PDA

View Full Version : 20 questions minus rhetoric.


Kharon
2nd Jul 2011, 06:19
I will immediately remove this post if Casaweary objects. The posed questions are extracted directly from previously posted items, edited slightly for ease of reference.

I am a tax payer, I am an industry professional and I do have friends and workmates about whom I care and; I for one would like some honest answers.

I believe that if similar questions to these were asked of any corporate or public service officers, they would at least be required to provide at least a response.

I live in hope; so the questions then are:-

1) Why is CASA allowed to deliberately and purposefully harass, intimidate, punish and destroy individual’s reputations, livelihoods and businesses within the aviation sector and also within CASA’s staff ranks?.

2) Why is CASA allowed to continue its path of cover-up’s and non-accountable actions at the most senior levels; both previous and presently by management who have backgrounds notoriously based upon intimidation, segregation, harassment, bullying and general anti-social behaviour; along with an attitude of contempt, disregard and criminal behaviour towards industry and its staff?.

3) Why has and does CASA allow serving staff to take unpaid leave and work for AOC holders creating a conflict of interest, with full knowledge and approval of senior management including the executive manager of corporate services?.

4) Why does CASA hire back staff who resign as consultants, paying them triple the money to perform the same role they undertook weeks or months before?.

5) Can CASA explain why many consultancy tenders are not actually advertised or tendered, rather just given to mates at very handsome rates with the corporate services executive managers approval?.

6) Can the government explain why taxpayer funds are needed to pay for the remuneration of a director, assistant director, associate director and a board made up of bureaucrats that when combined together do not have the ability or intellect or ability to wipe one another’s backsides ?.

7) Can CASA explain why they recently came within a hairs breadth away from receiving a downgraded safety category in part due to cost cutting measures in reducing staff numbers in areas such as training and standards, which is actually against the requirement for ‘the state’ under ICAO annexes and the Geneva convention?.

8) Why do those decision makers including the corporate services executive manager and assistant director remain employed after orchestrating this massive balls up? In fact they gave themselves self promotion, huge salary increases and yearly bonuses! Why were some of these decision makers not people from an aviation background but again from CASA’s corporate services executive manager and his department who have grown fat on the indulgences of taxpayer funded jaunts, trips, travel and spending sprees?

9) Why has CASA as a government department in the past 12 months received an alarmingly and disproportionate increase in staff resignations and staff harassment actions which are stacking up against managers?.

10) Why do these same people boast about not having to answer to the director, the Minister of even the taxpayer, and they have also boasted that they are above the law because they make the law?.

11) Why is the level of litigation instigated from aviation community members rising monthly with the majority of these cases being for harassment and intimidation?.

12) Why did CASA employ a working group called ASOP who were allowed to commence 34 projects over a period of 3 years, yet not one project was completed, all at the taxpayer’s expense and no accountability was taken by senior management, particularly the now assistant director who was mostly responsible for this debacle as well as the executive manager of corporate services?.

13) Why was a female inspector remunerated well above fellow inspectors after becoming ‘involved’ with the then DCEO of CASA as well as the then acting general manager of CASA who incidentally himself was also ‘involved’ with the current female head of human resources?.

14) Can CASA explain why they are solely a reactive organization rather than an oversight body that should act predicatively to prevent accidents happening?

15) Can the director explain why he is unable to make a sound decision on any matter without the permission of the corporate services executive manager who boasts continually about how ‘he and his staff ‘run the place as they see fit, and are proud of this fact and proud of how they laugh at how the director has his balls held between the Minister and the corporate services executive managers hands?.

16) Can CASA explain why it told a senate enquiry two years ago that it has a system in place to train inspectors (did not actually commence until thirty weeks ago), and why it did not truthfully state that it has undergone cost cutting exercises to remove the amount of inspectors, remove flying and license certification and endorsements for aircraft type from its inspectors so as to save money, again actioned by the executive manager of corporate services, the current assistant director and the former head of finance, who was there former partner in crime?.

17) Can CASA explain why its senior managers remain in those roles when they have multiple litigation issues pending against them internally and externally due to abysmal intimadatory behaviour?.

18) Can CASA explain why its workforce have been secretly discussing putting forward a motion of no confidence in the director, assistant director and corporate services executive manager, all who have all been campaigning against past and present staff as well as members of industry, sullying these peoples reputations and destroying individuals careers all while representing an Australian government department and Australian interests?. Is this acceptable to the taxpayers of Australia?.

19) Is it acceptable that the deputy director be promoted to that role while under investigation for his actions of bullying, intimidation and his preposterous dealing and manner involving a certain innocent West Australian operator and a host of others?

20) Is it acceptable that the former DCEO of CASA be known as a drunken racist bully who promoted a female staff member he was ‘involved’ with while all the staff knew of these activities including the former CEO of CASA and executive manager of corporate services?.

Handing over - Selah.

Ultralights
2nd Jul 2011, 07:01
all valid questions, how about asking Senator Zenaphon (spelling) those same questions, and might want to re-word some questions, maybe 6. to something more along the lines of, who do not have the industry experience or knowledge to be in such a postion...? :hmm:

kimwestt
2nd Jul 2011, 07:30
Ask them (CASA) and they will tell you - at least the CB types might-
BECAUSE WE CAN.

thorn bird
2nd Jul 2011, 08:47
Yup..because they can
Corruption was once a big NO NO in Australia, its always been there,
just kept out of sight, dont want embarrassing questions.
Now it seems when you have a retarded minister who has to slap his face every morning to make sure he still has a brain,the bureaucrats just cant be bothered keeping it under wraps anymore, its easy to bamboozle a Neandathal, he'll believe anything they tell him.

Checkboard
2nd Jul 2011, 10:03
Those questions were supposed to be minus the rhetoric! :hmm:

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. :rolleyes:

Freewheel
2nd Jul 2011, 10:24
I'm going to studiously avoid commenting on the content of the original post, but the one question running through my mind right now is;


How long are the mods going to let this thread last?:sad:

aussie027
2nd Jul 2011, 11:20
I can pass them on to my federal MP. He's an ex military officer, he usually digs and responds to past Q Ive sent him.
We can all send to our local Fed MP and senator x too.

Torres
2nd Jul 2011, 11:30
21. When will Australia have a complete, rational, working set of Civil Aviation Regulations?

:ugh:

Hasherucf
2nd Jul 2011, 11:45
Im guessing if the CASA really objects to this thread they can sue you and bring up every detail in court and see if you telling the truth or not :-)

Kharon
2nd Jul 2011, 13:02
The 20 questions were neither written nor asked by me.

I have simply taken the time to read, discuss, think over and be disturbed by the posts of "CASAweary"; they have been running for quite a while.

I have simply culled the questions posed from within the text as I believe they have relevance to the current state of affairs within Australian aviation, from RAA to Tiger.

Very happy, nay delighted to find that they were baseless, flawed, incorrect, biased, malicious or just plain old sour grapes.

Indeed I would expect a swift, robust, honest response from the 'regulator', it would be unfortunate indeed if any of the questions were found to have any substance.

This is and remains a democracy. The man (or woman) has posed the questions – lets have plain truth for answers.

Wadayasay boys?????. Facts – fiction – fiction – facts.


WE don't know, but we all care. Big time.

Frank Arouet
3rd Jul 2011, 01:58
Perhaps the following may explain the confrontational attitude that comes about when one gets egg on their face. Perhaps also may explain why it appears a succession of re-named "regulators" have failed to adjust to the times and simply prescribe everything illegal so they can keep their stuff up's to a minimum?

Perhaps this was the event that began the OLC?



In October 1935 the Genairco VH-UOG came into the ownership of Dr T J Henry, father of Goya Henry. Goya possessed a disregard of regulations and had appeared before the Central Court on 1 November 1934 on a charge of flying in contravention of the Air Navigation Regulations under the Air Navigation Act 1920. He was convicted and fined. On 8th July 1936 he was advised that his pilot's licence was suspended because of various breaches of the Air Navigation Regulations. Several days after the suspension of his pilot's licence he flew the Genairco, named by him "Jolly Roger" under Sydney Harbour Bridge, being the first pilot to do so and in contravention of the law. He appealed to the Full Court of the High Court of Australia on the basis that Section 51 of the Australian Constitution did not allow the Federal Government to make Regulations for air navigation using its external affairs powers. The High Court upheld Henry's appeal and declared the regulations under the Air Navigation Act invalid. In academic discussions of the constitution Goya Henry's successful 'attack' on Section 51 is still cited.
This Genairco is one of three remaining examples. Two, VH-UOG and VH-UOD, have remained in Australia while the third, a cabin biplane is preserved in the United States.

Source:

Powerhouse Museum (http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=372510)

EDIT TO ADD;

The questions require an answer. The absence of any sort of response by the regulator proves either they can't, are unwilling, or are so arrogant they don't care. To me silence is an admission of guilt.

SUPPLEMENTARY EDIT TO ADD Section 51 expl.
Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia)

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 02:53
@Kharon
What a bunch of emotional claptrap you come out with.
Questions based on unsubstantiated rumours and ad hominim argument.

Puerile questions that advance no ones cause.


The absence of any sort of response by the regulator proves either they can't, are unwilling, or are so arrogant they don't care. To me silence is an admission of guilt.



Or that they consider these questions to stupid to warrant an answer

You people wouldn't know corruption in a government department, even if it was taking the bribe out of your back pocket.
Get real and live by the rules, or buy a truck and see how hard those regulations are to abide.

Frank Arouet
4th Jul 2011, 03:07
Are you saying there is no substance to the original accusations?

If you are, I would say it's you, that is full of it. I have files of hard copy at hand including Commonwealth Ombudsman's damning reports that prove some of the accusations truth as they occurred to me.

Now your's is at least a response. The first by the looks of it, but doesn't improve your batting average.

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 03:15
I have files of hard copy at hand including Commonwealth Ombudsman's damning reports that prove some of the accusations truth as they occurred to me.


Ah grasshopper, you don't have "proof", but you may have some evidence of various nefarious activities - WTF has that got to do with regulator regulating.

And how the hell would I know if there is substance in the stupid questions asked, they sound like a conversation with a group of 15 year old girls at the local mall.
BTW "proof" is for maths or alchohol.

kimwestt
4th Jul 2011, 03:17
What an excellent response.
Unfortunately, a very true saying springs immediately to mind upon reading your "response".
Thy protesteth too much
Oh, and I know for an actual fact that Kharon has in fact had several trucks and is more than up to speed on how hard it is to comply.
You might owe Kharon an apology.

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 03:21
Thy protesteth too much



WTF that isn't a saying at all, it's something you just made up, much like the questions

Is an "actual" fact more of a fact than a normal fact or is it just a superlative you threw in to try and impress me with the actual trucks that he may or may not own.

And this from Kharon

Very happy, nay delighted to find that they were baseless, flawed, incorrect, biased, malicious or just plain old sour grapes.


Is evidence that he knows these are puerile questions.

Frank Arouet
4th Jul 2011, 05:58
Ah! warthog, then show us how the questions are puerile. Prove to us your drivel is worthy of reading, lest it be binned with all the other crud you have put here under previous various alias' designed to misinform, obsfucate and de-rail the original questions.

Answer question 19 for a start;

19) Is it acceptable that the deputy director be promoted to that role while under investigation for his actions of bullying, intimidation and his preposterous dealing and manner involving a certain innocent West Australian operator and a host of others?

If you can't do that, piss off!

BTW. Proof is matters tendered and written up in Hansard which include tabled signed letters from a Deputy Prime Minister accusing CASA of wilfull destruction of evidence which with civil intervention documented cronyism and malfeasance in the highest office.

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 07:24
Answer question 19 for a start;AH grasshopper, even as a child you were always the one with questions.
Is it 42, like in the book So Long and Thanks for All The Fish.
Or perhaps the answer is blowing in the wind ,my friend, the answer is blowing in the wind - hum along if you like.

Short answer, could be a problem later if found guilty of bullying and intimidating. Not sure that being preposterous is an indictable offence though. One could say that being preposterous is part of an FOI's job description so in fact is required.

Frank Arouet
4th Jul 2011, 07:41
Anyone with an ounce of decency would stand down. That would give him the moral high ground at least. That's something you can't claim.

Not sure that being preposterous is an indictable offence though.

It is if used in high public office in concert with other arrogant miscreants who are protected by misuse / abuse of the public purse.

Answer question 2 if you can.

Why is CASA allowed to continue its path of cover-up’s and non-accountable actions at the most senior levels; both previous and presently by management who have backgrounds notoriously based upon intimidation, segregation, harassment, bullying and general anti-social behaviour; along with an attitude of contempt, disregard and criminal behaviour towards industry and its staff?.

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 08:32
It is if used in high public office Ah Grasshopper, I find your proposition that preposterous behaviour is an offence some what..... Preposterous.

I find Question 2 to be emotive, self serving and disingenuous and in fact cannot be answered, Perhaps if you reworded it in a less preposterous manner I could understand your intent.

I claim no ground, moral, immoral or otherwise.
Before you remove the mote from your neighbours eye, remove the log from your own.
People in glass houses shouldn't root on the loungeroom floor.

Kharon
4th Jul 2011, 08:44
It's the association of 15 y.o. girls, shopping malls and alcohol that intrigues me. :D

All very Freudian, this along with the skillful phrasing, intellectual elegance, logical deduction and a robust, direct manner of addressing an important issue just make me wonder. :ugh:

Thank heaven for policy. To Hell with the rules (even if they are ours).

Selah. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 08:51
It's the association of 15 y.o. girls, shopping malls and alcohol that intrigues me. :D

Well it would, wouldn't it.
Are you going to substantiate the scurrilous accusations you made, or just come on here with ad hominem against someone who doubts your diatribe has any basis in fact.

Kharon
4th Jul 2011, 08:57
:ugh: := http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 09:12
@Kharon
Wow, dropped into a Hypothetical - were's that Robertson bloke.

Before you can ask those questions you must substantiate the premise is sound.
You are laying out the questions to ensure a bias in the audience against CASA.
towit:
Why do these same people boast about not having to answer to the director, the Minister of even the taxpayer, and they have also boasted that they are above the law because they make the law?.

This is presented as a fact and it may well be incorrect and unsubstantiated.
Evidence, not hearsay, of these words being uttered and context of their use would be required.
I do not believe that your statement that they weren't your questions would be an adequate defence if someone decided to sue you.

OpsNormal
4th Jul 2011, 09:41
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".


Don't any of you read the bottom of the page anymore?

Kharon, you brought your whole mess on yourself, stop blaming others.

Frank Arouet
4th Jul 2011, 10:13
How can one argue with mixed metaphors.

Kharon, you brought your whole mess on yourself, stop blaming others.

I believe CASAweary initiated the questions of which I and others would like either an account of their accuracy or a denial. All I see is a load of self gratifying mischief from someone, indeed an enigma, pontificating on the merits of CASA.

blackhand
4th Jul 2011, 22:09
How can one argue with mixed metaphors.

Ah Grasshopper, even as child you were confused about metaphor and simile.
There was no metaphor, mixed or otherwise.
You must avoid cliche like plague Ha Ha

Asfor pontificating about merits of CASA, where did you see that?
Or was that metaphorically speaking,
Rook before you reap Glasshopper, walk softly and carry big stick to smote the CASA monster.