history pages, but the normal process is to restructure them into a position they don't like, isolate them and create a department of just one, and so it goes. Eventually they either leave, become part of the cobwebs and spend the rest of their career bullying industry due to the massive chip on their shoulder and occasionally, only sometimes, do they join PPrune and become tendentious aviation bloggers. Tsk tsk.

Soteria

30th Aug 2014, 01:06

Lookleft

30th Aug 2014, 01:21

but the normal process is to restructure them into a position they don't like, isolate them and create a department of just one, and so it goes. Eventually they either leave, become part of the cobwebs

You obviously have some insight and experience in the workings of the modern public service Soteria. I know from a friend of mine that works in a different department that it is also a technique used. Simply because a physical disability required managers to put a bit more effort into managing. He was shuffled off to an area which like you stated became a department of one.

Had another friend in the PS who inconveniently didn't die from the life threatening illness he had gone on long term sick leave for, then came back to work only to find his job had been abolished!

Soteria

30th Aug 2014, 08:22

Lookleft, sorry to hear about your friends experiences in the PS, however they are indicative of how the beast works. They should be no place for bullying in the workplace, full stop, however CASA have turned the term 'bullying' into a national pastime, part of their culture, an acceptable way to enforce compliance or payback. If these psycophants weren't protected by the government and they worked within industry they would have their teeth kicked in. How somebody can put an innocent person out of business and take food from their children's mouths or rob a persons wife of a secure future or how they can sleep at night knowing they have screwed over somebody with a terminal illness or handicap is beyond me...
Anyway, let's hope, no let's demand that the regulator of the future is finally stopped from employing these despicable tactics.

Kharon

30th Aug 2014, 18:41

Soteria "Anyway, let's hope, no let's demand that the regulator of the future is finally stopped from employing these despicable tactics.

Second the motion. Not only should we demand an end to it; but some retrospective 'justice' for those who have been blighted, closely followed by public punishment and peer humiliation for those who merrily inflicted the damage. The unfortunate part is that the same illegal tactics cannot be used against; Golly the fuss if 'they' were treated to a dose of their own, unfair medicine. Mad when you think about it; do unto others; but don't do unto me; for I shall scream the bloody house down. Selah.

If the Senate committee could only achieve one thing, it must be putting an end to the odious administrative embuggerance, not only of operators but of individuals. The John Quadrio story is worthy of a Sunday newspaper feature article; his case is easily understood, which makes it a perfect introduction to several other personal and company cases, which are so truly disgraceful as to be almost (but not quite) unbelievable.

The McComic era has left a trail of devastation and destruction in it's wake, the roll call of travesty and bastardry is long and the clock is ticking.

Toot toot - (The fare remains the same, remember to book early during peak periods).

Kharon

1st Sep 2014, 21:33

The article below is, IMO applicable to Australia. It's not too long and worth a read.

John Goglia (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ain-blog-torqued-faa-breaking-law-enforce-it).. "Far more troubling, however, is a recent report of a breach of confidentiality of an Asap report when copies of the airman’s report were emailed to multiple people outside those authorized to receive reports. This is disturbing because without confidence in the confidentiality of the Asap system, airmen will not file and the FAAand the industry will be left without the benefit of data that only frontline employees are likely to have. In fact, after this breach of confidentiality, the number of Asap reports dropped sharply, along with NASA reports that are frequently filed by airline employees at the same time. (According to NASA data, with more than 1.1 million Aviation Safety Reporting System reports received over a 38-year period, confidentiality has never been breached.)"

FWIW.

Sarcs

3rd Sep 2014, 05:59

Top catch "K".. :ok:..this bit sounds oh so familiar..:yuk: (my bold)

"...While the airmen lost their cases before the NTSB Administrative Law Judge, the full Board dismissed the FAA’s case, finding the airmen had been actually prejudiced by the FAA’s three-year delay..."

And the typical disbelief quite often witnessed here in the course of many an AAT hearing...

"...I still can’t understand why the FAA needed the NTSB to tell it that it was patently unfair to revoke the certificates of two airmen three years after it learned of alleged violations and after they had worked on airliners for those three years..."

John Goglia is quite obviously a true industry advocate and it is definitely worth regurgitating many of his articles…:cool:

For now though, I wish to pay kudos to a journo, of the local variety, that in one opinion piece totally sums up the ‘Yes Minister’ syndrome that afflicts the halls, offices and five star restaurants of Cantberra where the political elite and bureaucratic Mandarins gorge on taxpayer funded troughs…:ugh:

Miranda Devine - Insulation batts scandal: A Rudd in the roof (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/insulation-batts-scandal-a-rudd-in-the-roof/story-fni0cwl5-1227045576416) -:D:D

Love this bit..:E

“…The bureaucracy virus has seeped into every orifice of this country — from the bloated human resources departments of corporations to the vast ranks of public servants busy spinning their wheels, to the unnatural addiction Australia has for consultants — making us the 2nd highest user in the world of McKinsey-style hot shots. It’s all easier than actually doing something useful, but it’s killing us…”

Hmm..not a good look (for pumpkin head) RED and his cronies!:=

MTF…:ok:

thorn bird

3rd Sep 2014, 09:50

Ouch!! Sarcs'y!!!,

someone should ask her to have a look at CAsA.

How many "McKinsey-style hotshots" feed at the CAsA trough?

How many of those "Hotshots" were originally CAsA employee's??

How many of those "Hotshots" are receiving considerably more in remuneration as "Hotshots" than they ever received as full time employee's??

and people say CAsA is not corrupt!!

Loved this bit, sound like CAsA?? you bet!!

"Hanger’s examination of what went wrong provides a rare forensic picture into the internal dysfunction of modern bureaucracies, with public servants busy, busy, busy having meetings and exchanging emails, but never realising they were achieving nothing except meeting and exchanging emails".

I hear rumours that a new DAS will not be appointed until the beginning of next year, supposedly because "whoever" is from overseas and need's time to relocate.

Oh how I pray its Mike Smith, but that would probably be too much to wish for, given the extent of the "iron rings" rear guard action.

There's not much hope for a reforming DAS.

Poor old miniscule has been blitzed with dire predictions of what will happen if their is a change in the status quo.

We all know he lacks "Pendulous stability"...(no balls).

That leaves F%ck-whit-son in charge for four months, with no chance of any change from the Comics policies of embuggerance, so I expect the 1659 Friday faxes will continue unabated.

Four months will also give the cost burden of Part 61 to bite, just in time for Part 135 to sail over the parapet and complete the ethnic cleansing of GA.

What really gets in my craw is, saving GA in Australia is so simple, it lies across the Tasman!!

Kharon

3rd Sep 2014, 19:48

TB. –"Oh how I pray its Mike Smith, but that would probably be too much to wish for, given the extent of the "iron rings" rear guard action.
If Mike Smith has not been offered the post then the Bored has made it's first and probably fatal error. Mike could be on a jet and here ready to roll next week and does not need an introductory quarter year to be groomed by the Iron Rong. He'd hit the ground running and relax the ICAO/FAA nerves; the kudos from the Nigerian job alone would do the job.

Is giving Farq-u-hard-son a four month window of opportunity to cover up, shred and build a defence for likes of the McComic fifth column a second grave error? The smell of roses will be overpowering by the time the 'new boy' lobs in. By the time the new chum can find the exec dunny the GWM will be lined up, smiling faces, clean boots and spotless reputations. Probably not; there are 'other' ways to prevent this nightmare from becoming reality.

On the positive side , the GWM are playing against a first class team and perhaps will be back in the pavilion before the new boy arrives; Fawcett et al, plus the bored powerhouse of Boyd, Danos, Smith and Taylor can make some clear air, clear out the rubbish and get the brakes on before the Part 61 lunacy cripples what's left of industry and those who have invested heavily in it. Golly, if Truss has an epiphany and the rumours of ministerial displeasure pan out, it could just be an interesting quarter year.

We must hope that other, darker forces are in play and that the fumigators, pest exterminators, painters and decorators are sent in before the new boy arrives. In the unlikely event that the few brain cells available are used, the Acting DAS could start dishing out the parachutes while there are still some available, before the rush.

Toot toot.

Sarcs – that makes twice this week we have been impressed by the MSM journalists. What a shame that Ms. Devine or Ms. McCarthy don't report on matters 'aeronautical'; with that level of insight, talent and skill at work, it would be worth buying a newspaper again. The Telegraph article places a large red dot on some rather exposed fundamental orifices. Wasn't the Murky Machiavellian crew deeply implicated in the 'Pink Bats' saga ?– Oh dear; how very unfortunate...:sad:

Soteria

4th Sep 2014, 00:05

I agree, handing the keys to the lolly shop to Terry for 4 months could see the shelves stripped bare and all the kids running about in a sugar induced panic!
However the problem is that if an international candidate has been given the green light, it will likely be a high level person who will need a good 3 months or so to disconnect from his current organisation, empower a substitute and then relocate himself down under, a process which understandably takes several months, so it is a catch 22 situation.
If 'sleepy Terry' had half a brain he would see what is coming and start massaging his troops in preparation of the inbound new DAS by cutting loose all the driftwood, cleaning out the cupboards and mentally preparing his senior people for the changes that will occur when the new DAS hits the ground running. But of course this is all based on a lot of "iff's and maybe's" isn't it?

A Mike Smith did you say? Mmmmm that would certainly be good for Australian aviation, I just hope that he will be handed a top secret intelligence report relating to the GWM who will be his number one enemy and roadblock to real change.

Frank Arouet

4th Sep 2014, 00:40

Mike Smith has a major problem in that he is not from Cathay. Be this as it may, not all the following are from Cathay-Swire either;

Bartsch.
Jenson.
Hall.
Ronald McDonald.
Quinn.

False economy

4th Sep 2014, 06:47

Spot on bro

scrubba

4th Sep 2014, 16:26

Frank,

Mentioning Mike in the same post as that crowd of "all flash no substance" names is very revealing as to your perspicacity :ugh:

Kharon

4th Sep 2014, 22:05

Naughty of Voltaire, I know, but it had to be done; Mike Smith is (IMO) one the very few men 'right' for the job; if he is not recruited as DAS then he should be 2IC; replacing some of the 'top trough' dwellers. IF, that is the reform is not to be another Pink Bat fiasco or another disgraceful airport smoke and mirrors debacle.

I expect the Senate will be interested to see if 'CASA' is ever going to allow the release of the TSBC report. The rumour is that the TSBC have released it; ATSB have seen it as has Truss, but 'CASA' are blocking the publication. Although why is a mystery; what TF has it to do with CASA or the Murky Machiavellian puppet master crew is beyond my humble reach. Normally a tale like that would be dismissed out of hand; but with so much going on behind closed doors, it's hard to know what to believe.

This is why there must be at least one honest man at the top table, just to keep the rest honest and I for one would trust Mike Smith to do exactly that. He's probably had a DCM by now, considering the dark powers at work in the underworld. The silly buggers have probably promoted one (if not both) of the GWM Wodgers in the sure and certain knowledge that embuggerance rules supreme at Sleepy Hollow.

Smoke, mirrors and pink bats to keep your arse warm – for all.

Toot toot.

Dangly Bits

5th Sep 2014, 01:16

Mike Smith was told he is no longer in the running for the job.

Good luck Aviation Industry! You are going to need it!

A great opportunity squandered once again!

Prince Niccolo M

6th Sep 2014, 08:23

Dear Miniscule,

If Mike Smith has been considered not good enough for the DAS appointment :ugh:, then be warned that the person you appoint must have demonstrably superior skills, knowledge and regulatory experience that are credible in the eyes of the industry if you are not about to embark on a second wave of dissent in the aviation regulatory space. :=

If you pick a dud, neither you nor your appointee will get any slack in the Parliament or the press... :O :*

Kharon

6th Sep 2014, 18:35

Flashman – by G.M. Fraser has long been one of my top 10 reads. Our erstwhile DPM reminds me of the Flashman description of General William Elphinstone. a.k.a. Elphy Bey. The parallels irresistibly draw the reader to the inevitable conclusion.

But I still state unhesitatingly, that for pure, vacillating stupidity, for superb incompetence to command, for ignorance combined with bad judgment --in short, for the true talent for catastrophe -- Elphy Bey stood alone. Others abide our question, but Elphy outshines them all as the greatest military idiot of our own or any other day.

Only he could have permitted the First Afghan War and let it develop to such ruinous defeat. It was not easy: he started with a good army, a secure position, some excellent officers, a disorganised enemy, and repeated opportunities to save the situation. But Elphy, with the touch of true genius, swept aside these obstacles with unerring precision, and out of order wrought complete chaos. We shall not, with luck, look upon his like again.

And later, when Elphy’s incompetence causes things to go from bad to worse to downright disastrous:

Possibly there has been a greater shambles in the history of warfare than our withdrawal from Kabul; probably there has not…I am at a loss for words to describe the superhuman stupidity, the truly monumental incompetence, and the bland blindness to reason of Elphy Bey and his advisers. If you had taken the greatest military geniuses of the ages, placed them in command of our army, and asked them to ruin it utterly as speedily as possible, they could not – I mean it seriously -- have done it as surely and swiftly as he did. And he believed he was doing his duty. The meanest sweeper in our train would have been a fitter commander.

You can see what I mean – the train wreck is occurring as we speak – the only mystery remaining is where will the wreckage lay when it stops. IF the unthinkable happens and there are almost 60 outstanding recommendations for reform, a damning Senate report and a damning Government report and a demeaning international report gathering dust on the minuscule's desk then the fall of a government would be inevitable.

You are being badly and deceitfully advised Minister; appoint Mike Smith with David Fawcett to oversight; and deal with the very real issues before disaster (in one form or another) strikes. Shirley there must be one of the 'inner circle' who can see through this flummery and advise the Minister that Pink Bats in the belfry may sound like one of those good ideas, but get it wrong and lives are lost.

Selah.

Sarcs

7th Sep 2014, 01:08

Kharon - You are being badly and deceitfully advised Minister; appoint Mike Smith with David Fawcett to oversight; and deal with the very real issues before disaster (in one form or another) strikes. Shirley there must be one of the 'inner circle' who can see through this flummery and advise the Minister that Pink Bats in the belfry may sound like one of those good ideas, but get it wrong and lives are lost.
The fallout from the HIP RC is unlikely to claim any major public service heads (at least at the level of RED & his fellow Mandarins) but it is still not a good look:Findings against public servants in royal commission ‘regrettable’ (http://www.themandarin.com.au/2469-department-considers-call-act-pink-batts-bureaucrats/?pgnc=1)

The royal commission says public servants should be examined for wrongdoing in the home insulation rollout. The Public Service Commission calls it “regrettable”.

The public service commissioner says it’s “regrettable” findings were made against senior public servants in the royal commission into home insulation. And the federal department responsible for the management of the botched pink batts program is examining the recommendations, including whether senior public servants should face action. It has been the long held belief that the primary role of the Mandarins is to protect their Minister first & foremost, while administering the Government of the day's policy agenda. But has the HIP RC opened up a rift between Executive Government and the PS Mandarins? And as a consequence will Ministers now be looking more retrospectively at the proposed advisements from their senior bureaucrats??

So RED is probably high enough up the food chain to be filtered from any real scrutiny in the aftermath of the HIP RC but will he escape such scrutiny in certain other areas that fall within his remit??

It has been suggested that one major area of vulnerability for RED is Government leased airports. Since Senator Fawcett's first foray into Senate Estimates one of his major campaigns has been to expose this vulnerability of RED and his Department.

The following is a long passage of Hansard from the Supp Estimates from October 2011 but it is IMO important to put in full:
Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing what those comments are. I do not believe that those comments are in any way reflective of the regulatory arrangements and the actual situation at a number of airports, particularly those. I am aware of recent criticism of decisions, but I do not think that some of the media commentary reflects the facts.
In essence our role is set out in the act and also under the airport leases, which provide for the way in which we go about ensuring that the airport master plan provides for growth at the airports for aeronautical and non-aeronautical activity and to make sure that demand is being met. We also have a range of statutory requirements in relation to building control, environmental regimes and operations of the airport that we administer. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority obviously has responsibility for safety at the airports.
In relation to particular planning matters there are obviously differences of views at times between those of the airport operators in relation to development and those of some of the customers at that airport, particularly general aviation customers. I would characterise that at times as being robust, but I do not believe I would agree at any time that the act, the regs and the statutory requirements have not been met.
Senator FAWCETT: You mentioned that one of your requirements it to ensure the potential for growth. Are you referring there to growth in the aviation use of the airport or growth in the commercial use of the airport?
Mr Mrdak: Both. Our primary focus is to make sure the airports are available to provide facilities for aviation growth. That is the primary focus of the master planning process and the way in which we regulate the airports.
Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if we go to a couple of examples that might help to unpack some of the concerns of industry. We will start with Archerfield and runway 28 right in particular. There have been some concerns in terms of the new corporate hangars and warbird hangars that have been built very close to runway 28 right and the impact that has in terms of instrument flight rules departures from that runway. One of the initial actions when that was raised was that the runway take-off distance available was shortened. If you look at the on-route supplement in the annexe at the rear, that restriction is still there. That starts to limit the type of aircraft that you can operate. If you are looking to operate a business jet or even something like a King Air 350, for example—which in Archerfield's case would need a weight exemption—that starts limiting rather than enhancing the growth of the airport. Can you explain that inconsistency for me?
Mr Mrdak: I am not sure there is. I will ask Mr Doherty to comment. I am certainly not aware that there has been any restriction on anyone's ability to operate from that field.
Senator FAWCETT: Shortening the runway is one heck of a restriction.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing whether that has actually in practice impacted on any operation, but I will ask Mr Doherty to comment on the specifics.
Mr Doherty: Certainly the intention would not be to allow a development which was going to restrict the nature of the operation. I am aware that there has been controversy over a couple of buildings at Archerfield and I understand that there was basically disagreement between experts as to the extent to which that may or may not affect the operations of some aircraft at that airport. My understanding was that the most recent exercise on that was a study by the ATSB that indicated that those structures were, in fact, not an issue, so there was not an ongoing program. I am interested to hear you say that the restriction is still reflected in the documentation. The way the process should work would be that, if the airport lessee proposes a development, if would go through a building control process and would be referred to the expert agencies—in this case particularly, Air Services and CASA—for them to comment on any possible interference with aviation operations. As I understand in that case, it must have been around the interpretation at that stage. While it was given the clearance at the time, I think there are others who felt subsequently that it should not have been. But as I said, I thought the latest on that episode was that the ATSB had had a close look at it and advised that they did not see this as a problem.
Senator FAWCETT: You are correct that the ATSB did do an investigation and you are correct that there was a difference of opinion; but, interestingly, the ATSB investigation appears to have made the same error of interpretation of the Manual of Standards part 139, which looks at obstacle clearances, in that there are actually two tables in the back of that chapter which determine clearance gradients required. They took table 7.1, which applies to approach and landing clearances, and table 7.1-2 applies to the take-off requirement and expands the runway width requirement from 150 to 180 metres. With that, the splay that then goes out puts those two buildings well and truly in the zone where it impacts on the capability to use that for departures.
Mr Doherty: I am not able to comment that—that is not an area within my expertise—but it may be a matter that you can take up with ATSB.
CHAIR: Rather than spending the next 20 minutes inquiring, is this the place for Senator Fawcett to ask the questions about his concerns or is it ATSB?
Senator FAWCETT: If I can continue, all I am doing is highlighting an example. We have had the secretary tell us that everything is rosy. I have three or four examples where quite clearly the process of checking, verification and independent audit of the advice, whether it is given by the airport operator, by a consultant or by CASA in some cases has not been taken up and acted on appropriately by the department. That is the issue at hand, so all that detail was merely an example where due diligence has not been applied to a process and the end result is operational restrictions on people at the airport, which flies directly in the face of the stated intention of providing paths for growth for the airport.
CHAIR: Okay. This is fantastic. From a truckie to a test pilot, I do not mind what you do. What I am trying to say is we are not going to sit here all night if there is a quicker way of you getting answers. I am just going to put it to you that way. So I go back to my original question: are we in the right area?
Mr Mrdak: I think there are a range of issues Mr Doherty has been discussing with the senator. I think we need to have a look at what the senator wishes to put forward.
Mr Wolfe: I may add something. With regard to those particular claims that you have indicated in relation to the ATSB advice, my understanding is that the ATSB has responded to those claims, so I would definitely suggest you take it up with the ATSB.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, let us have a look at the runway and safety area at the end of runway 28 right. You talked about the fact that there is a building inspector who works for the federal government, who is supposed to be involved as part of that development process. In fact the Archerfield Airport Corporation on their website when they talk about developments, very clearly lay out the criteria that should trigger the involvement of a federal agency, and the auction site which has been built in that safety area—or just over the road but still in the area concerned—was not referred—and please correct me if I am wrong—to the building inspector. The airport made their own determination that the site, which was a hardstand for the purpose of auctioning and selling large trucks and machinery and those sorts of things, did not constitute something that they needed to actually involve the federal government in.
Speaking as a professional pilot—and, thankfully, most of my aviation experience in single-engine aircraft means that I have had an ejection seat—if I have a large obstacle in front of me and the engine fails, I can leave the aircraft. The people on the ground will suffer the consequences. In this case part of the requirement in place is that the Queensland government has identified public safety areas around the runway ends.
CHAIR: If there is a question, Senator Fawcett, I would urge you to get to it, please.
Senator FAWCETT: My question is: why are the checks and balances not in place to make sure that when things occur that impact operations on airports which still come under Commonwealth or, where by lease, Commonwealth control, that the airport operator does actually refer things? And, if the subsequent activities on that land break state regulations, why are the checks and balances not there to make sure that we are supporting safe operations at airports? The Commonwealth has said that it wants to work with the state, and the minister has said in his recent speeches that he wishes to integrate more with the state and make sure we work with them. Clearly, the system has broken down in this case.
Mr Doherty: We may need to look more closely at the particular case, but my understanding is that, yes, there is a Queensland policy relating to public safety zones, and certainly in the white paper and beyond we are keen to have that reflected in planning particularly on the airport but also off-airport to the extent that it can. Those policies operate in different ways to define an area within which activity should be restricted because of the risk of exposing either the aircraft or persons on the ground to the risk of damage and, while it might be slight, it becomes a problem.
It does not work as a complete prohibition, however. There may be a range of activities which are still permissible in that area if they do not involve bringing a large concentration of people. So while it might be inappropriate to have a large shopping centre or something like that which involves congregating large groups of people, it may be quite appropriate to have a longstay car park or something which does not involve having large groups of people there at one time.
My understanding of that case is that it has been looked at and that the nature of the activity conducted there does not infringe the public safety zone policy. But it is something that we can take further advice on.
Senator FAWCETT: I would ask you to, and to take that on notice. Certainly what is there, and there is photographic evidence of it being there—large pieces of plant as well as many members of the public attending auctions at that location—is problematical. As you read both the Queensland legislation and the federal, the obligation is a two-way street. One is to protect people on the ground—and there was an accident adjacent to that location a number of years ago when the pilot, and four people working in a factory, were killed when an aircraft crashed. There is also the obligation to the aircraft and its pilot and passengers to provide safety in a zone which is one of the most critical areas. US studies show that about 80 per cent of accidents occur in that area on takeoff, or landing when there is an undershoot, if you have an engine failure. The obligation is on your department to make sure that we provide a safe area around airports so that in the event of an emergency the pilots do have somewhere to land. It is not like military aircraft with ejection seats and the options to try and turn back. Civilians are constrained—
CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, I will remind you that if there is a question would you please come to it. The questions are very important, but I do not honestly believe we need all the preamble. You have the call and I urge you to get to the question.
Mr Wilson: We will take the issue with regard to the end zone at Archerfield on notice and provide the committee with a detailed response.
Senator FAWCETT: About the process: there was a repcon in Flight Safety Australia recently, which looked at the issue of building approvals again, this time well away from the airport. But things that affect what are called the PANS-OPS clearance requirements for aircraft that are in IFR—so they cannot see. What became very clear in that repcon was that as the redacted report went to different agencies the airport operators said, 'It is up to CASA'. And CASA said, 'We can't, actually—it's up to the department'. The department came back and said, 'Look, processes are in place'. But we have seen over the years that rather than saying, 'No, you can't build a building, because that actually infringes the requirements,' the building has gone ahead and instead there has been a reactive approach where the gradients and flight settings increase.
Senator Carr: Be fair. The minister put out a white paper on these issues, the first that had ever actually been produced by the Commonwealth. It outlined the procedures with regard to planning for development around airports. You have raised some issues with regard to one site, which the department has undertaken to have a look at. But I do think we have to get this in context; none of this work was ever done before.
Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
Mr Doherty: There is work on foot on this. We do take the protection of those services very seriously. There is the OLS relating to visual flight and the PANS-OPS relating to instrument flight. The PANS-OPS is seen as non-negotiable; there is no scope for an intrusion into the PANS-OPS for any particular time.
We have provisions in the Commonwealth legislation which are designed to provide notice of proposed buildings which would go close to the controlled surface, to allow those to be assessed and to make a judgement. We are currently working with a group of state officials to try to do a couple of things. One is to make sure that those sorts of controls are expanded properly into airports which are not controlled under the Commonwealth's Airports Act provisions. And secondly, to make sure that we have robust arrangements in place for how they are administered. So we are keen to work on making sure that we have the right arrangements in place to make sure those are given effect to. We agree with you: those are extremely important.
Senator FAWCETT: I think if you look into it—and again, I am happy to be corrected—I believe that there are at least two examples in Brisbane and Sydney where the PANS-OPS base has been increased as a result of buildings that have gone up and have not been blocked, even though under our ICAO obligations we are supposed to. I encourage you to look into that and, if I could put that on notice to come back to me—
Mr Wilson: If you could put those two examples on notice that would be helpful.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly.
The Fawcett QONs and RED's answers can be read HERE (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rat_ctte/estimates/sup_1112/infra/aaa.ashx)

We then jump to the Supp Estimates for 2012 where DF began with this...

"...I will just distribute this map. Mr Mrdak, I am sure you would be disappointed if I did not come back to the issue of leased airports and the lot of operators on airports versus airport use..." :D:D

Fawcett v Mrdak on Airports Senate Estimates 16/10/12 - YouTube

And if you thought that with the Coalition winning government that party politic may force DF to blunt his Airports campaign think again...:E

Senate Estimates 27/05/14 - Fawcett & Airports - YouTube

The parallels between the HIP RC disturbing findings against the PS and the apparent Dept obfuscation of Govt leased airports, may seem tenuous but there is no doubt that Senator Fawcett will not let up till it is sorted, & hopefully before an RC is called...:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

Ps Hmm...I hear Barnaby, DF & NX are very close??:E

Sarcs

9th Sep 2014, 09:08

From Kharon's - SHAME for Truss. (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-62.html#post8645357) :D:DAt the moment the CASA is staring down a damning report from a Senate committee, which through the investigation of one small incident uncovered a nightmare web of deception, incompetence, 'flexibility' of standards and a total disregard of expert advice. Notwithstanding the flagrant disregard for due process, protocol and the law the most sinister aspect of CASA process was revealed – a willingness to cloud over or cover up the absolute shambles. There can, from the evidence provided, be seen a clear trail of collusion, second agenda and the absolutely crystal clear intention of the manager overseeing the process to manipulate the investigation to suit a predetermined outcome. On May 23, 2013 the Senate released a damning report which, supported by an acknowledged aviation expert, made 26 serious, far reaching recommendations for reform of the regulator, which have simply been ignored by the current Minister, the CASA board and CASA. Senator Fawcett speech - AAI Report, 20 June 2013 - YouTube

Senator Xenophon adjournment speech 04/03/2014 - YouTube

And in an earlier post the Ferryman revealed (if true) a very disturbing rumour...:=:=:I expect the Senate will be interested to see if 'CASA' is ever going to allow the release of the TSBC report. The rumour is that the TSBC have released it; ATSB have seen it as has Truss, but 'CASA' are blocking the publication. Although why is a mystery; what TF has it to do with CASA or the Murky Machiavellian puppet master crew is beyond my humble reach. Normally a tale like that would be dismissed out of hand; but with so much going on behind closed doors, it's hard to know what to believe.
A mystery indeed...:cool: Also passing strange is how the ATsB 'go to' man, who was tasked with keeping all interested parties updated with the progress of the TSBC peer review, has from all reports suddenly gone mute?? Ironically this individual also heads up the ATsB Public Interest Disclosure scheme, see here (http://atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/pid_scheme.aspx):

A public interest disclosure can be reported to any of the following authorised officers in the ATSB:

Wayne Artuso, Governance Manager
Email: [email protected]
Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer
Email: [email protected]
Julian Walsh, General Manager, Strategic Capability
Email: [email protected]
Peter Foley, General Manager, Surface Safety Investigations
Email: [email protected]
Ian Sangston, General Manager, Aviation Safety Investigations
Email: [email protected]
For more information about the making a public interest disclosure involving the ATSB, please contact Wayne Artuso, Governance Manager, by phone 02 6274 6595 or 1800 020 616 or email [email protected]. ([email protected])
Oh well whatever FF (and by association M&M) are trying to cover up, there is no doubt in my mind that the TSBC report cannot be stellar in it's appraisal of the ATsBeaker...:(

Despite the attempts of obfuscation, by parties outside of our supposedly independent AAI, the TSBC report will eventually have to be released, after all the TSBC have a seriously stellar reputation to uphold...:E

Finally it should again be highlighted that it is within the power of the miniscule to force the release of the TSBC report.

Shame on you miniscule..SHAME!:=

Soteria

9th Sep 2014, 11:11

Sarcs, if Truss won't release the TSBC report, perhaps this deceitful act can be leveraged off? You see, it cost the Canucks money to prepare and carry out their audit of the ATSBeaker. They then had to expend resources writing the final report, and the airfares, accommodation, travel allowances, mini bar bills and stuffed miniature kangaroos will have cost the Canucks a specific sum of their own taxpayer monies would it not? And even if the ATSBeaker footed the bill, the Canucks still had to send their people down under for a set period of time, disadvantaging their own department. So with that in mind, wouldn't the Canadian taxpayer want to see some evidential results of the trip down under, such as an audit report? Don't they want to see exactly what it was that their tax money was being used for? Regardless of what our Minister of coverups is doing here, why don't the Canucks release the audit report on their own website? Makes me wonder whether unlike in Australia, the Canadians have some sympathetic or even interested media outlets or industry people who would be interested in seeing the report and results of what their people did when down under? Surely the Canadians, who have learned a lot of lessons and have lead the field in aviation safety have their own international IOS affiliates?

Now wouldn't that be embarrassing if the Canucks apparent gesture of good will turned into an international bonfire? Oh dear, we know how much Governments hate bad press and hate bad relationships between normally friendly nations.
What do you think Minister, should the Australian chapter of the IOS take their concerns about your tactics of burying important and critical reports to a new level and commence a campaign for transparency upon our Canadian neighbours?

Sarcs

10th Sep 2014, 03:07

Top idea Soty…:D:What do you think Minister, should the Australian chapter of the IOS take their concerns about your tactics of burying important and critical reports to a new level and commence a campaign for transparency upon our Canadian neighbours?
Apparently, unlike our mob, the Canucks are big on transparency (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/divulgation-disclosure/index.asp) and accountability, example: Core Control Audit of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada January 2013 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/divulgation-disclosure/aip/2013/vcb-cca2012-2013.asp)

“…Canadians expect the federal government to be well managed and to be accountable for the prudent stewardship of public funds; the safeguarding of public assets; and the effective, efficient, and economical use of public resources. They also expect reliable and transparent reporting on how the government spends public funds to achieve results for Canadians.

The Financial Administration Act designates deputy heads as accounting officers for their department or agency. As accounting officers, deputy heads are accountable for ensuring that resources are organized to deliver departmental objectives in compliance with government policy and procedures; ensuring that there are effective systems of internal control; signing departmental accounts; and performing other specific duties assigned by law or regulation to the administration of their department or agency.

Core Control Audits are important as they provide deputy heads with assurance on the effectiveness of core controls over financial management in their respective organizations. By doing so, Core Control Audits inform deputy heads of their organization’s level of compliance with key requirements contained in selected financial legislation, policies, and directives…” :ok:

Not to mention the TSBC fiercely protect their independence and adhere strenuously to their mission mandate (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/qui-about/mission-mandate.asp):

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-23.4/index.html) provides the legal framework that governs TSB activities. Our mandate is to advance transportation safety in the marine, pipeline, rail and air modes of transportation by

conducting independent investigations, including public inquiries when necessary, into selected transportation occurrences in order to make findings as to their causes and contributing factors;
identifying safety deficiencies, as evidenced by transportation occurrences;
making recommendations designed to eliminate or reduce any such safety deficiencies; and
reporting publicly on our investigations and on the findings in relation thereto.
As part of its ongoing investigations, the TSB also reviews developments in transportation safety and identifies safety risks that it believes government and the transportation industry should address to reduce injury and loss.
To instill confidence in the public regarding the transportation accident investigation process (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/index.asp), it is essential that an investigating agency be independent and free from any conflicts of interest when investigating accidents, identifying safety deficiencies, and making safety recommendations. As such, the TSB is an independent agency, separate from other government agencies and departments, that reports to Parliament through the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (http://www.houseleader.gc.ca/eng/content/honourable-peter-van-loan). Our independence enables us to be fully objective in making findings as to causes and contributing factors, and in making transportation safety recommendations.

In making its findings as to the causes and contributing factors of a transportation occurrence, it is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability. However, the Board does not refrain from fully reporting on the causes and contributing factors merely because fault or liability might be inferred from the Board’s findings. No finding of the Board should be construed as assigning fault or determining civil or criminal liability. Findings of the Board are not binding on the parties to any legal, disciplinary, or other proceedings.Hmm..so Soteria who do you propose we pitch the IOS request to?? Any ideas?? :rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

ps Soteria top handle..:D..but I would never have guessed you to be female..;): SOTERIA was the goddess or spirit (http://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/personifications.html) (daimon) of safety, and of deliverance and preservation from harm.

Capn Bloggs

10th Sep 2014, 03:18

The Canadians pulled no punches in the recent report into the 737 CFIT...

Sarcs

10th Sep 2014, 03:38

Indeed Bloggsy and they're not going to let up on their SR being adequately addressed either..:D:D:News release (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/communiques/autres-other/2014/reg-2014-20140902.asp)
Voluntary approach to address recommendation from the 2011 Resolute Bay air accident may not go far enough

Gatineau, Quebec, 2 September 2014 — The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) today released its assessment of Transport Canada’s response to Recommendation A14-01 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandations-recommendations/aviation/2014/rec_a1401.asp), made following the release of the investigation report (A11H0002) into the 20 August 2011 controlled flight into terrain of a Boeing 737 in Resolute Bay, Nunavut. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and an ensuing post-crash fire. Eight passengers and all four crew members died, and three passengers were seriously injured.

In this accident, the aircraft arrived high and fast on final approach, was not configured for landing on a timely basis, had not intercepted the localizer, and was diverging to the right. This approach was not considered stabilized in accordance with the company’s stabilized approach criteria, and the situation required a go-around. Instead, the approach was continued. When the crew initiated a go-around, it was too late to avoid the impact with terrain. The Board recommended that Transport Canada require operators of large commercial aircraft (Canadian Aviation Regulations [CARs] Subpart 705 operators) to monitor and reduce the incidence of unstable approaches that continue to a landing.

In response, Transport Canada issued a Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) in which Subpart 705 operators are encouraged to use their safety management systems (SMS) to identify the incidence of unstable approaches and to develop mitigation measures for the risks they pose.

Additionally, the CASA referenced the voluntary use of flight data monitoring (FDM) in order to gain a greater understanding of unstable approaches and the causes. The CASA was also distributed to Subpart 703 and 704 operators (smaller air carriers) to encourage voluntary participation in mitigation activity. In June 2015, Transport Canada will commence follow-up surveillance activity with operators to see what measures have been put in place to mitigate the risk. Operators who indicate they do not have a problem will be asked to substantiate this
conclusion.

“Unstable approaches continue to be a high risk to safe flight operations in Canada and worldwide,” said Kathy Fox, Chair of the TSB. “Although TC’s Safety Alert is a positive step, it will be some time before the effectiveness of this voluntary approach can be validated.”

The Board noted that SMS has been in place for several years for Subpart 705 operators, yet the incidence of unstable approaches has not been effectively addressed. As well, if a flight data monitoring program is not required by the regulator, operators may not have the data to assess the risk to their operation posed by unstable approaches. Therefore, the Board has assessed the response to Recommendation A14-01 as Satisfactory in Part (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandations-recommendations/rg.asp) and it will continue to monitor progress.

The TSB is an independent agency that investigates marine, pipeline, railway and aviation transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.

For more information, contact:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Media Relations
819-994-8053 Quite amusing is the Canucks interpretation for CASA - Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA)...:E

Kharon

10th Sep 2014, 21:07

Soteria –"Now wouldn't that be embarrassing if the Canucks apparent gesture of good will turned into an international bonfire?

Sarcs – "Not to mention the TSBC fiercely protect their independence and adhere strenuously to their mission mandate."

Bloggs –"The Canadians pulled no punches in the recent report into the 737 CFIT."

So why then is the TSBC report not published and gathering dust along with the AAI and ASSR reports on the miniscule's desk. In combination they add up to a very real, ugly issue against the national interest; just on a fiscal level alone. The long suffering fare and tax paying public should be asking awkward questions. The money pumped through the 'safety pipeline' running to waste is a national disgrace and with every family feeling the pinch I'm certain that funding to could be put to a better purpose.

If Truss isn't man enough to do the job and won't hire a man like Mike Smith who will, perhaps it's time to start asking for the Truss resignation; before broken Abbott promises becomes the opposition theme song, after the next 'incident'.

Tick tock - Toot toot.

thorn bird

10th Sep 2014, 22:12

Kharon,

I think Sunny may have hit the nail on the head in the "Wuss" thread.

Could it be "Wusses" minder has evoked "National security" as a reason not to release the Canook report?

Wonder how the punters would feel about "National Security" being cynically invoked to cover up bureaucratic deficiencies that could have a profound affect on their Safety??

Oh!..sorry, CAsA do that all the time don't they, invoking "Safety" to cover up bureaucratic deficiencies.

Kharon

10th Sep 2014, 23:00

The Senate committee must, by now be fully informed as to what's going on. We must just hope (or encourage) that their wonderings lead them to the inevitable conclusion; they're being done over by the same crowd they publicly exposed as charlatans.

The same crowd which mislead, obfuscated and 'file stuffed' their merry way through the AAI review now have recruited another ally, one with power and influence in their campaign to demonstrate that the Senate is a eunuch. The Senate report was damning, the Forsyth report, in a very subtle manner, even more so. It is reasonable to assume that the TSBC report on the ATSB is equally condemning.

The longer the TSBC report is delayed, the more alarmed the Australian public must be, not so much for their collective safety in the air, but for the inability Australia has to correct the flaws and minimise the risks of maintaining that safety standard.

What concerns me and should concern the TSBC is that the Canadian integrity can be so easily compromised and their charter as quickly confounded at the request of a foreign government, one desperately trying to convince the world to 'move along' – nothing to see here'. Probably played the 'national interest card' at some diplomatic tea party which soothed the fat cats but is driving the TSBC coal face troops nuts.

Soteria –"What do you think Minister, should the Australian chapter of the IOS take their concerns about your tactics of burying important and critical reports to a new level and commence a campaign for transparency upon our Canadian neighbours?".

If Truss and his minions get away with this despicable cover up Australian standards will achieve a new all time low, fully supported by the Government minister who was too either to scared to care, too under the thumb to listen; or, just too idle to act – subjugated by and subservient to faceless public servants. This, by the by, emasculates the Senate, rendering the committee not only nugatory but irrelevant to the aftermath of the future incidents. The last line of defence undermined.

What makes the minuscule think that report has not been seen or even "edited" by the likes of 'independent' analysts ?. Is there not, within the camaraderie of 'safety experts' a system of peer review?; prior to publication – for 'proof reading', 'editorial' purposes and the like. Either the Canadians publish or; someone else will – hopefully in the international media. With egg-on-face for the Canucks who sold out to the Australians who bought it.

The TSBC report is every bit as damning as the Forsyth and Senate reports. They know it; the world knows it; how to cover it all up remains the sole question.

I wish 'them' the best of luck with that; burnt metal and high media drama, like flowers around a lamppost fade into irrelevance; as they must. But the notion of 'who's to bless and who's to blame' lives on, it lives long; hard and resolutely. Publish or perish is a universal maxim.

Selah..-.- &....:mad:

Sarcs

14th Sep 2014, 02:19

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, I do. When will we get the TSB review of the ATSB? In the next couple of weeks? When do you expect that to be?

Mr Dolan : My colleague Ms Tadros, the chair of the Transportation Safety Board, indicated to me two weeks ago that she expected that a draft would be complete and available to the ATSB for its consideration and factual input by the end of this month but that it was unlikely, given their internal processes, a final report would be available before the end of June.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So it is a bit later than you expected—and that is the draft. When you say 'factual input', does it mean that you have an opportunity to comment on the conclusions of the TSB?

Mr Dolan : The TSB have made it quite clear that their conclusions will be their conclusions and that they would be addressed in us confirming the factual content of the report to make sure that they have described our processes and other facts correctly.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Has the TSB provided a briefing to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review?

Mr Dolan : So I understand.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)The ATSB was not present at that?
Mr Dolan : No, I believe it was in Ottawa.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You will have an opportunity to respond formally to the TSB's report. Is that right?

Mr Dolan : We will have an opportunity to comment on the factual content of a draft report. The report will then, after consideration by the TSB board, be published by the TSB. But since the report was to examine our processes and see where they could be improved, clearly we will have to respond to any findings or recommendations of the report.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So the draft report, the response to the draft and the final report and the ATSB's response to the final report are all documents that will be released publicly? Is that the case?

Mr Dolan : I do not believe our response to the draft report on matters of fact will necessarily be made public. It would not be the normal way of doing these things, but certainly anything we make public in terms of our response to findings or recommendations of the final report will be made public. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_shiIWF9c5U
Okay if we concede, barring any political collusion, that the process as described has been adhered to and from discrete inquiries, (with the exception of a few more process delays) this is in fact what has happened then we can expect the TSBC to publish the review report within the next couple of weeks on their website...:hmm:

However the questions that remain are did the DRAFT report while being checked for factual accuracy etc. get leaked to other parties example; the miniscule, the Dept or indeed the Senate Committee??

Hopefully not otherwise there would be further serious questions on whether the State (miniscule & his Dept) are upholding their responsibilities to Annex 19 to protect the integrity of the State AAI as being supposedly independent & not influenced by any other Govt aviation safety agencies...:=:=

Next question is has the DRAFT findings of the TSBC and indeed the Senate AAI report & ASRR report had any effect on the ATsB and how they go about business i.e. have they learnt from the lessons of the past?? Time will ultimately tell but the first indications are not that reassuring...:ugh:

Back tracking to this post from Kharon:
Nearly under the radar. (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-111.html#post8629588)

Why was this - ATSB (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-029.aspx#.U__Uc0qIx4M.twitter)- report delayed 30 months? and why was it released under the white noise coverage of Qantas and Virgin reports? Standing alone there is nothing overtly sensitive, except the incident was Feb 2012 the Senate inquiry started in October. It is noteworthy that no SR issued at the time, which is really the main duty of ATSB. But at least another, fluffy politically correct report was issued - eventually. Benefit of the doubt (& as Kharon alludes); maybe this report was lost in all the 'white noise' emanating from the Senate AAI inquiry and the bureau has simply missed it until now...:=

Which is a shame because there is some real lessons to be learnt from this investigation and it would appear that ASA proactively attempted to mitigate any future safety risk and they deserve some kudos for this. Unfortunately through the passage of time and the BASR philosophy the true value of the lessons learnt are lost in translation perhaps forever.

MTF...(with another example that has disturbing parallels to the PelAir FRMS cover up)...:E

Comment: One wonders if the TSBC or NTSB had of been tasked with investigating the incident AO-2012-029 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-029.aspx#.U__Uc0qIx4M.twitter) whether; (a) it would of taken over 30 months to publish a final report or; (b) whether the safety issues highlighted would have automatically necessitated a 'back to reason' promulgation of an SR?? Instead our bureau (with their BASR methodology) have sat on the 'safety issues' highlighted and have not even published, as a 'safety issue', on their website...:ugh:

Sarcs

16th Sep 2014, 07:59

The Kharon post here (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-65.html#post8658018) linked to Ben’s article - Is the Pel-Air cover-up going to drag on forever? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/09/16/is-the-pel-air-cover-up-going-to-drag-on-forever/) Which indeed is a good question, much like the RRP will the obfuscation, embuggerance, pineappling & victimisation of minor IOS players, continue unabated until the inevitable extinction of the GA industry or smoking black hole finally grabs the attention of the travelling public and the MSM??:{

Ben makes the point:Much depends on candid and fearless disclosure of the truth about the botched Pel-Air inquiry. For the Minister, for his department, for CASA, the ATSB, and the TSB of Canada, and not least, for those injured and damaged by this avoidable accident. :D:D

Before I launch into - Part two- it is worth reflecting on a section of MQ’s testimony in the 22 October 2012 Senate AAI inquiry hearing…

"...Yes. It got very personal. I use the term 'pendulum'; the pendulum has now swung from one of adverse tension that was not producing the sort of outcomes that the aviation safety industry wants to completely the opposite way, where I believe those two organisations are basically acting as one....It is a professional thing and it is a big part of the aviation industry that there be transparency and that these two organisations have very specific roles under their acts, and that seems to have diminished...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twIwwg5ZMw

Ok the next example starts with this recently released report AO-2013-010 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-010.aspx). Again the report seems to have taken an inordinate amount of time (over 18 months) to complete given the relative (transparent) complexities involved?? However unlike the previous report this one does go to the trouble of highlighting a 'safety issue'; and eventually (22 August 2014) the bureau published this SI on their website..:zzz:: AO-2013-010-SI-01 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-010/si-01.aspx)

Although one does wonder if this only happened because CAsA, for some bizarre reason, decided to put in their 2 bob's worth into a 'safety issue', that for all intents & purposes, had been resolved:
Although not in response to this occurrence, on 28 March 2013 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released revised fatigue management and flight and duty time requirements in Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013. These requirements were to take effect for existing operators on 30 April 2016.

The revised CAO 48.1 stated that, for air transport operations, an operator had to comply with a set of limits and requirements (dependent on the type of operation) or operate to a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), if that FRMS was approved by CASA.

If an operator was not using a CASA-approved FRMS, CAO 48.1 stated that a flight crew member (FCM) must not be assigned or commence a flight duty period at home base unless, within the 12 hours immediately before commencing the duty period, they had at least 8 hours consecutive sleep opportunity. For a duty period commencing away from home base, the 8-hours sleep opportunity must be provided within the previous 10 hours. Sleep opportunity was defined as:

a period of time during an off-duty period when an FCM:
(a) is not meeting the reasonable requirements of bodily functioning such as eating, drinking, toileting, washing and dressing; and
(b) has access to suitable sleeping accommodation without, under normal circumstances, being interrupted by any requirement of the AOC [Air Operator’s Certificate] holder.

Compared to the previous standard industry exemption to CAO 48, the revised CAO 48.1 also provided more restrictions regarding the length of duty periods associated with early starts. As we all know the introduction of CAO 48.1 has been the subject of much contention by Senator X (& some major pilot unions); it should also not be forgotten that 48.1 is effectively a wedge in the RRP, which hopefully will be resolved beyond yet another legislative instrument sometime in the next two decades...:E

Now for the parallels with the PelAir debacle, to begin remember this??

Senator Fawcett: “…With all due respect, Mr McCormick that complete answer had no relevance to the point that I raised. Everything you have said is quite possibly correct, but it has no relevance to the point that your own internal investigation indicated that CASA's oversight of the Fatigue Risk Management System at Pel-Air was inadequate…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8KUq1le_HM

Some 21 months before the Pel-Air Norfolk Is ditching CAsA conducted a ‘Special Audit’ of Pel-Air’s CAR 217, for that audit report see here (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-10004.pdf). In the course of conducting that audit CAsA discovered a serious non-compliance in regards to the training required for the company’s FRMS, this NCN led to the issuance of a ‘Safety Alert’:
CAR 217 Training and Checking Organisation - Fatigue Risk Management System(FRMS)

The company's Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) was approved by CASA on the
30th April2007. Operations conducted under this FRMS require training for all flight crewsprior to them being rostered for operational duty. The audit of the CAR 217 organisation'sflight crew training records revealed that while flight crews had been operating under theFRMS for 11 months, the FRMS training required had not been conducted. This noncompliancewas considered to represent an immediate threat to the safety of operations andCASA issued a 'Safety Alert' on the 12th March 2008 which required operations conductedunder the FRMS to cease and operations to be conducted in accordance with CA048.
Apparently the company responded proactively…

“…The company accepted CASA's decision and advised CASA on the 17th March 2008 that the required training had been completed. CASA responded on the 18th March 2008 by issuing approval for the company to resume operations in accordance with the FRMS…”

The audit report concluded with this recommendation (page 5):Given the fact that the company provide training and checking for 70 pilots it is important in the interest of operational safety for PEL management to resolve the issues stated in this report and establish more effective and frequent internal audit of the conduct and recording of the training and checking of flight crew. Given the number of pilots currently employed and the company's proposed expansion into the SAAB 340 aircraft, a review of the current workload of the Chief Pilot and Head of Training and Checking's should also be considered.{Note: The CAsA evaluation on page 6-7 is also worth reading, especially in light of the findings in the AAI inquiry}

Eventually the company CAR 217 (& FRMS) was given a reasonable bill of health (a tick & flick) with the addition of a CAsA caveat that they would be ‘closely monitoring’…

“..The Safety Alert was lifted flight crew were trained and they are currently operating under their FRMS. Management have been cooperative and the REX Board have launched an internal inquiry to ensuring a breach does not occur again. SYD Region is satisfied and are closely monitoring the operation…”

But then we had the ditching of VH-NGA and another ‘Special Audit’ with further damning findings highlighted in Ben Cook’s FRMS SAR (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=85c80709-44ed-4551-a236-c1e55326f5ce).

Ahh…but don’t worry the company put in place and actioned a MAP that CAsA again ‘closely monitored’ and all is well again…:(

One word BOLLOCKS!:=

Until such time that we see positive proof that the ATsB has retreated from its current BASR approach and is prepared to (when required) hand out the proverbial pineapple; then the IOS will continue to ‘closely monitor’ all reports and propaganda being published by the bureau and CAsA with a suspicious eye…:cool:

MTF…:ok:

{Note for Beaker: Pineapples are not meant to be served as wedges decorating the sides of frosted cocktail glasses at some politically correct ‘love in’, organised by ATsBeaker…:E}

slats11

16th Sep 2014, 12:26

I was just reading the 2008 CASA audit, and was struck by a comment in the executive summary on page 2.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-10004.pdf

"These aircraft operate mainly from bases at Sydney, Darwin, Nowra, and Brisbane conducting night freight within Australia, and national and international medevac and passenger charter. Airwork operations consist of target towing for the Royal Australian Navy at Nowra NSW using Learjet and Westwind aircraft."

This seems to suggest that at that time (March 2008), the medivac work was charter, and that it was only the RAN target towing that was air work? Thats how I interpret this paragraph. Perhaps it is badly worded, and the medivac was air work. However that is not how this reads.

Alternate fuel for remote islands was required for charter operations, but not for airwork. However this 2008 audit implies that the medivac work was in fact charter.

IIRC from the 2009 audit following the accident, Pelair pilots gave inconsistent answers when asked if they were operating as air work or charter.

The question I have now is which category Pelair were operating under. And which category did the AOC require Pelair to operate under.

Kharon

16th Sep 2014, 20:35

Nicely constructed Sarcs and well argued. Adding the personalities involved into the bare bones discussion gives the whole thing a curiously intriguing flavour. Have a read of the Audit report from the FOIA collection – March 2008; Mike (ret) Nolan was the 'lead auditor' reporting to 'tuther Wodger (manager) at the time. The whole thing is heading in a clearly defined direction until the changes are rung and a line mysteriously appears in the sand. Food for the thinking man, methinks:-

The company is staffed by approximately 120 employees which includes approximately 70 pilots all of whom are subject to the company's CASA approved CAR 217 training and checking organisation.

The audit was scheduled as a result of the inability of the audit team to complete an effective audit of the CAR 217 organisation in October 2007 due to the poor response of the majority of PEL pilots, and check pilot/ATOs to the request from PEL management for the provision of their logbooks. PEL Management accepted CASA's advice of a need to terminate the October 2007 audit and schedule a second audit when all pilots had responded to a subsequent request for the provision of logbooks.

Advice was given to PEL management by the audit team during the first day of the audit that there was no record of FRMS training of flight crew. PEL acknowledged this finding and CASA issued a Safety Alert on the same day.

The audit of the CAR 217 organisation's flight crew training records revealed that while flight crews had been operating under the FRMS for 11 months, the FRMS training required had not been conducted. This non compliance was considered to represent an immediate threat to the safety of operations and CASA issued a 'Safety Alert' on the 12th March 2008 which required operations conducted under the FRMS to cease and operations to be conducted in accordance with CA048. The company accepted CASA's decision and advised CASA on the 17th March 2008 that the required training had been completed. CASA responded on the 18th March 2008 by issuing approval for the company to resume operations in accordance with the FRMS.

Now that is what I call service.

Audit of 20 flight crew training records revealed that approximately 80% contained no evidence of training in Emergency Procedures Training- Life Jackets and Life Rafts or Human Factors Management Training. The company was advised on the 17 March 2008 of this breach of CAR 215 (9) and the CEO responded on the 20 March 2008 advising that the training would be conducted and completed within a week. The CEO also advised that the company had reviewed its training requirements as stated in the OPSM with regard to Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT), Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems (EGPWS), and Crew Resource Management (CRM) and that all pilots would complete appropriate training within I week.

Tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick, tick, flick, tick, flick, tick.

There are a number of options available to CASA to respond to such breaches of legislation. In this case, CASA considers that the interests of safety will best be served as a first option, by giving you the opportunity to address the breach and initiate action to ensure there are no similar occurrences.

Bet there's a few who would have relished that consideration, yes indeed.

A special audit was conducted on Pelair’s CAR 217 Training and Checking organisation, following up on October 2007 audit. This resulted in a Safety Alert being issued against the Fatigue Risk Management System. The FRMS had been in place for 11 mths. It was established that no initial or recurrent training of any flight crew had been conducted. The Safety Alert prohibited Pelair from using the FRMS and required them to revert to CAO 48. Pelair reacted positively by rearranging schedules and implementing an immediate training program. The Safety Alert was lifted flight crew were trained and they are currently operating under their FRMS. Management have been cooperative and the REX Board have launched an internal inquiry to ensuring a breach does not occur again. SYD Region is satisfied and are closely monitoring the operation. My Bold..

Perhaps I'm just too old and cynical – but the line in the sand is obvious. The Senate report, now rendered useless to anything else except historical value, very nearly, but not quite nailed the plot down. All that was required was a bunny and in true magical style, McComic pulled one out of his hat; (which is an alternate spelling of Whazoo).

If, and it's a big IF Fawcett mounts another Senate inquiry into CASA behaviour, motivated by sheer anger, generated by 20/20 hindsight; the questions may just be a little 'sharper'. It's a reasonable bet to take; normally the Pollies, suitably intimidated through lack of expertise, beautifully baffled by pony-pooh, subdued by dismissive attitude and seduced by the 'mystique' give up after an inquiry. If they don't then the time warp machine is plugged in and important matters float away down the back passage of time. The problem for Sleepy Hollow is that Fawcett and Co. are, not only justifiably 'cranky' but have the expertise to see clear through the smoke and mirrors; and, even if they don't, there is a plentiful supply of 'industry' expertise available to provide a helping hand.

The only question remaining, to vex the SP bookie, is that of party politics versus personal integrity.

Selah.

Greedy

16th Sep 2014, 23:04

Ah yes Kharon,
The interesting question is who and how it is decided whether tick and flick or "The Barrier" is the CAsA response. Clipboards , pencils and check boxes continue to cover a few inconsistencies at the said group of companies. Board Investigations can always be relied on of course......

I suppose the truth is that this behaviour has always gone on but the hypocrisy by the wegulator and its wabbits galls.
Enough. I'm off down the paddock to watch a few of the wabbits. Know your adversery and all that.

Sarcs

17th Sep 2014, 08:24

Top post that man and a good question to boot...:D:D Greedy - The interesting question is who and how it is decided whether tick and flick or "The Barrier" is the CAsA response. Clipboards , pencils and check boxes continue to cover a few inconsistencies at the said group of companies. Board Investigations can always be relied on of course...... Perhaps the truth (&) lies are buried in this extremely defensive rant from the now retired DAS which was brought on by Senator Fawcett's comments - on buckets & wascily weports...:E

Chambers report & the $89 million bucket - AAI inquiry 15/02/13 - YouTube

Greedy cont/-I suppose the truth is that this behavior has always gone on but the hypocrisy by the wegulator and its wabbits galls....
The hypocrisy & the behaviour is indeed more than adequately highlighted in the above vid.

At one point the former DAS resorts to attacking the integrity of his former Manager of Human Factors (03:05) and then proceeds to steer around the real damning parts of the Cook FRMS SAR, with bluff & bluster on how things are oh so much better since he took over etc..etc.:yuk::yuk:

However I diverge and for now let's go back to the two (obviously) tic infected Wodgers...:E

First we have Wodger one (W1), who tick & flicked his way through the 2008 Pel-Air audit; W1 summary - "All good nothing to see here!":ugh: Then unfortunately for W1 DJ through blood shot eyes managed to successfully ditch VH-NGA and had the audacity to survive...:{

Enter W2 who was tasked with overseeing the next 'Special Audit' of Pel-Air in the aftermath of the ditching. Part of the audit team included HF experts BC & MC who were primarily tasked with auditing the Pel-Air FRMS. Unfortunately for W2 BC was not given to the normal (SOP) perfunctory tick & flick exercise and responsibly took to his task with a complete top to bottom approach: {Ref page 3 FRMS SAR}The CASA Human Factors Section was asked to conduct a special audit of the PelAir Express Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS). This audit was completed by (blank) and (blank) over the period 2-21 December 2009. Given the nature of the special audit (initiated due to a recent accident of the operator involving a night ditching), and the high exposure to operational fatigue risks due to adhoc, back of the clock medivac operations, the special audit of the Pel Air Express FRMS was extensive and to a level of detail considered appropriate given the risks.

In the final FRMS SAR BC included a very damning review of previous CAsA oversight attempts of the Pel-Air FRMS:{Ref page 5 & 6 FRMS SAR}

2.2 Review of Previous CASA Audits of Pel Air FRMS
A summary of previous CASA audits of Pel Air FRMS is contained within Appendix A. Key Findings from previous CASA oversight:
o To date only one audit observation (no: 712500 dated 3Dec07) has been found to be fully completed, signed and filed within the CASA system. All other surveillance documentation from previous CASA audits of the Pet Air FRMS are electronic copies (some partially complete) as obtained from individual FOI's or from the Rex Safety Management Group.
o Based -on findings within Pel Air for this audit and the key points raised (observations, RCA's) from previous CASA audits, the existing system continues to display all of the problems previously identified through CASA oversight. It is suggested previous audits did not provide the quality assurance to confirm problems identified had been rectified, as the one signed observation available was signed off on the premise that corrective actions had been agreed but there is no evidence this was ever followed up by CASA.
o There is no evidence that RCA's raised in May 2006 were closed as the sections titled remedial action, root causes and corrective action remain blank. There is no verification or signature by a CASA representative.
o In the absence of further formal CASA reports, it appears many agreed items were not followed up by CASA.
It is considered that the oversight by CASA has been inadequate as there is evidence to support that many of the problems identified by CASA during surveillance (Nov 04-Mar 08) were never appropriately actioned.

There is a lack of any clear evidence to support corrective actions had been implemented and confirmed by CASA that they were effective. If this process is indicative of broader practices of CASA it is considered CASA is exposed to unnecessary risk, particularly if required to provide evidence to support how it approved an operator's system, in this case, their FRMS.

And from page 12 of FRMS SAR
Findings for CASA:
• Previous CASA oversight did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the Pet Air FRMS had ever been managing fatigue risk to a necessary standard. Much of the correspondence and closure of RCA's was based on planned actions but no evidence was collected to confirm appropriate corrective actions had been completed.
• Only one signed and filed previous CASA audit report could be located with the Bankstown Field Office. All other reports were partially completed electronic copies or those provided by Rex Safety Management Group. It is assumed this documentation is on file somewhere but it could not be found over the period 3-21 December 2009. Hence, it is not known what follow up action was taken by CASA for many audit reports and observations.Hmm...is it any wonder that W2 and the powers to be attempted to cover up (shelfware) the BC FRMS SAR...:ugh:

It is also of interest to read the Cook RCA recommendations to the YSBK field office at page eleven. Which W2 interpreted, wrote and countersigned RCAs (all apparently on behalf of BC) applicable to BC's recommendations on pages 79 to 87 of the December 2009 Pel-Air SAR(see here (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-5471.pdf))....:=

Also fascinating is that W2 was able to acquit all the 'on behalf of' RCAs in one single day i.e. 08 January 2010...:rolleyes:

So again W2 comes up with the very same conclusions as W1 i.e. W2 summary - "All good nothing to see here!":ugh:

Kharon - The only question remaining, to vex the SP bookie, is that of party politics versus personal integrity.
Given the good Senator Fawcett's no back down approach on other aviation matters since the Coalition formed government I don't think he will fold on this issue either, example:

CASA Senate Estimates - 24/2/14 - Part 2 - YouTube

MTF...:ok:

Kharon

17th Sep 2014, 21:52

Spoiled for choice – rather than repeat – posted response – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-66.html#post8660992).

Blind Freddy has posted a download link for a handy OCR converted version of the Cook audit in the preceding post.. Certainly worth a read, even if just to see how a real pro writes a report.

Toot toot...:ok:

slats11

18th Sep 2014, 03:19

The introduction to the 2008 CASA audit (a fairly significant audit given in had been rescheduled from 2007) implies the medevac work was charter.

It has always been stated that the company complied with the regulations as alternate fuel was not required for Aerial Work.

So which one was it?

Sarcs

18th Sep 2014, 07:21

Top pick up slats...:D The more layers of the onion you peel off the more murky & smelly this whole thing gets...:ugh:

Here is the whole passage to which slats quotes from:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background
Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (PEL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Regional Express Holdings and holds AOC number 1-1 VAV2-0l issued on the 23 October 2006. The AOC permits the conduct of Regular Public Transport (Cargo Only), Charter and Aerial Work operations in a fleet of 27 above 5700kg turbo prop and jet aircraft. Operations are conducted with 2 pilots
(multi crew). The aircraft types include seven Westwind WW1124, two Westwind 1124A, four learjet L35/36, ten Metro III, four Metro 23, and one Brasilia EMB 120 aircraft. These aircraft operate mainly from bases at Sydney, Darwin, Nowra, and Brisbane conducting night freight within Australia, and national and international medivac and passenger charter. Airwork operations consist of target towing for the Royal Australian Navy at Nowra NSW using Learjet and Westwind aircraft. The company has a current application with CASA to vary their AOC to operate SAAB 340 aircraft for both passenger and freight operations. The funny thing is slats that some inquisitive bugger from the bureau's investigative team in early 2010 obviously discovered the same discrepancy but was promptly shut down by Wodger's mate MAL(I)U...:=:=: 3 Correspondence from CASA to the ATSB regarding the classification of air ambulance flights, received 22 October 2012;(PDF 492KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=66c2d588-4999-4511-ab8b-bde2bdbe014a) I refer to email dated 31 March 2010 requesting information under section 32 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 in respect of the Pei-Air investigation A0-2009-072.

CASA has reviewed the Doskite and Pei-Air Aviation Operations Manuals and cannot find any reference to Air Ambulance flights being classified one way or the other.CASA is not aware of any changes from Charter to Airwork in respect of Air Ambulance functions. The matter may require further clarification from Pel-Air.

Strange...:rolleyes:...you would have thought the regulator should know to within a minute or an inch of its life, what an operator can or can't do and under what classification certain AOC approved ops are conforming to...:confused:

Coming back to the PA FRMS and I remembered that the Australian Lawyers Alliance had a bit to say (& no obvious skin in the issue..:E) on FRMS/CAO48.1 in their ASRR submission #218 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/218_australian_lawyers_alliance_2_feb_2014.pdf). On a second read (or maybe fourth read..;)) I decided it was too good to ignore, so here it is from Section 4 para 4.1 in full:

4.1 PEL-AIR AND SYSTEMIC REGULATORY ISSUES WITH FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT

Mention has been made above in passing of criticisms proferred by the Senate Committee RRAT Report.33 Many of the criticisms made about the ATSB report of the Pel-Air accident investigation34 are outside the scope of this submission, and include systemic issues as and between CASA and the ATSB. One of the substantive systemic issues reported and agreed to have been a shortfall in the investigation report, was CASA’s lack of oversight of the relevant operator’s fatigue risk management, training and checking systems in the context of a CASA Special Audit which resulted in several CASA-issued requests for corrective action by the operator.35

The relevant CASA surveillance which resulted in the requests for corrective action predated the existing FRMS requirements, but post-dated the commencement of CASA’s original Civil Aviation Order 48.1 which prescribes duty flight time limitations.36 This means that minimum rest time for pilots was set by CAO 48.1 and not strictly the subject of a formal risk management system as it might be argued might now applies to such an operator. The issue then becomes less one of FRMS per se, but one of FRM regulatory oversight. Is a prescribed duty time limit easier to enforce and better than a FRMS which leaves such decisions to pilots and operators in the high demand environment of commercial aviation?

Some argue FRMS is the lesser of two evils, but this submission aims to outline the difficulty in coming to a regulatory solution given the competing interests of aviation operational employees and airline management, in the context of the international standards and recommended practices Australia should adopt, but also recognising the difficulties of adopting any particular standards as all have both economic and air safety consequences for airlines and individuals (pilots and passengers).

Pilot groups have argued that the scientific principles and knowledge said to inform the ICAO SARPs are in fact flawed and that both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European Safety Agency Rules (EASA) rules in this regard continue to prescribe actual time limits to ensure there is no balancing of safety through “CASA bowing to industry pressure to deliver a less restrictive system”.37

In our submission the criticism for the Panel to note is that the FRMS rules now applicable by virtue of the commencement of the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (No. 1)38 on 30 April 2013 are not only subject to major contrary views but this view was acted upon by a motion to disallow in the Senate which lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013 prior to the Federal Election. Since that time, and following the opening of submissions to the present ASRR, a second motion to disallow was made, and is presently pending for resolution in the Senate by 24 March 2014. These indications of public discontent must not be forgotten in determining a way forward for resolving the debate on flight time limitations.

That being said, an element of circularity exists in what can be done about the situation in Australia while still holding Australia out as a State attempting to provide international best practice regulation in accordance with our obligations as an ICAO State. Departure from SARPs in local law is something which directly affects Australia’s USOAP scores unless a notification of differences is filed with ICAO under Article 38 of the Chicago Convention.

The best solution going forward may be, in this instance, to adopt the approach of the US in 14 CFR Parts 117, 119 and 12139 which provides some prescription in relation to duty limitations and makes FRMS use optional, whereas the Australian approach makes FRMS applicable for current and new holders of flight crew licences but not air operators (AOC holders) until 30 April 2016, unless they voluntarily opt in to the scheme. Certainly, the US approach in this instance may be viewed by industry stakeholders as the preferable option, notwithstanding the costs to CASA of amending the present instrument should it be amenable to that approach. In our submission, the compromises in the US approach better serve the interests of both air operators and secure confidence in the safety of pilots for travellers.

4.2 WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

INCLUDING THE PUBLIC?

The ramifications of flight crews exceeding duty time limitations can, at the extreme, contribute to consequences like the Colgan crash of 2009. It can also have ripple effects in practice (eg, flight delays) which typify the cost-benefit analysis which often emerges as a refrain in all facets of aviation safety regulation: airline operations and management’s demands for flexibility in regulation to get on with business and ensure their services – ie, the “product” provided when one buys an air ticket – operate on schedule, versus the rights and responsibilities of the pilot in command who bears the (regulatory) responsibility for the final disposition of any particular flight including the safety of all onboard. This is not a new issue.

However, recent examples where flight time limitations have operated to cause passenger delays by an airline (in addition to economic losses from having to cancel/reschedule an international flight) in circumstances beyond the airline’s control, indicate that some measure of flexibility might be warranted in the system which eventuates in Australia (vindicating the approach advanced by CASA in the 2013 Instrument).

In March 2013 a Qantas flight from Dallas to Brisbane was delayed by mechanical issues, and on 15 January 2014 Qantas (due to unrelated infractions of US DOT tarmac delay rules) received a civil penalty from the US DOT. In the “Consent Order” which described the steps Qantas took to mitigate the inconvenience for passengers of the tarmac delay, it is revealed the flight, which was delayed by more than 4 hours, was ultimately cancelled because the crew’s duty time limitations were insufficient to complete even a flight to an alternate, and closer, destination (Auckland).

Certainly this would have resulted in disruption to the airline in terms of scheduling both its crew, and a replacement flight notwithstanding the unquestionable air safety benefit (ie, no pilot flew tired). However, it also has several economic consequences for the airline in relation to compensation for delay to passengers under relevant international law which may not be so readily apparent, but which should serve as a reminder of one of the many consequences of inflexibility in flight duty times for flight crew members. Under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage,40 under which most if not all the passengers on the Dallas to Brisbane flight, Qantas would have been liable for compensation for proven losses brought about by delay of each passenger in an amount limited presently to 4,694 Special Drawing Rights (approximately $8,200 AUD as at the date of writing).41 In an aircraft that carries over 300 passengers this amount is substantial. Furthermore, under US DOT rules and the airline’s own policies, refunds of fares must be offered in some cases.

An additional complication of matters arises when one considers that, as is the case in the US, pilots may have contractually negotiated limitations on their duty times.

In the US at least, the FAA has taken the view that the more restrictive FAA rules would not supersede collective bargaining agreements where those arrangements were not in conflict with an FAA requirement.42

In summary then, our submission is that the Panel should ensure in any continuing regulatory reform in relation to FRMS, the multiplicity of stakeholder interests be considered, in the light of alternative States’ ways of handling the same competing interests in aviation law (safety/airlines/pilots/passengers).

Hmm....nah makes too much sense...:E

MTF...:ok:

slats11

18th Sep 2014, 08:57

I wonder if it possible the AOC specified charter but the company manual (approved by CASA) specified aerial work.

It seems a central issue. Had the flight been charter then there would have been alternate fuel.

Kharon

18th Sep 2014, 23:03

There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded. Mark Twain.

The Canadians who continue to disappoint, delay and generally bugger about with the report into the Australian TSB; are definitely heading for group two. There are one or two concerns floating on the wind about some very murky 'doings' and Canadian cooperation with the dark forces.

For starters, they did promise to 'visit' with certain folk, once their 'team' was picked and boots were on the ground; there was an intention to look at the Senate 'stuff' and to take a broad view of the situation, despite the narrow, restrictive ToR specified. It seems none of these promises were kept; this reflected in email chains which were, initially open, cheery and friendly that changed to carefully scripted 'weasel' words, with a definite change of tone. It seems the ToR were not only to be strictly adhered to but a narrow view was to be taken on that. Disappointing.

Then there is the change of pace to consider, from the bustling 'can do' approach to the meandering, dragging of feet, snail pace we see now. Why?, I expect only the minuscules and their 'advisors' know why. The latest application of the parking brake comes in two flavours: editing and checking, then checking and editing of the edited draft of the first iteration; to be sure, to be sure: and that although divided by a common language, there are no 'technical' errors and that a 'Canadian' definition does not contradict an Australian definition. Disappointing.

Then there is the 'translation' to French to consider, lots of scope there for added delay. If the Canadians must translate the thing to French, why should that delay the 'Australian' version of the Australian ordered report being delivered to the Australian people; who paid for it. This is not a Canadian report which affects Canadian safety or has any bloody thing to do with Canada at all; barring that the Canadian TSB was asked to do it. Why not translate it into bloody Mongolian while you're at it. Disappointing.

Passing strange, the TSBC don't mess about with their own reports; there'd be hell to pay from the government, the tax payers and the aviation community; so why, in the seven hells are they playing at silly buggers with our report. Disappointing.

I regret, my respect for the TSBC is rapidly waning, day by day. I'd have thought they had more self respect. Disappointing.

Heigh ho. Anyway, it's almost not worth waiting for the wretched thing now, being as it's too late to be effective and too embuggered to be of any further practical or intrinsic value.

C'est rien que de la merde- On t'a bercé trop près du mur?

Toot toot.

Greedy

18th Sep 2014, 23:12

Sarcs,
Great footage of McComic doing everything except answering the question in Chambers Report and the 89 mill..!
It simply remains the case that the accident aero medical operation would not have been allowed under some other Fatigue Rule systems. That fact should have been communicated within and to both CASA and the ATSB by both parties. It was not. How is the fatigue science to progress if matters are covered up. You have to hand it to Fawcett he is brilliant in this role. I hope us ills of society can keep him applying pressure for some change in this business. (If only to prove Cream Puff wrong !)

Frank Arouet

19th Sep 2014, 01:09

QUOTE "Anyway, it's almost not worth waiting for the wretched thing now" QUOTE.

It would be interesting to see the original and the Canberra "doctored" versions if only to confirm what we already know.

My dogs blue underpants are murdered by setting fire to the wall. (pas plus pour etre vraiment triste).

slats11

19th Sep 2014, 03:32

So 2008 audit suggests the AOC specifies charter operations. The 2008 audit states that CASA is watching PelAir closely.

Aircraft ditches to 2009 as no alternate fuel - which would have been required for charter.

The operator claims no alternate fuel was required as it was aerial work.

The 2009 special audit (following the crash) states the flight was aerial work. The preamble to this 2009 audit is worded more vaguely than the 2008 audit regarding the categories of operations permitted under the AOC.

2010 email within CASA stating no record of any change from charter to aerial work.

All very odd. Did the AOC change between March 2008 and November 2009? If so, how? During a period when CASA was closely monitoring the operator.

Kharon

19th Sep 2014, 20:44

In the absence of fresh material, a ramble, (revisit) with your forbearance, in an attempt to answer for Slats 11 one of the many very good, if vexed questions, which remain unanswered.
Slats -"All very odd. Did the AOC change between March 2008 and November 2009? If so, how? During a period when CASA was closely monitoring the operator."

That, along with hints that only six monthly AOC were being issued, up until the 'new' CASA management of Pel Air took over the reigns and smoothed things out begs some interesting questions, which are probably 'awkward' to answer. We must turn to history, which goes back to before the illusion of change, albeit temporary, window dressing of the Chief pilot shuffle, to assist with speculation.

One of the 'problems' the Senate committee had was a very narrow window to wriggle in through. They did a stellar job within the framework provided but were focussed, quite rightly on the ditching only. What the committee managed to reveal – within the confines of their remit – was the tip of an iceberg. We must speculate from here on, but it's reasonable to assume that what they uncovered did truly offend them, hence the call for a deeper inquiry into the 'operations' and actions of CASA within a wider framework.

To be fair, Xenophon (bless) had NFI things were in such a state and was concerned with the surface issues; like everyone else not directly connected to industry. He assumed the government agencies involved were reasonably honest and competent. By the time the awful truth dawned it was too late. The Senate crew initiated the inquiry and had it not been for some solid work from external sources, may never have penetrated the smoke, mirrors and highly polished surface layers of Teflon. The Senate crew only got a glimpse of the beast, but it was enough to call for more and deeper inquiry. The simple fact that the Senate generated some 20 odd scathing recommendations supports the construct. I for one believe what the Senate crew saw, lurking behind the bluff, bluster and spin scared them; it scared industry experts and Fawcett (gods luv 'im) must be counted amongst the 'expert' group. Industry is indeed lucky to have masters Fawcett and Xenophon in the Senate.

The entire Pel Air 'thing' was heading towards a disaster, expanded reference and set to do some serious damage; had it not been for the minuscule and the WLR. It's reasonable to assume that all would be revealed through further Senate inquiry, given the amount and quality of 'evidence' which would be provided. The WLR derailed that wagon, wasted a lot of time and money and despite using a hand picked crew, the WLR still managed to add further fuel to the fire. Now the minuscule had, and still has two potential train wrecks to deal with. Perhaps he believes time will make them go away – news flash – No way.

So Slats, here we sit; should there be a 'proper' open, unrestricted inquiry into the way CASA do business? I believe so. Just one of the more lethal elements will be a comparison drawn between the 'management' of three issues; Pel Air, Airtex and Skymaster. Once you start down that road, Hempel, Quadrio, Barrier, Polar and many, many others are all waiting to greet the traveller, it is not a lonely road. Any half way decent, open, without fear analysis into that handful of case studies is quite capable of fully supporting not only the Senate recommendations, but those of the Forsyth review and demanding more change to system which is not only morally bankrupt, incompetent and dangerous, but has in it's current configuration the potential to cause a FAA downgrade of Australia.

I am not a great believer in the 'smoking hole' theory as a catalyst for change; I do believe the massive economic and social damage being caused by the 'system' will be the harbinger for change as the 'system' and those entrenched within it, slowly, but inevitably strangle the industry.

Was the whole Pel Air thing on the nose, including AOC and compliance with?– In my opinion, on the balance of probability Yes. Was "AWK" category a red herring?, more than likely. Was there a move to lead the Senate committee away from these 'sensitive' areas?; IMO, Yes, beyond all reasonable doubt. Will there be a call from the Senate for a deeper, wider investigation? – well Sir; to my mind, that is the only part of the whole worthy of question and speculation.

What's that old thing about "he who builds on sand". Aye well, enough. The coffee pot sings it's siren song.

Selah._.