Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[Lookleft]

Is the co - pilot in a relationship with someone?


A bit irrelevant Sunny.:=

Given the publicity surrounding this event and the poor standard of the report she probably doesn't want put herself in the firing line. If she contradicts the ATSB, CASA and the PIC then she is just going to bring a world of pain upon herself. If safety hasn't been enhanced by the publication of the report and the ATSB can't be bothered recovering the CVR/FDR then any public statements she makes is not going to make much of a difference. I think she is an F/O with Virgin so I don't blame her for just wanting to get on with her career without all the stress of going public.

[Lookleft]

Yes she should but I can understand why she hasn't. Remember the Senate hearing is into the investigation not the incident itself although the lines can be blurred. To suggest that she hasn't spoken publicly because she might be in a relationship (the relevance of which is beyond my comprehension) only serves to diminish Sunny's credibility not hers.

[Sarcs]

DCT given the reporting date is the 27th Feb I don’t believe there will be anymore public hearings, unless of course the committee seeks a further extension.

That said it is possible that the committee can request further witnesses to give evidence in a private (in camera) meeting, something that we won’t know about till after the event or when the Senate sits from the 5th Feb then any private meeting requests will be captured in the Senate Hansard.

Kharon good catch on the NTSB investigator’s manual, although very dry reading it is worth the time to read and there are some extremely relevant sections when comparing to the ATSB investigation process.:E

Trying to find the ATSB equivalent is a totally different matter, although it is listed here: Operational information (http://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/information-publication-scheme/operational-information.aspx)
But it appears to be spread across multiple volumes and you also have to pay for the privilege to access, still the FF equivalent referred to several times in their Enforcement Manual as the ‘Investigators Manual’ is either a work of fiction or buried somewhere in Flying Fiend’s basement??

Anyway back to NTSB CVR/FDR and wreckage recovery priorities reference (‘Wreckage Recovery’ pg 57 and CVR/FDR pg 79, pg 155 onwards)….

As the NTSB investigator’s manual displays the retrieval, protection and analysis of the CVR/FDR is given maximum priority in the conduct of their investigation. I have no doubt the NTSB would have moved heaven and earth to retrieve the blackbox from VH-NGA and probably any other parts of the aircraft that they thought would be relevant to their investigation i.e. ‘no stone unturned’.:ok:

This extract from the NTSB manual is also of particular interest in regards to information that the FAA (not including the ATC section) are required to provide to the NTSB:
Federal Aviation Administration Information
(1) "Blue Ribbon" medical and pilot certificate records.
(2) Violation and other certificate actions on flightcrew and airline. Obtain certified
copies.
(3) Inspections performed on the airline during the previous 12 month period including base, ramp, en route, ground and flight training program, crew member; dispatcher records (including flight and rest), trip records, dispatch center/flight
following/flight/locating facility. Obtain certified copies.
(4) Latest regional inspection performed. Obtain a certified copy.
(5) Latest national inspection performed. Obtain a certified copy.
(6) Frequency of surveillance. Compare the number and types of inspections performed with regional and national inspections guidelines.
(7) Workload of POI.
(8) Background and qualifications of POI.
(9) Authorized and current staffing level of district office.
(10) Most recent pre-accident/incident flight inspection and post flight inspection results of pertinent en route and approach facilities/aids. Obtain certified copies.
(11) Most recent pre-accident/incident airways facility inspection and post inspection or pertinent en route and approach facilities/aids. Obtain certified copies

Talk about transparency and independent authority:ok:…begs the questions;

Q1/ If Fort Fumble were required to provide all of the above would we even be having this enquiry??:ugh:
Q2/ If the ATSB had the same head of power as the NTSB and were operating to a similar investigator’s manual would the ATSB have produced such a flawed, defective ‘Final Report’ in the first place??:yuk:

Certainly food for thought!:)

[Taildragger67]

44m?

Surely the RAN have divers who could easily go to 44m. Why not put it through the budget as a training exercise?

[Sunfish]

Blackhand and lefty, I made no assertion at all. You are the ones with the dirty minds.

Why has the co pilot not spoken? Perhaps because no one bothered to ask?. Or is there another reason? Would the co pilots evidence be relevant or not?

[JetA_OK]

I understand the co pilot spoke to everyone she was required to. This doesn't include 60 mins, 4 corners, PPrune or (much to his apparent disapproval) Sunfish

[4dogs]

For Sarcs and all of the other dogs looking around and sniffing the ground, the truth is that you don't get to find out who gives evidence or what is said during "in camera" sessions if they choose not to give any public evidence. Part of the confidentiality is that no one other than the Committee and the Secretariat know what transpires. Parliamentary privilege is a very powerful thing and every person involved in such matters has a very clear understanding of that.

As for Sarcs' prediction: the Committee will not be put off by CASA being too busy to reappear last year. They can invite whoever they feel will add value to make an appearance - the witness decides on public/in camera. The reporting date will not be the controlling factor - a satisfactory explanation of the state of safety regulation will be the driver and I suspect the most unified of all RRAT Committee Inquiries of recent times will not be "whipped" into premature completion.

So what relevant questions do we want CASA to explain? :O :O :O

Stay Alive,

[Cactusjack]

Taildragger, top point! Fiddle the books, perform some smoke and mirror act. There is a dozen ways to skin the rabbit so to speak, bureaucracies are masters of it!! Maybe even sacrifice a months bonus and use that money to retrieve the boxes?

[Sarcs]

4dogs yep up with the Senate Committee processes and parliamentary privilege. Just making the point that if the Senate is sitting and the committee want to hold a private (in camera) or public meeting then they have to 'ask leave' to do so, therefore you can catch that request on Senate Hansard:ok:

Oh and you could be right the RRAT committee may require a further public hearing to question the DAS and various members of the GWM (FF), time will tell!:E

[Kharon]

I have often wondered why in Australia we do not use the "military" more on SAR than we do. I am sure our RAN would welcome the opportunity to plan and execute (budgetary constraints acknowledged) "as part of 'hands on' training an exercise" to retrieve whatever could be found at Norfolk Island. The guys would love it and it would beat swimming about in Darling Harbour "pretending"; hands down. The RAAF pilots could use their 'nav' time executing a SAR mission and gain real life experience, with a purpose; the Reserves could do ground search (having a ball – uniform and toys).

We have a very good, probably bored military (all codes) infrastructure, paid for and available to fight: why not 'real' NVG practice at low level – but to find a lost aircraft: or, go to sea to 'rescue' trapped submariners (read OBR), RAAF pilots out on SAR. Crazy idea I know, but I'd bet a six pack the troops would be up for it and the trainers glad of it. Why waste the best of the best in a swimming pool (semmantic).

Anyway - Nuff said – I know wind correction angle not equivalent to drift. But it's a point.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Feb could be interesting with the Hempel inquest due to report as well as this inquiry.

[Taildragger67]

Jack,

It's late in the day so I'm not sure if you're having a dig or not.

I think Kharon gets my point - one sees militaries from other nations getting involved in searches; the RAN and RAAF go after stranded yachties (amongst other tasks).

Recovering a CVR / FDR could be, if this thread is to be believed, something which actually does go to the national interest - aviation safety - and hence a reasonable task for the ADF.

My line about sticking it through the training budget is simply to say, as Kharon has, that if the Russell bean-counters wouldn't pass it as an operational cost, then maybe it could be seen as real-life training. Just as when Bullimore and Dubois were rescued and the then Defence Minister, Ian McLachlan, brushed aside questions of cost by saying it was excellent practical training.

Reply over, back to topic.

[JetA_OK]

Funnily enough, if the ADF had sent a team to Norfolk for a training mission they would have flown with ...... Pel-Air

[Sarcs]

HMHB in reference to your mentioning the Hempel inquest perhaps the ATSB could of utilised the RAN to raise the Yak??:E

Also relevant to the Hempel accident and from the NTSB investigator’s manual is a memo put out by the NTSB Director of the Office of Aviation Safety back in 1991, the subject being the “Implementation of Selective Criteria Policy”, here’s an extract from that memo:
A review of our investigative activity has revealed that although the overall number of accidents are down, our number of field investigations remains relatively constant. Of more significance is the finding that many of these field investigations involve types of accidents that historically and predictably have no safety impact. They very seldom result in anything other than the determination of probable cause.

Accidents that involve experimental, amateur built and aerial application aircraft fall in this category. Because the FAA is required to investigate these accidents to satisfy their obligations, we developed an agreement with them to delegate the investigations when their workload permits. This delegation process has not always been consistent in the number and types of accidents delegated nor in the quality and timeliness of the completed reports and a more uniform application of delegations is needed.

Therefore, in the future, no experimental, amateur built, or aerial application accident will be done as an NTSB field investigation unless there are unusual circumstances that the regional director feels justify the field investigation, and that action has been coordinated with either AS-1 or AS-2.

Although that sounds similar to the way the ATSB prioritise their investigations there is some very notable differences in their actual selective criteria list:
2. Selected emphasis areas:

a. Part 91 accidents with elements common to Part 121/135 operations (e.g., aircraft
typically used in Part 121/135 operations; Part 121/135 training flights, etc.).
b. All fatal general aviation accidents.*
c. Commercial passenger flight incidents with safety improvement potential.
d. Air traffic control incidents with safety improvement potential.
e. Aging aircraft.

*The Safety Board, through a letter of agreement with the FAA, delegates the investigation of all agricultural, home-built, and experimental category aircraft accidents to the FAA. However, for those cases in which the FAA does not accept a delegated accident, the Safety Board must perform the investigation. Although I can’t imagine the ATSB ever delegating an investigation to CAsA it is apparent from the above that had the NTSB been notified of the Hempel accident and the FAA (FF) refused the delegation, then the NTSB would still be obliged to carry out the field investigation. And even if the FAA (FF) accepted the investigation delegation the NTSB still keeps an element of control or supervision over the investigation:When an accident is delegated to the FAA, it will be the regional director's responsibility to make sure the delegated accidents meet minimum quality control and timeliness standards.Which is very different to the Hempel investigation where the ATSB and CAsA totally wiped their hands of the matter.:ugh:

Just like the CVR/FDR issue with Pel-Air the ATSB should have been obliged to salvage the wreckage. With the relevant history of prangs in the Yak (FOD jammed controls etc), I have no doubt that the NTSB would have recovered the wreck regardless of whether the investigation had been delegated to the FAA (or in the Hempel case the QPS Forensic Crash Unit)!:yuk:

No as HMHB says it is going to be an interesting month and a half!:cool:

[Sarcs]

Further to the non-recovery of the blackbox, section 49 of the TSI Act reads:
49 OBR ceasing to be an OBR under declaration of ATSB

(1) The ATSB may, by published notice, declare that a recording, or a
part of a recording, identified in the notice is not to be treated as an
OBR on and after a date specified in the notice.

(2) If the ATSB decides not to investigate the transport safety matter
to which an OBR relates, the ATSB must, by published notice, declare that the OBR is not to be treated as an OBR on and after a
date specified in the notice.

(3) If:
(a) the ATSB decides to investigate the transport safety matter to
which an OBR relates; and
(b) the ATSB is satisfied that any part of the OBR is not relevant
to the investigation; the ATSB must, by published notice, identify that part and declare that part is not to be treated as an OBR on and after a date specified
in the notice.

(4) The ATSB cannot revoke or vary a notice published under this
section.

(5) When an OBR, or part of an OBR, ceases to be an OBR because of
a notice published under this section, then any related OBR
information also ceases to be OBR information.
Q1/ Given Beaker’s decision to not recover the blackbox and that the Final Report has been published, have the ATSB effectively 49er’d any useful evidence contained on the OBR?

It would appear from the TSI that if the OBR has been 49er’d then even if the Pel-Air investigation was miraculously re-opened then two eyewitness statements would be regarded as inadmissible evidence. Which probably suits the likes of Fort Fumble and the operator but may not please the victims and the interested insurance companies. :ugh:

Q2/ However could this also mean that any interested party can now recover the OBR devices or is the wreckage still effectively quarantined by the ATSB?

Q3/ What would be the legal implications if the wreck and OBRs have been written off by the ATSB and someone, say an insurance company or two, salvaged the wreck/OBR devices i.e. could the OBR evidence then be used in any legal action?

The more that is revealed, or rather not revealed, of this sordid tale the more the pile of pony pooh grows, as flight nurse Karen Casey said: “CASA & ATSB have a lot to answer for, dragging this on for selfish intent is criminal & at the least cruel to all on board. The coverup is surfacing and all will be revealed about the incompetencies of all parties involved.” One can only hope she is right and to quote her again they… “Just stop the B.S & tell the truth.” :ok:

[Kharon]

Sometimes I sits and thinks – sometimes I just sit.

ATSB - Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/30/atsb-shamelessly-rails-against-safety-under-reporting/)

[Sarcs]

Another classic Ben Sandilands, hope the Senators are getting his stuff piped into them? :ok:

So Beaker’s mob prattles out this:Under reporting of occurrences (http://www.atsb.gov.au/safetywatch/under-reporting-of-occurrences.aspx)

But in the enquiry environment Beaker wants us to believe his justification for decimating the once obligatory ‘Safety Recommendation’ is as stated in the following Beakerised policy:
From ATSB supplementary submission 2[1]:

Managing safety issues and actions

Traditionally, accident investigation agencies produce final reports and issue safety recommendations to other organisations or individuals, to encourage change in order to prevent a recurrence of an accident. Further, performance targets are often associated with the number of recommendations issued by investigation authorities. The focus of an ATSB investigation is on achieving safety outcomes; that is through the identification of the factors that increased risk, particularly those associated with ongoing/future risk (safety issues), such that action can be taken by relevant organisations to address the identified 'safety issue'. This does not in itself require the issuing of safety recommendations, although that is an option. Noting that safety recommendations are not enforceable, the issuing of a safety recommendation in itself may not achieve any
tangible safety benefit, if the target organisation elects not to accept and react to the recommendation.

In this regard, the ATSB prefers to encourage proactive safety actions that address the 'safety issues' identified in its reports. Other benefits of this approach are that the stakeholders are generally best placed to determine the most effective way to address any 'safety issues' and the publication of the safety actions that address an issue proactively should be viewed as a positive step that provides for timely safety action prior to the release of the report and a level of completeness when the final report is published. This approach is reflected in the difference that Australia has filed with respect to Annex 13 para 6.8.

The response to a safety recommendation is most often unlikely to be any different to the safety action reported by an organisation in response to an identified safety issue, but the latter is likely to be more proactive and timely. That is specifically the case with respect to the Norfolk Island investigation, where the responses to any formal safety recommendations to CASA and Pel-Air related to the two identified safety issues, are likely to be as per the safety action detailed in the report.

The ATSB is in the process of redeveloping its website to be 'safety issue' focused rather than 'recommendation' focussed. The point of importance is that the safety issue remains open (like a recommendation) until such time as it is either adequately addressed, or it is clear that the responsible organisation does not intend taking any action (and has provided its reasons). In the event that no, or limited, safety actions are taken or proposed, the ATSB has the option to issue a formal safety recommendation. However, experience has been that this is rarely required.

The ATSB's Safety Investigation Information Management System (SliMS) provides tools for investigators to record and track safety issues and actions, including through the setting up of alerts to prompt periodic follow-up of progress with safety action where a safety issue is open and the safety actions are being monitored (the same process applies if a recommendation were issued). In addition, a standing agenda item is included in the quarterly Commission meetings to review safety issues and actions during the previous quarter, with particular focus on those that remain open.

The ATSB's Annual Plan and part of the ATSB's Key Performance Indicators
specifically relate to a measurement of safety action taken in response to safety issues; in the case of 'critical' safety issues, the target is for safety action to be taken by stakeholders 1 00% of the time, while for 'significant' safety issues, the target is 70%.

For the FY11 /12, there were no identified critical safety issues and 28 significant safety issues. In response to the significant safety issues, adequate safety action was taken in 89% of cases and a further 4% were assessed as partially addressed.
(NB Carefully read this passage a couple of times and try to understand the Beaker logic, stuffed if I can!):uhoh:

Hmm…clear as mud yet???:ugh:

WTF? Beaker’s left hand appears not to know what his right hand is up to, although after reading this crap I think I’ve got a pretty good idea!:E

The “Managing safety issues and actions” extract also seems to conflict the importance the TSI Act places on the ‘Safety Recommendation’:

"25A Responses to reports of, or containing, safety recommendations
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the ATSB publishes a report under section 25 in relation to
an investigation; and
(b) the report is, or contains, a recommendation that a person,
unincorporated association, or an agency of the
Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, take safety action.
(2) The person, association or agency to whom the recommendation is
made must give a written response to the ATSB, within 90 days of
the report being published, that sets out:
(a) whether the person, association or agency accepts the recommendation (in whole or in part); and
(b) if the person, association or agency accepts the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—details of any action
that the person, association or agency proposes to take to
give effect to the recommendation; and
(c) if the person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—the reasons why the
person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part)."

Maybe the Beaker regime is breaching the TSI Act….what a joke!:yuk:

[Kharon]

A coffee and 5 minutes to mull over Ben's latest provokes some interesting thoughts; like I wonder if there is still a "real", old ATSB struggling to get out from under the pile of dross CASA have left them saddled with. The ATSB were always a well respected, world class operation and very few of the main players have changed in the engine room. Some of the 'old school' must be tearing their hair out, but I expect protecting the family rice bowl must come above professional pride and integrity. Whilst it's an understandable position, the aftertaste must be grim.

Perhaps the Senate could dig some of them out and find out exactly what happened with not only the Pel Air investigation but with a few of the other stinkers laying about, Hempel, Canley Vale etc. etc. etc. I believe permanent protection would be available under privilege; any future threats could be passed off as revenge for spilling the beans. QED.

A worrying thing is the time and money required to get 'proper' legal opinion on the 'legality' of the CASA operations with PA. Someone has shot from the hip again only this time, shot their foot off. The question as to whether due process under the Investigation manual and the TSI act was followed is worthy of some serious consideration. Clearly the outcome was pre defined, pre ordained by the gods and executed by the willing accomplice – no question there. Then the deeply hidden first agenda is revealed then the 'amazing' back flip, then the ATSB joining in. Who was the masked man with a smoking gun and only one foot? Bet a dollar he was not wearing a hood or a mask at the time.

Lots of lovely big fat legal issues right there, the legal fandango on the extremes of the law begs so many questions I doubt that simply grilling a few of the top dogs will divine the truth. We need to see managers, auditors, FOI and IIIA investigators, under oath giving their version of events. That would clear some of the deckchairs which cannot any longer support the arses, large and small stuck there.

Did I mention managers ?– I believe I did.

[my oleo is extended]

Mr Kharon, I believe you to be correct. The ATSB does have an inner core that are bursting to be break free of the Beakerology that has been inflected upon them in recent years. Those people can only do what they are permitted to do, even if it includes sitting by as the upper echelon put a red pen through their investigation reports and insist that they are diluted to worthless pieces of paper.

And I must agree that a higher level of inquiry that goes beyond the Senate is desperately needed. The answers are out there, but who wants to sacrifice their careers and the livelihood of their families in the pursuit of truth? Not many bold souls, and that is fair enough. A royal commission would see all stones overturned and an assortment of evidence providers brought to the fore, some willing and some by chain and hook.

I know that out there in aviation land will be an ATSB investigator who has kept his original notes, concerns, drafts and final report, before it was 'modified' by the upper echelon.
I know that out there somewhere are the auditors from the 'CASA Special Audit' of Pelair. They too would have transcript, evidence, and the draft version of their initial report.
I know that out there are the audit team who undertook the general audit of Pelair, they too would have copies of what was handed to their seniors and what actually made it into the mainstream.
These people are the keys to unlocking the 'mystique' of CASA and ATSBeakers actions in all of this. But they too would be held at the mercy of senior management, hence the need for a robust inquiry.

So again dear Senators, it's over to you. You hold the keys to the chest full of treasures, will you unlock it?

[Sarcs]

:cool: Oleo said:I know that out there somewhere are the auditors from the 'CASA Special Audit' of Pelair. They too would have transcript, evidence, and the draft version of their initial report.
Oleo don't forget that a couple of those very same auditors were also tasked to help at least one designated CAA Part IIIA investigator conduct and contribute to the infamous, hidden investigation report titled CAIR 09/3.

A report that appeared to initially support the findings of the ‘Special Audit Team’ but then did an almost complete 180 by the time they got to their own findings and conclusions.:yuk::yuk:

NB It would also appear; much like the ATSB A320 report, that the ATSB ‘Final Report’ pretty much mirrored the CAIR 09/3.:ugh:

As FF is a recognised federal government investigation/enforcement agency they are obliged to conform to the ‘Australian Government Investigation Standard’. Therefore it should follow that the Pel-Air investigation team should have documented, managed, compiled evidence (chain of evidence etc) as per the AGIS 2011, see here:
http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/FOI/Documents/AGIS%202011.pdf
Which I suggest Oleo could/should be made readily available for the good Senators to review?? It would be interesting to see if the FF IIIA investigator(s) have followed ‘due process’ in the conduct of the Pel-Air investigation…perhaps a few more required witnesses to give evidence, the list is growing!:=

As Mr. Buzzy would say…Bbzz..bbzzz..bbzz…or the Kelpie: “More to follow”! :E

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, agreed. The Pelair special audit report, along with the relevant documented observations, NCN's, obtained evidence, written notes and list of persons spoken with, along with the names list of the Inspectors who undertook the audit will be on file. The audit report will also contain references to which part of the regulations they were non compliant with. If the audit report can't be produced then CASA has breached it's own procedures and due governance. Then again it's executives are promulgators of the 'do as I say not as I do' philosophy.

I see no reason why the Senators cannot be given this full audit documentation at a moments notice, it is as simple as pressing the print or send button. Any delay or stalling tactics should be viewed as suspicious to say the least. That is my concern, the stalling game. A royal commission would remove that little ace in CASA's deck of cards. The commissioner could simply call up all who he/she wishes to the witness stand your honour!

The other option is obtaining material under FOI however that is a wasted drawn out exercise as government departments have that issue nutted out perfectly, and getting anything tangible takes years, blacked out page at a time.

So yes, lot rests on the shoulders of the good Senators.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Something I have been meaning to ask: Where did the nickname "Beaker" come from?
Tootle pip!!

[Sarcs]

Totally agree Oleo that all the information collated in the SAR and previous Pel-Air audits should be made available to the Senators and the FF auditors be made available to give evidence.:ok:

However in all due repect you kind of missed my point about the FF investigative team that was apparently headed up by the Manager of the then newly formed 'Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit', which was tasked to conduct a parallel investigation with the ATSB.

Whereas the ATSB's investigation team is governed by the the TSI Act 2003 and their own investigation procedures manual, as a Government Enforcement agency FF is totally different and are beholden to adhere to the "Australian Government Investigative Standard (2011)".

This is even quoted on page 11-4 of the CAsA enforcement manual, which reads: "The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards."


One of the team (at least) has to be a Part IIIA investigator and must manage the investigation as per the AGIS 2011 (previous version was AGIS 2003):http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtec...GIS%202011.pdf

What this means is that all the required documentation, evidence, case notes, meeting minutes etc..etc has to be filed and correctly collated as per the AGIS.

So therefore these required files should be made available for the Senators to review, or on the other hand if it hasn't been done properly (i.e. due process hasn't been followed) then the obligatory Friday afternoon pineapple insertions and beheadings will soon be a regular feature!:D

[Kharon]

Perhaps the Senators could make sure, to be sure that all the boxes which needed to be ticked, were indeed ticked. It should not be too difficult to produce a man with one foot shot off and all of his paperwork. If not the TRIM system works just fine.

Investigation, evidence and investigators manual references:

If the relevant manager considers that there may be evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3). It is only after discussion in this forum that a request for investigation should be made using form 333.

The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)

If a prima facie case exists and prosecution is considered, a Brief of Evidence will be compiled and submitted in accordance with the procedures set down in the Investigators Manual. Alternatively, on consideration of the investigator’s report, the Manager EPP may decide that the issue of an AIN is a more appropriate penalty. This will also be discussed as part of the CEP. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)

11.5.2 Reporting The Investigators/Coordinator Investigations make entries on AIRS, on the ASIS database and on the Enforcement Action Register on the Enforcement Action Rooms. (Note: This would be as per the AGIS 2003.)

13.6.2 Staff Responsible

Inspectors.

At any time, where inspectors may be unsure of exhibit-handling procedures, advice should be sought from EPP.

Note: Investigators are also responsible for evidence/exhibits and should refer to the Investigators’ Manual. (reference 13-7 enforcement manual).

Note: For procedures for evidence and evidence handling (for Inspectors) refer to section 13 of enforcement manual. Investigators procedures are contained within the Investigators Manual.


For Leadsled - Beaker, a Me Me musical moment. Tootle pip. :D

[my oleo is extended]

Leadie. The answer to your question is contained in Kharons post. See the resemblance now? It is uncanny, plus when they both speak it is an incredible likeness! Goes to show they are all muppets!

Sarcs, valid point. However the accident investigations liaison manager put a team together and told them to 'go forth and audit'. That is the most of what he did, then in the wash up he toyed with the reports wording, and a robust here and a robust there. If the holistic task was left up to him you would be left with blank pieces of paper and the odd doodling.
The nuts and bolts, the meat and veg, the bricks and mortar of the investigation was undertaken by frontline inspectors. To them I offer no criticism. However their puppet master, the go between, the man who acts as a double adaptor (so to speak) between CASA and the ATSBeaker is probably about as skilled as Beaker. A tanned man, lover of bling and proud sponsor of a topless car. If you speak to some former colleagues of his in the UK, CAA NZ or the ATSB they trip over themselves laughing at the 'beautiful mans' ability to play the system and remain afloat, skipping between lifeboats at the right time!
And don't shoot me, I'm passing on the message!

You know, I think Russell is the smartest out of the lot of these clowns. Took a parachute at the right time, made hay while the sun shined and then and went to work for the company whom supplied most of the systems he permitted into ASA! There's gold in them there hills son!
Perhaps Skull, Beaker and assorted friends will also soon search for a parachute, after all the poo bomb has well and truly exploded. Only problem is who in their right mind would employ them?

Sarcs, the pineapples are in position, the lube has been applied and deep breaths taken. Time for the Senators to do the rest!

Anyway, gotta run kids, I need to start checking the emails as it is Friday afternoon and it is 16 minutes shy of 1659 pm !

Tootle pip!

[Dangly Bits]

Kharon that is Gold. Animal looks suspiciously like the Skull.....

[Kharon]

Cheers`DB - we do try; Lord knows we try. I forget who said it but there is many a true word spoken in jest. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif:D

[Sarcs]

"K" top shot and DB good catch!:ok:

Oleo said:However the accident investigations liaison manager put a team together and told them to 'go forth and audit'. That is the most of what he did, then in the wash up he toyed with the reports wording, and a robust here and a robust there. If the holistic task was left up to him you would be left with blank pieces of paper and the odd doodling.

Oleo what you say maybe entirely the way it happened and old mate the ALIU manager is just manipulating the situation to gain a carte blanche invitation to the esteemed trough but I believe that could be where he ultimately trips himself up.:rolleyes:

As you seem to be in the know was said manager a Part IIIA designated investigator? If not who was? Because it would appear that one was required.

On pg 6 of CAIR 09/3 it reads;

“Synopsis

The Accident was notified to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) who in turn notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on Wednesday 18 November. The ATSB decided to conduct an investigation. The CASA Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) was tasked with conducting a parallel investigation for CASA purposes. An investigation into the circumstances of the accident was commenced the next day. CASA informed the ATSB of the investigation in accordance with sub section 4.1.2 of the joint MOU.”

So this was definitely a parallel investigation and I don’t believe FF were doing it… “to help those poor under funded ATSB boys’n’gals out”. It was most likely that they were exploring the possibility of cuffing some poor bastard under section 20A; or if that didn’t work “we’ll get him administratively under CAR 265”; or “whatever works as long as the mud doesn’t stick to our new, best pals from Singapore”! :ugh:

“4.1 Parallel investigations:
4.1.1 The ATSB may undertake ‘no--blame’ safety investigations in accordance with the TSI Act and CASA may separately undertake investigations with a view to possible safety—related action pursuant to its functions under Section 9 and/or Part IIIA of the Civil Aviation Act.”

Oh in case your wondering 4.1.2 of the MOU reads:

“4.1.2 As soon as reasonably practicable after either the ATSB decides to conduct an investigation, or CASA decides to conduct an investigation in relation to a matter that would be a reportable matter to the ATSB, each organisation will notify the other organisation.”

So Oleo regardless if old mate Aliu is on the take, rogering the DAS’s missus or he is just a lazy bugger, the half assed investigation that he was tasked to do still had to comply with an “Australian Government Investigative Standard” and if for some inexplicable reason it doesn’t then his ass is definitely ripe for a pineapple rheeming courtesy of the Senators canteen.:E

[Kharon]

"If the relevant manager considers that there maybe evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3)". Think about that for a second.

What we do need to know is the basis of an unqualified "office" manager's (admin, load control etc.) decision that part 20 A (for anything) of the Act has been breached. It's a hell of a call:

From this 'informed' decision being made, all hell is let loose, on one mans say so. It's a stock standard, catchall bluff from Sleepy Hollow; they know the impact but they also know just how hard it is to prove at law. But, none of that matters; they have a "suspected" breach, which lets the dogs out.

Now, you may suspect chemtrails, alien life forces, or the way your Grannies tea leaves fall dictate the fate of the universe. You are quite entitled to believe in Santa, the Easter bunny or even that all politicians are honest; but, you cannot prove it too easily. So why, on the whim of one man, is such a mighty pony pooh storm able to be called down? Who is this masked man?

The brakes need to applied before any such "decision" is made; that suspicion needs to be better than a whim or a 'standard departure' point for the AAT. Before a 'manager' is allowed this much horsepower a case should be presented; the cops can't get a search warrant without reasonable grounds, so how come some office wallah can decide that a serious criminal investigation can be initiated.

I refer you to Macbeth Act 4 scene 1 to discover the way in which these matters are arranged, I reckon the three witches were closer to being legally concise than the 'masked manager' and his crew. Talk about foxes in chook houses.

Selah.

[Kharon]

Sandilands - "In an election year it’s quite clear no-one in government or opposition really gives a damn about questionable standards in air safety investigations in this country. Plane Talking – Ben Sandilands. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/02/atsb-doesnt-list-qantas-tail-strike-lists-virgin-incident/)

This short piece by Sandilands highlights, once again the lack of service to industry from the ATSB new system of recording and reporting and the evils of the MOU. It is not the tail strike per se causing the problem, but that industry must now rely on the Aviation Herald to report the incident and make it's own decisions based against the report there.

Aviation Herald. (http://avherald.com/)

How are developing trends to be isolated and rectified if there is no "authoritative" voice; tail strike 1 = something nothing. Tail strike 15 from one company = a different animal; 15 tail strikes across a fleet different again. Different responses required.

No matter where the funding for service is drawn from, in the end the travelling public pay – one way or the other. They pay for a first class analysis and reporting system, which oversights accidents, in the hope of preventing a recurrence. Even the humble tail strike.

ATSB is not there to cover the CASA arse, to save a few dollars by not examining accidents, or sign off on reports which are not only sub standard, useless and flawed but could allow a repeat incident to occur. It's hard to believe that in Australia we have a size 10, million dollar bun fight in the Senate just to get these people to do the job they are asked to do.

[flying-spike]

Oleo is correct, the names of the CASA members on the investigation and special audit team are freely available. A look at the list of inspectors shows that as well as the usual flying ops and airworthiness inspectors there was one of the relatively new breed of Safety Systems Inspectors. Their task is not only to look at the effectiveness of the systems that should have plugged the holes in the cheese and not only the systems of the operator but also the regulatory systems that should have plugged the holes.

Rumour has it that the latter were raised particularly in relation to the fatigue risk management system that CASA had previously approved. Being the devil's advocate and highlighting deficiencies in your employer is fraught with danger but that is the lot of a proper investigation and apparently the inspector concerned was given a pineapple previously for, when asked to examine CASA's responses to ATSB safety recommendations from the Lockhart River accident, he did not hold back on criticising those responses ( or lack of them). Admittedly the pineapple was purported to have been launched not from the person that requested the report but from the person who attracted the criticism. Or so I hear.

[aroa]

Not by the Manual that's for sure. That might be a bit of a guide to help tidy up the paperwork..AFTER the event and or "investigation"

Had a good laugh on reading 2.4.1.. Natural Justice and Accountability..2 things that CASA doesnt give a rats about, and..
2.4.2 Impartiality....Ha Ha Ha...pull the other one ! You can kiss that one adieu as well.

From direct experience CASA MO is in REVERSE of the requirements of the AGIS,and their own enforcement manual.

Penalty notice /AIN ...FIRSToff. (ie deemed GUILTY of offence)
Then an "investigation" that wasnt really/totally 1/2 arsed by an "investigator", one S Cremerius whose Part 111 appointment came a couple of weeks later. Other investigations found people in my favour, Cremerius found none. Que?? Just following the CB line,... guilty of course so
dont let the truth get in the way of the CASA agenda! :mad:

Alas,at great cost to the taxpayer it all went tits up. And a complaint to the current ICC re the MO of the Manager Compliance and Enforcement doesnt warrant any attention because my complaint was for something more than 12 months ago.!! :mad: Thats right... any old BS will do.!:D
Funny that, they dont give a rats if yr FOI takes 2 years to finally get SFA.

GO you good Senators, GO!!!! :ok:

[my oleo is extended]

Mr Spike, interesting sir, very interesting. If your sources are also correct then it certainly appears that FF are harvesting a frickin pineapple plantation?

Industry complaint to the ICC? Score a pineapple?
Industry prove that CASA are incorrect over their interpretation of an issue? Score a pineapple.
Industry disagree on an audit finding or an NCN stemming from op surveilance? Score a pineapple?
Work for CASA and do the right thing, act with fairness and integrity toward industry? Score a pineapple.
Highlight a CASA deficiency or incorrect action in regards to an internal matter? Score a pineapple?
CASA - Write some silly comments making the Senators out to be buffoons, then apologise, brown nose and eat a poo poo sandwich? Dodge a pineapple.
CASA - Trick ICAO and FAA with circus acts and amazing tricks against a darkened background? Dodge a pineapple.
Continually lie and deceive by promising completed regulations for decades then simply stall and play magic tricks until a new government is elected and then start playing the same game over again? Dodge a pineapple.
Respond to Senators questions with imbecile comments, 'take it on notice' (and never come back with an answer), and treat Senators with contempt? DESERVED PINEAPPLE.

I think Mr Spike also made an interesting but brief reference to Lockhart River? Although a different topic I interested in hearing more about this? I have always said that FF dodged a bullet on Lockhart, and the Norfolk mess as well as Canley Vale seems to be rapidly building a profile of Regulatory ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and bot bot covering. Again I believe that decades of individuals avoiding accountability has created a horrid culture of 'we shall do as we f&king please and you can all get stuffed'. A royal commission needs to be granted, there no longer is any other option.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Oleo,

It looks like you've just written the unwritten rule to the casa chess game?

[Kharon]

FS #991 – and Oleo # 993. Two clear posts which bring us to a fork in the road. Both pathways forward are murky, muddy and guarded by ferocious beasts.

One path takes us down into the operational levels and to the resignations of two very well qualified safety inspectors; where to say the least, the timing is interesting. Where the Lockhart farce raises it's ugly head in the mix and there still remain questions of the RCA not signed by the well qualified individual who raised them, but signed by a person considerably less professionally qualified and regarded. It would be interesting indeed to have the two highly qualified persons in question provide their 'expert' version of the "facts and circumstances", i.e. who rogered who and who paid.

The other path takes us upwards toward departmental governance, to the ever ready legal crew who seem to manage the most extraordinary twisting, bending and shaping of the rules to suit a pre determined outcome, with an ease that beggars the imagination. This leads to the high altitude plateau of oversight and thus to management, the board and minister.

I feel a Royal Commission is a heavy, expensive blunt instrument to crack the Pel Air nut. A Judicial no holds barred enquiry into this one event will tear the lid off a can of worms. I believe the Senate is almost there; they cannot, for the sake of public credibility be fobbed off with another soft white paper. In an election year it will be interesting to see which path they take – in any event both pathways meet at the well of truth and the public safety.

It has been suggested that the Senate is, at the end of the day, powerless. It's time to take the kid gloves off and demonstrate where true power lays; and NO, it is not within the halls of Fort Fumbles.

[my oleo is extended]

Mr Kharon, indeed, the good Senators may only retain enough power to open the can of worms and not have the power and permission to take the matters to a higher playing field, time will tell. One thing is for certain, the way things are currently going I think there is enough coming to light to ensure that when a large smoking hole finally becomes a reality (and it will), there will have been enough evidence raised about the governments inaction and posturing to ensure some mighty big legal action is actioned against these clowns. Then again, it's you and I the taxpayer who cough up for it in the end and those in higher places that shall not be named remain fully protected and unaccountable.

Mr Chocolate biscuit, the CASA chess game contains many many processes. Written rules, unofficial rules, rules for some and rules for others, secretive and clandestine rules, no rules, supernatural occult rules and a smattering of pony poo rules. The game contains 'winner takes all' rules, 'you are the weakest link rules', rules pertaining to trough wallowing and rules about the rules. You have hypothetical rules, rules in which accountability for players actions don't exist, rules that are discussed, articulated, philosophised and excitedly discussed at round table meetings by men wearing slippers and smoking cigars while sitting on leather couches in dark libraries at secret locations where blood letting and touching each others plonkers is the norm!

Yes, Mr Biscuit, many a twist to this Chess Game. But you ain't seem nothing yet, wait till you see the game of 'Tautology' when released in full after almost 24 years under development.

[Stan van de Wiel]

Have just been informed by Sen Heffernan's office that the next public hearing is to be held on the 15th in CB.



"empty skies are safe skies"

[PAIN_NET]

In response to requests for additional information, the following working notes are offered.

Please be aware these are only draft working notes and completely unverified. Whilst we cannot attest to their probity they will provide a springboard for detailed analysis, for those who enjoy the research challenge.

Download - For_Research_Only. (http://www15.zippyshare.com/v/17938849/file.html)

PAIN_Net... DO NOT track downloads. Relax troops.

P4 – AKA – Ferret.

[my oleo is extended]

Kharon,
That seems like an odd process, for an Inspector to issue a NCN yet someone else puts their signature on it? Is that legal? How and why would somebody else sign it? Does that comply with CASA's SPM? I wonder what the Operators think of this?

Stan, good news.
Hopefully CASA will provide the Senators with a specific date for the release of the new regs?
Hopefully CASA will provide the Senators with clear and precise answers and where necessary the evidence to ALL questions that have been 'taken on notice' over the past 14 months?

PAIN,
Some robust reading indeed. I am sure that FF legal team will be busy scurrying through all this and burning the midnight candle?

Senators,
You would by now be painfully aware by way of submissions, interviews and ongoing discussions that the CASA, ATSB and ASA are in a parlours state of disrepair. The heads of the snakes need removing. The sheer scale of risk that the industry is exposed to by the actions and inactions of the over sighting bodies is beyond words and comprehension. You are intelligent men well versed in the politics, spin and deflection trotted out during inquiries of this nature. But so are many others, aware of the state of play within Australian aviation safety. The more that eeks out and the more that people are not held to account means the more unsettled industry becomes and the more accountable individuals in government shod become for choosing to turn a blind eye and ignore the warnings. The facts have been well and truly exposed, are those in power still prepared to sit on their fat a#ses and play ignorant?

[Sarcs]

Stan also heard from a reliable source that the next public hearing is the 15th, pity it wasn’t the 14th we could have dubbed it the ‘Valentine’s Massacre Mark II’! :ok: Anyway should be confirmed tomorrow when the Senate sits.

Going off the PAIN reference and spike’s post….
“Rumour has it that the latter were raised particularly in relation to the fatigue risk management system that CASA had previously approved. Being the devil's advocate and highlighting deficiencies in your employer is fraught with danger but that is the lot of a proper investigation and apparently the inspector concerned was given a pineapple previously for, when asked to examine CASA's responses to ATSB safety recommendations from the Lockhart River accident, he did not hold back on criticising those responses ( or lack of them). Admittedly the pineapple was purported to have been launched not from the person that requested the report but from the person who attracted the criticism. Or so I hear.”
….my money is that spike would be referring to BC rather than MC, although both gentleman have CVs that would put them in the top 2% of experts in Human Factors in aviation for Australia, if not the world!:ugh:

Going off Oleo’s post maybe compiling a list of questions might help to clear some of the bull**** and corruption we’re beginning to get flooded with here!

Q1/ So why did they both jump ship(BC&MC)? And the timing is very suss, especially BC (August 2010)??

Q2/ And those countersigned RCAs WTF is that all about?

Q3/ And in a normal world should some of those RCAs have required a ‘Safety Alert’?


Following assessment of the response and on the Recipient Response portion of the RCA carry out the following actions:


• Complete the Verification and Action section; this section must record objective evidence to support the decision for acquittal.
• Complete the name and file reference sections.


• Acquit the audit response by signing the document.


• Notify the Auditee of the acceptance of the response in accordance with the local field office procedures.


• Forward the acquitted RCA and supporting documentation on the file to the data entry operator for entry into the support systems (see data entry Guidelines for ASSP and Pentana).


• Enter the RCA information into the relevant support systems.


• Ensure all RCA acquittal and closure documentation is filed on the appropriate audit file.




Q4/ So where is the acquittal documentation for the RCAs, hmm maybe they’ve got a stuck TRIM or no one could manage to hit the Pentana?:E

There’s a possible RRAT committee document request in there me thinks??:=

The more that is revealed the more the reeking pooh piles up!:{

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, BC may have signed off on the RCA's but my source tells me that the 'author of the RCA's' has more qualifications than BC! There are more twists to this than in Michael Jacksons colon.
It would also be rumoured that there has been quite a number of audits in which others sign off on RCA's they have not written themselves.

I am lead to believe that BC left not because he was pushed but rather because he had a gutful of the FF shenanigans, silliness and also because his salary was a lamentable joke. Indeed there was not room for him to dine at the trough with those more royal than he.
He was 'hand picked' by a former colleague and went back to the RAAF to apply his HF trade, along with a more robust remuneration package and a uniform that makes the Skulls Friday outfits look like rejected St Vinnies clothes!

I am still curious about one thing. The Special Auditor of Pelair after the Norfolk accident was, according to Spike, also involved in a special review of Transairs handy work at Lockhart. Why? Lockhart occurred several years before Norfolk, and Lockhart was all done and dusted, closed off, finished , finalised, finito. So why review the whole accident again? For the majority of us it would be a natural part of any investigation once all the dust settles and the clock had ticked forward, review, improve, change and learn. But we are talking about FF here, anything and every they do has an alterior motive, and dicing with Lockhart several year later is very suspicious indeed.

Is there a 'Lockhart special review' document out there awaiting the Senators perusal? Is there something out there that our friends at Stalag CASA are a little nervous about?

[flying-spike]

Spurred by Oleo's comment I contacted the inspector involved and he does have a Masters in HF etc. although CASA had him remove the appropriate post nominal from his business card as it embarrasses those "superiors" who only qualified in preschool finger painting and pooh flinging.

As for the Lockhart paper he said it was a test to see if he was appropriate material for the ALIU manager's position prior to Norfolk and when he bagged CASA's responses in the paper he wasn't surprised to learn that he was judged to not fit the position even though he was an accident investigator with a previous employer. Still, he finds it all an amusing memory now that he has had to retire.

[my oleo is extended]

Spike, interesting insight. It would seem CASA have really been concentrating on all those important things in life - business cards, fancy letters after ones name, not promoting any underling who is more qualified than the nimwits farther up the ladder. As for prioritising safety matters?? Hmmmm.
You are correct about the finger painting aspect. But that stopped a year or two ago after the old geriatrics hands cramped up with arthritis. Now they place a brush in their mouths and paint the canvass that way. It's quite effective and they are good at it because they are use to bobbing for apples .

As a sidepoont, EASA have released their 2013 - 2016 European Aviation Safety Plan, with SMS on its way. It certainly beats any folly that CASA has in play within its own structure (oh sorry, did I forget the SPM which is around 13 years in production) and it pi#ses over Albo's silly White Paper and any glossy spin documents the CASA Board has ever churned out. I simply can't imagine CASA with its own SMS, after all a SMS does incorporate accountability, which not surprisingly is not a CASA strong point. Perhaps CASA execs should shun Montreal as their choice of taxpayer funded holiday destination and head to Europe instead?

It is time for 'out with the old geezers, in with the new'.

[Sarcs]

Oleo you said:
Sarcs, BC may have signed off on the RCA's but my source tells me that the 'author of the RCA's' has more qualifications than BC! There are more twists to this than in Michael Jacksons colon.
It would also be rumoured that there has been quite a number of audits in which others sign off on RCA's they have not written themselves.


If you take a close look at the SAR (version II so far??) that Flight Nurse Karen Casey was able to get under FOI and then look at the list of RCAs:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-5471.pdf

You'll see that other than the first 13 RCAs that were signed by the FOI assigned to Pel-Air the rest, although appearing to be written by various Special Audit Team members (including BC), are countersigned and filled out by the Audit Skulldinator....:E

FS said: As for the Lockhart paper he said it was a test to see if he was appropriate material for the ALIU manager's position prior to Norfolk and when he bagged CASA's responses in the paper he wasn't surprised to learn that he was judged to not fit the position even though he was an accident investigator with a previous employer. Still, he finds it all an amusing memory now that he has had to retire.

So Spike it was more a test of whether he would tow the party line? And the dude failed miserably...so Messr RW gets the gig because he is itching to feed at the trough and has previously been a reasonable master of spin and obfuscation and considered more than a match for the numpties at the bureau...hmm makes sense I guess???:ugh:

For those interested I also found this interesting released FOI documentation, which is a copy of an audit on Pel-Air in March 2008:cool::
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-10004.pdf

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, it's interesting reviewing these 2 audits independently. Some highlights (or should I say high****es) are:

- In 2008 80% of the 20 FLT crew reviewed had no evidence of life jacket/raft training. Then after the ditching in 2009 the special audit found inadequate life raft refresher training. Not much changed in 12 months.
- In 2008 that audit uncovered basically nil FRMS training. Then again in 2009 after the ditching the special audit found inadequate FRMS policy/procedures.
- And the RCA's. Mr RC signed the RCA's that were written by Mr MH, Mr BC and Mrs KS. WTF?

Although questions about Pelair are obvious and inevitable, my interest is in the Regulators oversight, ability and activities during this time period. What were they doing? The similarities to Lockhart are more than concerning. CASA is meant to be oversighting safety yet here are 2 accidents that occurred not long after CASA had been 'hanging around'? Is the role of the CASA pretty much redundant? They certainly don't appear to add any value to safety? They certainly don't seem capable of identifying risk prior to accidents? Proactive vs reactive I hear you say? The CASA are reactive! And as far as I am concerned when it comes to organisational culture CASA are pathological. If they were an airline I would rather take my chances and cross the pacific ocean on a Segway than fly with them.

The holes in the cheese are big enough to fly a Starlifter through. How much longer? Over to you Senators.

[Kharon]

It's a fair question – just how much individual, unchecked power does a manager have?

When you get down and dirty on the Special Procedures Manual (SPM) and Safety Trend Index (STI) system you find that Transair, of Lockhart River fame had an audited STI score of 15, the normal red flag is raised at seven. Safety alert, No, Show cause, No? kick in the pants, No?; but shortly afterward they are granted significant changes in the AOC despite clear evidence that under the 'robust' CASA system this was the last thing that should happen.

There is no empirical evidence that the Operations Manual was significantly amended to rectify any of the items reflected in their STI score. There is no data to support the idea that the audit was 'audited' and that changes, if any, were ticked off. The failings in the oversight system were huge and 15 people died.

Pel Air - same - same. Only in this case we have the auditors investigating their audit: now how in all the hells does that happen? Even more intriguing are the resignations shortly afterward by people who were eminently qualified to assess the operation, the audit and the proposed corrections.

In part, the 'investigation' process, was supposedly to determine if previous RCA and audited deficiencies had been corrected; and that both the CASA and P-A systems were functioning correctly. So we task the auditors to examine their own work – sorry, but why am I not surprised that despite a fairly hefty STI count and no positive proof of improvement a Safety Alert was waived and evidence deeply buried. P-A was back in business within a Christmas week of the "changes" being initiated. It would take a week of hard work just make to amendments let alone have them tested, accepted, executed and ticked off. The required training programs alone would have taken a week full to complete.

Seems there exists either a massive systematic failure; or a truck load of discretionary power at work. Compared to Hardy, Barrier, Airtex and a couple of others where the 'managers' discretion is used to produce the desired outcome you just have to ask questions of the system, the integrity of the audit and the investigation process. Is the system there to ensure a safety outcome, or to produce a safe outcome under discretionary privilege? Quick twirl of the red pen – problems all go away; shut up or resign. Men of integrity did.

I find it intriguing that Airtex had independent, senior, experienced ICAO 'qualified' auditors determine a clean bill of health for the operation and were shot down in flames by, shall we say, slightly less qualified people; and had a safety alert issued on the flimsiest grounds; yet P-A in seven days, over Christmas manage to convince almost the same audit/ investigating team that all was well.

Here Johnny, mark your own exam paper. What a system. Unbelievable? check it out your self, all there on the public record.

[my oleo is extended]

Mr Kharon,
FF BNE hold monthly Risk Review Group (RRG) meetings. Do they review risk, or do they drink green tea and eat wafers while musing over EBA travel perks and counting frequent flyer points? How are operators 'slipping through the system'? One former Field Office Manager (RW) used to accept inspectors phone calls to operators as 'Op Surveillance'! It's all about KPI's and numbers, more smoke and mirrors. Now he 'liaises' with the ATSB. What a farce, a complete joke.
Maybe the Senators can ask to review such documents? There should be minutes, albeit they will be hidden deep within that blackhole called TRIM.

Robert S McNamara wrote a book called 'The Fog Of War'. Well we could write a book called 'The Fog Of CASA', a political tale of spin, uselessness and magic tricks, an analysis of what purpose do they serve at all.
CASA reside in their own fog, and just like Richard The Third, will some day in the future be found buried beneath a supermarket carpark, that day can't come soon enough.

[Stan van de Wiel]

Unfortunately for those who consider CASA to be a disfunctional organisation, Paul Phelan's article "shooting the messenger" proves the opposite.

https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=39d66063-647e-4582-b687-e114756fe994

If only it had some connection with flight SAFETY!!!

47 years, 24,000 incident free hours don't count for much ?

Thanks again Paul.

[Kharon]

Great job Stan and Paul – it's a big read but most satisfactory. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

MOIE# 1007 "CASA reside in their own fog, and just like Richard The Third, will some day in the future be found buried beneath a supermarket car park, that day can't come soon enough." There are many parts of Richard III (http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/richardiii/themes.html)that have relevance; glad they found the old bugger, although we'll never know the true story – ring any bells ??

When Richard claims that his deformity is the cause of his wicked ways, he seems to be manipulating us for sympathy, just as he manipulates the other characters throughout the play.

As a result, Richard III does not explore the cause of evil in the human mind so much as it explores its operation, depicting the workings of Richard’s mind and the methods he uses to manipulate, control, and injure others for his own gain.

“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions”

[my oleo is extended]

My source tells me the former CASA Safety Systems Specialist who went to JQ as Safety Manager is about to reappear at CASA as EM Operations now that Hood (the Norfolk sacrificial lamb) is going to ASA. All rumour of course.
Makes sense, the GWM love 'yes men', and I don't think the JQ Safety Manager enjoyed his last venture in front of the Senators, nor did Boston Bruce or Greg Russell! Reminds me of a scene out of Monty Python And The Holy Grail - 'brave brave Sir Robin'...NOT.

CASA chess game and musical chairs indeed. (If all true).

[Sunfish]

The only way the law and CASA will be fixed is after 300plus have died, and even then the coVer up will take Ten years to penetrate if it ever is.

An alternative, if some of you believe there is sufficient evidence, is to go International - write to the FAA and EASA with your concerns. I imagine that one piece of evidence - the size of Casas regulation in pages, may be sufficient to trigger a review of Australia's aviation approvals.

Start with "Dear Mr FAA, we urge you to consider downgrading Australia's classification for the following reasons that we have been struggling with for decades.......

If you did that, you would need to combine it with an international aviation media campaign to explain just what you are putting up with compared to Europe and America. I'm sure that someone knows how to write good copy.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

In regard to oleo's post regarding a potential returner to casa

Press Release – FAA Proposes Limits on Companies Hiring FAA Inspectors

Press Release – FAA Proposes Limits on Companies Hiring FAA Inspectors (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=10965)

[my oleo is extended]

Caramel biscuit, nice in theory my intellectual friend. However we are talking about the CASA, who are beyond accountability and above the law. They ARE the law, so I can't see such a robust yet commonsene rule such as what the FAA suggests being implemented any time soon.
Then again, perhaps this very topic will be discussed at the next junket in Montreal, when 'those above reproach' meet together to discuss the robust higher level aviation policies that us mere mortals on the frontline could never understand or fathom?

Sunfish, I feel you are being too kind when you quote a figure of 300 fragmented corpses. I think it would take around 2 complete hull losses plus the loss of around 800 lives before the government 'accepted' that the CASA was about as useful as catching the clap from the filthy seat in the T2 toilets at Mascot.
From experience, there is no greater 'motivator or driver' for safety reform than standing amongst charred fragmented human remains with the smell of burnt flesh, avgas and burning plastics, rubber and polymer. I hope that when it does happen the idiots decimating our industry are dragged to site and forced to undertake a reality and life changing check.

[Sarcs]

It would appear from yesterday's release of AQONs for 21/11/2012, that the accident aircraft had a some what checquered history:=:
8. HANSARD, PG 9

Senator FAWCETT: Could you take on notice whether you passed on to Pel-Air the concerns about their Westwind aircraft.

Mr Harfield: Yes.

Answer:
In the period five years before the Norfolk Island accident (2004 to 2009) Airservices reported to both CASA and the ATSB, 19 safety incidents that were known to Airservices involving VH-NGA.

In July 2005, VH-NGA was involved in a safety incident during a flight from Nowra to Darwin whereby the aircraft was unable to maintain it’s assigned level in RVSM airspace and another aircraft was therefore required to change its altitude in order to maintain the separation standard. Pel-Air was informed about this incident under a standing Letter of Agreement.

Also in the period, VH-NGA was involved in 18 other safety incidents – 16 were pilot or aircraft attributable (2 engine failure, 2 fuel dumps, 1 Loss of Separation, 3 incorrect time and position reporting, 8 pilot errors) and two were air traffic control attributable information display errors. Pel-Air was also informed about the details of these incidents under the Letter of Agreement.

Err what was FF doing while the magical adventures and exploits of NGA and it's illustrious crew were being documented and tracked by their ATC cousins?:E

[Kharon]

300 bodies is excessive. What's needed is half a dozen (metaphorical) heads on pikes planted outside headquarters.

Name, blame and shame will do the trick. Drag any one of these creatures out into the sunlight, prosecute and penalise. Take away a couple of pensions, super and houses and the rest will shape up or ship out. Plenty to choose from, lots of fun; so – fill your boots.


One day etc.

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, interesting post, you win today's chocolate frog award! It would seem the data is out there it's just that CASA won't or don't want to process it, trend it, or in general doing anything with it. This would tie in with the fact that FF are reactive not predictive.
And the data relates to just one aircraft. One can imagine what else is sitting out there. Perhaps the Senators, now that they have been provided with some of the answers to questions on notice, will probe the FF spin doctors on why they have not acted when so much evidence is out there?

Sarcs, perhaps you could collate your data monthly on operator incidents, accidents and occurrences and provide the info to FF directly for their monthly RRG meetings? They don't seem capable to do it themselves.

[Sarcs]

Extension date to enquiry.

From Senate 'Dynamic Red'

*1106 Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Heffernan): To move—That the time for the presentation of reports of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be extended as follows:
(a) an aviation accident investigation—to 27 March 2013; and
(b) Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test—to 19 June 2013.
Commenced 12:08 PM (today)
Agreed to as amended

Also notice the AQONs for RRAT Committee Sup Estimates (Oct 2012) are finally in....so there will be more to follow (Kelpie classic).:ok:

Sarcs, perhaps you could collate your data monthly on operator incidents, accidents and occurrences and provide the info to FF directly for their monthly RRG meetings? They don't seem capable to do it themselves.

Oleo you say it all yourself...all that kind of info would be possibly likely to get is a fart from the trough, or maybe a series of farts!:ugh:

[Kharon]

How's that old story about a big bad wolf and three little pigs go?

Sarcs #1014 – little pig 1 - ASA response, nice catch.

Little pig 2 - ATSB response:-

Sen X. - 16. Did the ATSB form a view about the adequacy of CASA’s oversight of Pel-Air in general and the aeromedical flights in particular?

ATSB response: A review of CASA’s audit documentation found that regular, scheduled audits of Pel-Air’s documented processes were carried out by CASA in the years preceding the accident. No safety issue was identified in respect of CASA’s oversight. No contributing or other safety factors were identified in respect of CASA’s oversight of Pel-Air.

Now we have the ASA and ATSB opinion, it will be interesting to see what little pig 3 spits out. Can't wait.

The Written QON are a gold mine, starts at about Q20 – 30 have a read. They surely built a big haystack to hide under.

[JetA_OK]

Read the transcript of the phone call between the PIC and briefing. Doesn't exactly paint him in the best light does it

[Sarcs]

Massive amounts of spin and obfuscation in the latest ATSB answers to written QONs 21/11/2012.:yuk:

Here’s just one example…

To follow on from Kharon’s post :p here is QON No 25:Senator X: 25. Documentation indicates a s32 request was made on 4 July 2012 for the CASA Special Audit.
When was the audit sent by CASA? When did it arrive? The committee is aware of the fact that the ATSB knew about the CASA Special Audit when the audit was announced. That being the case, why did the ATSB wait for over two years to request it? Your supplementary submission (annex), which covers where the special audit was included in the ATSB report, appears to come from the March version of the report. Is that the case? How can the ATSB report refer to the Special Audit in the March 2012 draft when it appears the ATSB were not
yet in possession of it?Ok clear as mud? Now here is part of the spin answer (my bold): ATSB response: As advised in its 14 December 2012 response to the Committee’s questions on notice of 21 November 2012, the ATSB requested a copy of the CASA Special Audit Report under a S32 notice on 4 July 2012. A copy of the special audit was received by the ATSB on 9 July 2012.
As part of its investigations, the ATSB has not routinely obtained CASA Special Audits. As an independent investigation agency, the ATSB focuses on obtaining its own evidence in consideration of its evolving investigation hypotheses, and in support of its analysis and findings. This need not include the results of investigations or other activities that may be undertaken by other agencies for their own purposes. The decision of whether to obtain such outputs by other agencies would generally be informed by the evidence already gained by the ATSB’s investigation, and the perceived benefits of obtaining them.So the ATSB do not routinely request FF special audits or for that matter any audits of the operator involved in an investigation :{, although they can (under the provisions of the TSI Act) if they want??:ooh: Yet they espouse to adhere to world’s best practice accident investigation methodology (reference Q/ 32 pg 23) and use the example of the NTSB as a fellow ‘world leader’ in the field.:(

However if you refer to the NTSB Investigator’s manual pg 137 you will see what the NTSB require the FAA to produce in an operator’s overview context and regardless of whether the investigator(s) believe it will be relevant or not :sad::Federal Aviation Administration Information
(1) "Blue Ribbon" medical and pilot certificate records.
(2) Violation and other certificate actions on flightcrew and airline. Obtain certified copies.
(3) Inspections performed on the airline during the previous 12 month period including base, ramp, en route, ground and flight training program, crew member; dispatcher records (including flight and rest), trip records, dispatch center/flight following/flight/locating facility. Obtain certified copies.
(4) Latest regional inspection performed. Obtain a certified copy.
(5) Latest national inspection performed. Obtain a certified copy.
(6) Frequency of surveillance. Compare the number and types of inspections performed with regional and national inspections guidelines.
(7) Workload of POI.
(8) Background and qualifications of POI.
(9) Authorized and current staffing level of district office.
(10) Most recent pre-accident/incident flight inspection and post flight inspection results of pertinent en route and approach facilities/aids. Obtain certified copies.
(11) Most recent pre-accident/incident airways facility inspection and post inspection or pertinent en route and approach facilities/aids. Obtain certified copies. :ok:
There are also plenty of examples in the past, Seaview comes to mind, where the BASI/ATSB investigators relentlessly turned over all the FF previous audits/surveillance activities and records in the search for the truth :cool:. Nah this is just another Beakerised adopted methodology that another world’s best practice agency the NTSB appears to be in no hurry to adopt!:D

Definitely more to uncover in this haystack….hmm next this SR/Safety issue myth me thinks....;) doin a Kelpie..or an Arnie.."I'll be back"!

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, unfortunately all that you post is true. The ATSB 's 'quality non political work' came to an abrupt end the day Beaker took command. Once he 'CASArised' the ATSB it was all over red rover. They are in meltdown, Team Beakers responses are illogical, contradictory and down right ridiculous. He has shot both feet off, and the more they try to spin their way out of this mess the more deeper they dig their hole.

At least with FF they deliver exactly what they have done for decades - crap.
But the ATSB was indeed a stellar outfit, well respected and highly regarded internationally, they really were second to the NTSB, and that is something to be proud of. But now? Just another bunch of executive wankers who have ego's the size of the Hindenberg. And we know what happened to it don't we? These geniuses sadly, and in a disillusioned fashion, actually think they are more intelligent and intellectual than the rest of mankind. This is nothing new, there have been idiots throughout history who have also thought this highly of themselves only to have things end in tears. These clowns are just like Doctors who for some reason think they are god. Message to them - you're not!! You are nothing short of the ****e beneath our shoes.

Even if the CASA, ATSB, ASA end up using their political might, free immunity and indemnity clauses and millions more in taxpayer money stretching, stalling, deflecting, spinning and crushing the Senators crusade, make no bones about this - your number is up, you have been outed. Industry know what you are, the Senators know what you are, the FAA know what you are and so do ICAO. And eventually, after we lose a 200+ seater into a smoking hole the Australian public will know what you are.

As Stan would say, ironically under the present oversighting bodies 'safe skies are indeed empty skies'.

[Kharon]

COMPARISON OF DRAFT AND FINAL REPORTS AO-2009-072 WITH THE CASA SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT.

Audit finding Final and Draft investigation report references in ‘pXX’ and ‘[pXX]’ format respectively.

Inadequate fuel policy for Westwind operations. P25 [p33] of the report refers to CAR 220, highlighting that an operator also shares the responsibility for ensuring that sufficient fuel and oil is carried, and was required to include specific guidance for the computation of the fuel carried on each route in their operations manuals.

Discussion of the operator’s fuel policy that appeared somewhat less than ideal included at: • P29 [p37] of the report, which highlighted a disparity between Parts A (9.11.2) and B (6.1.2) in respect of the calculation of critical points for use depending on the availability of critical or intermediate aerodromes.

• Also in respect of abnormal operations, p29 [p37] of the report also highlights that aerodrome ‘criticality’ and ‘adequacy’ were not defined.

• In addition, p30 [p37] of the report relates that whereas the operator’s planning methodology for determining the point of no return (PNR) was satisfactory for determining a return in the same configuration as the outbound leg but was not appropriate for a return leg where that leg had a higher fuel burn than that outbound
.
It is quite acceptable that the ATSB can with hindsight, determine that there were issues with the operators fuel planning policy. But where's the foresight??, where's the robust, steely eyed oversight? drinking latte and eating chocolate Monte's in the kitchen, that's where.

Where is last years memo to the CP from CASA saying - "I note a lack of guidance in the Operations manual for pilots operating between remote islands; as the company appears to be regularly staging aircraft through NLK in the middle of the night; perhaps the section could be expanded to provide improved guidance to the 'junior' flight crew currently on roster". "Perhaps you would consider providing a route guide and port advice notes, CFIT and ALAR risk analysis and some (CP/PNR) release points for operational control".

This is Not rocket science -

Then, where is the ATSB recommendation to CASA suggesting that perhaps, as a result of a near fatal, attention to company fuel policies could be increased; just to ensure this cannot happen again. They could even produce a joint report suggesting that company fuel policy should reflect the operational realities of life, rather than the minimum legal requirements with dire threat of goal. Hell, they could even lose their heads completely and revisit 'bad law 101', i.e. Reg 206 and CAO 82 and cover the bets properly. Sheeit, CAAP, instruments, [AIP], legal head of power; so much wriggle room, so much power, so very little common sense. So simple, and yet so far, far away.

"Lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'

[my oleo is extended]

BH, that's the whole point. The words 'interpret' as well as 'intent' hold some serious weight in the world of FF and lawyers.
Our taxpayer money ensures that governments retain the most qualified legal eagles and wordsmiths that money can buy. Every word, sentence, paragrah and apostrophe is carefully and meticulously penned in a way to ensure that they win and we lose. It's so simple it is laughable.

Many rules, laws and processes are purposefully written in a way that will;
(a) Ensure no liability or accountability falls back on government, and
(b) Those in authority, e.g CASA, can twist the particular rules meaning into whatever suits them best. In other words the 'ace in the deck' is always in their hand, the blackjack table is rigged, the house always wins.

'Safe skies are bankrupt skies'

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

A couple of new submissions. Amroba and Mr Shane Urquhart. Worth reading.

Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/pel_air_2012/submissions.htm)

[Kharon]

Oh G' day Blackie, glad to see your posting again, early release?? Now you're out, perhaps you could give us the benefit of your opinion on a question from Sen. Fawcett to DoiT about closing the loop on Coroner recommendations.

The question was prompted by the fact that there is no open system in place to ensure that if a Coroner makes a recommendation, it is addressed, where appropriate actioned and closed off. The side bars to question bring into play issues like a public Coronial data base tied to the ATSB data and a record of CASA response and actions.

Now, there is system of sorts in play, but a little research soon reveals that (a) A WA Coroner looking at an accident may make a couple of recommendations; (b) a Qld Coroner may look at a similar accident and make recommendations; but, there is no correlation of information, no way to ensure that all recommendations have been examined or to see what has been done to prevent a reoccurrence.

1) Unless you personally get a transcript there is no way to see the Coroners recommendations.

2) Unless you personally monitor CASA actions on those recommendations, there is no way to determine exactly what has been done, why, by whom or the method used.

3) Unless you are a mind reader there is no information available from the ATSB on any of it.

So, to explain fully; Coroners recommendations can and do disappear (like bubbles in the bath), promised changes to legislation accommodating Coronial recommendations does not appear, safety actions don't occur and, no one knows. Then there is the notion that a Coroner may have based some part of a decision against the "promise" of changes; once again who would know.

There is some bloody good research (Thanks PAIN_Net) on this out there now and the results are grim. Clearly the Senator would love some answers. So Blackie, how about it; perhaps you could once again enlighten us mere mortals here on Pprune with your usual insight, wit and eloquence.

[Sarcs]

Perhaps Blackie this will help gel an answer for you!:ok:

Start of the story...Scene 1: Act I

Once upon a time in a land called Crat city a certain new Lib bright star Senator asked a particularly poignant question of a certain head sherangacrat in a committee hearing room…but first the lead up :cool: because it is important.

"Senator FAWCETT: I notice CASA is often another player in the coronial inquests and often you will highlight something, the coroner will accept it and basically tick off in his report on the basis that a new CASR or something is going to be implemented. Do you follow those up? I have looked through a few crash investigations, and I will just pick one: the Bell 407 that crashed in October '03. CASR part 133 was supposed to be reworked around night VFR requirements for EMS situations. I notice that still is not available now, nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated? How do you track those? How do we, as a society, make sure we prevent the accidents occurring again?

Mr Dolan: We monitor various coronial reports and findings that are relevant to our business. We do not have any role in ensuring that coronial findings or recommendations are carried out by whichever the relevant party may be. I think that would be stepping beyond our brief.

Senator FAWCETT: Who should have that role then?

Mr Dolan: I would see that as a role for the coronial services of the various states. But to add to that, because we are aware of the sorts of findings—as you say, it is not that common that there is something that is significantly different or unexpected for us, but when there is—we will have regard to that obviously in our future investigation activities and recognise there may already be a finding out there that is relevant to one of our future investigations.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be appropriate to have—a sunset clause is not quite the right phrase—a due date that if an action is recommended and accepted by a regulatory body, in this case CASA, the coroner should actually be putting a date on that and CASA must implement by a certain date or report back, whether it is to the minister or to the court or to the coroner, why that action has not actually occurred?

Mr Dolan: I think I will limit myself to comment that that is the way we try to do it. We have a requirement that in 90 days, if we have made a recommendation, there is a response to it. We will track a recommendation until we are satisfied it is complete or until we have concluded that there is no likelihood that the action is going to be taken.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as secretary of the relevant department, how would you propose to engage with the coroners to make sure that we, as a nation, close this loophole to make our air environment safer?

Mr Mrdak: I think Mr Dolan has indicated the relationship with coroners is on a much better footing than it has been ever before. I think the work of the ATSB has led that. I think it then becomes a matter of addressing the relationship between the safety regulators and security regulators, as necessary, with the coroners. It is probably one I would take on notice and give a bit of thought to, if you do not mind.

Senator FAWCETT: You do not accept that your department and you, as secretary, have a duty of care and an oversight to make sure that two agencies who work for you do actually complement their activities for the outcome that benefits the aviation community?

Mr Mrdak: We certainly do ensure that agencies are working together. That is certainly occurring. You have asked me the more detailed question about coroners and relationships with the agencies. I will have a bit of a think about that, if that is okay.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you."

This was followed by a non-answer to what the Lib rising star Senator thought was a QON (must forgive him as he is still learning the game) at the Sup Estimates hearing in October. However no harm done as it was eventually formally listed as a QON that was addressed to DOit head-crat Mrdakari.

However it would appear that Mrdakari has deferred to his most submissive minion to put forward, yet again, the safety investigation methodology and supreme spin according to Beaker.:yuk::yuk:

So headcrat Mrdakari has again played the Senator back into the court of spinners and crats, the question is will the Senator accept this play?

When you read SU’s submission, especially the following from Samantha Hare, I think the Senator is well justified pursuing his original line of inquiry (i.e. FF ignoring Coroner recommendations/findings and 'closing the loop')!:D

“My partner died in a yak-52 joy flight on 31 August, 2008. His name was Ian Lovell. I along with many others continue to feel shock that such an accident has happened. I think this is because people do not expect such an accident to happen in Australia. Nearly five years later and I now know that the lack of regulation in the Australian aviation industry makes flying a very dangerous venture but my experiences are that the general public continue to be unaware. They do not know that Ian died in an accident waiting to happen, that it could have happened to any member of the public and unless there are changes it is likely to happen again.

The flight was sold to me as a gift certificate for Ian’s 35th birthday.
Hempel’s Aviation was recommended to me by Archerfield Airport, the company was advertised on the internet, Hempel’s Aviation employees recommended Barry Hempel as the pilot, I bought the gift certificate directly off Barry Hempel at Hempel’s Aviation located at Archerfield Airport; I paid Barry Hempel of Hempel’s Aviation $495 for what in the past has been referred to by the media as the ‘death’ ticket.

At no time would I have bought this ticket if I had known that the pilot, Barry Hempel did not have a commercial license. At no time was this flight referred to as an adventure flight. At no time were the risks of flying in a warbird discussed and at no time was a waiver signed.


I shared in Ian’s elation at the best present that had ever been bought for him; I drove Ian to Archerfield airport; I dismissed a dream that he had about the plane crashing into water; I had a laugh with him when he told me he was listening to the soundtrack of top-gun whilst waiting to take the flight; I took him out to the tarmac and took photos of him as he was strapped in for his first flight in a warbird, his first experience of aerobatics and first real taste of g-force and we both expected that he would return safely.


Ian’s flight was the third joy flight of the day that Barry Hempel had piloted and all customers were under the impression that the flight was commercial.


I waited on the tarmac to take photos of his arrival. Ian didn’t arrive. Soon after there was a phone call to say a plane had crashed into the water just off South Stradbroke Island. I knew that Ian was gone.

Devastated, traumatised, shock. There aren’t any words that can describe losing a partner in such a way. A motorbike accident is comprehensible and something tangible that I had worried about, but a plane crash seemed as likely as being taken by a shark whilst dangling your feet in the Brisbane River.


Since I have lost Ian I have noticed that planes fall out of the sky regularly.


As do most people who lose a significant person in their lives, I think about Ian every day. We had planned our future together, a home, children, travel, he was the only person I had ever looked to the future with. But now I don’t only grieve the loss of Ian but I also grieve what has been taken away from me by a system that has failed Ian and I for the last four and half years.

Put simply, the ATSB did not investigate; the QPS never recovered the plane; the police report took 3 years to complete; CASA will not admit any fault to prevent any further accidents happening; the Inquest took approximately four years to begin; CASA stalled the Inquest
recommendations for another hearing date and now I have been told to wait again with the additional hearing date being postponed. When I found this out on the 15 November 2012, not even two working days before the hearing date was set to begin, I cried. The tears started at work and basically did not stop for the rest of the day. I feel sheer disappointment that I continue to be put through this, so many years after Ian’s death.


Four and half years and ongoing, is a long time in a person’s life. I was 30 years of age when Ian died and am now nearly 35. The grief and shock of losing Ian has at times consumed me but I have been able to work through it so it is now something that I can control. What I can’t control four and half years on is the legal/regulatory system. I cannot control when I’m going to get that next phone call. When I will be re-traumatised again? It feels like the system is trying to break me, hoping that I can’t handle it anymore and I’ll walk away. What will break me is if I do walk away after all this time. I’ve lost too much. Ian’s death was preventable and four and half years later we are still waiting on recommendations from a Coroner on what needs to happen to try and prevent another accident of its kind.


In the last four and half years my friends have either become engaged, got married, had children, advanced in their career, travelled. It feels like the legal system/CASA has pressed pause on these aspects of my life. I can’t work in social work because the ongoing and unpredictable nature of the legal process impacts on my emotions and my capacity to work in a crisis setting, I have mounting legal fees, the emotional toll impacts on my relationships with other significant people in my life and I can’t travel freely because my life is dictated by the systems schedule.

I wonder when the victims are considered in the process. I wonder what new information is going to come from yet another hearing day called by CASA. I wonder whose interests this serves. I wonder how much more obvious it needs to be that CASA and the medical practitioners involved breached their duty of care. I wonder how many more planes will fall out of the sky. I wonder why my life continues to be put on hold by the system, when I lost my partner due to other people’s/CASA’s negligence.


I wonder how those in the aviation industry who turned a blind eye have been impacted. I wonder whether 2013 will be the year that there is legal resolution for Ian. I wonder whether there ever would have been an Inquest if Ian’s loved ones did not demand it year after year. I wonder whether changes will occur in a flawed Civil Aviation Safety Authority and I wonder whether I will then be able to sit with my grief for Ian peacefully and remember the beauty that he bought to my life without it being tarnished by an incompetent and unjust legal/regulatory system.


Samantha Hare (fiancé of Ian Lovell) Hempel’s Yak 52 South Stradbroke Is 31 August 2008. 2 fatalities.”

There's the backgound Blackie, hope it helps?:E

[Creampuff]

And don’t forget this:Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though, Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?

Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009. …

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?

Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.

Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?

Dr Aleck: I was in Montreal. [CP note: Apart from the stint in Montreal, Dr Aleck has occupied various senior management positions within CASA for an accumulated period of about 10 years to the present.]

[CP Note: Messrs Farquharson and Anastasi, both of whom have been in CASA for all or most of the period 1999 to the present, were also at the table but, according to Hansard, remained silent.]You see: no one's responsible.

[PAIN_NET]

On request please find links for recently published submissions to the 'Aviation Accident Investigations' Senate Inquiry.

Submission 15 AMROBA.
Zippyshare.com - sub15_AMROBA.pdf (http://www62.zippyshare.com/v/96165882/file.html)

Submission 16 Mr Shane Urquhart.
Zippyshare.com - sub16_Urquhart[1].pdf (http://www62.zippyshare.com/v/90824371/file.html)

In light of Mr Urquhart's submission PAIN thought it pertinent to revisit Mr Gary Currall's extremely well written submission to the Inquiry.

Submission 03 Mr Gary Currall.
Zippyshare.com - Sub03_Currall[1].pdf (http://www62.zippyshare.com/v/25650417/file.html)

PAIN will continue to monitor all developments with the inquiry and will provide further links etc for those wishing to be kept informed.

Regards

P2

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

From Mr Urquhart's submission.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
We know what they have been doing, how they operate and who the main players are, but we are ignored as an inconvenient presence in the milieu. eg ongoing difficulties in obtaining information, even through FOI, time wasting, blocking, denial, shifting personnel around and blatant lying. The personalities and operating methods of senior executives are a serious blight on the integrity of the Senior Executive Service of the Commonwealth and is a real factor in our frustrations etc etc. No survivors=pilot error every time. It could be legitimately believed that this is a preferred outcome of air crashes. Numerous Inquests and the subsequent findings and recommendations seem to support this belief. The general public would be appalled.

[Sunfish]

I know of one person who was threatened by CASA after the Whyalla accident. It was something to do with Lean of Peak operations.

[my oleo is extended]

Sunfish, that is nothing unusual. Threats are common, however there is no system available for those threatened. Unless you call the ICC or the AAT a fair method of complaining? That is where those on the committees are aligned with the Regulator. As said before, the numbers are stacked and the odds in your favour don't exist.
Get a win in the AAT or with the ICC, your name gets targeted for revenge.
Get a win in the courts, The CASA appeals process will sen you bankrupt.
Get a win against an incorrect Fort Fumble decision? Expect a series of robust audits, surveillance and payback. Childish antics but you are dealing with a childish organisation.

When you read the comments from Mr Urqhart, Mr Lovells fiancé, and then the comments from mr Butson and you see disgraceful treatment by bullies, sociopaths and sycophants at the hand of government employees. How nice.

[Stan van de Wiel]

Sunfish, Oleo,
No need to quote third party threats. Refer to Paul Phelan's Shooting the Messenger page 11

OLC believes that this is a borderline case and were it to appear before the AAT, that the results of a review could not be guaranteed. However, both OLC and the Area Office argue that it is an important policy position to take action against Schutt, in order to dissuade other companies from attempting to circumvent legislation in this way.
These bastards haven't the intelligence to have "policy" translated into legislation, assuming there is even a "safety" case. But with a monopoly there is usually "reprisal" and unlimited legal $$$s. So no worries. She'll be right,mate!

Based on policy there should be an immediate halt to "charter flights" as they could not meet the absolute safety requirements demanded for "paying passenger" ultimately "empty skies are safe skies"
Euthanasia of the G.A. Industry appears legal, evidently supported by the highest echelons of Government.
Australia once again leading the world!

the DPP's view is that a prosecution could not be implemented or proceeded with by them because it was not in the public interest and it was highly unlikely that it would succeed. I herewith request approval to cease the investigation of this matter forthwith and approval not to submit a brief of evidence to the DPP.”

https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=39d66063-647e-4582-b687-e114756fe994

Isn't it strange that Ana stasi managed to misplace this material for the AAT hearing, yet McC was aware of it, not considering this as New, must be a special power of insight? Might it also explain why Adam was elevated to the top position in the now renamed LSD. Shows there is reward for excellence. There are several more examples of similar misplaced communications, but McC is on top of them all. Always good to light the open fire!

"empty skies are safe skies"

[AEROMEDIC]

Stan,

If CASA had done this to me, I would have been in court long ago suing the pants of all responsible for the demise of my business and the discrediting of my reputation.

Get a good "no win, no fee litigation lawyer firm like Slater and Gordon if you have to, even just to see justice being done.

[Kharon]

Having dutifully ploughed through the 228 page response, AQON 211112 and identified several howlers, contradictions and plain, old fashioned 'porkpies'; I can report that as a definitive study of corporate spin, it is a masterpiece. The tabled data is the work of master craftsman. Clearly history is repetitive:-

AQON 211112_PDF page # 48.

ATSB response to the question ‘Is this new methodology internationally recognised?’:
The first significant investigation undertaken using the new analysis methodology was the ATSB’s investigation of the fatal Metro 23 accident near Lockhart River, Queensland on 7 May 2005 (ATSB investigation 200501977). Following the completion of this investigation, there was some criticism of aspects of the ATSB’s methodology by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority regarding the ATSB’s use of a Reason-type model and the ATSB’s definition of ‘contributing safety factor’, and the Queensland State Coroner had concerns regarding the description of the standard of proof associated with the ATSB’s definition of ‘contributing safety factor’.

Norfolk - Sub03_Currall.

14. As pointed out on the 4 Corners program the ATSB’s final report was flawed, causing it to be quietly withdrawn some 24 hours after publication. The report was then reissued with no form of version control. I now have two versions of the final report and do not know which to believe.

15. The report omitted crucial information on the issue of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM). This issue, together with apparent deficiencies of the Operations Manual severely limited the pilot’s ability to plan the flight effectively. This apparently deliberate omission ensured that the blame for poor flight and fuel planning was pinned on the pilot despite the constraints that each of the above placed upon him.

16. There is no attempt by the ATSB to undertake root cause analysis of the issues raised in their final report. This was exemplified by the issue of Threat and Error Management (TEM), a procedure to improve flight safety by identifying potential threats and errors. According to the report ICAO regulations require training in TEM, though not for this category of flight. CASA regulations however do not require training in TEM. The logical outcome of these points would be to analyse the reasons why there is no such training requirement in Australia and why this flight was in this particular category. If such training is required, or
does help prevent accidents and the flight was found to be in an inappropriate category for this type of operation then CASA could be held accountable for this. Instead, the report simply omitted analysis of these issues.

17. Despite the requirement in the Operations Manual neither of the crew had undertaken training in Crew Resource Management (or in TEM). The ATSB’s investigation went further; in a survey of both trainee and experienced pilots the report found inconsistencies in their approach to the legal requirement to divert to an alternate because this is not part of the syllabus for a trainee pilot. Despite these findings the ATSB declined to offer any recommendations that may improve this clearly unsatisfactory situation.

Lockhart River - Urquhart – Coroner Barnes. 20 Aug, 2007.

" Evidence clearly provided to the inquest both by CASA witnesses and others, showed how CASA has not really changed anything in the way it operates and its serious disregard for promoting safety within the Regional Airline Industry. This is supported by reams of information and statements I have read over a long period of time. Does CASA not have some duty of care in an industry where safety is paramount and should there not be serious consequences imposed on individuals and the organisation for breaches of this? " etc.

[Sarcs]

Looking at the proposed timetable for RRAT committee additional estimates it looks like it'll be beer'n'nuts arvo viewing of the fun and frivolities:ok::
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/~/media/02%20Parliamentary%20Business/25%20Senate%20Estimates/add1213/rrat.ashx

Broadcast Link:
Watch Parliament – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament)

[Stan van de Wiel]

Lockhart River - Urquhart – Coroner Barnes. 20 Aug, 2007.

" Evidence clearly provided to the inquest both by CASA witnesses and others, showed how CASA has not really changed anything in the way it operates and its serious disregard for promoting safety within the Regional Airline Industry. This is supported by reams of information and statements I have read over a long period of time. Does CASA not have some duty of care in an industry where safety is paramount and should there not be serious consequences imposed on individuals and the organisation for breaches of this? " etc.

Although no fatalities can so far be attributed to the "AvGas contamination" CASA has refused to follow up the testing recommendations as per the ATSB report. Mobil has gone out of the AvGas business so things must be safe. If not just blame the pilot. Maybe any re introduction of testing may show up CASA s culpability. [we're not guilty and certainly not sorry] who does industry think they are? Notice any similarity with Coroner Barnes' finding. Time we did the "fit & proper test"

"empty skies are safe skies"

[my oleo is extended]

Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though,
Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB
made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?

Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only
got here in 2009. …

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?

Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.

Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?

Dr Aleck: I was in Montreal.

Creampuff: Apart from the stint in Montreal, Dr Aleck has occupied
various senior management positions within CASA for an accumulated period of about 10 years to the present.
Messrs Farquharson and Anastasi, both of whom have been in CASA for all or most of the period 1999 to the present, were also at the table but, according to Hansard, remained silent.

So although The Skull has been around 5 years, he takes no responsibilty?
As for the others who have been at CASA ranging from 12 - 20 years and who conveniently deflected Senator Nash's probing, they don't get off so easy I am afraid. Anybody in those positions and who has been in CASA for that length of time would have had a say and had influence in decison making. No high level decisions are made without consulting with others, so the 'hand washing' by these guys is laughable.

And I reiterate that mosy of FF's issues lay within its structure of 'long termers' who have spent decades playing the system, and playing it well. But the piece of string has been pulled by the Senators and the whole lot is unravelling. The stench of incompetence flows all the way to the Minister, and people like Mrdak, the Boards, the whole lot of them need to be held to account.
It is a real shame that Samantha Hare and Shayne Urquhart couldn't take all these executive individuals to the morgue with them to identify their loved ones. Or have those executives with them at Xmas or birthdays, to show them that we are dealing with lives, not executive salaries and bonuses.
None of these executive clowns has earned a clean conscience nor do they deserve a peaceful nights sleep while people continue to die and accountabilty is mocked.

On a final note, in regards to the CASA's inabilty to 'close the loop' this too is a farcicle outrage. They preach from the book of James Reason yet don't practise what they preach in reality. If an operator didn't 'close the loop' on an investigation, incident, occurence or non-compliance' then a NCN would be issued by CASA quicker than a CASA executive boarding a plane for Montreal! Hypocrites.

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

[LeadSled]

Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though,
Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB
made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?

Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only
got here in 2009. …

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?

Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.

Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?

Dr Aleck: I was in Montreal.

Creampuff: Apart from the stint in Montreal, Dr Aleck has occupied various senior management positions within CASA for an accumulated period of about 10 years to the present.
Messrs Farquharson and Anastasi, both of whom have been in CASA for all or most of the period 1999 to the present, were also at the table but, according to Hansard, remained silent.

Messrs Farquharson and Anastasi, both of whom have been in CASA for all or most of the period 1999 to the present, were also at the table but, according to Hansard, remained silent

Folks,
The comment by Creampuff is significant, perhaps the good Senators should ask about who was involved in the drafting of a CAO that completely changed the meaning of "Island Reserve", and placed specific fuel requirements on Norfolk, Lord Howe, Cocos etc. --- in 2000, or thereabouts, as a reaction to the Seaview Royal Commission.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

And what would the correct answer be, in your view? If someone was "involved in the drafting" of a CAO, s/he can have no reasonable objection to being identified as such.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Another piece of Ben's good work. Somehow appropriate to this thread?


Dreamliners: A failure of effective public administration? Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Feb 10, 2013 10:59AM | EMAIL (?subject=Check%20out%20%22Dreamliners%3A%20A%20failure%20of %20effective%20public%20administration%3F%22%20on%20Crikey&body=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.crikey.com.au%2Fplanetalking%2F2013% 2F02%2F10%2Fdreamliners-a-failure-of-effective-public-administration%2F) | PRINT


Comment
It may not be the first thing that comes to mind in the Dreamliner crisis, but there is an argument that could see the botched if not fudged certification of the Boeing 787’s battery system as part of a more generalized failure of public administration on a global scale.
Big call? Let me try to explain in too few words.
There has been immense, and justifiable pressure in recent decades for public administration, which includes aviation regulators, to be less wasteful and more efficient.
Which is critical to having a globally competitive economy, where taxation and regulation are ripe targets for cut backs.
But the weak point in this desirable outcome may be that instead of cutting back in inefficiency in executing necessary public policy, there has been a concurrent move to reduce the scope of regulation, thus reducing the task load of regulation, whether in banking, pure food acts, building standards, and ….transportation, whether by truck, ship, or aircraft.
It could be argued that in this process the selection of senior management in public service functions has moved more to the criteria of meeting key performance indicators skewed in favor of reduced public responsibilities and thus reduced public officials charged with carrying out those responsibilities.
One consequence of this would be to reward public administrators who cut the wages bill rather than deliver better public policy execution.
In reaching that result the temptation, if not overt policy instruction, has been to permit increasing levels of self regulation, which in banking in the US, UK and EU, lead to an orgy of corrupt, vicious, and outrageously indulgent and dishonest behavior, of the type that in the US has been largely forgiven, and on the other side of the Atlantic, appears to be largely if somewhat slowly subject to fiercer prosecution of corporations and individuals.
In the case of the Dreamliner 787, there were other issues as well, including doggedly willful dishonesty in Boeing which relied on PR to set engineering and performance targets and delivery dates while the company gutted itself of old fashioned and costly technical expertise, all the while pretending to be a great American enterprise, yet shunting risk and reward and even design to overseas partners who were not only incompetent in some cases, but inadequately supervised. (To paraphrase Boeing itself on these failings.)
Some of the immediate consequences of this has been the botching of the 747-8 program, to the extent that the aircraft haven’t yet attained brochure parity in performance, and fly with systems that suppress or ‘alleviate’ handling deficiencies arising from a job badly done.
(We are promised the full 748 products sometime in 2014, assuming the various refinements gain FAA approval. Which might be harder than assumed before the 787 grounding.)
Many observers and analysts have pointed out that the outsourcing of such things as valid design data to the aircraft manufacturer by the FAA, in order to assist certification of particular airliners, has been going on for a long time.
But has it been as incompetent or even dishonest or rushed, or at the very least, as indulgent and unquestioning as it has been in the case of 787?
The FAA is now investigating its past behavior in this matter. Will it say ‘Oh shucks, we really tried to do everything right, and this is all such a shock.’ Or will it come to a different view. At the moment it is not apparently in any hurry to go for ‘Oh shucks ….’. The most recent indications are that it regards the deficiencies in the lithium ion batteries as something to be addressed thoroughly rather than hastily, even though Boeing has let it be known that it can come up with an interim fix even before the causes of the mid January grounding are fully understood.
Boeing may be asking us to fly on blind trust in this respect. Why should it be trusted? Given the record of this company in relation to the 787 project, why should it be trusted with anything?
The second part of this situation in the open ended review of the certification process, meaning its integrity and it is clearly open to discovery as to what else might have been botched or fudged in the data and claims about other aspects of the 787 design in its materials, systems and quality of construction, scattered as it is across most of the northern hemisphere and even to an extent in Australia.
The writer may seem a little angry on this topic. The American side of my family including some who worked for Boeing in the 707 to early 747 times. When I first visited my roots on that side in the mid 60s I was going to get my riveting tools and rock up to Renton to work on the greatest birds made in peace time, since I was still legally a dual national, but restlessness took me on, through that great country, to connect with other roots.
I am bitterly, angrily ashamed of what these looter-taker managers have done to Boeing . It is inexcusable.The rebirth and restoration of this company to the place generations of people in the Pacific Northwest worked to send it is needed, and any amount of babbling on by the apologists will not help shift it back to where it should be.
But I digress. There are severe failings in public administration in our societies, with scandalous underperformance and lack of transparent air safety regulation and investigation in this country.
Whether it is a matter of robber bankers, or the selling out of Australia’s disease free status in agriculture and livestock on the sacrificial altar of free trade, or weak big pharma friendly drug oversight, our public service objectives have been corrupted and undermined.
Efficiency in public administration must not mean weakened standards. The goal must be better administration, not less effective administration.
Be it in the FAA, or EASA, or CASA.

[Fantome]

There are severe failings in public administration in our societies, with scandalous underperformance and lack of transparent air safety regulation and investigation in this country.
Whether it is a matter of robber bankers, or the selling out of Australia’s disease free status in agriculture and livestock on the sacrificial altar of free trade, or weak big pharma friendly drug oversight, our public service objectives have been corrupted and undermined.
Efficiency in public administration must not mean weakened standards. The goal must be better administration, not less effective administration.
Be it in the FAA, or EASA, or CASA.

Thank you Ben. There is no more urgent call . .. .a call that should be heard from all the roof tops. Over and over until .. . . . . . . the cock goes in the pot?

[Kharon]

MOIE # 1040 –"So although The Skull has been around 5 years, he takes no responsibility? As for the others who have been at CASA ranging from 12 - 20 years and who conveniently deflected Senator Nash's probing, they don't get off so easy I am afraid. Anybody in those positions and who has been in CASA for that length of time would have had a say and had influence in decision making. No high level decisions are made without consulting with others, so the 'hand washing' by these guys is laughable. The sad part is the 'willing accomplice', those who sit back counting the days, even "tut tut" in your kitchen, then sneak back to the office to pen the 1700 special. The CASA fifth column should be given the opportunity to speak up, without fear or favour. The 'good uns" seem to toddle off into obscurity, quietly shaking their heads over a beer, rightly scared of speaking out. The "ring of iron" is supported by those who know better, that are too scared, apathetic or even happy to go along with a blatant, overtly corrupt culture need to be dragged out, named and shamed.

We pay for a service to the public – not to service some bloody Minister. I don't how some of these people can shave every day, take wages and have the brass neck to appear in public, pontificating on safety. Bollocks – they know it, I know it.

[Stan van de Wiel]

In reaching that result the temptation, if not overt policy instruction, has been to permit increasing levels of self regulation, which in banking in the US, UK and EU, lead to an orgy of corrupt, vicious, and outrageously indulgent and dishonest behavior, of the type that in the US has been largely forgiven, and on the other side of the Atlantic, appears to be largely if somewhat slowly subject to fiercer prosecution of corporations and individuals.

I have always been a firm supporter of Ben's views, but in this case I believe he misses the point. Not only has self regulation been applied to "industry" but also to "regulators" globally, hence lead to an orgy of corrupt, vicious, and outrageously indulgent and dishonest behavior. When the AG, the Ombudsman, ICC, ACCC, Ministers, et al (their own departments qualify) blatantly disregard warnings from respective industry, statistics and individuals it is an indication of not just inadequacy but full blown corruption. Would the allegations against the PM just be an isolated case?

Efficiency in public administration must not mean weakened standards. The goal must be better administration, not less effective administration. Be it in the FAA, or EASA, or CASA.

"Efficiency in public administration" a bit of an oxymoron, but say it was possible, certainly not by more legislation/regulation. Maybe its time to get some professionals in their respective fields, there for their knowledge and dedication to the particular industry and not just for the $$$'s. It took me a while to understand why the CASA building(s) were referred to as "handbrake house" must be those new "carbon"brakes? Very effective

cc. to Ben

[my oleo is extended]

The issue is 'accountability'. Why do you see organisations such as Occupy Wallstreet? The banks, congress, government do as they please with no recourse, justice, punishment or accountability. They act with impunity and immortality. If these suckholes worked for themselves or a real business they would crumble like a cheap deck of cards! Oh my god they would scream, we actually have to be account for what we do??

It's time to introduce accountability into CASA. Remove the veil of protection, make the executives fully liable and accountable for mistakes, malfeasance, bullying, corruption, deceit and perjury. Make them stand before a Judge, police or simply the laws of the land that should apply to all people and not be discarded for just a handful of individuals. Remove the heavily fortified ring of steel that protects them and then we will see just how big their kanackers real are. Put them in the ring with an even set of rules and even gloves and lets see how tough they are then, rather than hiding behind their big brother protector like the spineless, weak pathetic trough dwellers that they are.

The times are changing, the troops grow restless and the showdown is looming. Society is cyclic and has endured militants and dictators for thousands of years, but push the people to far and see what happens. We are seeing that escalation right now..

[Sarcs]

Senator Nash: Joke.."Did you hear the one about the $150,000 dollar taxpayer funded pot plant?"...gold Fiona pure gold!!:E

Now tea, biccys and maybe a snort of chardy over lunch??:D

Schedule for Friday's hearing has been posted:}: Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/pel_air_2012/hearings/150213.htm)

[Kharon]

Comedy hour or two. Dutifully convened at a salubrious watering hole this afternoon were the Bar Room Barristers; all awaiting the Senate Estimates. STAR http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif of the show, Fiona Nash and the "pot plant" saga, hereafter to be known as the best laugh, stuff of legend and plain old ordinary "we gotcha" ever. The crew is still rolling about the floor. Brava, Lady – Bravo!!

If you missed it – I can't help that. What she said of course is, we know, down to cost of maintaining your plants, exactly what you are about. The confusion was priceless, the response – hilarious. Nearly as funny as Beaker asking "what?, what's a mid air? - followed by two minutes of "fluff" until a paper was provided for him to read.

Priceless, PLEASE if any one recorded the estimates session this pm, with the parts involving "He who will not be shamed" and "Beaker", put it up for the boys and girls who were working; I still can't even construct a cohesive sentence without laughing.

No horse power in the Senate eh?.... Dream on. Friday, bloody Friday.

"I am thy father's spirit;
Doomed for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
I could a tale unfold, whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part
And each particular hair to stand an end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine:
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood. - List, list, O, list!" - William Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1.5

[Up-into-the-air]

Thanks Sarcs

Inquiry into the Aviation Accident Investigations
Public hearing - Canberra, Friday, 15 February 2013

Committee Room 2S1
Parliament House
CANBERRA

Time Witness Sub No. 1

8.30 am

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr John McCormick, Director of Aviation Safety
Dr Jonathan Aleck, Associate Director of Aviation Safety
Mr Terry Farquharson, Deputy Director of Aviation Safety
Mr Adam Anastasi, Executive Manager, Legal Services
Mr Peter Boyd, Executive Manager, Standards
Mr Greg Hood, Executive Manager, Operations Regulations Implementation

10.30-10.45 am

Morning tea

10.45 am

Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Mr Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner
Mr Ian Sangston, General Manager Aviation Safety Investigations

12:45 pm

Adjournment

Rol up Roll up Roll up

View your favorite circus performer!!!!

[my oleo is extended]

Indeed, what a line up, perhaps it should be called 'The Beaker And The Muppets Show'? It's an amazing line up of uselessness, there will be more spin than a Texas tornado. Not to mention comments such as 'I wasn't in that position back then' or 'I was based in an office further up the corridor back then'!
Can we take bets as to who takes the first question on notice? Or perhaps who deflects first to the person on his left?

I can't wait to see the Beaker offload his tautological ramblings of how he knows better than James Reason. Then you have Terry trying to remain quiet during question time (mainly because these old types get worn out easily during a big day out!). Then you will have Anustasi and the Richard Dreyfuss lookalike plying their well crafted trade and creating some incredible magic tricks aimed at diverting attention. And Mr Skull, will he retain his poker face while having a pineapple inserted or will he wince the way his staff do when they see his Friday Hawaiin shirts? And don't forget the FF version of 'faceless men' - Herr Boyd! The egg shaped player who has made hiding beneath the radar an art form. I hope the Senators give him some quality stage time. After all he did lead Team ASOP during their '2 year, 30 unfinished projects at a cost of several million dollars' failure. Oh my how Mr Skull was most unimpressed!
And Hoody, dear Hoody, out to enjoy his final swan song before the Senators prior to joining ASA? Will his buddies truly sacrifice this lamb or will the Senators act the part of a loyal Sheperd and rescue him from the pack?

And finally, with all these old farts together in one place, will Australian aviation safety remain safe while the top echelon are busy in the senate? Too bloody right, the skies will be temporarily even more safe!
Hopefully the Senators will schedule in rest breaks for the old geezers, supply them with Bex, soft lollies and a cot so they can take a nanny nap during the day. It is very important that we care for the elderly.

So step right up folks, ringside seats available, this could well be the farewell tour, a never to be seen again performance. The trapeze act will be thrilling!

P.S The GWM have opened the betting booth and taking bets as we speak. The first bets are being taken for which Nupty will be sporting a red power tie to remind the Senators who has the biggest kanackers, or which one will be wearing a carefully selected soothing blue tie to help show the Senators they come in peace? Personally I would dress them in a yellow, beige or pooh brown, but hey, I don't have a PHD in tautology so what would I know??

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Anybody have any info on whether Barrier is flying. I was wondering if it would get brought up at estimates or on Friday?

[Up-into-the-air]

Hardy's was brought up, but not Barrier in the estimates on Tuesday 12th February.

[my oleo is extended]

Halfmanhalftimtam, A directions hearing is scheduled in SYD this Friday. No doubt FF will try to stretch the matter further, Barrier is currently bleeding around 30k per day.
But i wonder if CASA legal will be available for the SYD hearing as most are at the Senate, or perhaps in Montreal?

[my oleo is extended]

Poor Beaker. He certainly looked confused about the phrase 'mid air'! He is only the head of the ATSB I guess, why would he need to know about 'mid air's'??
He would be more understanding of the words 'bonus, Montreal, tautology, Minister, spin' etc etc. It was a good thing that Darth Beaker had Sith Mrdak there to show him on paper what the Senators query was.

As for 'he who shall now be called Devo', the pot plant question was incredibly hilarious! I thought 'Devo' aka Mr Skull the pot plant man, was going to choke on his Bex!! Perhaps they are some kind of special gift pot plants that ICAO or the FAA gave Fort Fumble? Or some kind of mystical hocus pocus PNG plants that contain healing powers and soul soothing ability? Maybe they are an aphrodisiac or hold some kind or medicinal ability to heal a badly pineappled bot bot?

I can picture it now, Terry, Devo, The Doc, Adam, Herr Boyd, Sith Mrdak, Beaker all wearing pot plants on their head singing 'Working In A Coal Mine' while Big Chief Albanese plays the guitar!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

I'd forgotten about Hardy's. thanks for the update on Barrier.

Bill & Ben the Flowerpot Men Dance - YouTube (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YOv2cUv4gcU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYOv2cUv4gcU)

[my oleo is extended]

Halfmanhalfpotplant, I believe that when the bar room barristers meet in SYD tomorrow Fort Fumble will be pushing for a one month deferment. All this prior to a hearing date.
I guess we will have to wait until 1659 pm Friday for an update from with Barrier or the CASA bearded one Herr Gibson.

As Stan would say, 'safe skies are empty skies'.

[my oleo is extended]

Trawled through some of the documents this morning, still anticipating the Hansard release of the 'pot plant shenanigans', however Mr Urquharts submission when read in deatail is not only touching but he clearly outlines the failing of government, CASA and the ATSBeaker.

Also of interest is John F Devo's letter to Senator Heff, dated Feb 13, in which the pot plant puppeteer digests a small poo sandwich by retracting his use of the term 'audit'. Devo and Richard Dreyfuss are becoming accustomed to writing such letters over recent months. Are they exhibiting a side of their moral compass never before seen?? Nah, I didn't think so either, just more CYA activities me thinks.

'safe skies are clarified and transparent skies'

[Sarcs]

Halfmanhalftimtam, A directions hearing is scheduled in SYD this Friday. No doubt FF will try to stretch the matter further, Barrier is currently bleeding around 30k per day.
But i wonder if CASA legal will be available for the SYD hearing as most are at the Senate, or perhaps in Montreal?

For those interested here is the listing for Barrier tomorrow...err watch AA monitoring his phone!!
Justice RaresCourt Room 19E
9:30 AMFirst Directions
1(P)NSD2242/2012LEE-ANNE FOLKERS v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION ACN 007 457 141
2(P)NSD1918/2012LINFOX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ANOR
3(P)NSD2240/2012CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY v BARRIER AVIATION PTY LTD ACN 056 643 531
4(P)NSD2170/2012PATRICK BYRNE v MLC LIMITED ABN 90 000 000 402
5(P)NSD2011/2012SYKES GROUP PTY LTD ACN 004 093 752 v POWERHOUSE LOGISTICS PTY LTD ACN 050 065 631 & ORS

Notice the Ginger Ninja's favourite Justice is overseeing this one...hate to say it but the signs aren't good!:ugh:

[Kharon]

The vision is not great – but you get the message. In the middle of a meltdown, pot plants. The body and facial language cracked me up.

Courtesy of the Good Senator Fiona Nash – The great pot plant saga (http://www.fionanash.com.au/Media/Video/VideoPlayer/TabId/87/VideoId/46/Senator-Nash-Grills-CASA-On-150000-Dollar-Plant-Watering-Contract.aspx).

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Is the hearing being broadcast via webcast on the senate site? If anyone knows and has the link please post!

Was in the right place now live - time for some fun.
Watch Parliament – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament)

30 minutes to first question on notice to JM. think there was some betting on that.

If not watching you should. Senators giving them a very difficult time.

[dogcharlietree]

I hope like hell that these people appearing this morning NEVER, NEVER operate machinery where they have to make an on the spot decision. :ugh:

[PAIN_NET]

PAIN Senate Inquiry Update


Recently Tabled documents 11-18 including the 'Chambers Report'.


Zippyshare.com - Tabled_Docs_11-18.zip (http://www63.zippyshare.com/v/57183194/file.html)


Have fun! P2.

ONLY use the DOWNLOAD NOW button, if you don't run an Ad blocker there are other download buttons, which are a PAIN. DOWNLOAD NOW is in the top right corner of the page. Appologies for any inconvienience. P4 AKA Ferret.

[denabol]

Seems like I missed a torrid session reading Plane Talking which is live blogging about secret documents ATSB didn't know about.

[my oleo is extended]

Well well things reached a crescendo today in the senate! I am sure there will be some robust updates posted shortly, however some highlights were:

CASA outed for keeping audits secreted away from the ATSB. The Beaker and Sangston kept mushroomed by the (R)egulator. The senators have picked up on the fact that the MOU between both incompetent structures is more like a MOPOO. The Senators also stated how dysfunctional the organisations are. This is a sad indictment of the parlous state of Australia's aviation bodies.

Pot Plant McCormick got fired up with Xenophons line of robust questioning. He appeared barely able to contain 'the inner John just screaming to get out'.

The Beaker was caught on his remaining good foot and in Beaker style took Fawcetts question and comment and replied with "I'd prefer to give due consideration to this than make it on the run".

Pot Plant McCormick is still blaming Dom entirely for the Norfolk ditching, unbelievable! One needs no further proof that the CASA hierarchy have no concept of causal factors and safety systems. What an embarrassing spectacle.

Senator X pointed out, and quite correctly, that Team Beaker is producing work of a standard less than Nigeria and Lebanon! Amazing what the bureaucrat has achieved in less than 4 years. What an embarrassment.

I believe it was Chamber Pot who wrote in an email that the ATSBeaker and CASA need to avoid 'putting egg on each others faces'! Far too late for that boys.

I think the Senators did a superb job, dusting away the chaff and revealing what's beneath. Friends, it is a frickin mess. The FAA and the ICAO must be cringing at our 'Nigeria equivalent safety bodies'? I feel the Senators comments should give a small measure of satisfaction to Mr Urquhart and others who have been saying for years that the fish has rotted from the head.
One can only hope that a royal commission or deeper inquiry will come out of all this and those bobbing in high places will soon receive their own Friday 1659 pm fax..

[Sarcs]

Ben's piece summarises this morning's hearing very well:ok::
Pel-Air Senate hearing sensation: CASA hid key safety audits from ATSB

In a set of extraordinary disclosures in the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air crash report today it was revealed that two key safety audits were kept secret by the safety regulator CASA from the safety investigator the ATSB in contravention of a cooperative memorandum of understanding between the two bodies.

The two most senior officers in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, its chief commissioner Martin Dolan and its GM air investigations Ian Sangston did not know of the existence of the audits, one of which was scathingly critical of CASA’s oversight of Pel-Air, until about 30 minutes before they appeared at the inquiry immediately after an often intense examination of CASA’s Director Aviation Safety John McCormick.

One document, the Chambers Review of CASA, ordered by McCormick and kept secret from the ATSB, found that the ditching of a tiny Westwind air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in November 2009 might have been avoided had the regulator been doing its job properly.

The other, a fatigue management review of the ill fated flight commissioned from the UK safety regulator, suggested that the captain of the flight Dominic James may have been unfit to fly the Careflight mission under its rules.

CASA’s director of air safety John McCormick said he didn’t consider either of them relevant to the cause of the accident, which he says was entirely the fault of the captain, but would have been made available to the ATSB if it has asked for them.

Senator David Fawcett, an experienced pilot, and Senator Nick Xenophon, the instigator of the hearing, pointed out to McCormick repeatedly in the exchanges between them and him that the ATSB could not ask for audits it didn’t know existed, and that under the rules of co-operation between the two bodies, their existence had to be disclosed.

What then followed was a lengthy spectacle in which the most senior executive in CASA, McCormick, denied understanding or recognising the most basic and clearly written obligations that exist in the MoU between the two bodies concerning the exchange of information between them.

The Senate committee is inquiring in the final report by the ATSB into the accident, and how it became changed from one dealing with serious issues concerning the rules relating to fuel and route planning to one that blamed the crash almost entirely on the actions of the captain.

Senator Xenophon told ATSB chief commissioner Dolan that the Pel-Air report the ATSB had finally issued was less compliant with the standards of ICAO Annex 13 than those produced by its counterparts in Nigeria and Lebanon, a comparison strongly rejected by Dolan.

Both the fatigue audit and the CASA audit, which is separate from the CASA special audit into Pel-Air shortly after the crash, will be posted online on the Senate Committee website (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/pel_air_2012/index.htm) later today.

At the outset of today’s hearing Senator Fawcett speaking for the committee said it accepted that errors in fueling the jet that was ditched off Norfolk Island were made by the captain, and that the purpose of the inquiry was not to exonerate the pilot but to examine more deeply how the ATSB report was arrived at, and among other things, understand why it said little to explain why the pilot might have made the errors he did.

The committee repeatedly sought information from the CASA team lead by McCormick as to why the regulator had not disclosed the Chambers Review, commissioned by McCormick, to the ATSB, quoting passages in which it found that had there been more effective auditing and oversight of Pel-Air, the operator of the jet, it would have discovered key failings in its performance and pilot training from interviews with the line pilots that if acted upon in a timely manner could have prevented the accident ever happening.

McCormick said he considered the Chambers Review a private document, which made no findings which would have altered the ATSB’s eventual findings that the accident was caused by pilot error if not violations of the rules by him. He said “I did say at the time that I wanted it warts and all.”

Xenophon told McCormick his explanation for withholding the Chambers Review’s existence and findings from the ATSB to be “curious and bizarre.”
McCormick told the hearing that CASA had kept the findings of the Chambers Review from the ATSB in order “not to contaminate its decision making.”

He stressed the importance CASA placed on the ATSB reaching its own conclusions.

However during the course of the hearing committee members read from emails which said, among other things, that the two bodies needed to avoid “putting egg on each other’s faces”, that a consistent policy on whether or not flights should immediately divert to alternative airports when the weather deteriorated below minimums at destination airports, and other email discussions as to how the initially divergent views of CASA and the ATSB about the seriousness of the accident and were coming into alignment.
Pel-Air Senate sensation CASA hid key safety audit from ATSB | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/15/pel-air-senate-hearing-sensation-casa-hid-key-safety-audits-from-atsb/)

However after reading the tabled documents I would say the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and no amount of crat spin will get the cork back in...hmm Senators take a bow!!:D:D

ps actually Oleo I think it was Beaker himself check out number '02 ATSB_Doc_5' pg 1 para 2 of Beaker reply e-mail (from tabled doc 12)!:E

Correction to above Oleo it was actually an 'ATSB officer's' email to Beaker and Sanger...apologies!

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, thanks for the update about Beaker. I had some trouble opening the attachments, plus it was hard hearing all of the live verbal exchange as there were noisy aircraft thingies in my background and of course I was wearing my hearing protection (never know when the Sheriffs might be poking about).

Mrdak's boys are doing a stellar performance are they not?
Hell hath no fury like a Senator treated with contempt by a bunch of nupties. Go for it Senators.

'Potted plants for all'

[Creampuff]

Internal ATSB email to Mr Dolan, cc Mr Sangston, dated 9 February 2010:… When the aircraft ditched, both the flight crew and the operator stopped their Westwind Aeromedical operations. CASA coached and guided the operator very well and they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pel-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn’t happed 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. …[Underlining in email]

Oh dear.

[Sarcs]

I know that the estimates hansard (12/01/2013) is probably put well in the shade from this morning's impromptu act from a contingent of Albo's circus troop. However there are passages in the hansard that will perk the interest of some on here (besides the Bill and Ben flowerpot men episode!).:ok:

Here's an example from the horses mouth, although I'm not sure if it will give many a checkie, ATO, instructor or operator piece of mind:*:
Senator FAWCETT: My last question goes to flight tests by FOIs whereby they put pressure on the subject, whether it be a student, but more commonly an ATO who is up for approval, to conduct a test or a manoeuvre that is not in line with the manufacturer's recommendations but is what the FOI deems to be appropriate. There are a couple of examples that have been cited to me. One is the requirement to fly light twins at the blue line, as opposed to Vref, which is normally a stall plus 1.3 which gives a lot of float and therefore the chance of overruns of runways, but that is being pushed by some apparently. Also, some aircraft where, for example, a double failure such as a failure of a control system and then a stall is not recommended by the manufacturer, but an FOI requires to see that. In situations like that are there guidelines within CASA that say that if the ATO or whoever is being tested can demonstrate that there is clearly from the manufacturer, or in the operation's manual, guidance that says that this is not appropriate, that it will be accepted at that level without having to go back to actually get letters from the manufacturer?

Mr J McCormick: I would need to see the examples and I could give you an answer on notice. Those examples that you give are the first that it has come to my attention, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not out there. We certainly, as an organisation, do not instruct our FOIs or our flight training examiners, our FTEs, to carry out a manoeuvre that is not prescribed in the AFM or in the pilot-handling notes, depending on the category of aeroplane.

Senator FAWCETT: I guess my concern is not so much that you would instruct them to do that. I would not suggest that.

Mr J McCormick: I know where you are going.

Senator FAWCETT: I am more concerned that they are allowed to essentially have their own agenda as opposed to being constrained to operate within what either an operations manual or the AFM for the particular aircraft specifies is normal practice for that aircraft.

Mr J McCormick: We spend a lot of time with standardisation and we are still working on that. That is an ongoing aim of the organisation for this year. As far as the organisation of FOIs and whatever, they are now in certificate management teams where they have a team leader who responds then to the regional manager who is the office manager as well, and our whole aim is to stop any sort of behaviour that is outside of the norms for flight tests because it will be in the manual standards. It is currently in the CAOs. The standards and the manoeuvres that have to be carried out and to the degree of accuracy that is required is laid out there. We certainly do not condone anything outside those limits.

Senator FAWCETT: What if the AFM prohibits something that is currently in the manual standards as a manoeuvre that should be conducted, but for this particular aircraft it cannot be? How is that resolved?

Mr J McCormick: The AFM would have overriding authority.

Senator FAWCETT: Your expectation would be that if the ATO or if the student and the test could show that, that should be accepted without question by the testing officer?

Mr J McCormick: Absolutely, and except for the small aeroplanes in the one general category, if we talking of a more specific aircraft where the AFM may prohibit a particular manoeuvre or particular, as you say, flight control sequence or whatever or a symmetric configuration to the stall or such, we have our flight training examiners qualified on type, so they should be aware of the AFM limitations. By the same token, anybody under test should be aware of their aircraft and what the AFM limitations are or the TCDS limitations and not allow themselves to go on that. We certainly do not condone anything like that.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/20130212/toc_pdf/Rural%20and%20Regional%20Affairs%20and%20Transport%20Legisla tion%20Committee_2013_02_12_1709.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

Read it and weep...:{

Oh an excellent follow up to Ben's earlier article:Nailed to the wall, the fixer files and CASA's cover-up | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/15/nailed-to-the-wall-the-fixer-files-and-casas-cover-up/):ok:

[GADRIVR]

I'm just wondering when an apology will be forthcoming to Dom James?
In particular, I'm wondering as to whether the Pprune "experts" are willing to admit they got it wrong?
One could only hope!

[thorn bird]

Sarcs, it would appear that J Mac is completely unaware of how much various expert FOI's force operators to tinker with manufacturers recommended procedures, all based on their interpretation of the AOCM section 7 which is CASA "Policy". Its crazy that various operators of the same aircraft can all be operating differently. Its also crazy that the operators have to carry the liability for that not CASA who force the changes.
Incidentally has the Styx houseboat sunk or something? or has Kharon been renditioned to Israel, he's gone awful quiet.

[Sarcs]

Incidentally has the Styx houseboat sunk or something? or has Kharon been renditioned to Israel, he's gone awful quiet. I'd say "K" is busy cogitating and studying the bottom of the 'Chamber Pot', besides the Ferryman does his best work at half past the witching hour!:E

By the way here's the lead up to Fawcett's line of questioning (from above) and perhaps highlights the angst that highly regarded ATOs have been feeling in recent times:ugh::ugh::
Senator FAWCETT: What is your view on the future of approved testing officers versus inspectors? Industry feedback seems to be that ATOs are no longer favoured by CASA and there are situations where operators are required to use an FOI, as opposed to being allowed to use an ATO. I am wondering if you have a corporate plan or a strategic direction for the utilisation of ATOs?

Mr J McCormick: Some years ago—and we can give you the date on notice if you like—we did a review of the flying training organisations and their success rate at passing the initial instructor rating, the grade 3 rating. We centred that into some of the commercial flights and we found that there was a very large pass rate when most of those initial tests were being done by the industry. We, of course, always have the prerogative to do the test ourselves and anyone who proposes to carry out a test in the industry has to give us seven days' notice that they intend to carry out that test. We put much effort into carrying out a lot of those tests and we have quite a large failure rate. Since then we have seen that there has been a complete rebound in that sector and we are very pleased with the progress now being made by the flying schools and organisations around ATOs. So, in specific instances we still use our prerogative to check someone, particularly if there is any question over their competence or whatever, but we have no intention, to my knowledge, of removing or taking over all the duties that are done by ATOs. It would be beyond our capability.

Senator FAWCETT: A related issue, but not on the same topic of a grand plan, what flexibility do you give or should you or can you be giving regional officers to be responsive to commercial pressures? I think specifically here of an operator who was required to have one of their pilots renew an instrument rating. There was a qualified ATO in the state, qualified on the aircraft type who could have conducted it, but because he was not listed on that aircraft's check and training document, the company was required to fly that person from the west coast to the east coast to do the test in a simulator and then back to the west coast, where a suitably qualified person, with some discretion, could have conducted that test and saved the operator a lot of money. What options are there for CASA to have a responsiveness to commercial pressures in situations like that?

Mr J McCormick: Again, we are not a commercial regulator; we are a safety regulator. If you give us details of that particular test I can give you a specific answer. What I am getting at is that there are some instances now where we have mandated that certain asymmetric events et cetera must be carried out in a simulator rather than the aircraft, following on from the unfortunate Brasilia crash in Darwin, so if the test involves something of a multicrew or a multiengine aircraft or whatever, we may not have been prepared to allow that testing in the aircraft. Without knowing the specifics, I cannot tell you. If you give us the specifics we can give you an answer on notice.


Cheers TB:D and good question GA :rolleyes: one of many that will come up over the coming weeks????

[my oleo is extended]

This evening Kharon traded the houseboat for business class tickets on a flying boat. He has flown to Montreal to buy some new pot plants for the houseboat. Plus he is doing maintenance on the houseboat as the river Styx is in full flow and some additional passengers could be coming shortly!

[Kharon]

There was a dull thump on the house boat back door last evening; turned out it was "The Old Man" (TOM a.k.a. P7) loaded with a dozen cold ones and half a box of excellent cigars. Quick as a flash I cancelled the Montreal trip and settled in for a long yarn. When the cigar was going to his satisfaction and about half of the first pint was settled, he cocks an eyebrow at me and says "passing strange business this 'The Chambers Report', ain't it?; to a thinking man that is".

I agreed; but as it turned out there was a couple of unexplained things worrying TOM: for example, why would the DAS commission a secret report into the CASA dealings with one operator?. If it was to be definitive study of CASA operations, with a view to improving the system, why the clandestine approach?. He speculated that such a report would normally be touted as an executive initiative, much publicised, spun until dizzy and designed to ensure that the DAS shone like "a bloody beacon of hope" to industry; "Handled properly, there's lots of brownie points in such a move" says TOM, "but you can always shoot off your foot off with a carelessly handled weapon; he probably just needs more practice in dealing with things that can and will hurt you, eh?". "Aye, passing strange it surely is".

"Do you know if he was qualified to draft such a lethal study?". I had to confess ignorance. After an interlude of quiet, he rumbles in a speculative tone - "It is unfortunate that the manager of the branch was the one anointed to perform this very delicate task", he says, "you have to wonder why?, I mean the bloke was the coordinator of the multi level of audit, special audit, investigation and all, must have been a busy little bee; takes time to generate a 16 page report damning the people who work for you, while keeping them happy and focussed". "Aye, 'tis passing strange".

Declaring that talking made him thirsty, he padded off to the bar for a refill, being a true Gent, he returned with two; "Just thinking" says he, "that report pretty much said that the crew doing Pel Air over were pretty much useless." "I wonder if they were retrained or just fired out of hand?, I mean, you have wonder why a manager would denigrate his own blokes, wouldn't you?. I mentioned rumours of a faction war within the hallowed halls of sleepy hollow and speculation about a bitter power struggle between two warring camps. "Yeah, I've heard that one too; makes you wonder, don't it? Of course, knowing the personalities involved and all the juicy rumours, by the time the third pints were delivered (P_26 a.k.a 362436) we were on a roll, my sides still hurt from laughing. I doubt Pprune would allow the conversation, so let's just say it was an interesting period of robust speculation, ribald humour and the sort of nonsense mates dream up over a few cold ones. But we allowed that it was all "passing strange", indeed.

At least the mystery of the masked man with one foot shot off is solved, probably won't end up as the DAS now; having managed to present the somewhat grandiosely entitled "The Chambers Report" to the Senate, the world and it's wife, in all it's tawdry glory.

Anyway, that's how "K" spent the evening – I watched as TOM stepped up onto his favourite horse and ambled off, crooning a kids song, into the moon rise. Passing strange? Aye; perhaps it was: but then, there are more things in heaven and earth. etc. Ah well, back to the digging.

[Old Akro]

Reading Hansard recently and watching the truly excellent question from Sen Nash I have been bewildered at the inability of highly paid senior executives to answer basic questions "off the cuff".

My background has largely been in public companies and I would expect (have seen) guys dismissed or demoted for better answers than we've seen from Messers McCormick & Jordan. Can you imagine a Chief Executive (or Chairman) not being able to answer equivalent questions in a shareholders meeting? It would be a scandal. A Chief executive not being able to give batter detailed, numerate answers to his board in a budget session would find his tenure severely limited.

The role of Chief Executive is to be across this level of detail. That's why they get the money. Otherwise the person is an ordinary administrator.

I was even more astounded when I counted 13 people from CASA listed in Hansard as attending. That's more than a cricket team. And none of them could answer any reasonable basic questions about a currently open $150,000 tender.

From what I have seen in Hansard the CEO and CFO have less of a grip on the detail of their jobs than I would accept from a middle manager. I think CASA is beyond redemption.

[thorn bird]

"and perhaps highlights the angst that highly regarded ATOs have been feeling in recent times".

Sarcs,
no wonder given the BK ex baggage handlers perchance for pulling experienced ATO's briefs, even a highly respected ex CASA senior examiner of airmen ran afoul of the chamber pot.

[my oleo is extended]

Old Akro, I agree with your comments, however CEO's in private enterprise do fit into the 'accountable person' classification. Unfortunately, and wrongly, Government people, such as the CASA, don't have to be accountable for their actions, pretty well no matter what. This is where the system breaks down. Until the rules of the game change and these people are made to be accountable for their actions nothing will change.

'K', agreed. The Chamber Pot has learned from other long term game players and survivors, and has most likely been working very hard on executing a series of manoeuvres with the intent of elevating himself into a deeper corner of the trough, however the game plan may have been revealed, and his chess strategy revealed?

[Sarcs]

Internal ATSB email to Mr Dolan, cc Mr Sangston, dated 9 February 2010:
Quote:
… When the aircraft ditched, both the flight crew and the operator stopped their Westwind Aeromedical operations. CASA coached and guided the operator very well and they collaborated to develop a much safer process to avoid a repetition of this accident. This has happened, and Pel-Air are now operating again. The same thing hasn’t happed 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. …

[Underlining in email]

Oh dear.
To follow on from Creamy’s post, which perhaps highlights the turning point where the ATSB’s investigation all went South, here is (hopefully if I've got it right??) the full and complete email from 'ATSB officer' (ps thanks Creamy) to Beaker and Sanger :ugh::


http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/untitled4-1_zps9dd84152.png

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/untitled5-1_zps0b13aa0a.png

Now if you combine that full and frank 'ATSB officer' proclamation :D with the Chamber Pot review and bagging of certain members of his fellow BK Flight inspectorate, well maybe we should be writing a 'Safety Recommendation' that highlights a 'Critical Safety Issue' in the lack of proper oversight by FF of the Pel-Air operation.

After all as the 'ATSB officer' points out they'd effectively covered all the other systemic operational issues that related to this accident...:E

[Creampuff]

Not sure the person whose nickname you've stated was identified, in the tabled documents or in the course of the hearing, as the author of the email.

Should you be stating that nickname?

[aroa]

Gee, thanks Senate hearing...right out of the mouth of Jmac himself.!! :ok:
"...we are not a commercial regulator, we are a safety regulator" :D :D

Geezus, how many decades to wait for that admission?
Could be some interesting legal implications there.!

And as for X question re any CASA consideration to unwarranted expenses to a business...quite frankly CASA just doesnt give a rats arsK....safety regulator or otherwise. :mad:

[my oleo is extended]

Creampuff, the interesting thing in that email trail is that the ATSB unnamed Investigator mentions the 'Reason cheese' approach, something that has been accepted as a form of best practise across investigative communities. Yet this must have disturbed the Beaker as he has made it abundantly clear that he operates from a much higher plain than Reason, hence his recent high level ramblings about things beyond the Reason scope! Considering that CASA's very own Associate DAS himself has been challenging the theories on 'Just Culture' in somewhat opposition to what his beloved ICAO promulgates, shows that these clowns have too much frickin time on their hands enabling them to challenge Newtons laws on gravity as well as everything else and they need to pull their heads in and do what they actually should be doing - Increasing the level of aviation safety in Australia, FFS.

I think everyone has had a gutful of these mad scientists challenging the laws of relativity and want some real aviation people placed in these roles who are actually able to define, improve, lead and better our industry rather than tearing it asunder.

I believe the boiling Chamber pot cauldron is yet to fully manifest itself and there is much more to the inner workings of these aviation bodies than has been revealed so far. The entire episode gets worse by the week, and the level of incompetence, obfuscation, ignorance and sheer stupidity is mind numbing.
The ATSBeaker changes its mind more than a pregnant bride, and CASA couldn't identify a root cause if one dropped on their heads and started defecating!
In regards to the Norfolk report, a bunch of high school graduate could have written a better piece of work and the fact that FF are still maintaining the old chestnut of 'it was all Dom's fault' is ample proof that immediate action must be taken to remove one of the root causes of Australian aviation safety being compared to Lebanon's! What's next, Kim Jong Un hired as a Consultant???

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The chambers report also raises concerns regarding resources awi and foi and audit schedule running late.

Jmac has addressed resources but it does look there was an issue there. I think he resisted in the inquiry. One senator chirped in something like things were bad when john took over.

I suppose the question is was casa resourcing an issue? The author of the chambers report seems to indicate it was.

Or is this a similar problem to what we have seen in financial regulation?

Just a thought. Could the Atsb now say as casa allegedly breached the mou and withheld information they could prove important to the investigation the existing report and investigation needs to be re opened?

Perhaps the senators could recommend with expert assistance from NTSB or AAIB.

[Kharon]

The cause is hidden; the effect is visible to all. Ovid Well, I've tried to fathom it, in a fair way as a reasonable man should, to determine the cause of the "The Chambers Report". I regret it will take a higher authority, time, money and some considerable effort to determine, accurately the reasons, motivation, purpose and beneficiaries of the document. We can, and probably will speculate for a while on that, in many cockpits, bars, cafe's and other places where aircrew meet.

Some of the worlds nicest folk have produced the most horrendous documents, usually in fiction, occasionally with a nod towards fact or even legend; but I wonder here, I truly do, at the true nature of this remarkable document.

The potential effects emanating from this badly drafted, weasel worded, self aggrandising, incompetent, amateurish report are truly remarkable. There arise from this document many questions which, for one I would like to have answered in the cold, sober light of day, by a competent, independent Judge in a court of law.

Consider:-

1) The DAS had this report for a while; if you were a Chief pilot or manager how would you respond to it?. Clearly, something is very wrong and should the report be tested and proven concise; then documented proof should be available to all of swift, executive action and cure.

2) I believe, the author of "The Chambers Report" has now managed three of the most significant, contentious incidents in the recent history of GA: Pel Air, Airtex and Skymaster. Each and every one has been rancorous, acrimonious, declared by industry to have been, very like "The Chambers Report" an indication of the fault lines, injustices and maladministration inflicted on an industry which can't and dare not challenge the local street bully.

Old Akro # 1077 – "and I would expect (have seen) guys dismissed or demoted for better answers than we've seen from Messer's McCormick & Jordan. Can you imagine a Chief Executive (or Chairman) not being able to answer equivalent questions in a shareholders meeting? It would be a scandal." etc. As this is a 'public service' event, we need be a little more circumspect, however there should be a call made, and there is provision for the suspension of the author of "The Chambers Report", at least until such time as an investigation is complete and it establishes that the "Author" is, indeed, a fit and proper person, competent and qualified to wield the powers, bestowed by Parliament on a "Manager" in a highly visible, safety sensitive industry.

Problem: if the Pel Air debacle is openly re examined, then the motivation, directions, decisions made, actions taken in the other two cases (Airtex and Skymaster) manipulated and managed by the author of "The Chambers Report" must be suspect and are, in all probability, akin to the John Quadrio case and likely to be proven legally "unsafe".

Ah well, so much for idle speculation, time and evidence will no doubt provide the correct answers. I just wonder if the DAS and his willing accomplices realise how very easily avoidable this now public spectacle; this waste of tax payer time, money, credibility and effort could have been avoided. Is there time to affect a cure?

Hosea 8.7 - For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. Change of pace -

Great Jazz for Sunday listening.

[Sunfish]

So, basically, am I wrong in thinking that CASA and the ATSB are joined at the hip? The "independent safety investigation" service that ATSB was supposed to provide in the interest of safety - because aviation safety in itself was so important that it transcended mere regulatory matters of infringement and punishment, is now completely gone.

Furthermore, am I wrong in thinking that both entities will do anything and everything to maximise their own chances of organizational survival, including destroying or protecting any person or entity for no good reason whatsoever?

To put that another way, apparently anything that is communicated to ATSB, whether in confidence or not, will be routinely communicated by ATSB to CASA, together with enough information to identify the source. The confidential reporting service that is advertised is a sham.

Could I be forgiven for thinking that the correct answer to any question of the ATSB of anyone is now: "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself."?

[aroa]

Sunny.. 10 out of 10.

[thorn bird]

"Could I be forgiven for thinking that the correct answer to any question of the ATSB of anyone is now: "I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself."?

Sunny,
given there are now well over a thousand aviation related regulations written in such a manner that even a person trained in law has trouble understanding, with about the same number soon to be added, it is now impossible for anyone to be 100% in compliance.
Every time you climb in an aircraft you become a criminal.
I think your quote above is a timely reminder to everyone.

[Sarcs]

Story One: The tale of the Big Mack, the ‘Chamber Pot’ and ALIU (pronounced ‘a loo’).

The good Senators :ok: at last Friday’s public hearing focused very much on these sections of the ATSB-CASA MOU and for very good reason it would appear:
4.4.4 CASA agrees to assist the ATSB in relation to the provision of documents and other evidence or specialist participation concerning transport safety matters that the ATSB is investigating. Normally, the request will be made pursuant a Section 32 notice to ensure that information provided is protected as restricted information under Division 2 of Part 6 of the TSI Act. When a request for information is not directed to CASA by a Section 32 notice, CASA may request the issue of a notice to the Authority prior to the release of the requested information.

4.4.6 CASA agrees that if a CASA Officer is known to have information that could assist the ATSB in the performance of its investigative functions, CASA will undertake to advise the ATSB of the existence of the information.

4.4.10 CASA agrees that, whenever it conducts a parallel investigation into a transport safety matter the ATSB is also investigating, CASA will, subject to any legal or other applicable requirements, provide the ATSB with a copy of the CASA investigation report or other compilation of relevant details as soon as it is practicable to do so.

The DAS when questioned on whether he was aware of section 24 of the TSI Act said he wasn’t :rolleyes:, which is quite risible when you consider that the title of the inquiry is “Aviation Accident Investigations” to which one would have thought has particular relevancy to the TSI Act and the MOU.
Section 24 (1) reads….
“24 Offence to hinder etc. 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.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.”

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, at the hearing Beaker continued to argue that the SAR; and now the ‘Chamber review’; the FRMS Special Audit of Pel-Air; past audits; emails from ATSB officers etc…etc are still not or were ever relevant to the Bureau’s investigation into the Pel-Air ditching….I guess it is too late now for Beaker to start marching to a different drum!:ugh:
Newsflash!
Ben's piece on Congress scrutiny of FAA further proof of 'Beaker's folly':It is thus not encouraging to know that CASA here not only failed to do this with Transair (the Lockhart River disaster of 2005) or Pel-Air (the Norfolk Island ditching of 2009) but in the case of the latter improperly suppressed the ATSB from knowing that it had failed, leaving its chief commissioner Martin Dolan looking like a goose during a Senate committee hearing yesterday. (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/15/pel-air-senate-hearing-sensation-casa-hid-key-safety-audits-from-atsb/)
ps Worth a read because it highlights how the US political system keeps the FAA fully accountable and transparent:
FAA has a maybe worse problem than the 787 | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/17/faa-has-a-maybe-worse-problem-than-the-787/)


However the Senators now :cool: appear to be focusing on the legal implications in the conduct/misconduct of the Pel-Air accident investigation and the FF oversight/lack of oversight of the PA AOC.

So could there be trouble afoot for Big Mack his ‘Chamber Pot’ and/or his new ALOO? “Section 24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation”…for starters :=








Reality Check! BM, CP, Mr Aliu here’s a recent comment from one of those deeply affected by this sordid tale:

Karen Casey
Posted February 16, 2013 at 10:57 am | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/15/pel-air-senate-hearing-sensation-casa-hid-key-safety-audits-from-atsb/#comment-15378)

CASA, ATSB, Pel-Air. Shame, shame, shame. How dare there be people in positions that knowingly put the public at risk.

When I hear that this crash could have been prevented if more pro-active safety follow ups were insitu, my stomach churns. The hell myself and others on board have experienced in many forms, is too difficult to adequately express. The ditching was positively preventable had our trusted systems had honest, thorough scaffolding, starting at the top.

CASA audited Pel-Air in April 2007, they found the operator was not adhering to numerous rules. Audited again March 08, safety alert issued. No further audit follow up until after the ditching.

Then a dodgy ATSB report, the Chambers report sitting south under McCormick. How dare all involved shake our lives to the core…their turn to shake now. Lies always unravel. I hope this is the start of real change.
Pel-Air Senate sensation CASA hid key safety audit from ATSB | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/15/pel-air-senate-hearing-sensation-casa-hid-key-safety-audits-from-atsb/#comments)

Reality Check over! Now hurry along and scurry back to Flyingfiend's office…oh to be a fly on the wall!!:E

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Sarcs, The 2008 senate report is worth a revisit.

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/casa/report/report.pdf

There is quite a bit dealing with Byron's direction and concerns about effective regulation and the idea of self regulation. Ben is onto this in his article. The interesting bit is that Continental comment stating it is the FAA's responsibility to ensure standards. You get the held impression nobody wants to be accountable.

FAA has a maybe worse problem than the 787 | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/17/faa-has-a-maybe-worse-problem-than-the-787/)

I'm pondering whether flying fiend is now nervously awaiting that fax machine firing up with an incoming Friday afternoon fax?

[Sunfish]

I predict we are about to see a reorganisation of both CASA and ATSB.

That is the classic, bureaucratic, response to calls for change and improvement.

....and of course it will do nothing of the sort.

Or as Petronius put it in 66AD:

"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised.� I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."

[Kharon]

Sunny, not a bad call but I suggest fine tuning the old Ouija board. To reorganise you need wriggle room and there is none. Not for anyone; the Senate have but a tiny slice of one incident, there are at least a dozen similar cases known about, right now and a similar number yet to be revealed.

Remember this is just one event, think on: Jones, Johansson, Butson, Repacholi, Barrier, Hardy, Hempel all now 'suspect'. Quadrio, Airtex, Skymaster. All there and yet to be exposed and they will be, publicly if required. It would make a hell of a book.

The Senate ("Bless 'em") are only scratching the famous surface of one!; they stated that they cannot and dare not be seen as part of any form of cover up or "reorganisation" because should (gods forbid) there be a major event, the knock on effect would unseat the government.

There is an honourable and transparent way to resolve the issues, as they must. Happily, this time the Committee appear to have resolve, intelligence, integrity and technical understanding on their side.

I felt sorry for Nick Xenophon, banged up in Malaysia but the parallel was wonderful: he must now know exactly how the industry feels when confronting CASA, powerless, no appeal, no options. Just administratively graped. (There was a bunch of them).
:D
Tempus fugit

[owen meaney]

Kharon
That is what happened after the Seaview episode, would be deja vu all over again.

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, your post really seems to dig down to part of the root cause of the current issues - Person(s) who are out of their league, don't understand aviation cultures, systems and obligations. When you examine Section 24 of the TSI it does indeed appear that the 'potted one' is 'guilty as charged your honor'. However, we all know that these rules, laws and regulations are written containing loads of 'intent', and can be manipulated to any desired outcome at the whim of a politician or legal spin doctor. However, excluding this fact, it is very poor form that the DAS admits he is not aware of some or all of the requirements of the Act? Dry that one out and you can fertilise the pot plants!
Whether he is lying, or genuine, that isn't for me to judge, but either way it proves that he and his lieutenants are not 'capable to hold these official roles', and the same applies to Beaker.

Karen Casey hits the nail on the head. This malaise is just wrong wrong wrong. Issues of this nature and accidents and deaths date back to the 90's, and nothing ever changes (particularly the same spin doctors hiding in these organisations, who have been ingrained for decades). The comparison between Lockhart and Norfolk is incredible when examined holistically and the farce of blaming 'just the pilots' is removed. We have poor regulatory oversight by way of some very ordinary and lame audits undertaken, in some cases inspectors concerns are ignored, there is poor operational surveillance and there is a culture of regulatory cost cutting over and above safety. Nothing has changed, just go back and look at Seaview. There were regulatory concerns with that operator prior to and leading up to it having its AOC upgrade, then crash..

Some of the disturbing facts are as follows:

Accidents: Between 1975 - 2009, 10 serious accidents. All with fatalities except the Norfolk ditching.

Deaths: Death count from these 10 accidents = 102.

RPT: 4 of these flights were RPT.

Charter: 5 of these flights were Charter.

The Senators are doing a good job thus far. Senator Fawcett has a good grip on flight operations, Senators Heff and Nash are pushing the right buttons and Senator Xenophon, himself a Lawyer, seems to have 'Flyingfiends number'. The Senators are gradually narrowing down FF and ATSBeakers wriggle room (thanks 'K') dramatically.

From my travels nationally and internationally there is some robust discussions in quiet drinking holes and risqué entertainment venues and none of it is trending positively towards the hierarchy at CASA, ATSB and ASA. The Senators should be awarded full plenipotentiary powers to compliment the work they are achieving. These organisations are the furtherest supporters of egalitarianism this country has seen. These 'agent provocateues' have reached the end of their use by date and should be discarded so as to make way for some fresh produce.
This hegemony has to go..

[PAIN_NET]

Human Factors Pel Air - Special Audit Report. (http://www5.zippyshare.com/v/50935054/file.html)

PAIN believe the above document is worthy of serious, professional consideration. For those who have been unable to download the report from the Senate site the link above will provide a download for the document.

It is quite a long download (70,085 KB) and may take 5 or 6 minutes; but to any involved in the safety management of Australian aircraft, the 44 pages are a must read.

We remind you only to use the "Download Now" button at the top right hand corner of the page, avoid the advertisements and that downloads from the site are not tracked.

P4- a.k.a. Ferret.

[my oleo is extended]

The special audit report is not a pretty one. Just to scratch the surface you have:

Poor fuel policy and practise.
Pilots apprehensive to formally record defects.
Operational control - The AOC exercises little, if any control over the operation of tasks once a task commences.
Poor pilot training.
Lack of FRMS
No DAMP conducted after incidents/accidents, and this one;
Broad organisational failures.

All of this uncovered, yet Mr Pot Plant and Mr White see no reason to pass this on to the ATSB?
All of this uncovered yet Mr Pot Plant sees no relevance between these organisational findings and the root cause of the accident (keep in mind CASA promulgate the holistic approach to investigations and look at the broader context of an Operator), Mr Pot Plant still keeps blaming Dom entirely?

It seems that the special audit leader, as well as people such as Mr Cook are (were) the only ones who understand true root cause and latent conditions because Mr Pot Plant, his executives and the Beaker are completely lost in transit!

I am also starting to wonder if Mr Chambers has been covertly setting up his own Star Chamber in which Mr Pot Plant was being set up to be the star attraction? Could we now see a reverse place with the Chamber Pot receiving a pineapple and Messr Marcolin getting paroled from projects and again regaining the Sydney throne?

To many possibilities, to much shenanigans and too many bobbing apples to choose from! I better grab a beer, popcorn and copy of the SPM and sit back to enjoy the next enthralment!! (Well, not until I have taken out the garbage and watered the pot plants!).

[Frank Arouet]

A pox on the lot of them!

Unfortunately, like every Australian athlete, everyone at CAsA is tarred with the same brush. Too many lies, untruths, unanswered questions, obsfucation, wasted taxpayer money, stupidity or oncompetence, take your pick, and the conceptual indoctrination/ mentorism of untouchability.

CAsA need performance enhancing drugs. A fatal overdose by any measure.

[my oleo is extended]

Frank, if CASA took performance enhancing drugs their calf muscles would swell and the jackboots would no longer fit, so that's a bad idea.
Plus steroids will make you prone to outbursts of anger, and some of them already have anger management problems!

Be that as it may, L.Armstrong is looking for work! Come to think of it, as of next month so will the Pope be, and in September most of Joolia and friends also, so there is a couple of ideas for FF's new robust structure!

[Up-into-the-air]

Just a quick read of the report on the FRMS [casa called it "shelfware"] and the letter by casa leads one to a very dark place:

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/soilmaster/uploads%20to%20pprune/casaandpelairfrms_zps24326673.png

casa says: "We have added a dot point on FRMS requirements for time zone changes as this is a major omission from the manual."

and jmac says".......atsb would not have changed what they thought or the report....." Mr. Senator.

[B]Well well well!!!!! Come on Mr. casa

[PAIN_NET]

Once again, the great team supporting the Senate Committee have proven their worth.

The Pel Air FRMS – Special audit – has been modified and is now a very user friendly 30 second download from either the Senate site or from the link below.

FRMS Special audit. (http://www17.zippyshare.com/v/12584594/file.html)

Only use the "Download Now" button in the top right corner, watch out for the adverts.

P1. a.k.a. P1.

[Sunfish]

Reading between the lines of the special audit it seems clear, at least in my opinion, that the fatigue risk management system (FRMS) was considered "shelfware" to use CASAs term. It also appears that their fuel planning procedures weren't any better.

In other words, it was there to satisfy CASA that it existed - just like a Thousand other regulatory imposts across all of the economy, such as "anti discrimination' or "gender equity" policies. For that is what shelfware means. A sop to the regulator unless I am mistaken..

And to make matters worse CASA couldn't identify the FRMS as "shelfware" or the fuel planning practice deficiencies without a special and detailed audit.

So Mr. McCormick, what are you going to do about identifying all the other "shelfware" that is gathering dust in a Thousand Operations offices as we speak?

But wait, it gets worse..........

Only problem was that Fatigue matters. It kills pilots and passengers. It costs employers money to observe it. No one in management really wants it anyway, realising that the chances of accident on their watch are slight, so leave it to the next manager to sort out. As for pilots, they are in the Toxic "Double Bind" problem - damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Complain about fatigue = get a reputation as a whiner and kiss the company goodbye.

Don't complain = Make a fatigue related mistake and CASA will blame you and only you, just like the Head of CASA appears to have done.

And to top it off:

The only way out of the double bind problem that I know of, apart from quitting, is an appeal to the safety auditor in the form of a confidential report to the ATSB. But the ATSB has a memorandum of understanding with CASA that requires them to pass on information capable of identifying the complainant, and in any case CASA leaks like a sieve and has its own agenda in play.

What that means as far as I can tell, is that no pilot, PPL, CPL, whatever can put any trust in the integrity of Australian Air safety systems whatsoever because the outcome of even a well meaning and constructive communication with ATSB, let alone CASA, could be firing, blacklisting, criminal prosecution or loss of licence on the flimsiest pretext depending on the political wind blowing at the time.

We are indeed "criminals who havn't been caught yet".

So to ask a question: Why does Pel Air get off with a clean slate? How and why was the Pel AIr Chief Pilot hired by CASA? Why does Dominic James have to shoulder all the blame for what CASA now apparently agrees are systemic failures at Pel AIr?


....sorry for being Captain Obvious.

[my oleo is extended]

Sunfish, although your last 3 questions, as you put it, are obvious, they are quite crucial in this entire sordid mess. We are awaiting a clear and concise explanation from the CASA hierarchy. Although I don't think any reasonable answers will end up coming as these guys just don't get it.

In fact, to go out on a limb when you analyze Colgan against Norfolk there are some glaring and subtle comparisons. Yes I know, different countries, different aircraft and different circumstances and outcomes, but the big equaliser is Fatigue! Both organisations operated a fatigue inducing operation with no mitigation strategies in place. The more the 'potted one' opens his mouth the more ludicrous this situation gets. The Skull has proven he does not look at broad systemic issues, he is not capable of doing so. He is purely a stick and rudder left hand seat man, nothing else. This is the wrong type of leader to be leading an authority transition from the safety systems of the 70's, 80's and 90's. He should robustly exit the building taking the CASA Board and his 2 sidekicks with him, as a starting point.

The MOU with the ATSB is a farce. It's akin to the FBI having an MOU with the state troopers.
The ATSB has been the last bastion of trust, when all else fails you have one body you can confide in. All gone!
The Minister for Mascot, Sith Mrdak, the Boards and other 'intellectuals' involved in putting the 'agreement' in place should all receive an industry vote of no confidence for allowing the parlous condition that now exists to be 'acceptable'.
The MOU should be rescinded immediately as part of an ATSB and CASA gutting.

[Up-into-the-air]

A bit more reading - Section 2.2

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/soilmaster/uploads%20to%20pprune/pelairfrms_zps6e5c2915.png

Worth a little comment??

[my oleo is extended]

UITA, what can one say?? The document speaks volumes all by itself!
Perhaps the Senators would like to ask the CASA to respond to this document??

I agree with this - If this is just a sample of one lack of oversight of an operator then what else is out there?
Hmmm. Me thinks Lockhart and a number of other accidents would have a similar lack of oversight attached to them - prior to, during and after an issue arose?
This is a disgrace. I guess it beggars the question of 'how safe are our skies really'? Don't bother answering. The proof is in the Senate.

'Reactive CASA skies for all'

[Frank Arouet]

I was going to answer this post from blackie, but it's a wind up so I'll ignore it.

The skies are safe there being no aircraft to make them unsafe, but it's the poor poor little school kiddies that worry me having to look up all the time for falling space rocks.

[Sarcs]

UITA couple of good copies there and I notice you've finally got the scale about right.:ok:

In your post http://www.pprune.org/7701732-post1099.html did you happen to notice the subject line which reads "FW: Response to Roger".

Err..perhaps flying fiends designated legal officer for the day on the FOI desk has missed the subject line while dutifully redacting the FRMS Special Audit report.:=

Note on FOI or Dunce's Desk: That's the desk that everyone calls the 'naughty corner' and is jammed up near where the effluent and scraps come down from the golden trough from above and sits under a shroud of cobwebs.:E

On those emails the one on page 42 of the PDF was very interesting, here is a quote from part of it…:rolleyes:

“One of the key areas that we believe is missing from the action plan is a list to cover the quality assurance (QA) processes i.e. there is a lot of activity within the list but how will they determine and assure themselves and CASA the actions have been effective. For example safety culture and reporting remain an issue with the WW operators and this process takes time (minimum 6 months) to influence and determine the change has been effective.”

Q/ So did these helpful suggestions get acted on? Or, like the rest of the report appears to have been; did it get ‘shelf wared’? Sure like to take a look at that FF ‘shelf ware’ warehouse!:cool:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

In light of some of the comments and contact of the report looking at the effectiveness of the centralized service centre?

There was concern from old timers that the process could be a tick box process.

I wonder how many other audit reports and RCA's have been mislaid?

Anybody have an sti (safety trend indicator) audit carried out over the phone?

[my oleo is extended]

Halfmanhalfpotplant, the CASA love those ticked boxes.
As for over the phone audits I am not sure, but the Accident Liasion Manager who is the 'not so robust' CASA/ATSB conduit in the middle of this gritty sandwich used to accept 'telephone calls to an operator' as Operational Surveillance when he was the Brisbane field office manager! Again, it ticks the boxes and meets KPI's, but just a smoke screen. I imagine it is all sitting in TRIM if one was to search for it

I have also been told for example that when Macair fell over the government panicked about not being able to service FNQ routes, so they arranged for another operator to pick up a bunch of those routes, albeit with a completely different aircraft type. No audit was done first, no full and thorough risk assessments undertaken, just a 'desktop exercise' and hey presto - the new operator had all the ports added to their AOC, which was around 10 ports I am told, and done very quickly. No risk in that is there?

Aargh yes I hear the sound of a shredder I believe!!
Poor Flyingfiend, no wonder he doesn't have time to post of late. All these spotfires erupting and not enough hoses! Maybe CASA will have to use all the trough water as well??

'Unsafe emails for all'

[GADRIVR]

Just a thought.
Perhaps I've missed something or has "Flyingfiend" disappeared off the forums completely?!
Wonder why? Perhaps I'm not searching correctly?!
On a completely different note....... how does one go about a defamation lawsuit these days?Ah well.... off to bed methinks!
:D

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Oleo,

Ff maybe monitoring for
Incoming - Friday afternoon faxes.

[Kharon]

Problem: Roger Fitzpatrick or Patrick Fitzroger. Which Woger wuz it?.

The Woger of "The Report" fame, is a lion of reform, robustly using cohorts of fearless FOI to drill down below the conflicted, scratched surfaces. Sorting the incompetent from the dopey and reflecting "CASA concern". Obviously seriously qualified as "He, who must not be named" singled him out from all of his other 'experts' to draft a secret "How to fix it" report.

The Woger of "audit management fame" has previously, under oath claimed to be no more than a simple paper shuffler at the mercy of technically qualified inspectors; some of whom told fairy stories, which Woger believed. It was unfortunate that whatever a qualified field inspector told him, he a simple paperwork shuffler, was obliged to believe, no matter how dubious or worthless the information was. "Not qualified M' lud".

Now it can't be the same chappie, that would imply complicity, or lying on oath or a seriously split personality. No!, and then, the difficulty identifying the wight "Woger" is further compounded by the inappropriate use of large words, complicated syntax and long sentences which appear to finish where they start, without actually saying anything. The available candidates for "Woger" all seem to fancy themselves with a pen.

Aye, 'tis all passing strange; a puzzle. Will the weel Woger wiggle out from the wood work? Tonight, the Bar Room Barristers have convened a special information swap night, with a guest speaker; perhaps they can determine just who's bweifs Woger was pulling.

Insert - standard "Kelpie" ending.

[my oleo is extended]

GADRIVR, Flyingfiend is a little to busy for prune at the moment. Lots of work to do, trips to Montreal, paperwork to shuffle, pot plants to water, etc etc.
He may come back if asked nicely, but unlikely.

[Sarcs]

Chapter One: Jack Rabbit his cohort Wodger Wabbit and the other wily wabbits!:cool:

Love it "K"! Oh Mr Ferryman...please...please tell us a fairytale??:ok:

[my oleo is extended]

Step right up friends the circus is in town. That's right, and completely true, Cavalia has set up in the DFO carpark, Brisbane airport, across the road from that other great circus tent - Fort Fumble!
Bring the family and bring the Inspectorate. There will be a host of activities including:

A kids petting zoo - Pat a FF executive in his natural environment. This one is not for the faint hearted.

A spinning cage - Watch as audit reports, documents and 'questions on notice' are spun around mercilessly. Spin spin spin, where it stops only Albo knows. The finale of this act is always a heart stopper.

Apple bobbing - Grab the top prize and you could be off on an all expenses paid 'working study' to Montreal with business class tickets and 5 star chamber accommodation.

The Lions Cage - Watch as a Senator walks into the cage full of hungry FF spin doctors and tries to tame the circling ferocious angry beasts! There will be hoops to jump through, whips and jackboots.

Escape artists - Watch as a group of mid tier managers attempt to free themselves from the chains of the Band D Salary and escape to the safety of an awaiting corporate executive package.

Flyingfiends flying trapeze act - You will be amazed at this robust performance. Watch as these high flyers move from one end of the tent to another at dizzying speed and almost out of sight. There will be no safety net as these boys are fully confident in their ability to defy the laws of aviation nature. (Keep an eye out for the spandex costumes!).

Laughing clowns - There will be bald headed laughing clowns aplenty. Grab an audit report and pop it in the clowns mouth and win a prize!

AOC fortune teller - Swing by the fortune tellers desk and seek a prediction on the future or your AOC, HOFO application or gaze into the crystal ball to see what your possible future is pertaining to Show Causes.

Nashing of teeth - Enjoy working with the circus folks, bearded ladies, carnies and Inspectors as you grab a shovel, dig a hole , pot a plant, cover it in circus floor pony poo and water it from a chamber pot. You will be encouraging a greener environment while making robust use of free land space. For entertainment value this one gets a big tick in the box..

So friends come to Brisbane airport, enjoy the double act of Cirque de Cavalia and Cirque de CASA. Tickets selling fast.

P.S For those who cannot afford the show there will be free evening viewing of the event from Level 3, East Wing, FF Brisbane.

[Frank Arouet]

It kicks off with a reproduction of the 1936 Berlin Olympics where following the march past, 40,000 pigeons will be released and while circling to get their bearings, a Battery of 105mm Howitzers from The School of Artillery fire a salute which causes 40,000 simultaneous pigeon ****s to descend on the audience.

It will be worth it if only to listen to the Massed Bands follow on with The 1812 Overture culminating in..........., you guessed it 40,000 more pigeon ****s.

This will be salvaged for pot plant fertiliser.

I trust Brisbane ATC have been informed?

[Up-into-the-air]

Pure gold!!! MOIE

Nashing of teeth

Enjoy working with the circus folks, bearded ladies, carnies and Inspectors as you grab a shovel, dig a hole , pot a plant, cover it in circus floor pony poo and water it from a chamber pot.

You will be encouraging a greener environment while making robust use of free land space.

For entertainment value this one gets a big tick in the box..


Go, Go Go

Senators Fawcett and Xenophon for the dual role circusmaster

[Sarcs]

Jack Wabbit's spin and obfuscation is laughable :E:
Senator FAWCETT: Going to that exact point, if you go to 4.1 of the Chambers report, it states that it is likely that many of the deficiencies identified after the accident would have been detectable through interviews with line pilots and through the conduct of operational surveillance of line crews in addition to the surveillance, the management checks.

It strikes me that the Chambers report is quite specific, and that is only one example. There are a number of other areas where it is fairly clear that there were deficiencies in the oversight that had they been addressed through effective audit the accident may well have been prevented. The point though, Mr McCormick, is not so much to say that the surveillance was deficient therefore the world is about to end.

Commissioning the Chambers report was commendable upon your taking control of the organisation. The point is, for the public to have confidence that there is transparency and due process, where there is a report in existence, a formal report conducted by a senior manager, it would be the expectation of the public—and indeed, as Senator Xenophon has pointed out, it is clearly highlighted in the MOU—that the information pertinent to an investigation by ATSB would be made available.

With the concept of a systems approach, whereby not only the operator and the piloting command but also the regulator are key parts of the safety system, where there is written evidence in the possession of one department prior to the publication—in fact, prior to even the review of the draft report coming out—it seems inappropriate to the committee that the spirit and letter of the MOU was not implemented to make that information available.

Mr McCormick: As I said, the CASA Chambers report was a report that I started. It did not even require to be done. It was not something that was in our normal procedures. Following the MOU—

Senator FAWCETT: We appreciate the fact that you started it. Our concern is the fact that, having initiated the report and having it in your possession, the report was not then made available—as required by the MOU, in writing let alone in spirit—to assist the ATSB with their subsequent investigation.

Mr McCormick: It is a balancing act tiered between what is required to be provided to the ATSB and what is an internal CASA document. I took the view that that did not, in any way—the Chambers report—should not be influencing ATSB in their deliberations. We were very specific in not allowing our report, or any of our information, to be available to the ATSB where we had reached conclusions in a parallel investigation. In actual fact, we did not provide our report, or the accident report and our special audit reports, until we received section 32 demands from the ATSB, which we did receive on 25 March 2011 and 3 August 2012 respectively. I am very aware that we do not want a contagion effect on the ATSB.

We conducted this in the best possible way we could. We did it with the most probity and the best goodwill that we could muster at the time. In retrospect, should the ATSB have an internal CASA document? That is something that I will take away and consider again. I do not think we are in violation of the MOU in that we provided the information as we were required, and we were scrupulous in avoiding telling the ATSB our conclusions or where our investigation was going—a parallel investigation but for different reasons.

As I think Mr Dolan said before, he did not want to be involved in a CASA inquiry, nor was he inquiring into possible regulatory breaches or effects that rightly fall under our jurisdiction. So in a lot of ways, to release that report would have put, I would think, the ATSB in a different position. That is a question you could ask Mr Dolan. From my point of view, if I put myself in Mr Dolan's shoes, that would have given me a great deal of difficulty from the point of view of establishing my line of inquiry and my line of decision.

Senator FAWCETT: We will come later to the issues of collaboration—I will use that word as opposed to 'cooperation'—between the ATSB and CASA.

But there is evidence and there are documents, which we will discuss, that indicate there was relatively frequent and open discussion about the content of reports and alignment between the two organisations, and yet a report that (a) would obviously embarrass CASA was not made available, despite other because they say 'there is a lack of evidence that this is a serious safety concern'—and they take the fact that there have been audits done of the FRMS system used by the company. In the audit that CASA put together, it said:
… 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 the surveillance audit of March 08 were never appropriately actioned.

There is a lack of any clear evidence to support corrective actions have been implemented, confirmed by CASA or that there were effective. If this process is indicative of broader practices of CASA, it is considered that CASA is exposed to unnecessary risk, particularly if required to provide evidence to support how it approved and operated a system, in this case their FRMS …

Given that the ATSB chose to ignore the whole issue of fatigue and how that might have affected the errors that were made by the pilot, because of a lack of evidence, and CASA had a formal report within their system dealing with the issue of fatigue and chose not to disclose that to the ATSB as required by the MOU, I think you would have to agree Mr McCormick that that would seem a little unusual to the reasonable man on the street.

Mr McCormick: The issue of FRMS, or the issue of fatigue, at the time was in its infancy, shall we say—even today, the FRMS rules, where they lie and how we are going forward is a matter we can discuss at some length; we are in a regulatory development process at the moment for fatigue risk management. Put in one score forward from a FADE system, which I believe Pel-Air were using, and which is used by many others around the world, gives an answer. Using some other esoteric system, or some other mathematically based system, may give you another answer.

Mathematically based systems have not been proven to be accurate in any way, shape or form. I think the important thing is, on page 21 of the Pel-Air Aviation Safety Audit Report from CASA, where we interviewed Pel-Air pilots, under the 'Policy and application of fatigue practices', it says:
All crew interviewed stated that they felt that would be no issues in stating that they were fatigued and pulling out of duty, but also felt that they had limited opportunities to fly and had to take these opportunities when they arose.


Err good try but I'm afraid I don't think there'll be many that will swallow that codswallop! :=:yuk::yuk:

And you guessed it Hansard is out....:ok:

[Kharon]

Don't ya just love it when the information comes straight from the "horses mouth" (play nice). This makes things very, very interesting. Woger, the wily white wabbit, wevealed.

Hansard – page 6 – Friday, 15 February 2013.

Mr McCormick: All I can say about that is go back to what I said earlier on the standard we were applying in the Chambers report. I wanted the full information, in other words, to put us to a gold standard. The Chambers report adequately reflects what Mr Chambers found when he carried out that investigation.

Mr McCormick: As I said, the points raised in the Chambers report—and I will check it on notice—are covered in our special audit report and in the accident report itself. Mr Chambers has elaborated on that,
My bold.\
Tempus fugit, but it will keep. :D :D:D

[my oleo is extended]

Esoteric system? Oh Mr Skull.
Either somebody with a PHD in shrubbery and tautology has been coaching him or he was describing some kind of high flying trapeze act you would see at Albo's circus??
Step right up step right up the Circus is in town!

[Frank Arouet]

Mr Skull's ridiculous responses and reactions are classic..and his anger knows no bounds

Last seen doing a rabid impersonation of a whirling Dervish. (that's a wabbit with large ears and a brain less than proportional to the head under the influence of Coriolus effect and crystal meth).

By midnight he may well disappear up his own fundamental orifice such being the laws of centrifugal effort.

But be cognizant that this is only an internal merorandum of understanding of the laws, of whatever laws, is being understood, at this time in space, (given my orientation), of events.

Birds? What birds?

[my oleo is extended]

Justiceseeker, we are glad to have a person of justice joining in, welcome and shalom :ok:
But you must not feed the trolls whilst inside the circus tent viewing the show. Blackie tends to get very upset when harassed, so best not bait the beast.
Blackie, in his own way, eagerly awaits the outcome of this robust inquiry as do many of us. Perhaps he, like others, is awaiting the opportunity to jump into some vacated CASA seats once the music stops? There will be a plethora of bobbing apples to choose from :D

[my oleo is extended]

Blackie, enough of the insults, each pruner is welcome to their opinions.

For those who are concerned, the Senators aren't listening to 'some of us', they are listening to industry, listening to those undergoing questioning who reside in the ivory towers and they are examining the evidence.
Perhaps they do read prune, just for a few s#its and giggles, but they aren't conducting an inquiry into aviation issues based on pruners commentary.

Back to the thread......

[Sarcs]

On page 9 of the Hansard Senator Fawcett :Dnails the implications of such an ugly cover-up..."Think about the reasonable man in the street, seeing a statement like that—which said: 'We won't go any further down this path, because we're happy the regulator his doing his job'—and knowing that the regulator had internal reports saying that the FRMS was not adequate. I accept your position: the UK is not necessarily an answer. But the issue for this inquiry is that you had in your possession information that would have triggered to the ATSB the fact that your oversight was not adequate. They were assuming that it was a defence that was in place and effective. You had written evidence saying that that was not the case. And by not disclosing that information, you have in fact shaped the outcome of the ATSB report. That is one of the concerns that the committee has...."

And yet it takes at least another two pages for the DAS to concede that maybe he got it wrong!!:ugh:The mind boggles...

[thorn bird]

So blackie, basically your saying that Fawcett has no credentials, experience or probity to be involved in an enquiry of the CASA. Perhaps you can suggest someone who could take his place? Oh, and I assume Black Hand is a "Non de Plume?" either that or your Mum has or had an odd sense of humour.
This thread is generating incredible interest and discussion, if the Casa sexuals, as you call them, are avoiding debate then they have run out or arguments.

[Sir Cloudy]

Further to Blackie's last comment - could you please elaborate on why Sen X hasn't got a brain? Is there something that you could point to that would support that opinion? And you started on Fawcett but didn't finish - a penny for your thoughts on him?

[GADRIVR]

Blackhand....... you really are a disgrace putting comments like that out. No better really than the clowns undergoing a grilling at the enquiry!
Geez! What ******* coward you are sir!

[thorn bird]

Well Blackie its nice you have an opinion. It would be nice if you defended your position with facts or at least spirited argument. Insults and character attacks however do little to further your argument, in fact quite the opposite,
have you noticed other posters are now tending to ignore you/ as I now intend to do.

[Lookleft]

None of them have the experience to understand the most basic concept of carrying out an audit and corrective actions.

Isn't that what the Chambers report said about CASA?


Their underlying premise is that there is collusion between John McCormick and Doolan


I think the committee has moved on from that premise and are now looking at CASA withholding information relevant to the investigation.

As said, the pilot fcked up

Even the Senator who is allegedly not qualified to ask questions about a subject he has experience in has said the inquiry is not there to exonerate the pilot. If CASA had been doing their job properly that pilot would probably not have been flying that operation. They should have required greater PIC experience and a more robust operation to support what was in effect ETOPs jet operations regardless of the category.

The ATSB would be better off in considering CASA to be part of the problem not part of the solution and they should get back to issuing recommendations that require a satisfactory response before they are closed off.

Then again that is just my opinion.

[thorn bird]

Oh dear, well folks, the industry is in the mess its in, and its all the pilots fault!!! Sigh!

[my oleo is extended]

Hmmmm. I've seen this all before. A poster throws about some personal attacks, everybody fires back, the air turns blue and hey presto - thread locked! A clever tactic to undertake when one doesn't like what is being posted.
I would suggest ignoring 'the abusive one', and hopefully he wakes up in a better mood tomorrow.

Basically we have a number of different observers in here - pro CASA, anti CASA, the undecided and the 'watchers'.. I'm no angel, but lets get back to the inquiry at hand. Irrespective of personal opinions the facts remain that for whatever reason our industry is in deep sh#t, there is an uneven playing field, safety and standards have declined and GA is disappearing like an arctic iceberg, airport infrastructure is overloaded and the regulatory bodies are failing us by chasing rogue chopper pilots, spending money watering pot plants and shooting their feet off every time they speak or perform some ludicrous act.

Support the inquiry...

'Bring back safety'.

[my oleo is extended]

Sleep well gents and ladettes, I have an early flight to take out in the morning and I can only imagine the amount of MEL's it will have, as usual. If only we had additional sign-on time!

[LeadSled]

Blackhand,

Have you ever read Senator (previously Lt. Col) Fawcett's CV.
You might find it very enlightening, you might find him being very qualified, with a quite remarkable range of aviation and military command experience, including in areas where you consider (on what basis?) that he has no qualifications. After all, he isn't "just a pilot".

Tootle pip!!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Are ABC planning a follow up.

There are some good sound bites from the inquiry.

[Kharon]

Sarcs, perhaps I will in due course put this saga into a potted fairy story. Perhaps, when all the squalid details from the Senate enquiry are revealed, the "story version" will be more readily understood. Right now, we are only scratching the surface, much "drilling down" is yet required. So I'm afraid it's cut and dried only today.

LS# 1128 –"Have you ever read Senator (previously Lt. Col) Fawcett's CV. You might find it very enlightening, you might find him being very qualified, with a quite remarkable range of aviation and military command experience, including in areas where you consider (on what basis?) that he has no qualifications. After all, he isn't "just a pilot". One of the many subjects on discussion at last evening's special Bar Room Barristers sit down, (somewhere between soup and the nuts) was the vexed question of qualifications and resume details. Now then, the public résumé's of some CASA stars have been examined in some detail. The verdict was unanimous; "We, the jury find it passing strange that a report written by a man of integrity, impeccable qualification, intelligence and respect should have been treated in the cavalier manner it was".

Point 1) It was generally agreed that if "he who must not be named" was so desperate to have a warts and all report on the state of the organisation; there were (are?) several very suitable, reputable, respected candidates to choose from; all of whom were eminently qualified to conduct the enquiry in an open, fair, balanced honest fashion. Particularly as the report was to be "warts and all". Ben Cook (http://au.linkedin.com/pub/ben-cook/8/923/3b8) to name just one.

Clearly the ADF Directorate of Defence Aviation & Air force Safety valued his opinion over that of an 'acting' manager with an Air Force career qualification not quite suitable for the task; which may explain, in part why the position was not offered to the "Author". But the DAS had his hand picked man, so all was well.

Point 2) There are numerous instances, on public record where the DAS has "instructed" the "Author" of the "Chambers Report" directly, had discussions with and communicated frequently. Yet the "author" of the part plagiarised, part bastardised internal weapon against his own troops can, under oath in the AAT draw the following conclusions from the inestimable John Langmead SC.

Extract – AAT - File No 3553 of 2010 - Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd.
"CASA officers have equated any group of allegations and in some cases single allegations, with adverse safety culture, and have also used the term loosely and inadequately. Weeks sought to wield the term safety culture on the basis of his 5 days of training. Chambers sought to do the same thing with a little more “formal training” behind him, 7 days."

"One difficulty in the matter is that CASA officers such as Mr Chambers, and below him Mr DuBois, with no formal professional ethical obligation to impede willingness to make allegations of the most serious kind, were subjected to the apparent need to treat consideration of action against the Applicant as of unprecedented importance. That is the clear implication arising from the fact that the CEO of CASA became involved in discussion of the nature of the action to be taken, something never previously experienced by Mr Chambers." - My bold.
So the questions mount, just on this one point, stand alone. Has the truth, like the text in the Cook report been manipulated to suit some clandestine purpose ?. It's a fair question a reasonable, well informed man (or woman) may ask.

One thing is abundantly clear, supported by the chronology, statements, documents and facts the Pel Air investigation and any other investigation managed by this somewhat under qualified, willing accomplice need to be fully re examined; by a competent, independent legal authority, under rules requiring real evidence to beyond reasonable doubt. People like Karen Casey, Shane Urquhart, Gary Currall etc. etc. deserve the courtesy of the truth, at the very least. Some boys and girls, sitting in air conditioned comfort, surrounded by pot plants and coffee machines need to look deeply into their consciences and get in first. The bus is coming, next stop the Styx houseboat.

Enough of my twiddles for today – but you do see that this is not a simple, isolated problem. The whole thing stinks to the high heavens.

Selah.

[PAIN_NET]

'We' found the "Blackhand" posts offensive, not only to the other posters but to the spirit and intent of this forum. This 'thread' has been averaging 2800 reads a day. The subject is important, the readership wide and expecting to see reasoned debate from professional aviators on a critical, safety related matter. Pro or con.

More importantly, the Senate has released the last enquiry Hansard; it is available with the usual provisions from Zippyshare – Hansard (http://www53.zippyshare.com/v/9651423/file.html)– download or directly from the - Senate (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/c39d0215-da6b-4552-8460-3d9c98401d9f/toc_pdf/Rural%20and%20Regional%20Affairs%20and%20Transport%20Referen ces%20Committee_2013_02_15_1729.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22committees/commsen/c39d0215-da6b-4552-8460-3d9c98401d9f/0000%22) - website.

P7 a.k.a. TOM. On duty all day.

[fencehopper]

Why can't i get past page 55? i click on take me to last post and repeatedly get page 55 when there are more listed

[Sarcs]

"K" top post! Is it any wonder that FF continue to lose people of the calibre and expertise of Ben Cook when they are answerable to numbnuts with questionable credibility and moral fibre?:ugh:

Anyway back to the Hansard :E which is a veritable gold mine of information be it tautological or otherwise:D...on page 5 of the Hansard (amongst other statements) the DAS says...

"Mr McCormick: If I could make two points on that. If you look at the Chambers report—and I will go away and confirm this—to my knowledge the points raised in there are points that are also covered in our special audit report and our accident report. In other words, they are not raising new information; they are raising information about how internal processes in CASA were carried out. As I said, I will check that on notice, if I can; but I think you will find that there is nothing raised in the Chambers report that is not reflected in our accident report..."

Here’s a helpful hand for the DAS and his cohorts…page 21-22 of CAIR 09/3 on Fatigue Management reads:
1.18.2 Fatigue Management

The Chief Pilot also noted that the company operates on FRMS. This program examines a number of factors and gives a score which predicts whether any particular flight will produce levels of fatigue which would not be acceptable for the crew to continue to fly.

The crew on the accident flight were assessed as fit to fly using the predicted and planned flight and duty times and planned rest periods during the stop in Apia.

The planned roster had FAID scores for the captain and first officer of the accident flight as follow:
17 November 2009, Depart 22:00, Arrive 06:30, Daily hours 8.5, FAID score 27.9
18 November 2009, Depart 14:00, Arrive 03:30, Daily hours 13.5, FAID score 50.7
All times are in relation to Sydney

There was no evidence to support any updates to the FAID score based on actual sleep or use of the IFLS. Even with these updates the companies use of a sore of 75 to determine if a pilot is fit to fly is not appropriate as scores need to be determined based on closer examination of the roster patterns themselves i.e. regular RPT during the day is not the same type of operation as ad hoc medivac operations and scores should be varied according to task complexity, workload
(physical and cognitive) and risk.

Coincident with the accident Investigation and as part of the Special Purpose Audit of Pel-air the FRMS was evaluated with the following result:-


A problem with Rex/Pel Air’s use of the FRMS and FAID was that no one had a sufficient understanding of FAID, in particular the limitations and assumptions used with the algorithm. Hence, there was not a good understanding of the forecast sleep by the model in determining the fatigue score, an option which is available on some versions of FAID.
Other systems based evidence supports the finding that the Pel Air FRMS had a heavy reliance on FAID prior to the accident and that FAID scores became the primary means for making a ‘fly/no fly’ decision. There was evidence to support direct violations of the FRMS processes and policies (as per the FRMS report), which further suggests that work arounds were the norm to achieve operational needs to the detriment of fatigue management.
Errr…nowhere in that passage or indeed in any of the CAIR 09/3 that I can see does the author(s) (presumably ALOO and possibly Chamber Pot) ever state any of the FF oversight/surveillance deficiencies highlighted in either the excellent Pel-Air FRMS Special Audit report or the ‘Chambers Report’.:rolleyes:

In fact CAIR 09/3 in its entirety can only ever be read by the discerning ‘man at the back of the room’ as a complete cover up/smoke screen of the findings of Ben Cook and his fellow human factors colleague as well as the findings contained in the ‘Chambers Report’! So sorry Mr DAS no choccy frog for you as no amount of spin or legal tap dancing can swerve around the truth in this matter.:{

For those interested in refreshing their memory on the infamous and hidden CAIR 09/3 here is the link where you’ll find it buried up the back:

Reference FF submission Attachment 5 Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/pel_air_2012/submissions.htm)

[my oleo is extended]

No Hoper, there is a glitch in the pprune matrix old son. A lot of the threads are indicating page numbers that don't exist. There is nothing wrong with your computer. I imagine the I.T boffins will iron it out eventually.
Best Regards
Oleo

[my oleo is extended]

Sorry No Hoper, it was Fencehopper who was having issues with the pages! My mistake. As for your wanting robust experience within all things CASA and ATSB I would suggest moving to Australia, then either upset the Regulator by exposing a deficiency, an act of bullying or malfeasance or simply proving that you are correct and they are wrong over a matter. I can assure you that you will then become well acquainted with all their evil ways :ok:

[my oleo is extended]

Some very enlightening reading indeed within the latest instalment of the 'Great Pot Plant' debate.
Some points worth pondering over were these:

'He who shall not be potted' told the Senators that the CASA do operate using effective surveillance tools! Oh really? Then why has the holy grail of inspectorate guidance, the SPM, been a basket case for over 12 years? This Surveillance Procedures Manual was never properly finished or adapted. A half cocked manual of pony poo which nobody liked or thought was effective. The original authors 'intent' was admirable, it's just that for year after year the bureaucrats massaged, reworded, stripped, fondled and tweaked the silly manual. It was a laughing stock. Almost as hilarious as how up until 2010 no new inspector was even handed a copy of the regulations as part of their induction training! It was a 'just wing it and she will be right'!
No, with surveillance processes and training of this calibre it is no wonder the standard of surveillance on operators such as Pel Air and Transair were mentioned as causal factors.

Senator Fawcett was bang on the money. Proper oversight through quality audit and surveillance may have captured some of the pre-existing deficiencies and latent conditions.

The Skull admitted that in many ways he inherited a lemon when he joined CASA. So why didn't he punt his executives that had been part of the bitter lemon flavouring for many years prior to his commencing his tenure, rather than promoting them into higher roles? His comments also don't reflect well on The Minister for Mascot or Sith Mrdak.

Senator X has certainly, and tenaciously, exposed the MOU for the load of tripe that it is, and the fact that 'the potted one' still keeps proclaiming that the 'Chamber pot review' was not relevant to the ATSB investigation is a disgrace. The Senators have clearly exposed a breach of the TSI :=

And The Skull merrily mentions 'CASA goodwill'?? Try convincing Mr Urquhart and others such as Butson, Repacholi and Quadrio? Ask them about ' CASA good will'?

The Skull mentions CASA 'moving forward' and 'continually improving'???? FOLLY. Regulatory reform has so far taken 24 years to complete and we still ain't there!! Is the potted one deluded, living in cloud cuckoo land?

Mr Skull also mentioned a quote from "1995 Plane Safe Inquiry into Aviation Safety". The potted one uses this report as ammunition to fire upon the aviation industry for criticising the CASA. What a weak deflection, pathetic. No wonder when industry complain they get persecuted for life afterwards. Many in CASA are nothing short of sooks and bullies.

Mr Aleck. He states that in regards to Norfolk 'FRMS issues are debatable'! And he bases his comment on? His frontline experience is? Exactly a point the Senators made, some in high places in CASA do not have the relevant experience for the job. Long term bureaucrats with PHD's are deluded if they think that makes them holier than though.

Collusion. What a robust point that Senator X pushed along! Terry and Sangston were meeting together, having pow wows and yet nobody had records, notes, etc, as mentioned?? Then some time later, after the emails subsided post 'egg on agency face' commentary, the ATSB report is downgraded to a minor????? Hmmmm. What were they discussing at theses meetings - Sewing tips, cake recipes, robust fishing spots on the Fraser coast, Volvo's or hearing aids??

ATSB Investigator - So this person, who is experienced and understands holistic issues has his report downgraded to a minor incident by Sangston with the approval by Beaker, yet he disagrees with their decision and is for better words
told 'tough titties'. What a sham. No wonder the ATSB hierarchy has become such a joke....Lebanon could do a better job!

I believe there is no turning back the clock from here. The Senator have opened the would and the pus is oozing. Time to finish the job by cleansing the would entirely then stitching it back up.

'Safe skies are colluded skies'

[Up-into-the-air]

I saw this post in a trawl for information:

1995 – “Morris report” | Assistance to the Aviation Industry (http://www.vocasupport.com/?page_id=258)

[Kharon]

I don't know – a man goes out for dinner, couple of pints, cigar and a quiet chat, then last night happens. Well children your antics have been caught on the houseboat CC TV system; what have you got to say for yourselves?. Now then.

Who started it, eh?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

What feedback on the impact of certificate management teams and how effective today's oversight is?

Surprised nothing volunteered. Some stats would be interesting.

[aroa]

Dont ya just love em..! Read the Hansard re the hearing and go dizzy.
More spin than a flock of toy tops! And denial rampant.
I could design a crest.

Loved this one from the long winded Screamer.." we did it with the most probity and best goodwill we could muster at the time" :ok:
And here's me thinking CASA was a "world leader" and so full of ethics and integrity, fair fit to burst!

There's many a poor sod in GA thats been met with an FOI an AWI or a Part 111 "investigator" even, with liver problems, that hasnt been able to muster any probity or "goodwill" at all.!! :{
Very detrimental to all concerned.:mad:

Go you good senators.. keep sticking that probe in.! :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

All FOI's and AWI's must be made to have a DAMP test before anybody answers any of their questions. All conversations should be recorded.

This is especially relevant to QLD and NT operators.

Watch this space.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Casa briefing due out soon.

Could be an interesting read.

[Kharon]

As you may remember, the question of qualification (or lack thereof) was dealt with fairly swiftly; the natural progression was then to compare notes on motive for the "The Chambers Report" being smuggled to Canberra and wrapped in a mantle of secrecy. Looking over the report many of the BRB independently made the same observation; essentially, believing the willing accomplice was working for someone i.e. the author was not a leader (no brainer), but a follower, the report probably drafted to suit a dual purpose. This, stand alone begs many questions of the "author's" integrity, probity and leadership skills.

If you can manage it, read Chambers part 4.1 to 4.2 and count how many times the word "conflict" appears; then find "conflict resolution", then find "avoiding conflict". Disproportionate?, just a bit. This alone speaks volumes to anyone trained in man management. As it happens, one of the BRB actually has an impressive list of qualifications as a "head doctor", his hilarious summation was a highlight of the evening (not for publication). The group response was slightly more robust, a lot more colourful and definitely obscene; but, seeing as this is a family show: the verdict below will have to suffice.

The unanimous verdict: "It is our considered opinion that the "author" is morally incapable of supporting his troops; guilty of acting in a precipitous manner to promote conflict as and where required; guilty of being prepared to lie and obfuscate on demand". "We call for the "author" to be suspended from duty until it is established beyond reasonable doubt, that he is indeed, a fit and proper person before being allowed to further affect or influence the well being of the industry and the people within it". We firmly believe that a full, independent, impartial investigation of Pel Air, Airtex and Skymaster will reveal the true perfidious nature of these events".

Anyway; so moved (temporarily) from Bankstown to Mascot our hero (woger) produces "The Report" and dutifully scampers off to his masters, all puffed up with pride, zeal and the satisfaction of being able to silence the opposition group within. The "Report Bomb" will serve many purposes. Someone should have mentioned Petar(d) and hoist, but then who would help?.

The jury were asked: why was the report secretly commissioned ?. Why was the report not acted on? Were Messrs White and Grima party to the report?

Here, the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict; too many options, not enough hard fact and a certain 'feeling', that there was a deeper, as yet un revealed motivation for these obscene antics.

The jury was unanimous in deciding there was a rabbit off, a bloody big one. Behind the smoke, mirrors, sacrifices and pony pooh, there is a bigger, uglier story patiently waiting behind the dross to be told.

"Tell me again why we are doing the straight stuff Minnie?". (Sigh) I know, I know, it's not permanent; fetch my cigars, there's a good lass".

[Sunfish]

The Chambers report suggests to me that CASA is using a hopelessly bureaucratic methodolgy for safety oversight, but I am unsure what else is available right now.

I am familiar with the "relationship manager" model where there is one "go to" person who brings in other resources as required.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

There have been a lot of changes in safety oversight over the years. Didn't another manager walk and return to the adf. Another went off to Jetstar.

[my oleo is extended]

Halfchamberpothalfbiscuit, there has been a large exodus from CASA in the past 2 to 3 years. Mostly management or safety systems people. Names such as Lloyd, Harland and Cook stand out. Pretty much all the Safety Sysyems Specialists (SSS) have turned over as well as a high proportion of the Safety Systems Inspectors (SSI's). To make matters worse, most of these people have left with a bitter taste in their mouths after being stymied, disengaged and disgusted by bureacracy and the ingrained culture of postulation, deflection and incompetence within the higher ranks. As we know most of those in the higher ranks are 'long termers', so one can not help but ask questions as to what is going on in there?

Then again, a lack of stability is nothing unusual under the DAS, Deputy DAS and Associate DAS and their Liuetenants..

[Kharon]

Remarkable, the DAS is completely familiar with section 32 of the TSI, but appears 'puzzled' by the rest, like 24, 25, 26, 27 and ICAO annexe 13. Then of course there are the mysteries of AGIS; there is no evidence within the huge volume available which indicates that the "investigation" was approved, mounted correctly, not conflicted and met all the required protocols. It's passing strange where the 'investigation' must analyse the audit and the Auditors were allowed to test the veracity, competency of their own audit. Even more peculiar is the almost 'instant' one man, subjective judgement that there was in fact sufficient evidence of an intentional breach of 20A, to trigger an investigation. Now, the next question is, who is the masked man taking liberties with the various Acts. Somehow, somewhere it just don't add up.

Clearly Maestro Fawcett can smell a rat (or wabbit) in the shrubbery.

Hansard Page 15. - Senator FAWCETT: If we asked to release an email where a request was made that the report focus on the pilot's actions and potential legislative breaches as opposed to other factors, would that perturb you? N.B. The email is still in the Senators back pocket, interesting passage of play.

Reference notes:-

Investigation, evidence and investigators manual references:
If the relevant manager considers that there may be evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3). It is only after discussion in this forum that a request for investigation should be made using form 333.

The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.) If a prima facie case exists and prosecution is considered, a Brief of Evidencewill be compiled and submitted in accordance with the procedures set down in the Investigators Manual. Alternatively, on consideration of the investigator’s report, the Manager EPP may decide that the issue of an AIN is a more appropriate penalty. This will also be discussed as part of the CEP. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)

11.5.2 Reporting The Investigators/Coordinator Investigations make entries on AIRS, on the ASIS database and on the Enforcement Action Register on the Enforcement Action eRooms. (Note: This would be as per the AGIS 2003.)

Got to love Hansard, the FOI Act and days off. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Perhaps the SSS and SSI 's should write to the senate about the issues.

The senators are now listening.

[Sarcs]

Or maybe HMHB the Senators could refer the matter to the ACLEI for non-compliance with the AGIS....:D
The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards.

Good catch "K" there is some good stuff in that enforcement manual, if you can care to read it :ok:

Ah yes the AGIS yet another FF obligation that they appear to merely pay lipservice to:

The Australian Government Investigations Standards (AGIS) establish the minimum standards for Australian Government agencies (agencies) conducting investigations. Where the AGIS are in conflict with law, the legislative requirement will prevail. AGIS applies to all stages of an investigation.

An investigation is a process of seeking information relevant to an alleged, apparent or potential breach of the law, involving possible judicial proceedings. The primary purpose of an investigation is to gather admissible evidence for any subsequent action, whether under criminal, civil penalty, civil, disciplinary or administrative sanctions. Investigations can also result in prevention and/or disruption action.

The term investigation can also include intelligence processes which directly support the gathering of admissible evidence. (NB: 'admissible evidence' JQ would get a laugh out of that one)
http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/FOI/Documents/AGIS%202011.pdf

And the “Investigators Manual” which would appear to be yet another fabled, much referred to work of fiction.:ugh:

Much like the SPM and the long awaited regs the IM will soon become reality, that is once flying fiend and his crew pull their finger out….err that could be at least another decade :{given Oleo’s comment on the progress of the SPM.

Although flying fiend and his crew have dutifully complied with some of the terms of the AGIS throughout the 221 page ‘Enforcement Manual’, I’m afraid some of that may need to be duplicated in the yet to be promulgated IM. So here’s a helping hand 'flying fiend' for some essential content as per the AGIS 2011:E :

1.1 Investigation policy

The agency is to have clear written policy in regard to its investigative function. The policy should include:
• a statement regarding the agency’s objectives in carrying out its investigation functions and use of sanctions
• a clear definition of activities applicable to the agency to which the AGIS apply. This should include a description of compliance activities that are not generally considered investigations by the agency
• a statement regarding the agency’s responsibility to manage matters that are considered minor or routine, and
• a statement regarding the agency’s responsibility to refer criminal matters to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). This should include consideration of joint agency investigation teams, where appropriate.

If they haven't done so already perhaps the good Senators should be asking for the paper trail that shows compliance with the AGIS.;)

While they are at it maybe they could request that the Part IIIA investigator responsible for overseeing the FF accident investigation present to the committee to give evidence:oh:

[my oleo is extended]

Sarcs, you don't realise it but you are brilliant!!
The 'free goal' you have given Flyingfiend by providing some robust bullet points pertaining to 1.1 Investigations Manual is just the sort of campaign we need to have!
You have movements such as Occupy Wallstreet, Greenpeace, even Bravehearts. So why don't we start a group, lets call it something like 'Adopt The CASA' or 'Friends of Flyingfiend' (I did consider the name 'Polish a Turd') and we, the little guy, the sh#t kickers in CASA's eyes, us the 'those who should not be seen' can write, formulate, collate, promulgate, promote, introduce and ratify our interpretation and decision on what the rules and regs should be and simply hand it over to Team Flyingfiend! Admittedly it would reduce their costs, less trips to Montreal and other shonky ollie jollies would be removed, but hey, that's the price you pay for safer skies!

Just imagine, industry people who live, work and breathe aviation actually having input?? We take the tasks that FF have not been able to accomplish for a quarter of a century out of their hands. No more silly Pensioners, no more tautological nonsense, we won't 'take questions on notice', no more spin, no more bureaucratic pony poo and no more PHD dribbling wordsmiths trying to cover their shortcomings of having small pee pee's by using big words!
And not only can we do all that, but we will also wash the fleet cars, empty the dishwashers and water the pot plants! What do you think boys?

Then after that, we can start doing ATSB's investigations and report writing for them! But that is phased in with Stage 2 of the project.

Yep, Sarcs old son I think you have inadvertently stumbled across a robust method of speeding up Fort Fumbles time frames and creating an environment in which Flyingfiend and friends will have more time for meditation, searching out their inner selves, evaluating life's priorities and fine tuning their moral compass. Hell I bet some of them would even take on volunteer community service to show they really do care underneath?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Sarcs, Oleo,
This archived thread is worth refreshing - at the risk of being accused of tautology!

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/461392-how-do-we-make-casa-accountable.html

Funny that CASA was going through 'transformational change' yet nobody appeared to get made redundant but a whole load of Safety System Specialists/Inspectors decided to leave? Oleo - i think you nailed the reasons.

[PAIN_NET]

The AGIS is a fairly standard public service document and not a riveting read. It becomes very interesting when you compare a real life investigation to the AGIS protocols.

If you are the inquisitive type and can find an hour to do some research, there are some 'curiously intriguing' items of interest which emerge very easily. Try 1.1 and 1.2. as an appetiser.

AGIS 2011. (http://www35.zippyshare.com/v/74144032/file.html)

Use the Download Only button in the top right corner, beware the "download" buttons. PAIN_Net do not track downloads.

P18 - a.k.a - Blind Freddy, (easily identified, the one holding the short straw).

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Thanks blind Freddy.

1.9 Ethical conduct
Agencies must conduct investigations in accordance with the following:
• Australian Public Service (APS) Values, and
• APS Code of Conduct.
Agencies are required to have a procedure governing the manner in which complaints concerning the conduct of its investigations are handled. These procedures should ensure that complaints are handled in a timely, appropriate and comprehensive manner.

[blackhand]

testing 123



Well, that worked! :}

[my oleo is extended]

Thanks gents. The only problem with internal investigations being made is that if they go to the ICC the problem is the DAS and Assistant DAS from memory are on the committee, so a fat load of good that is. And as for the Commissioner, well......
The AAT is another farce. Either way, you complain about the CASA and the outcome rarely ends up finishing well in your favour. Emotional and financial heartache is guaranteed.
The public service act and process is a crock.

[Kharon]

It snowed last night along the banks of the Styx, a fairly unusual event, considering.. Nothing else would do but for Gobbles and Minnie Bannister (http://www.telegoons.org/puppets.htm) to drag the Troika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troika_%28driving%29)out, dust it off and fetch up the horses. Off we went at a furious clip (Minnie driving), wondering all the while at the sight of snowflakes in Hell. As it's a weekend, seeing how much fun the troops and horses were having; I put aside the minutes of the last BRB sit down, entertaining though they are. Monday will arrive soon enough.

Maybe it was all the white stuff on the grim landscape, or the shade of wodger, the white, wily, weport wabbit, but it started me thinking. White was a 'hand picked' storm trooper, uploaded into a new position, Manager AILU and an expert on the MOU and the TSI, before the Miller report slithered out of it's hole and the infamous MOU was hammered out, discussed and signed.

Now then the Beaker Boys, White and probably some of CASA significant others were up to their collective ears in this unholy alliance; all cognisant, briefed and aware. So why was the 'expert' White rolled during the final degradation of the ATSB report by the Grim spinner? Passing strange is that, the paper trail is fairly confused but a chronology exposes some pretty big holes in the bucket.

The best laugh of all at the last hearing was when "he whodoo voodoo" leapt in to cover the 'he who must not be named' arse and patiently, quietly explained to the gullible Senators that the naughty ATSB were not passing on information, so robust measures were needed. He doesn't usually tell jokes at Senate affairs, but that was a corker.

Dr Aleck: I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA.

The fact that the provisions read the way they do reflect a very appropriate form of reciprocity, in which the ATSB under its new leadership said, 'Yes, we will provide you with more information, and we expect you to provide us with the same.' In the spirit of that arrangement, and I agree it probably should be read largely, the question should that a default position should be: 'We'll give you as much as you possibly can and then you decide when we've given you too much
Second best also cracked me up; when Senators Fawcett and Xenophon (welcome home) tried to prise a response from dear old "Merry Terry", on anything. The CASA boys jumped in and answered for him. Did you notice the sweat poring out when he did eventually get to do a gig. Robbie Burns had the right of it "O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us".

Well, Gobbles and Minnie are having a snowball fight, better go and sort it out before that too turns ugly.


A swell party -

[my oleo is extended]

Kharon, we had wondered where Gobbles went? Halfmanhalfcustardcream told me he was in Montreal. Now you tell us he is playing in the snow with Minnie? I thought he may have been chained to the keel of the Styx houseboat? So now I am really confused because Sarcs tells me he is locked in a dungeon re-writing the regs! Someone else told me he has been frequenting watering holes around SE Asia. Can anybody say for sure where he is? Perhaps Flyingfiend has done a 'Jimmy Hoffa' to him and he has been buried in a garden somewhere with a nice potted shrubbery above him??

[Sarcs]

Oleo I’d go with Kharon’s version on Gobbles whereabouts, after all they are soulmates!:E
White was a 'hand picked' storm trooper, uploaded into a new position, Manager AILU and an expert on the MOU and the TSI, before the Miller report slithered out of it's hole and the infamous MOU was hammered out, discussed and signed.

It would appear “K” that the white wabbit had already been promoted and dispatched to sort out and confuse Beaker and his cronies right from the start of this sordid tale that has more twists and turns than a wabbit warren….take a look at the synopsis from the infamous hidden CAIR 09/3:{:

Synopsis


The Accident was notified to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) who in turn notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on Wednesday 18 November. The ATSB decided to conduct an investigation. The CASA Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) was tasked with conducting a parallel investigation for CASA purposes. An investigation into the circumstances of the accident was commenced the next day. CASA informed the ATSB of the investigation in accordance with sub section 4.1.2 of the joint MOU.

So as you can see the weally weally wily white wabbit was already tasked under the terms of the yet to be signed MOU 2010.:cool:

The bigger question is why did Beaker and the bureau swallow the severely sanitised white wabbits wubbish weport which reads like a condensed version of the ATSB ‘Final Report’??:ugh:

The best laugh of all at the last hearing was when "he whodoo voodoo" leapt in to cover the 'he who must not be named' arse and patiently, quietly explained to the gullible Senators that the naughty ATSB were not passing on information, so robust measures were needed. He doesn't usually tell jokes at Senate affairs, but that was a corker.
Hoodoo Voodoo doc’s :yuk: interpretation of the Miller review and the subsequent reason for re-writing the MOU is indeed laughable….hmm perhaps refuting the doc’s assertions would be best left to a more appropriate time and place…so I'm off and doing a Kelpie :p

[Kharon]

Ah, young Sarcs! I know him, Minnie, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. Let him in Minnie; he'll want a story.

Gobbles ? - Dunno 'bout soul mates, little bugger just pitched up here one evenin', but he earns his keep. Dead handy in a dust up, loves escorting our clients into the wettest, most uncomfortable seats and his "safety on board" briefing is a hoot.

Now young Sarcs, you seem to have your wabbits confused. There is only one Woger, the white, wily weport wabbit. He is easily identified by his cute little brown nose. We shall undoubtedly hear more of Woger when Canley Vale lands in the Coroners court; nothing tastes so good as twice woast wabbit.

The White rabbit, belongs to the Queen of Hearts (as you should well know). There is quite a story (hearsay of course) about how he actually got to be the Queens own personal rabbit, there were faster, smarter candidates; but, despite his lack of speed and intellect he wangled the post (dark magic, some whisper). This naturally caused some trouble in the warren. But: being good loyal troops, the others just muttered, scratched and sat on their bottoms, believing that the fix was in anyway and nothing could be done. Anyway, there are fell tasks which the Red Queen insists "her" rabbit perform, which are most distasteful to honest rabbits.

So they did nothing, just continued to monitor the positions vacant, page 3 and the race guide in the Warren Times; but they knew, soon or late the Queen's favourite would need some help. So they waited and they waited; when the time came, even had they wanted to help, they could not. You see the Queen needed a sacrificial rabbit for reasons of state and the Grim Hunt master was sent out one dark and stormy to set a trap for the White rabbit; and, not being the sharpest knife in the draw, the White rabbit was caught out and is now stuck in cold lonely place awaiting his fate.

That's it for today, school day tomorrow. "Gobbles, put that chain saw away", (honest, he's a nightmare sometimes).:D

[my oleo is extended]

Very astute Mr Kharon. The 'White stripes' was parked after being dispatched from his previous role due to another 'power hungry player' who had been eyeing off the White Stripes highly sought after role in the big sand pit. So the White Stripes became Mr Liaison between FF and ATSBeaker after being outplayed. There was nowhere else to put the bling wearing beautiful man, and of couse CASA don't fire people. Interesting thing is that the instrument behind the White Stripes pineappling then himself got pineappled, and now works in 'projects'. He should have remained in the little sandpit. We suspect this is Karma for his undermining another good person in the West some years ago.
But yes, the White Stripes has been on his lonesome for sometime, with others waiting for the day to cut him loose. I believe that day is coming and I can hear the river Styx ferry chugging close by!

Fort Fumble is a haven for those with little time other than to scheme, plot, plan, undermine and pineapple all and sundry so they can grab a ringside seat at the trough! Safer being closer to the tin boys.

Safe skies are political skies.

[owen meaney]

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/329724-senate-inquiry-into-casa.html
Deja vu

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

owen meaney

Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Deja vu



The 2008 inquiry was broad and shallow in comparison. I'd be interested to see what happens next after the revelations in the last hearing.

Nice summary from ABC
CASA accused of withholding key crash report
The World Today - CASA accused of withholding key crash report 15/02/2013 (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3691103.htm)

Doing nothing would appear not an easy option this time but perhaps your right. Although doing nothing would not help safety. The senators made that clear. I'm curious to know what the next move is. It's important for safety and industry in Australia and very important for those that were directly affected!

[flying-spike]

"Perhaps the SSS and SSI 's should write to the senate about the issues.

The senators are now listening. "

They may even be interested in delving into Trim to get the 10,000 word report on CASA's response (more accurately the lack of) to the ATSB Safety Recommendations from the Lockhart River investigation.

[Sarcs]

Here's the transcript from Sabra Lane's radio programme :ok::
CASA accused of withholding key crash report

Sabra Lane reported this story on Friday, February 15, 2013 (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/archives.html) 12:10:00
Listen to MP3 of this story ( minutes) (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/201302/20130215-twt01-pelair-inquiry.mp3)
Alternate WMA version (mms://media4.abc.net.au/winlibrary/audio/twt/201302/20130215-twt01-pelair-inquiry.wma) | MP3 download (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/201302/20130215-twt01-pelair-inquiry.mp3)

SALLY SARA: Senators have accused the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of a cover-up claiming the organisation withheld key evidence and may have skewed the final investigation into an aircraft accident off Norfolk island.

It's been claimed that a CASA internal report found the authority would have identified major deficiencies in the company involved in the crash, Pel-Air, if it had been properly carrying out its oversight duty.

But, the inquiry's heard that CASA didn’t hand over that report, because it didn't want to influence the investigation.

The aircraft with six people on board crashed into the ocean off Norfolk island in 2009 - all survived, but an official inquiry blamed the pilot for the accident.

One Senator thinks the crash may have been avoided if CASA had been properly carrying out its job.

Chief political correspondent Sabra Lane.

SABRA LANE: It was a remarkable story. On a stormy night on the 18th of November 2009, a CareFlight mission with six people on board, including a patient with a serious medical issue, crashed into the sea off Norfolk Island - everyone survived.

The Civil Aviations Safety Authority's director of aviation safety John McCormick.

JOHN MCCORMICK: Now it's not every day that someone ditches an aeroplane, it's as simple as that. The mere fact that happened, in fact I was thunderstruck to start with that someone had got to that situation, for whatever reason.

SABRA LANE: The Australian Transport Safety Authority investigated the crash, and blamed the pilot but a Senate committee thinks there's more to it. It's discovered that CASA carried out its own internal inquiry following the crash, called the Chambers report.

That investigation found CASA should have known there were major issues at Pel-Air before the crash happened - if the authority had been properly supervising the company. But that report was never given the Australian Transport Safety Bureau - even though there is a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations, where information should be shared.

Liberal Senator David Fawcett.

DAVID FAWCETT: If you go to section 4.1 of the Chambers report, it states that it is likely that many of the deficiencies identified after the accident would have been detectable through interviews with line pilots and through the conduct of operational surveillance of line crews in addition to the surveillance, the management checks.

It strikes me that the Chambers report is quite specific and it is only one example. There is a number of other areas where it is fairly clear that there were deficiencies in the oversight that had they been addressed through effective audit, that the accident may well have been prevented.

SABRA LANE: Senator Fawcett used to be a pilot in the Australian Army.

DAVID FAWCETT: In the audit that CASA put together it says it’s considered, this is CASA's own words, 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 the surveillance audit of March 08 were never appropriately actioned.

There is a lack of any clear evidence to support corrective actions have been implemented, confirmed by CASA or that there were effective. If this process is indicative of broader practices of CASA, it is considered that CASA is exposed to unnecessary risk, particularly if required to provide evidence to support how it approved and operated a system, in this case their FRMS (Fatigue Risk Management Systems).

Now given that the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) chose to ignore the whole issue of fatigue and how that might have affected the errors that were made by the pilot and they did that because of a lack of evidence and CASA had a formal report within their system dealing with the issue of fatigue and chose not to disclose that to the ATSB as required by the MoU (memorandum of understanding) I think Mr McCormack, you'd have to agree would seem a little unusual to the reasonable man in the street.

SABRA LANE: CASA's John McCormick says the information was kept from the bureau of safety because CASA did not want to influence its investigations.

JOHN MCCORMICK: We conducted this in the best possible way we could. We did it with the most probity and the best goodwill that we could muster at the time. Now in retrospect should the ATSB have an internal CASA document? That's something that I'll take away and consider again.

DAVID FAWCETT: The issue for this inquiry is that you had in your possession information that would have triggered to the ATSB the fact that your oversight was not adequate. They were assuming that it was a defence that was in place and effective. You had written evidence saying that was not the case and by not disclosing that information, you have in fact shaped the outcome of the ATSB report.

SABRA LANE: Mr McCormick was subjected to two hours of questioning. Senator Nick Xenophon took issue with some his answers.

DAVID FAWCETT: Well, Senator whether the ATSB would have changed its report as we've already said is a matter for the ATSB and I'm certain you can ask them that.

NICK XENOPHON: No, it's not. No, it's not.

DAVID FAWCETT: Well, I can't put myself in the position of the ATSB and decide what I would have thought if I received a report.

NICK XENOPHON: But you've withheld information from the ATSB.

DAVID FAWCETT: We did not withhold information. The information was not considered to be relevant to the operation, to the reporting procedures that went on. We are very cognisant that we did not want to interfere with anyone else doing the investigation, the other procedure that was on.

SABRA LANE: Senator Xenophon then asked the Transport Safety Bureau's chief commissioner Martin Dolan whether CASA should have given him the report and whether it would have made a difference.

NICK XENOPHON: Don't you think it's reasonable that you make an assessment as to whether something is relevant or not which you cannot do in the absence of knowing whether a document exists or not?

MARTIN DOLAN: As a general proposition Senator, more information is better than less and…

NICK XENOPHON: And you determine whether it is relevant or not in terms of (inaudible).

MARTIN DOLAN: And it would, in some cases, be better if we were in a position to assess the relevance of the information rather than another party, yes I would agree with that proposition.

SALLY SARA: Senator Nick Xenophon and the Transport Safety Bureau's Martin Dolan ending that report by Sabra Lane.


Wonder if Barrier's lawyers might be interested in the Chambers Report and the FRMS Special Audit report???:E

It also makes you wonder about the legal implications of what is obviously a deliberately misleading written 'CAsA Accident Investigation Report 09/3'??:ugh:

Hmm FS 'fraid I'll have to do a Kelpie before I respond to your post...but top job :ok:

ps Creamy on the errors in the transcript it was probably because the ABC were working off an audio recording because remember the official Hansard wasn't released to almost a week later.

Do you want me to report them to Mediawatch??:E

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Barrier post is worth catching up on

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/505649-any-news-barrier-minus-drift-4.html

[my oleo is extended]

Mr Spike, good point. There is indeed some interesting worded documentation pertaining to Lockhart hidden deep within the bowels of TRIM. The difficulty for the Senators is how far does one go in order to seek the truth? A full blown inquiry is probably the only solution to get to the bottom of the worm farm, so to speak. What else is in this blackhole called TRIM? Perhaps internal reports on Canley Vale? Polar Aviation?
Those well practised in circus acts, smoke and mirror performances and spooky escape artist tricks have spent many years shuffling, hiding, burying, and I imagine in some cases 'misplacing' selected information.

I wonder why the 'not so robust' Sky Sentinel computer program has been introduced? Apart from the fact that it be rumoured one of the GWM mates got the I.T contract (did it go out to tender, if so who signed off on it?), the 'off the shelf system' (the Skull would love that) is rumoured to be complete pony poo. One source says it will be a miracle if all data including NCN's are uploaded into the system due to it being so klunky and surprise surprise, time consuming'. This would certainly be at odds with some of Wogers recommendations in his robust report to 'he who shall not be named'? Perhaps it is a case of 'the left DAS doesn't know what the right DAS is doing'?? Was this Sky Sentinel assessed for its capabilities prior to introduction and purchase with taxpayer money? What are the forecast maintenance costs for the system and who maintains it? Is this something that the Senators could ask 'he who shall remain silent at the Senate'?

Then again, on a lighter note, with a name like Sky Sentinel you would expect that FF, aka The Matrix, would thrive on such a system? The characters from the movie could be likened to FF characters;

Neo: The ever powerful Woger
Morpheus: The Doc
Cypher: The 'other' Woger
The Keymaker: Deputy DAS
The Oracle: The ALOO
Agent Smith: The Skull
Agents: Some within the Inspectorate
The Architect: Who other than the Minister for Mascot.

Yet, again, questions to be asked about the internal activities of the CASA.

[Creampuff]

There are mistakes in the transcript above. For example, three comments that appear in the Hansard against Mr McCormick’s name are wrongly attributed to Senator Fawcett above.

The key parts of the Hansard are below.

I have to say I don’t quite understand Mr McCormick’s logic in withholding the ‘Chambers Report’ from the ATSB.

During the 15 Feb 13 hearings he said:Mr McCormick: … Whether the ATSB would have changed its report, as we have already said, is a matter for the ATSB, and I am certain you can ask them that.

Senator FAWCETT: No, it is not.

Mr McCormick: Well, I cannot put myself in the position of the ATSB and decide what I would have thought if I had received a report.

Senator XENOPHON: That tells me you have withheld information from the ATSB.
… So Mr McCormick seems to be saying that he cannot speculate on what effect, if any, the content of the Chambers Report would have had on the ATSB’s investigation and report. And that makes sense to me.

But his stated reasons for withholding the Chambers Report from the ATSB seem to be based on precisely that kind of speculation: Mr McCormick: … I took the view that that did not, in any way—the Chambers report—should not be influencing ATSB in their deliberations. ... I am very aware that we do not want a contagion effect on the ATSB. …Isn’t that speculation on what effect the Chambers Report may have had on the ATSB?

BTW, has anyone paused to reflect on what a complete nonsense the concept of an MoU is in these circumstances? An MoU is a typical ‘look busy’ non-response to a problem that had already been solved. There are hundreds of pages of legislation and policy about when and to whom CASA and the ATSB must, must not and may disclose information, and on what conditions. Adding a few pages of non-binding ‘understandings’ to the pile makes no difference to what the applicable pieces of legislation and policy already require, prohibit and permit.

[my oleo is extended]

Creampuff, you need not look any further than at the role of the Associate DAS who is, may I say, most proud of his drafting of the MOU. He has been drafting agreements, reports, and all manner of written folly for years, including the unfinished Regs.
It would be likely that the FAA and ICAO have swallowed many of the scribblings from the LSD over the years, not to mention the continued fooling of the dopey Ministers in our own country.
I am wondering what the majority of CASA people is thinking
now the Chamber pot report has been aired? My guess is that there will be quite a few now waking up to the fact that behind the green door (reminds me of a Marilyn Chambers movie! And yes I know ironic isn't it??) they are being stitched up for the benefit of some political power playing as well as to fulfil some people's robust desire to bob for giant apples!

What can I say other than 'das is all shisen'.

'Safe skies are massaged skies'

[Kharon]

Attachment to White’s letter: “Draft Transport Safety Report AO-2009-072. Anyone else read this; it seems, cobbled together, disjointed and feels like the work of more than one man. The chronology is to say the least interesting, why would it take White a month to respond to the Feb 26 correspondence from ATSB? (which is another mystery). What did White do?, did every department have a whack at it? There are parts which are inarticulate to the point of making it appear as a joint effort to refute the Critical Safety issue. Were CASA surprised?; - surprised! ATSB nearly knocked their socks off. Oh!, what to do?, oh me, oh my.

Did they breach TSI 26; which applies to all those mere mortals who do not proclaim themselves as above the trivialities of law.

I wonder if White was persuaded to adopt the "Draft" defence; or if that he, being so qualified and all, actually believed it. A whiff of CASA legal wiggling creeps out from the behind the "Green door" about now. But the poor chap just couldn't (or wouldn't) sell the bill of goods to the ATSB and so a spin master was brought in to hold his hand. I mean the poor little bugger was hunting pilots under 20 A, then almost out of blue the back-flip is ordered; by whom and why for? is what I'd like know. But, perhaps you can get a glimmer of why the OBR was not recovered; that witness would have really spoilt all the spinning games.

Aye, 'tis all passing strange, even stranger that the ATSB swallowed the guff and downgraded the safety recommendation. But then, I find it passing strange when I fall over correspondence with QBE in strange places (redaction needs to carefully done, lest Freud raise a slippery eyebrow), where 'phantom' witnesses pop out to assist with diving jobs in Qld, then vanish 'poof'; where NCN for the AAT are kept in one file, and for the court in another and the truth is an optional extra. Yep, they surely have got things sorted over at Sleepy Hollow. No wonder my poor ol' wooden head hurts and I get cranky.

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

[my oleo is extended]

Has anybody, apart from Flyingfiend I would imagine, got a copy of the 10,000 word 'post Lockhart report' ? (I believe I hear the sound of a shredder??)
I would like to examine this 'mysterious document' so as to find out what it contains, why it was commissioned, who requested it be penned and whether it contains recommendations in line with the Lockhart investigation report and if those recommendations have been actioned?
It must exist as I have heard it mentioned on several occasions over the past couple of years. Is it trapped in TRIM? Stuck in the Matrix? Has it been 'time warping' around the nation in a flying Delorean? Was accidentally left in a bar in Montreal? Is it in FF basement worm farm?

I don't know about you Halfmanhalfsenator but I would like to know if Me Boyd will now resurect Team ASOP's remaining members (oh yes, the CASA stink tank) to look into all these unclosed loops (there are many) to ensure no residual risk remains out there for industry to step into? There are so many holes in FF that they are lucky there is nobody permitted to issue them NCN's as they would surely lose their AOC!

[Kharon]

Oleo – Thanks for the memory jog, I was listening to some Johnny Dodds on Sunday, it's nice to have good sounds playing while reading Pprune. Anyway, I forgot to look for a you tube clip – so, when your Green door quest prodded the little grey cells.

Sunday reading music.

Spike #1120 - They may even be interested in delving into Trim to get the 10,000 word report on CASA's response (more accurately the lack of) to the ATSB Safety Recommendations from the Lockhart River investigation. Lockhart continues to haunt the Senate enquiry. Some ghosts just won't go away, they hang about waiting for release, until the issues are resolved, I believe 'given closure' is the modern expression.

Now we have Barrier contemplating a Styx river crossing, to join the other lost souls and CASA set to dance on the grave, high 5's all round. The list is now very long, the casualties many. This Senate Inquiry has been provided with some solid evidence of how rank the CASA 'A' game is. The Senators, probably still hopping mad after being so contemptuously fobbed off with the last White paper seem to be happy to get down and dirty this time.

Mind you, if they think Norfolk is bad; well, they ain't seen nuttin yet. The antics of CASA during the Norfolk shambles may well be classed as improved when compared to some of their current and previous escapades.

Enjoy Johnny Dodds - one of the all time greats. Some of the other clips are http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Sarcs]

From Senate Dynamic Red today: Authorisation for committee to meet

Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Heffernan), by leave, to move a motion authorising the committee to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate today (inquiry into an aviation accident investigation)



Commenced 5:01 PM
Agreed to



Dynamic Red - Monday, 25 February 2013 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Dynamic_Red)
So any bets on who the Senators were grilling today??:E

[dogcharlietree]

Another public hearing Thurs 28th Feb.

[Sarcs]

Good catch DCT:ok: seems to be ramping up:

28 February 2013

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/index.htm)
Contact: Committee Secretary, Stephen Palethorpe (02) 6277 3510
Aviation accident investigations (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rrat_ctte/pel_air_2012/index.htm)
CANBERRA: Committee Room 2S3, Parliament House, Time TBA

[my oleo is extended]

You never know, Senator Nash might grill the Beaker about his pot plant expenses??

On a serious note, the Senators have every right to keep extending the inquiry as only the surface has been scratched. They have been overcome by the smell of rotting fish. There remains too many unanswered questions, including all the 'questions on notice' that CASA particularly like to take, and then of course either never respond or they blame Big Tony's office for being too slow. Not to mention the attitude, disregard and contempt the CASA has for anybody and everybody that isn't part of the inner sanctum.
Senator Xenophon is no ones fool, nor is Nash, Heff and Fawcett. Senator X is digging in the right places, and I think he and his steel headed shovel have a few more feet to go before they hit pay dirt, and he knows it.
The Senators angling on the potential CASA/ATSBeaker collusion is serious stuff. The 400 submissions from industry including cases of bullying, harassment and malfeasance by public servants is serious stuff. Incompetent management, persistent evasion of accountability and CASA's unbridled power to simply cut the legs off anybody who even smiles in their direction has to be brought to an end, effective immediately.

I think there are some more direct questions that should be aimed at 'he who shall not be named', 'the voodoo Doc', and especially 'he who stands in the senate not saying much'.
However, why isn't the CASA Board brought in for a round of robust questioning? Maybe they can explain a few things to the Senators, after all much of the CASA's direction is guided by these nupties, so perhaps they can help explain why there are so many fingers being pointed at their organisation? Because it would certainly appear that aviation safety has only slipped further since these apple bobbers were brought in.
I would like to see them explain that joke of a mid year CASA report card they released, the one in which they gave themselves a tick in the box for almost every single action item. What did they base the 'ticks in the boxes' on? How did they rank the scores so highly? What assessment tool did they use? How did they quantify the scores, weighted against what?

And while we are at it, the 2009 Aviation ****e Paper, you know, that couple of hundred page piece of glossy monkey poo that is meant to be the Holy Grail of Australia's aviation future, the 'paper' that contains virtually no financial commitments to improving our industry, rather it contains lots of fluffy statements, industry facts we already know, dashes of bureaucratic baloney and many robust pretty pictures with snazzy graphics!
Regardless, what is the status of this paper, what has actually been achieved to date? Are items being tracked and measured for progress? Or is it what we all know it is - A hollow non committal glossy load of ****e that sits in TRIM gathering dust? Don't answer.

P.S Where is that journalistic genius Paul Phelan? Has Fort Fumbles tentacles managed to reach him and hobble him also? Paul's articles perfectly and succinctly paint an accurate portrait of FF's naughtiness.
At least we still have Ben for the moment.
Come back Paul.

Safe skies are Xenophon skies.

[Dangly Bits]

JMac will be gone by the end of next week. I'll put a gentleman's bet of $1 on it. Anyone want to take my bet?

[my oleo is extended]

Hmmm, Dangly, I don't know mate. The Houseboat hasn't arrived at the dock yet? But maybe the angry man will do a G. Russell and bail just as the curtain is about to drop?
Anyway, what the hell, just for sh#ts and giggles I'll take your $1 bet and will raise you a Beaker!!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Have a look at this email in response to another Atsb suggesting they look at frms.
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=822b8c74-c6a2-418f-b773-bf9798200df8

Don't deviate on the target. Interesting approach to investigation and doesn't suggest open approach. The target is likely to be a person!

Thursday could be interesting. Senators go deeper on Pel Air.

I think they need to ask about oversight of other companies now from the same period to now.

[dogcharlietree]

The 400 submissions from industry....
I was wondering how many. Is this public knowledge or superstition?

[Kharon]

Save your dollar DB, 'he who will not be shamed' has been irrelevant for a long while; even more so now, contract almost over, department lost in a sea of pain and the Golden West Mafia circling the roaring, dying beast, waiting a chance.

HMHB # 1135 "I think they need to ask about oversight of other companies now from the same period to now". I hear there is substantive evidence already in safe hands related not only to Lockhart, but a couple of other dubious, worthless actions managed by ? – Ayup; our old mate Wodger which will bear no scrutiny, whatsoever. Of course, dear wodger (the one with the bwown nose Sarcs) will claim his worthless assistant fed him pony pooh and he; the 'unqualified', was left to rely on the 'expertise' of a reject from the pencil sharpening cupboard. Passing strange and unfortunate that; considering other more qualified advice and reason was ignored and the worthless one triumphed. Sad to watch a couple of honest rabbits trade their souls for a rice bowl. Hmm, maybe I'll get Minnie to 'Google' the story, see what we can find in the way of fact. Oh well, we shall see as we drill down through the surface; we do get all kinds of yarns spun down here.

The GWM seem to have a problem or three now; the carefully planned chess moves need to be rethought, in a hurry. Don't forget there is some pretty fierce infighting and bitter tribal disputes, long memories and sharp knives, struggling to avoid the spotlight. But, we do get all kinds of yarns spun down here.

Love to have been a fly on the wall (man at the back of the room) at the 'in camera' last night. Now this is only an unsubstantiated rumour, just a whisper from a fellah I met in a pub. Supposedly, Nick X has a Holy hand grenade and intends to use it, soon. The results are expected to be ugly, in the extreme. But then we get all kinds of yarns spun down here; we shall, as always await the results.

[my oleo is extended]

Dogtree, suggest you follow PAIN's posts in this thread, the answers to your last post are out there.

I'm looking forward to the day Nick 'lobbiths thy holy hand grenade' into the Rabit warren'! I just hope he follows the steps outlined in thy holy SPM!

[my oleo is extended]

And Kharon, I believe the GWM are working overtime trying to hatch a few new Chess moves, as you point out.
Certainly could now be a case of 'Who Fwamed Woger Wabbit'.

[Kharon]

Regulation or policy - that is the question.
Of course, as you can see, even using the - Holy hand grenade – is fraught with regulatory peril and compliance policy. Bloody good cure for vermin in the back yard though.

What, already? - Heigh ho: whoop it up them engines son, they're not ours.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Just wondering what people are planning.

Tea and biccies

Beer and popcorn

Or

Coffee and donuts

For watching the hearing.

Anyone taking bets for 1st question on notice.

[Sarcs]

Biccy looks like it will be beer'n'nuts....

*1128 Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senator Heffernan): To move—That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 28 February 2013, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into an aviation accident investigation.

Although there is no mention of who is on the Colosseum weekly lion feeding list yet:E

[my oleo is extended]

Halfmanhalfpeanutwafer, forget tea and biccies, I will be sitting by with a juicy sharpened pineapple!
As for what the first question may be, that is speculative, but hopefully Senator Heff will go straight for the jugular. Then again he may expand on Sen Nash's line of pot plant questioning? Or perhaps a robust line of questioning aimed at 'he who does not speak at the Senate' in relation to that lemon of a program 'Sky Sentinel'? No doubt there may be more questions in relation to, may I say, the Chamber pot report? Or perhaps Sen Heff will go a little easier on the FF pensioners, after all they must be getting somewhat tired, sore feet and hips, getting a bit shaky and in need of an injection of energy by way of a multi vitamin, and don't forget the arthritis cream boys!

[thorn bird]

Anyone have any idea of the number of lawyers employed by CASA these days compared with pre 1980?

[Old Akro]

Anyone have any idea of the number of lawyers employed by CASA these days compared with pre 1980?

Don't think I've got that many fingers & toes. And I suspect there is a fair bit of paid external advice too.

[my oleo is extended]

The bucket of taxpayer money is endless, however many lawyers they need they get!
But perhaps Flyingfiend could provide the exact numbers of permanent legal staff as well as contracted legal staff along with a cost breakdown?

[Kharon]

Rumour has it that "Pete", the self funded bad boy pot plant will no longer continue his lonely existence. CASA in an attempt to deflect the Senator will donate a plant from their shrubbery, an agnostic, robust type, to show their deep understanding of the problem, it will be delivered in a white paper wrapping. At least that will be of some value to someone, somewhere; unlike the latest trite offering of a "Fatigue Management Guide" (or someting) published recently, just a little too late. Oh, the audience will love that. Hard to call tomorrow's session without a batting list, but you may predict, with some accuracy the audience response to both the rhetorical and tautological answers.

Pilate speaks.

NOTAM. - Those attending tomorrow's BRB – BBQ ; in formal dress, fluffy rabbit ears or bunny slippers are acceptable. No pom pom tails will be allowed (there was a brawl last time).

[Up-into-the-air]

I moved a reply to T28D/ Thornbird to:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/502557-casa-chess-game-17.html

as it is more appropriate [I think] with it's own thread than here.

[Sarcs]

Yawn boring UITA...and tomorrow's hearing boring? or grilling?:E
Inquiry into the Aviation Accident Investigations

Public hearing - Canberra, Thursday 28 February 2013

Committee Room 2S3
Parliament House
CANBERRA
Time
Witness
Sub No.
4.00 pm
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Mr Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner
Mr Ian Sangston, General Manager Aviation Safety Investigations
2
6:00 pm
Adjournment

You like that UITA..there's some bold and big words in that lot...:}

[aroa]

as in Chess game..

I see these Legal? folk are with the CASA Law FIRM....Mmmmmmm..!!

Don't think I'd go there looking for any cogent advice, judging by the sh*t they cobbled up in their attempted prosecution.

Mind you they do have the odd original idea,... like denying a doc under FOI because its a 'CASA internal document' (sic)

I see the Screamer has cottoned onto that one in the Senate Hearing.
He just keeps beating that drum... internal doc, internal doc.!

The Combined Australian. Sewerage Association just keeps bubbling away.!:mad:

[my oleo is extended]

The Beaker and Deputy Beaker will be getting briefed today on some of tomorrows questions and likely scope of inquiry.

I can see Head Beaker now, lips quivering, eyes bulging, mi mi mi mi-ing at the Senators non tautological questions. It should be a robust afternoon session because Sen Heff tends to get more grumpy during the later sessions, I like that.
I hope none of the Senators pose hypothetical questions about 'mid airs' as this will confuse the Beaker. Then again, Sangers and Sith Mrdak will be there with bits of script and notes for him, a type of prompt card system.

Do the Senators have some surprises in store for those taking the stage? Any bets on surprise questions?
Will the Senators review the list of questions on notice and seek full explanation and updates from Team Beaker? Any bets on how many questions Team Beaker will take on notice?
Will the Beaker be able to explain why his men have lost complete and utter faith and confidence in him?
Will the Beaker finally fall on his sword and take another bureaucratic spin role in some non-descript department where he can dutifully ply his trade massaging and polishing somebody else's 'facts'? Not likely, yet, but here is hoping !

And finally, should the Beaker finally concede to how incapable he is and 'exit stage left', would the government bring in a more suitable ATSB Chief who has experience in transparent investigations, who has experience in investigation techniques, methodology and searching for improved safety outcomes that benefit everybody? Would the government hire an astute leader who has the ability to gain a measure of respect both at home and internationally? Would the Government be content to mitigate this palpable situation by hiring somebody who can accurately rank and classify an investigation at the correct level and not fudge the figures? Would the Government appoint a non political contender for the role, say consider somebody such as Mr Alan Stray perhaps??

[Sarcs]

Note: Slightly off topic but Ben doesn't miss an opportunity to stick another literal pineapple in...:D
Darwin inquiry into near miss by two jet airliners updated | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/27/darwin-inquiry-into-near-miss-by-two-jet-airliners-updated/)

Ben’s article is interesting in light of Heff’s question to ATSBeaker at the Senate Estimates 12/02/2013. Here’s an excerpt from the Hansard…

“…Senator HEFFERNAN: You may have already managed this issue, but on 2 October a Qantas jet came within 250 metres of a mid-air collision.

Mr Dolan: I am sorry?

Senator HEFFERNAN: A near miss at Darwin on 2 October 2012.

Mr Dolan: We have a number of matters under investigation.

Senator HEFFERNAN: Where are we up to with that particular one?

Mr Dolan: Mr Sangston is currently working his way through the list of investigations and to get those details for you.

Senator HEFFERNAN: I appreciate that. Is my understanding correct that there will be a Defence investigation into it?

Mr Dolan: There is an investigation that we are doing into a loss of separation in Darwin involving Defence controllers. We are doing our normal no-blame investigation because it involved civilian aircraft. It is possible that, given that they were Defence air traffic controllers, the Defence Force would have made its own inquiries into that, but that is a separate issue from any inquiries we undertake. We initiated the investigation on 3 October and we are aiming for that going to the public early in the third quarter of the current year…..”

“…Senator HEFFERNAN: At the some point in the future—and I will not burden you further today—it might be appropriate for this committee to have a briefing of some sort.

Mr Dolan: I could say one thing which is relevant. We are also completing—we hope by May—a general assessment of loss or separation incidents and whether there are any underlying safety issues. That is part of our overall review of these matters, so we are keeping a close eye on it…..”

Perhaps the Heff’s questioning on the Darwin near miss has triggered some action from the ATSBeaker:rolleyes:.

Although in reference to Heff’s briefing it would appear the Senate committee may be waiting a while.:ugh::yuk::yuk:

Quotes from Ben’s piece, which also brings the thread back on track with a crack by Ben at the current outstanding revelations in the AAI inquiry;):

From ATSB report: “The ATSB aims to finalise this investigation in October 2013.”

From Ben’s blog: “These are important questions and October this year is a long time to wait for answers.

Despite its post Pel-Air aversion to making safety findings and recommendations, it is hoped that the ATSB gets over that disgraceful abrogation of its obligations and gets on with its real job, which is not protecting CASA from embarrassing diclosures.”

Keep up the heat Ben!:ok:

[Kharon]

I would dearly like for someone representing the once glorious ATSB to sit up straight, look at the panel and answer the questions in a straight forward manner; the way some of the best investigators do at Coronial hearings and other important events. I have seen some of the 'gooduns' take some real heat from barristers and the like. Truth – self evident; expertise – shining through; common sense answers – crystal clear. Why can't they do the same now?, or better still, move over and let someone who dares, or who knows what they are about answer the bloody questions.

Why is there always a long delay in providing critical safety information to the public; is the system being played 'fast and loose' to suit a preordained purpose?

Why does it appear there are so many apparent breaches of the TSI Act; is the system being played 'fast and loose' to suit a preordained purpose?

Why does it appear that confidentiality is breached on a regular basis; is the system being played 'fast and loose' to suit a preordained purpose?

Why is there an industry wide perception that the FOI Act is being played 'fast and loose' to suit a preordained purpose?

Why are reasonable doubts and questions from senior, experienced ATSB people ignored and why are their written objections kept silent; is the system being played 'fast and loose' to suit a preordained purpose?

Why are the ATSB perceived as a well trained lap dog to the CASA master race, where's your pride?; is the system being played 'fast and loose' to suit a preordained purpose?

If there is nothing to hide, wheel in your top boys and let them tell the truth. An international disgrace since Lockhart and all they can do is sit in front of the Parliament, squirming, spinning and saying Reason is 'old hat'.

Sit up straight man, face the questions and try to find a probity pit stop along the road perdition.

We are all in business of avoiding repetitive accidents, we are in the business of accident prevention. We are part of the safety business – where, in all the hells are you???

There now; I feel better – but I doubt I can stomach another two hours like the last sessions; sheeit, I'd rather watch My Kitchen Rules or even bloody Downtown Abbey FCS.

Argh! - Steam off.

[Sarcs]

Hear! hear! Mr Kharon perhaps it's time for a REALITY CHECK for our mi..mi...mi..Mr ATSBeaker and his apparently extremely gullible 2IC....:ugh:

Reality Check (do you like that UITA??)...from Urquhart submission:

“When will truth trump cover-ups that are laced with selfish intent to save ones posterior? How ridiculous to have so many broken rules in an- audit, yet almost get away with it. There is a reason for the truth that is emerging, it’s for air safety & the failure of our regulator & investigative bodies results. It has been the survivors that have been the seekers of the real deal. What a disgrace. With both our Chief Commissioners under the microscope now, the amplification of this ordeal is finally happening.
CASA & ATSB have a lot to answer for, dragging this on for selfish intent is criminal & at the least cruel to all on board. The coverup is surfacing and all will be revealed about the incompetencies of all parties involved.

How unprofessional this has all been. How disappointing in the treatment of the people who have experienced hell from impact till now with our own government bodies involved. Does our government have enough integrity to investigate the individuals involved and actually DO something about this rather than just go around in circles. To add insult, let’s just throw in the fact that the ex-Pel-Air chief pilot at the time of the incident now works as an investigator for CASA…please!
Just stop the B.S & tell the truth.” (again for you UITA)
Posted on Crikey Nov 04 2012.

Reality Check over...off for a cold shower:{

Get the hint Beaker harden up man and just tell the bloody truth!!:E

[my oleo is extended]

Mr Urquharts words are touching. This is the human side to all this mess. A man who lost his daughter...

How would the executive people in these bureaucracies like to receive 'that' phone call or knock on the door that Mr Urquhart received?
How would the executives in these bureaucracies like to identify their daughters remains in a morgue?
How would these executives like to spend birthdays, Christmas, special occasions without the sounds, sight and smell of their loved ones?
How would the executives in these bureacracies like to then get slapped over and over by injustice, lies, deceit and denial?

One thing is for certain, and this message goes to these executive types sitting on their gold layered thrones - You reap what you sew. You may have built for yourself an untouchable fortress in your careers in this life but a world in hell awaits you. You are only a temporary number in this world and your clock is ticking. So enjoy it now.
Everybody pays the Ferryman.....Everybody.

[Fantome]

When you read closely the submission from Mr Shane Urquhart and the others that are in there because they want and need to be heard, in their grief and frustration, you cannot but feel the profoundest sympathy, but moreover the realisation that nobody, but nobody, can ever really know the depth and nature of the enduring pain and suffering if he or she has not been there.

The worthies who are now applying their insight and acumen to contribute to the protracted process of working towards redress, reform and overhaul of badly flawed institutions and the exposure of the derelict in their duty, deserve the praise and support of all those interested parties who sit on the sidelines, if not the wider community.

As is so often noted, without the world wide web and all the forums there,
the knowledge and examination of crucial matters (and access to them) would be a fraction of what it is; something to be extremely grateful for.

[Sarcs]

So Mr Ferryman where were we with the fairytales before we were rudely interrupted by a masked man pleading corruption and bulldust ‘in camera’ or was it the other bloke blowing his whistle

…and then the schedule for the mi…mi…mi…mi Mr Beaker pleading his case for not being part of the entertainment at the weekly Colosseum lion feeding event…

...I think you started to read an excerpt from the tales of Grimm but got side tracked with a fable..something to do with leopards and spots..but then my eyes started to glaze over…and before I dozed off half a dozen souls came plodding up the house boat dock…ohhh zzzzzz off to slumberland zzzz again…and back to that dream something about a hare and a lot of wily old wabbits?? :E

[Kharon]

Ref: AO-2009-072 of 26 February 2010.&
Attachment One to ATSB letter AO-2009-072 of 26 February 2010.

Funny thing with this passage of correspondence is the ATSB team have the appearance of being well within TSI Act, Attachment 1 reads as if they had every intention of issuing a Safety Recommendation and not solely blaming the pilot. The report is structured in the general SR format. Division 2 of the TSI Act would be the natural pathway for the ATSB to follow; and, they give every appearance being set to do exactly that. Then we see the "meetings" and the strangely coincidental emails of protest from the ATSB "officers"; if there is a smoking gun, this is where it lays. So why the back flip?....

I can't see why the Ben Cook report could not have been presented to ATSB, they could and probably would work it round to being a 'feather' in the CASA cap, rather than the chamber pot they wear today. Three cheers for Wodger, master of the turning of silk purses into chamber pots trick.

The only 'honest' problem I can discern is that the Safety Recommendation would go "public", forcing CASA to act in a transparent, remedial manner, within a time frame. But I still fail to see why that should be a problem needing this level of panic. They are no stranger to twenty year broken promises of impending change.

Bump Beaker off the guest speaker list, lets have a Mike Watson (or similar) in, under privilege in camera if need be. Dump Beaker off the batting list, lets have an Alan Stray (or similar) analysis and get the reporting set to rights. At least let's have someone who can tell them all to "go and boil their bottoms" and draft the meaningful reports expected from a first class safety operation, not some bloody spin factory claptrap, doctored for reasons only the gods know, which fool no one.

I have ordered Guinness and Oysters to ease the earache and indigestion expected from 1600 o'clock onwards. :Dhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[my oleo is extended]

Kharon, aka articulatis unum that's the point. They don't want an honest and transparent process, because that would mean;
a) They have to fix the problem. That takes planning and commitment, both of which they are incapable of.
b) A commitment means something has to be actioned and completed. Again, something they are incapable of. 'Team ASOP' is a fine example, the SPM (now the CSM), the reg re-write etc etc.
c) Accountability - To fix something means they may be held responsible or held to account in relation to the fix. Oh my, a big no no, they will never accept that.

Can you imagine the LSD accepting 'accountability'? Ha ha. I think not, Clarise.

Sarcs, aka studiosis unum, there will indeed be some robust mi mi mi-ing this afternoon by King Beaker (tautological unum). I am just hoping that the Senators ramp things up a notch. It's time to put the dog out of its misery, to coin a phrase.

I propose that the Senator(s) who claims the first scalp be awarded by PAIN a full bag of chocolate frogs. This will accompany the bag of pineapples they already have sitting in the top drawer.

Safe skies are 'Beaker free' skies

[denabol]

Maybe the ATSB is going to blink.

It is difficult to imagine after this afternoon’s examination of the head of the ATSB Martin Dolan by an experienced military helicopter pilot Senator David Fawcett, that the controversial report the safety investigator issued into the Pel-Air crash will be allowed to stand.




ATSB urged at Senate inquiry to reopen Pel-Air inquiry | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/02/28/atsb-urged-at-senate-inquiry-to-reopen-pel-air-inquiry/)

[my oleo is extended]

What? The Beaker went quiet? No tautology, no mi mi mi mi-ing?
Damn straight he went quiet. Outclassed by Fawcett. But what did one expect? Fawcett is an accomplished pilot, but better yet, he understands systemic and holistic causal factors, unlike Beakers only comprehension of safety being the laminated cards in the back pocket of the business class EK seat in front of him. The guy doesn't even know what a 'mid air' is!

Well done Beaker, you have taken the ATSB with a good 30 year superb reputation and turned it into a steaming pile of guano.

Close the door on the way and good riddance....next!

[Fantome]

succinct as ever oleo old supporter. if only you could be part of the re-write. how many effs in tough . .. how many shonks in schmozzle.

[T28D]

Dolan is a fool

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

What happens now? Is the Atsb obligated to re open the investigation. What safeguards would need to be in place to ensure done openly. Perhaps, get NTSB or AAIB to be involved. Or Dolans idle Prof Reason.

Just wondering how the next FAA and ICAO audits will play out! The inquiries recommendations need to be thorough and ensure changes are made and progress reported back.

The Atsb and casa have been discredited. The crew and passengers should receive apologies from both depts.

[Up-into-the-air]

Well Mr. Dolan, your answers leave much to be desired.

From your own paperwork:

ATSB Function:

The ATSB’s function is to improve safety and public confidence in the aviation, marine and rail modes of transport through excellence in:

 Independent investigation of transport accidents and other safety occurrences;
 Safety data recording, analysis and research;
 Fostering safety awareness, knowledge and action.

The ATSB is responsible for investigating accidents and other transport safety matters involving civil aviation, marine and rail operations in Australia that fall within Commonwealth jurisdiction, as well as participating in overseas investigations involving Australian registered aircraft and ships.

A primary concern is the safety of commercial transport, with particular regard to fare-paying passenger operations.

By any measure, you have not achieved these primary functions.

A search of the atsb site reminds us that the Norfolk ditching was reported on 30th August 2012, and needed to meet the ICAO principles at the time.

The "Chamber's report" by casa, which casa "conveniently" forgot under the MOU between casa and the atsb, to pass on to the atsb, identifies a number of areas, including, but not confined to:

CASA identified in an audit the following breaches:

CAR 5.04
CAR 50
CAR 78 and CAO 82.1
CAR215(2)
CAR 215(8)
CAR 215(9)
CAR220(1)
CAR 233(3)
CAR 233(1)
CAR 235(1) and (2)
CAR 253(4)
CASR 92.095
CAO 20.7.1B parts 4, 7 & 12
CAO 20.11 parts 11 & 12
CAO 40.0 para 5.1, resulting in noncompliance with CAR 215(2)
CAO 48 para 4
CAO 82.1 para 3.3
Act Section 28BE paragraph (1), (2), (3a), and (3b).

Yet on the 28th February 2013, atsb head Mr. Dolan says ".......it would not change what we said...."

When asked on 15th February 2013:

Senator FAWCETT: We are really running short of time. Can I just go to a different point. You have talked about the expertise and the robustness of your investigators.

Did the investigator in this case support the narrowing of the scope and the downgrading of that critical safety factor?

Mr Dolan: No, he remained of the view that it ought to be given more weight than it ended up being given in the report.

Senator FAWCETT: Was he required, at any stage, to change the evidence tables in the report to match the final recommendations that came out?

Mr Dolan: I suspect—and perhaps Mr Sangston can help me—that there was some reworking of the evidence tables to reflect the consideration that had been given. I am not sure how that was brought about. Is there anything you want to add, Mr Sangston?

Mr Sangston: That does occur and has occurred. In fact, there is a QA, a quality assurance, process in our processes to ensure that our findings are reflected in our investigation management system. The words that are in our final report agree with things in our investigation management system, because those things go up on the web and so on. So there is a process for quality assurance, yes.

Senator FAWCETT: I am making the assumption here that that would be about checking that, as you said at the start, Mr Dolan, any reports you put out are backed up by facts. Does it also cover the case where facts are left out because they do not fit with the recommendations that the organisation wants to make?

Mr Dolan: I am not aware of anything in this case where we suppressed or left out facts that did not support analysis. What we had was some vigorous disagreement within the organisation, including with one officer in particular, about the analysis and what the analysis arrived at.


Surely that tells us there has been a simple pressurisation placed on an investigator???

Maybe someone can tell us whether that is an offence under the TSI Act

[SIUYA]

Up-in-the-air...

Maybe someone can tell us whether that is an offence under the TSI Act


24 Offence to hinder etc. 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.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

I guess the question would be whether the pressure placed to narrow the scope and downgrade that critical safety factor was authorised by Dolan. :mad:

What T28D said:

Dolan is a fool

:D:D:D

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Maybe someone can tell us whether that is an offence under the TSI Act
Has he (and others) upheld the values of the Public Sector Act? You might find something in here!


Australian Public Service Commission - APS Values and Code of Conduct (http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-policy-and-advice/aps-values-and-code-of-conduct)
APS Values and Code of Conduct

The principles of good public administration, embodied in the APS Values, lie at the heart of the democratic process and the confidence the public has in the way public servants exercise authority when meeting government objectives. Good public administration is a protection not only against inefficiency and poor performance, but also against fraud, corruption, inequity, inability to conduct business confidently and infringement of human rights.
The APS Values and Code are not simply aspirational statements of intent. They are mandatory. A breach of the Code of Conduct can result in sanctions, ranging from a reprimand to termination of employment. All APS employees are required to uphold the Values and comply with the Code. Failure to do so may attract sanctions. Agency heads (and the Senior Executive Service) are required also to promote the Values. The Public Service Commissioner is empowered to evaluate the extent to which agencies incorporate and uphold the Values and the adequacy of systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the Code.
Legislative framework

The APS Values are set out in section 10(1) of the Public Service Act 1999 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Management.nsf/current/bytitle/2B1A7B9F7929EE9DCA256F71000717D7?OpenDocument&VIEW=compilations). A copy of the APS Values are available here (http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-policy-and-advice/aps-values-and-code-of-conduct/aps-values).
The Code of Conduct is set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Management.nsf/current/bytitle/2B1A7B9F7929EE9DCA256F71000717D7?OpenDocument&VIEW=compilations). A copy of the Code of Conduct is available here (http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-policy-and-advice/aps-values-and-code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct).






The Code

Australian Public Service Commission - Code of Conduct (http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-policy-and-advice/aps-values-and-code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct)

The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must:


behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment;
act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment;
when acting in the course of APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment;
when acting in the course of APS employment, comply with all applicable Australian laws;
comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee's Agency who has authority to give the direction;
maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister's member of staff;
disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment;
use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner;
not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment;
not make improper use of:

inside information, or
the employee's duties, status, power or authority,
in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person;

at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS;
while on duty overseas, at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia; and
comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations (regulations available on the ComLaw website (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/all/search/DB75DAD93388D0C6CA2571AB00232849))

[Sunfish]

SImple conclusion: the ATSB is no longer independent. It appears that CASA and ATSB are being "managed" to ensure that Minister Albanese can concentrate on doing what he does best: factional and Parliamentary politics.....and f*&^ aviation unless there is airport land to be flogged.