PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

Sarcs
13th Jan 2014, 21:43
Thomas: "TOOT..TOOT!"

The Fat Controller: "Thomas your running late the Minister will not be happy, he is waiting on mail from the WLR panel...TICK..TOCK!"

Kharon: Perhaps the WLR should consider some of the CASA actions in terms this Act and of potential court actions, against individual officers. Because one thing is certain, if anyone, under pressure from personal liability breaks ranks and blows the whistle, the only screaming heard will be that of liability, through responsibility. Ahh yes the CAC Act, maybe it should be re-named the great government & government agency protection (obfuscation i.e 'protection racket') Act of 1997..:ugh:.what's latin for..."No one is accountable!"....??:rolleyes:


Senator NASH: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5g%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Was anybody at the table employed by CASA in 2000?

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Mr Boyd, were you around?

Mr Boyd : Yes, but not in that position.

Senator NASH: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fe5g%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?

Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You've got an alibi! Hmm..we never did hear from the DD..:rolleyes:??

However "K" makes a good point for the panel to explore..:cool:

Moving right along and a quick pop quiz for the WLB:confused::

Q/ Who was it that once said...?? {note edited by the IOSFOB - the Ills of Society freedom of information bureau..:E}

".....In broad summary, during my tenure I intend to ensure that {blank} refocuses on its core activity —the regulation of {blank} safety—that the governance arrangements within {blank} are strengthened, that the staff of {blank} are trained and properly deployed to strengthen {blank's} oversight and surveillance functions and that regulatory reform is completed in a most expeditious manner...."

".....The future of {blank} in Australia relies on the success of {the IOS}. To be blunt, if we kill {the IOS}, we kill {blank} and many other activities that rely on it. In summary, I look forward to contributing to the ongoing success of {blank} in Australia. I cannot do anything about the past, but I can do a lot about the future, and that is what I intend to do. Thank you for your polite indulgence....."

In the next breath this individual said...

".....At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of {blank's } actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving andfrequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual {blank} officers by name and by station...."

Oops may have given the game away with that one....:ok:

Frank Arouet
13th Jan 2014, 21:47
Taurus excreta conundrum cerebellum.


Perhaps?

aroa
14th Jan 2014, 01:29
The current ceo is imo a prime candidate for being done under this Act.
But like so much of these acts, regs, rules. codes of misconduct etc all lawyered into unuseable complexity, obfustication to eventual useless oblivion.
And ignored as well:mad:
Too complex, too hard, who's to do the job..or will allow it anyway?.
Miniscule v ceo...in ya dreams.!

Bring on the ides of March.!!:ok:

And if you read the full senate statement made by the ceo for the staff protection agency, you will see an unfinished sentence, all choked on syntax, big words and other rubbish.:mad:
Unwarranted demagoguery IMO.
demagogue : opportunist, haranguer. Mmmm yes.

How do you like yr lettuce with yr cheese sandwich, crisp of limp?

Sarcs
14th Jan 2014, 05:44
Dear Minister,
Re: 'Where the bloody hell are you?':confused:
[YOUTUBE]So Where the Bloody Hell are you? - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Y-ZLr9ePuj8)

Note for the Minister & some reminders while your swanning around pretending to give a rat's while in the acting PM position.:hmm:

Being as we are into the 2nd week of '14 & the Turkey has well and truly passed through the local turd burglar farm, here's a basic summary of your performance c/o of the IOS:(

1) Official change of government you missed the perfect excuse (& god knows after the PelAir debacle who would have blamed you..:ugh:) that some of your Ministerial colleagues & TA partook in i.e. the post election bureaucrat be-headings (dubbed get a Head Crat day :E).

(2) However you did announce your promise of a independent review of the RRP (i.e.ASRR), but the TORs and the no parliamentary protection has left that initiative dubbed the WLR.:rolleyes:

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

Senator Sinodinos: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2Fbv7%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)My advice was we would respond before the end of the year. Are you aware that last week the minister also released the terms of reference and members for an international panel to undertake a fairly comprehensive review into aviation safety regulations in Australia?
(4) Now the IOS find that, much like the last mob, we have sailed past the due date for the answering of Senate Estimate QONs, again without any excuses offered...:ugh:
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Questions on notice index: (PDF 548KB) (http://www.pprune.org/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1314/infra/Infrastructure_final_qon_index.ashx)
Answers are due Friday 10 January 2014
With all due respect Minister I have got half a dozen IOS members written submissions in my inbox, (members who are prepared to play the WLR game and make submissions) but their draft submissions are currently on hold with a Draft One {with the bureau debacle still to be fixed} & Draft two {with the bureau debacle partially fixed} version, these drafts hinge on:

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

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

Senator XENOPHON: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Let us not talk at cross purposes here. I am saying that CASA gave a considered response presumably to the Senate inquiry, to the minister, to consider. That itself would not be a draft, it would be a document from CASA to the department. What harm would there be for that document eventually seeing the light of day?

Mr Mrdak : Again, without recalling the exact details of the document, I do not have an issue in principle, but I need to take it on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)At the end of the day you would not have an issue in principle with that being released, would you, Mr McCormick?
Mr McCormick : Again, I will take it on notice. I personally do not, but I am not sure what the protocols are. Perhaps Dr Aleck might have something to say.

Dr Aleck : I will concur with what has gone before and to add that CASA made a number of submissions to that inquiry. To the extent that the recommendations dealt with the same issues that were covered by the submissions I suspect there would be some alignment with our submissions.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://www.pprune.org/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)That is why I am hoping to see that document sooner rather than later.
and; (b) Your department/agency response to certain QONs, for example Senator Xenophon's:139 CASA 09 XENOPHON
Report on Aviation Accident Investigations

Senator XENOPHON: Mr McCormick, today marks four years to the day since the ditching of the VH-NGA off Norfolk Island and nearly seven months since the references committee issued its report on aviation accident investigations. Has CASA formulated a response to the recommendations in the report?

Mr McCormick: The part that we had to do has been completed. The documents are no longer with CASA.

Senator XENOPHON: But there were various recommendations and you have given your views as to those recommendations to the department?

Mr McCormick: Yes, we have.

Senator XENOPHON: When did you do that?

Mr McCormick: I would have to take the exact date on notice. It was before the election.
You can see our dilemma Minister and with a due date of the 31st the clock is well and truly ticking..:{.TICK..TOCK indeed...:=

So Minister 'Where the bloody hell are you?':ok:

Frank Arouet
14th Jan 2014, 07:35
Flood fire or pestilence there is always a politician to face the media. They thrive on disaster, it shows "leadership" "empathy" and increases public support for the individual. Some are called statesmen/ (women) like Anna Burke chasing a woman made flood headline.


A big problem however when a big aluminum tube with hundreds of voters augers in when it could have been prevented by preemptive action aimed at the "watchdog". Especially if some from Cherbourg buy the farm, neighbors and near environs.


So, who's watching the watchdog Mr Truss? (apologies to Paul Phelan for using his headline). Reaction doesn't cut the hot English mustard either Minister.

Cactusjack
14th Jan 2014, 07:40
So Minister 'Where the bloody hell are you?'
He is busy tending to the lettuce farm. Ironically pigs in a pen also love lettuce, go figure!
Sarcs, he is part of the charade. The delay tactics, obsfucation, endless empty promises and not to mention 'a governments policy on saying shhhhhhh on the big issues' leaves no doubt in my mind that nothing forthcoming will ever be seen, not until the Independents have aviation and IOS support bestowed upon them.
Minister, as you were sir, oink oink. Sarcs question for you is interesting, but my question is more like this - 'Will you get to retire or get voted out before the inevitable smoking hole takes place'? Tick Tock indeed.

TICK TOCK

Two_dogs
14th Jan 2014, 09:25
Indeed it will certainly take a "smoking hole in the ground" for anything to change. Just Pruneing around today and stumbled across a link to a thread from the Uzu years, circa 2003. I remember it well, as of course will Torres and Sarcs. Important and Urgent?...10+ years?...FFS.

No wonder I have absolutely no CONFIDENCE or RESPECT for the system. I will concede that I have had dealings with individuals within both CAsA and ATSB that have been both productive and mutually beneficial; they were however an aberration in the scheme of things.

CASA in the news Important Urgent (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/96197-casa-news-important-urgent-insight-sbs-thursday-night.html)

INSIGHT investigates serious allegations made against the bodies that control the air, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, (CASA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, (ATSB).

A former CASA manager and other aviation operators say the Civil Aviation Safety Authority engages in vindictive actions, which put many companies out of business. They say the vindictive action includes suspensions and cancellations for reasons which have nothing to do with public safety.

Signed, Disillusioned.

Cactusjack
14th Jan 2014, 10:56
Two dogs, a trip down memory lane!
Uzu, Polar Aviation, Quadrio, etc etc. Mix in some Lockhart, Canley Vale and Pel Air accidents and then spice up the mix with a dash of the CAsA GWM and some Wichdoctory and you pretty soon get an idea about not just how they operate, but more importantly and disturbingly how they are allowed to operate, fully endorsed, sanctioned, permitted and encouraged to behave towards all. And in my opinion thanks to each Australian government and it's elected ministers, and ICAO. There is an overwhelming majority in Australian aviation, and even a number within CAsA itself that recognise that this fish has well and truly rotted from the head to its tail. It is a palpable, disgraceful and amoral situation that we, the taxpayer have to endure and accept this situation.

I once held CAsA in complete contempt, but I am starting to now see more clearly why they do and act the way they do. We need to hold them to account, but need to look beyond them and look at their master(s).

Anyway, just like two dogs I am enjoying a nice bottle of red, will retire to the land of sleep shortly, shall awake refreshed, switch on the AM news and see whether the 'Newsflash - Smoking Hole' story fills the screen. If not, no problem, will do the same the following morning, and over and over until......

TICK TOCK

Kharon
14th Jan 2014, 18:57
FA -"Flood fire or pestilence there is always a politician to face the media. They thrive on disaster, it shows "leadership" "empathy" and increases public support for the individual."

'Top end' operators, you have to admire them. They survive the wet, cyclones, floods, bush fires, high temperatures, high humidity, dangerous animal and insect species in one of the most remote areas on the planet. Despite all of this, they manage to keep their aircraft airborne even with difficulties like spares deliveries and remote location breakdowns. They have provided countless pilots with that 'first job', invaluable experience, confidence and self sufficiency. Then this.

Moving a bit further a field, the Northern Territory and north-west of Western Australia both have large amounts of aviation activity, particular mining operation related, tourist sightseeing flights and aerial cattle mustering. CASA surveillance of these activities, even given our focus on safety related operations of public transport operators, should be enhanced. To that end, we are about to commence a surveillance sweep across the north of Australia, from the east coast to Broome. This is not going to be a one-off exercise, and an additional purpose is to identify sites for CASA work offices for the use of CASA officers where aviation activity is high. All these initiatives will be funded from internal cost savings in our present budget. my bold

Any trail of destruction left behind will eventually be rectified, with the same spirit, humour and resolve, even that of a 'boosted safety storm'. No doubt the 'sweep' caught a few significant safety issues, now filed away for future use against a target; many trees have no doubt been sacrificed on the alter of pointless, arse covering 'Amendment', tool kits will now contain freshly calibrated and certified tyre pressure gauges. The freshly minted NCN will have been responded to and fines paid by those who opted to stump up and have a peaceful life. But in reality were the claimed safety gains, weighed against the total real cost; worth the time, money, aggravation and distraction. The miniscule may be well impressed with the windy, self aggrandising rhetoric forecasting a veritable storm of safety, but he'd be the only one believing it. As said, up there they've survived other storms, a breeze from the nether regions of Canberra would be a doddle. It's a pity they are too busy providing essential services, generating revenue and doing their bit to dig the country out of debt to write a submission to WLR, providing their view of the great Northern safety storm. That would be worth a read.

Remember this - "CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee,".

In setting his trap by requesting the original CASA response to the Pel Air recommendations, Xenophon lit a long, slow fuse. See Sarcs Post # 256 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-13.html#post8263124)– (You have got to love the kids style). – Seems pretty clear to me; old goat or scapegoat ?– not fussy. Even Wabbit would do as an apéritif; at a pinch. Those pesky wabbits eh?, so unreliable. Mind you, without the support of the watchdog would those worthless wabbits have ever have gotten into the yard?. That would be a quite a question (on notice miniscule, if pleases) to answer – later perhaps. But answer he must, sooner or later and someone must carry can.

brissypilot
15th Jan 2014, 04:15
I posted this on the Empire Strikes Back (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots.html) thread earlier:

If there aren't enough examples already of Avmed's incompetent decision making, here's another recent example from the AAT files. There's definitely a common trend starting to develop...

Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2013/941.html)

23.CASA called Dr Pooshan Navathe, its principal medical officer and the primary decision-maker. Some of Dr Navathe’s evidence detailed, quite unnecessarily, the legal framework for regulatory aviation medicine, the processes of aviation medicine decision-making within CASA, risk management and suchlike. The relevance of that evidence was never explained to me. Dr Navathe’s statement discussed, and annexed, various articles from medical research before expressing the opinion that[15],

... given Mr Bolton's history of head injury, there is a significant risk of [posttraumatic seizure]. There is a substantial or real and not remote possibility that Mr Bolton will suffer a [posttraumatic seizure] whilst in flight. Were Mr Bolton to suffer a fit whilst at the controls of an aircraft in flight, then this would pose a clear threat to the safety of air navigation, and thus I have reached the conclusion that the extent to which Mr Bolton fails to meet the class 1 and class 2 medical standard is such that I cannot issue him with a medical certificate under r.67.180 of the CASR.

24.Dr Navathe’s witness statement concluded in this way:

90.Having reviewed all three specialist reports, I remain convinced that I have made the safest decision in refusing Mr Bolton a Class 1 and 2 medical certificate at this time. I have formed the view that is supported by all three specialists, that Mr Bolton does not have a severe head injury, and ceteris paribus [all other things being equal] will be able to obtain medical certification after a period of 18 – 24 months has elapsed from the time of the injury.

91. I acknowledge that I have an overriding duty to provide impartial assistance to the Tribunal. No matters of significance have been withheld from the Tribunal

Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.

25.Finally, CASA relied upon evidence (including a report of 4 November 2013) of Dr Ernest Somerville, a consultant neurologist. I have already made mention of the reference in Dr Somerville's report to a document from the Proserpine Hospital which is not in evidence in the proceedings. The failure to comply with the Guidelines is exemplified by this passage from Dr Somerville's report[16]:

The following opinion is provided in response to your letter of 30 October 2013 and telephone conversation with Dr Pooshan Navathe on 1 November 2013. Information about Mr Walker's [sic] medical condition is limited to the documents provided with your letter of 30 October 2013.

It is not known what documentary material was provided to Dr Somerville nor is it known what was conveyed to him by Dr Navathe in the conversation on 1 November 2013. Moreover, it is highly irregular that one expert witness, who is as well the primary decision-maker, was apparently briefing another expert witness in terms not disclosed. The danger of such a practice ought to have been evident. The vice is merely compounded by the failure to make clear what information was conveyed.

31. But even if that evidence was to be regarded as being evidence of a condition or of an effect of a head injury I have a distinct preference for the evidence of Dr Cameron. He alone had the benefit of a clinical examination of Mr Bolton. He concluded that Mr Bolton’s risk of posttraumatic seizures was no greater than that of the general population. The studies relied upon by the other witnesses, he said, considered the full range of head injuries not merely the very mild head injury suffered by Mr Bolton. It was Dr Cameron's opinion that a skull fracture increased the risk of posttraumatic epilepsy only if there had been penetration of the dura or if there had been bleeding in the cavities of the brain. Neither occurred in the present case. That evidence satisfies me that, had I concluded that Mr Bolton did not meet the medical standards, his present medical condition is not likely to endanger the safety of air navigation.

32.I will then set aside the decision to cancel and substitute a decision that Mr Bolton’s medical certificates not be cancelled.

Cactusjack
15th Jan 2014, 04:46
Indeed, Poohshan's self confidence and espousing himself in such a manner is a direct reflection of years of receiving CAsArisation from other proud like individuals in Canberra.
As for the AAT, jeez, what a shock, another crap decision that of course falls in favour of CAsA.
Dr Cameron made the physical examination, his assessment is as close to accurate as you will get.

Despite the fact that the statement does contain the declaration of duty required by the Guidelines it could not be plainer that Dr Navathe is an advocate for his own decision. I do not propose to have any regard to his opinions. For the future I would trust that CASA’s Legal Branch would exercise independent judgement in deciding what witnesses ought be relied upon and the content of their statements. They ought, obviously enough, be confined to matters that are relevant and witnesses ought be those who can truly provide an independent opinion.
I think you should think twice about placing any trust in their LSD :=

brissypilot
15th Jan 2014, 04:56
As for the AAT, jeez, what a shock, another crap decision that of course falls in favour of CAsA.

It appears the AAT's decision was in favour of the applicant...

32. I will then set aside the decision to cancel and substitute a decision that Mr Bolton’s medical certificates not be cancelled.

Cactusjack
15th Jan 2014, 05:28
Correct, I retract that part of my statement, not used to seeing the AAT do the right thing :ok:

Creampuff
15th Jan 2014, 05:29
Yes Cactus, your blind prejudice is sometimes embarassingly obvious. :=

Cactusjack
15th Jan 2014, 07:47
Creamie, very true sir! Now, feel free to punish me with a wet lettuce leaf :ok:
I am man enough to admit mistake and accept said flogging.

Paragraph377
16th Jan 2014, 10:51
Let's explore this nugget a little further;
Quote:
"CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee,".
Really? From the lack or responses and arrogant misuse of QON's I would say that this public quote is quite simply bulls#it. The word 'accountable' should not be used by CASA under any circumstance, as it simply doesn't fit. The Senators, particularly Xenophon were very much trying to explore this supposed 'accountable' side of CASA, and where did that get to?
And of course, the Minuscule made no mention of being 'accountable' for aviation safety did he?

Now there were many many interesting tidbits, revelations, exposures and uncovering of mischievous and questionable acts made during the inquiry, to be sure. The dark side is truly an evil force where sinister motives, devious acts, abhorrent manifestations and murky Machiavellian sins are committed.
However I am still awaiting CASA's robust and forthright answer to the Sky Sentinel questions, which of course were predominately taken on notice.
Has any of the following information been requested by anybody;

• Who signed off on the program/software purchase?
• Who was the program/softwares owner at the time of sale?
• Where, how, why and to whom exactly did the additional $2 million dollars for post purchase software/work go to?
• Where are the tender documents, CAPEX documents, business case documents associated with all of this?
• Did the software creator, seller, developer work at CASA or have blood ties, friendship ties or business ties to anybody on the CASA payroll?

I think that this is just one example of an interesting point raised at the inquiry that has been completely pooh poohed by those who were subject of the inquiry.

Oh Mr Truss, what a mess
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8qb4n8yc2so

What does one do with pesky QON's?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O2rTqSoRHKU

I eagerly anticipate the outcome of this 'wet lettuce review' to see if such items are addressed.

aroa
16th Jan 2014, 11:29
McComic is a comic:D..the accountability statement just shows that as das, just keep churning shite for long enough and maybe some people will believe it as well.

Look at any CAsA list of definitions and acronyms and you will not find "accountability " there...simply because they dont have any.:mad::mad:

A few further Qs. :ok:

1 Who decided that allegations of criminality should be changed to just breaches of the 'code"?...a joke doc if ever there was one. That gets them off the hook.

2. Who decided that the findings of the ICC Hart that certain CAsA persons should be dealt with by the AFP, should be sidetracked.?

Who signed off on the expenditure of a very costly external investigation with terms of reference to code breaches only?

AND knowing full well from a much earlier minute from N Tredrea, "manager" compliance and enforcement ( god help us!) to J Bromley "safety (sic) oversight" that the sworn evidence tendered for a criminal case against the intended victim was totally false and unbelievable bollocks.:mad:

Never let truth get in the way of a good "hit" when there .."are people in Canberra who think they can make this stick"...to quote( not yet a legal) "investigator" (sic)S Cremerius, who as a CAsA 'newbie' knew jack sh*t about anything related to aviation, but everything about "verballing":mad:

Show me some accountabilty from CAsA and I'll show you where Jesus is really buried.

Kharon
16th Jan 2014, 19:03
the road to hell and good intentions. How often in daily life do we see 'an identified problem' being seemingly resolved in one area only to create a bigger headache, somewhere else. In other words the problem was never 'resolved' but simply moved on, passed on to someone's desk; who then promptly sets about getting the problem 'moved on'. The original 'problem' of course becomes a monster created by the process, rules get changed to suit the 'fixers' needs, while the 'problem', like Creampuffs oft mentioned Frankenstein, just develops a life of it's own.

Expediency and human nature only hasten the growth. "The Minister cannot be held responsible", first heard that during the Seaview mess; Lockhart was a watershed and Whyalla a major milestone along the 'safety' road, which has now been patched and repaired so often, by so many that it may no longer be rightfully called a road. Many of the patches were hastily made in various attempts to protect the Minister, the original intention being bastardised in the game of ambition, power, budget, power, ego, power, money, power and being able to run the gamut of any inquiry with impunity. It has all become such a nonsense, time to start again.

We had a good start with the Air Navigation Act, but from about 1999 the white ants got in; slowly but surely from the inside the structural integrity of the Act was eaten away until finally, with the removal of 2A, ties, responsibilities and obligations were so weakened that a progression to the TSI could be forced through. This did not dilute the power of the ANA, just made it easier to circumvent. The architect of the TSI has much to answer for; leaving the gate open for a series of MOU between CASA and ATSB which make a mockery of today's 'system'. You wouldn't let your kids play with a chain saw; give Jack the Ripper a dark alley and a sharp knife; no more than you'd hire a paedophile as a baby sitter. But we have allowed through indifference, ignorance, apathy and not wishing to rock the boat a nest of voracious white ants to infest the building and they are breeding.

You may, of course check for yourself, take a look at the Pel Air example. No Joyce! a real long hard look. Don't think about the incident; look under the covers, look at the unanswered questions, look at the wool being pulled and who's doing the pulling, look at the unbelievable manipulation of law, the disrespect for parliament and those in it; the arrogant dismissal of Senators questions, the breathtaking smugness in self sustaining protection and the presumption that no matter what comes, all will be well. Always has been and nothing has; or, will be changed.

What has happened to Dom James in the aftermath typifies how little real power (or interest) the Minister has to control the watchdog. It's not just James who is being slowly roasted over the flames by men of no honour, less integrity and no good will whatsoever; there are a several. All trying to beat a rotten, self protecting system which actively encourages outrageous, life destroying acts and dares to defy even constitutional and human rights tenets. Ironically, it's your money paying for the defence of that system; great ain't it.

Today the chook shed, tomorrow the barn and the miniscule is going to stop the infestation with one insignificant review. As Pel Air and the Senate inquiry are slowly digested, passing through the belly of the beast until being deposited in some remote place, never to be seen again, we can all live in hope that the WLR will come to the rescue. Tick tock says the ever patient clock.

From the press: Mt Vernon, Texas. Headline.

WHOREHOUSE SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE!

The crusty old judge read through the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's reply, and at the opening hearing he commented:

"I don't know how the hell I'm going to decide this case, but it appears from the paperwork that we now have a whorehouse owner who staunchly believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that thinks it's all bullshit."

There, I feel much better now.

Selah.

Sarcs
17th Jan 2014, 03:30
Ah yes the oft forgotten ANA 1920, some would say the true head of power in the regulation of air safety here in Oz :ugh::Contents of repealed part 2A of ANA

Part 2A—Investigation of accidents etc. 32
Division 1—Preliminary 32
19AA Meaning of accident.................................................... .....................32
19AB Meaning of serious incident.................................................... .........33
19AC Meaning of incident ............................................................ .............33
19AD Meaning of safety deficiency.................................................. ..........33
19AE Meaning of responsible person ........................................................33
19AF Meaning of cockpit voice recording.................................................34
19AG General definitions................................................. ..........................34
Division 2—Reporting of accidents etc. 38
19BA Reporting of accidents and serious incidents....................................38
19BB Notification to Contracting State......................................................4 0
19BC Reporting of incidents................................................... ...................41
Division 3—Investigation of accidents, serious incidents,
incidents and safety deficiencies 44
19CA Object of Division.................................................... ........................44
19CB Director’s power to investigate accidents etc. ..................................44
19CC Director’s power to obtain information etc. .....................................45
19CD Powers of entry to premises ............................................................ .47
19CE Search warrants.................................................... ............................48
19CF The things that are authorised by search warrant .............................49
19CG Specific powers available to investigators executing warrants.........49
19CH Use of equipment to examine or process things ...............................50
19CJ Use of electronic equipment at premises..........................................51
19CK Retention of things which are seized................................................53
19CL Court of summary jurisdiction may permit a thing to be
retained ............................................................ ................................53
19CM Announcement before entry ............................................................ .54
19CN Availability of assistance and use of force in executing a
warrant ............................................................ .................................54
19CP Details of warrant to be given to occupier........................................54
19CQ Copies of seized things to be provided.............................................54
19CR Compensation for damage to electronic equipment..........................55
19CS Offence of making false statements in applications for
warrant ............................................................ .................................55
19CT Report of investigation............................................... ......................56
19CU Publication of report etc. ............................................................ ......
Division 4—Australian investigations in which other
Contracting States have an interest 57
19DA Accredited representatives of Contracting States .............................57
19DB Delegation of conduct of investigation.............................................58
19DC Participation in investigation by advisers.........................................58
19DD Provision of investigation reports to certain Contracting
States...................................................... ..........................................59
19DE Provision of information to Contracting State that conducts
investigation............................................... ......................................60
19DF Further investigation of accident etc. ...............................................60
Division 5—Accidents and serious incidents outside Australian
territory 62
19EA Investigation of accidents and serious incidents that occur to
Australian aircraft outside Australian territory.................................62
19EB Investigation of accidents etc. that occur outside Australian
territory to which section 19EA does not apply ...............................62
19EC Investigation of incidents occurring outside Australian
territory ............................................................ ................................63
19ED Powers of investigators ............................................................ ........63
19EE Provision of information to Contracting State that conducts
investigation............................................... ......................................64
Division 6—Powers in relation to accident sites 65
19FA General definitions................................................. ..........................65
19FB Accident site ............................................................ ........................65
19FC Accident site premises ............................................................ .........65
19FD Accident site powers ............................................................ ............65
19FE Power of entry to accident site .........................................................66
19FF Announcement before entry ............................................................ .67
19FG Availability of assistance and use of force in entering
accident site premises.................................................... ...................67
19FH Offence of entering etc. an accident site without permission ...........67
Division 7—Custody, protection and removal of aircraft 68
19FJ Removal of or interference with aircraft ..........................................68
19FK Protection of Director etc. from liability in certain cases .................69
19FL Aircraft etc. of Contracting State to remain undisturbed on
request..................................................... .........................................69
19FM Release of aircraft etc. from custody of Director .............................70
Division 8—Administration 72
19GA Director of Air Safety Investigation............................................... ..72
19GB Functions of Director ............................................................ ...........72
19GC Investigators............................................... ......................................72
19GD Identity cards....................................................... .............................72
19GE Delegation by Director.................................................... .................73
Division 9—Miscellaneous 74
19HA Disclosure of information by Director for aviation safety
purposes ............................................................ ...............................74
19HB Powers in relation to aircraft accidents, serious incidents and
incidents................................................... ........................................74
19HC Disclosure of air safety records to a court or person ........................74
19HD Compliance with subpoenas etc. ......................................................76
19HE Evidence of cockpit voice recordings—criminal proceedings..........76
19HF Evidence of cockpit voice recordings—civil proceedings................76
19HG Examination by a court of a cockpit voice recording under
subsection 19HF(3) ............................................................ ..............77
19HH Where a court makes an order under subsection 19HF(3)................78
19HJ Cockpit voice recording etc. not to be ground for disciplinary
action ............................................................ ...................................79
19HK Disclosure of cockpit voice recordings ............................................79
19HL Sections 19HE and 19HF not to affect admissibility of other
evidence ............................................................ ...............................79
19HM Determination of standards ............................................................ ..80
19HN Day of effect of standards ............................................................ ....80
19HP Standards to be disallowable instruments.........................................80
19HQ Arrangements with States, Australian Capital Territory,
Northern Territory and Norfolk Island.............................................80
19HR Compensation for acquisition of property ........................................80
In regards to the BASI/ATSB the omitted/repealed part 2A basically outlined the State's international obligations as a signatory to the Chicago Convention i.e. ICAO. Perhaps the perfect example was contained within the 1999 MOU between Fort Fumble and BASI.."... 5.14 Under section 19HB (Part 2A) of the Air Navigation Act, the Director's(BASI) powers of investigation into any matters related to an aircraft occurrence take precedence over the investigation of all other Commonwealth agencies with the exception of the Australian Federal Police.After the 1999 MOU we then had the 2001 between ATsB & CAsA, then the 2004 and finally the 2010 MOU. Slowly but surely the honourable intent plus the veracity of our international obligations as stated in the 1999 MOU and ANA Part 2A were watered down until 2003 when we adopted the TSI Act, and that is when things really went south with the balance of power in aviation safety administration here in Oz.:=
Perhaps the following will provide a context with the detrimental effects of the TSI adoption to the further downfall of our AAI: Affect of the TSI 2003 on the CAA 1988

before May 2003

(3) CASA also has the following functions:
(a) co-operating with the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation in
relation to the investigation of aircraft accidents and
incidents;
(b) any functions conferred on CASA under the Civil Aviation
(Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, or under a corresponding law
of a State or Territory;
(c) any functions conferred on CASA under the Air Navigation
Act 1920;
(d) any other functions prescribed by the regulations, being
functions relating to any matters referred to in this section;
(e) promoting the development of Australia’s civil aviation
safety capabilities, skills and services, for the benefit of the
Australian community and for export;
(f) providing consultancy and management services relating to
any of the matters referred to in this section, both within and
outside Australian territory;

11 Functions to be performed in accordance with international
agreements
CASA shall perform its functions in a manner consistent with the
obligations of Australia under the Chicago Convention and any
other agreement between Australia and any other country or
countries relating to the safety of air navigation.

Note: theoretically at (a) means that FF didn't recognise the authority of the ATSB....says a lot really!

after July 2003

(3) CASA also has the following functions:
(a) co-operating with the Executive Director of Transport Safety
Investigation in relation to investigations under the Transport
Safety Investigation Act 2003 that relate to aircraft;
(b) any functions conferred on CASA under the Civil Aviation
(Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, or under a corresponding law
of a State or Territory;
(c) any functions conferred on CASA under the Air Navigation
Act 1920;
(d) any other functions prescribed by the regulations, being
functions relating to any matters referred to in this section;
(e) promoting the development of Australia’s civil aviation
safety capabilities, skills and services, for the benefit of the
Australian community and for export;
(f) providing consultancy and management services relating to
any of the matters referred to in this section, both within and
outside Australian territory;

11 Functions to be performed in accordance with international
agreements
CASA shall perform its functions in a manner consistent with the
obligations of Australia under the Chicago Convention and any
other agreement between Australia and any other country or
countries relating to the safety of air navigation.More to follow...Sarcs (K2):ok:

Cactusjack
17th Jan 2014, 11:00
AND knowing full well from a much earlier minute from N Tredrea, "manager" compliance and enforcement ( god help us!) to J Bromley "safety (sic) oversight" that the sworn evidence tendered for a criminal case against the intended victim was totally false and unbelievable bollocks.
How is Sargent Shultz Bromley going at the CAA PNG anyway? His mate R D Collins is up there also :E
Is there some rule that ex CAsA go and join CAA PNG? Mind you the Screamer did send Quinn up there for a mission and that didn't end well:{

So many stories, so little time! Anyway, someone sent me a CAsA FOI training video, with the Screamer at his best! No wonder those guys act the way they do;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5TNhS81w4bM

Kharon
17th Jan 2014, 19:51
A little Saturday drift here, but it begs the question will the WLR under paragraph (d) 'Other matters" tackle these issues, or roll off the top and drop it all back on the ample miniscule lap?.

Objectives

The principal objectives of the review are to investigate:

• the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;

• the relationship and interaction of those agencies with each other, as well as with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure);

• the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA);

• the suitability of Australia’s aviation safety related regulations when benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions; and

• any other safety related matters.

Sarcs post brings to mind a 'tricky' little passage of play in the Pel Air story which has always puzzled me. Was the 2010 MOU used actually in play at the time of the incident? Did the AILU manager start a parallel investigation assuming that ?, he certainly cited it; but wouldn't the active 2004 MOU prohibited this ?. If so, then they seem to have run very close to the 'legal' wind there. I wonder what the AAT would make of the procedural integrity in that.

You see, I have also wondered if Hood wasn't conned by this, he sure distanced himself from the following debacle quick smart; I wonder? did CASA jump the gun and get the Nadi radio transcript before ATSB ?, but not mention it to Hood before he 'signed off'. It would go some way to explaining the strategic withdrawal. Under 2004 MOU CASA would have second dibs on that transcript and have to 'ask'; but under the 2010 issue, they could get first dibs. The mystery of the missing MOU pages still haunts this story.

Aye well, it's puzzle to which we may get an answer this century, once they all decide which version of the CASA response to the Senate will best suit current needs, all the QON are answered, the WLR staggers, exhausted to the finish line and the AFP eventually complete their tasks. February is fast approaching, is being 'detained at the minuscule pleasure' even legal these days?

Heigh ho - I wonder if Chair has worked out yet who handed him the poisoned chalice?.

Sarcs
18th Jan 2014, 20:49
Heard a rumour that the Feds investigation into PelAirgate has been stalled while various DIPs get all their ducks in a row & before the WLR panel start sniffing around..:cool:..just a rumour but most disturbing if true…:(

Anyway moving on..
Part One: On watering potplants and MOUs

Kharon: Was the 2010 MOU used actually in play at the time of the incident? Did the AILU manager start a parallel investigation assuming that ?, he certainly cited it; but wouldn't the active 2004 MOU prohibited this ?. If so, then they seem to have run very close to the 'legal' wind there. I wonder what the AAT would make of the procedural integrity in that.
A gentle reminder that the 2010 MOU was officially commissioned/signed off on the 9th February 2010, however the MALIU states in the, now infamous hidden report, CAIR 09/3 synopsis…
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture6.png
It is well worth perusing parts of the various MOUs that were kindly submitted, but then mi..mi..minimised, by FF in their original PelAir inquiry submission.

In the 1999 version we had the following paragraph…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture7.png

.. in 2001…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture8.png

..and in 2004..


http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture9.png

All good stuff clearly outlining the rules of engagement between FF & the bureau and also indicating that bureau investigations will look at the big picture in a holistic, systemic manner, whereas FF’s emphasis will be solely on matters of possible non-compliance.:=

The 2010 version however does away with (deletes) all that palaver and cuts straight to the chase with their newly headed section, which the MALIU dutifully refers to in the CAIR 09/3 synopsis, ‘Parallel Investigations’…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture11.png

Gone are the good old days :{ where the bureau held the ultimate trump card, where the singular objective was to learn from accidents/incidents to help mitigate safety risk and where we met our international obligations under the articles of the Chicago Convention.:ugh:

IMO this disconnection with the real world perception of AAI best practice is quite well highlighted in paragraphs 5.16-5.20 of the 1999 MOU..
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture10.png
Oh what a conundrum..:confused:.. for the miniscule and his WLR panel…:rolleyes:

Here’s and idea just scrap the 2010 MOU, go back to the drawing board and use the 1999 MOU as a blueprint for a new MOU…my 2 bob’s worth..:ok:


Q/ Hasn't the 2010 MOU now time expired?? Hmm..perfect opportunity perhaps..;)

LeadSled
19th Jan 2014, 01:35
Cactus,
Last time I heard from CASA PNG, the contract of one J. Bromley was not renewed.Maybe somebody can update us on what he is doing now??
Tootle pip!!

Kharon
19th Jan 2014, 02:12
Wiki –"A tosher is someone who scavenges in the sewers, especially in London during the Victorian era. The word tosher was also used to describe the thieves who stripped valuable copper from the hulls of ships moored along the Thames. The related slang term 'Tosh' referred to valuables thus collected, both are of unknown origin.

Brother Sarcs has just placed the WLR on the road to a veritable minefield, a large one. At first the road is deceptively easy to tread. But the business of ICAO Annexe 13, Chicago 26, the Air Navigation Act, the Transport Safety Act and the CASA – ATSB Memorandum of Understanding are all harbingers of the rocky, dangerous path toward presenting an acceptable report to industry. So, as it's straight down to business on Monday and, it's what we are paying for: If you would care to consult your agenda:-

ToR. • the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;

Item 1 - the infamous Pel Air CAIR 09/3 synopsis.

This document, (IMO) standing alone, is worthy of 'proper' inquiry. The WLR won't even get close to an 'in-depth' analysis of the twists, turns, embuggerance or legally manufactured smoke and mirrors resulting in the unholy TSI/ MOU shenanigans. Thank the heavens, that it is still part of the Senates remit, unanswered and unsullied.

Just to actually find in the original CAIR 09/3 in the first iteration of the 'attachment package' was a feat of investigative dexterity. The first tabled version was 'withdrawn', only to be returned with some 20 (30 by some counts) pages less in the second incarnation (interesting word count by the way): granted the 1999 and 2001 MOU had been removed; but, the page/word count still don't tally. The entire 'package' was large and CAIR 09/3 was buried deep within piles of tedious bumf. The official tale will be that the 99/01 MOU had 'no relevance', and rightly so until you start to unwrap the history of the CASA take over of the ATSB heart, mind and soul. What was it Nixon said?; "When you have a man by the balls, his heart and mind will follow"; - something along those lines.

Here, for the curious a puzzle; is it administratively improper to 'use' a MOU which is 'coming', but has not yet arrived?; sure it's academic, but isn't the AAT is required to notice such things, perhaps as being a signpost toward the intent to be mischievous. Then, there is this:-
The CASA Manager Accident Liaison and Investigative group (MALIU) was tasked with CONDUCTING a parallel investigation for CASA purposes. An investigation was commenced the next day". etc.. my bold and caps.

As a Federal enforcement agency CASA must (in no uncertain terms) comply with the ‘Australian Government Investigative Standard 2003’. (AGIS 2003). The issuing of a Form 333 ‘Request for Investigation' or 'Recommendation for AIN’ must be completed, submitted and approved to officially refer an investigator to the case. Strict protocols and procedures are required to be completed. There was no Hansard evidence presented which justifies or proves that the Pel Air "Investigation" was initiated according to the terms and conditions prescribed within the CASA document Investigators Manual (AGIS 2003).

A CASA investigation team must comprise at least one Part IIIA delegated investigator. No public evidence was provided (in Hansard) to support Mr. White (MALIU) being qualified as a IIIA in order to 'conduct' the investigation, indeed, no nominated IIIA investigator or investigation running sheets or logs were publicly provided to the Senate. Perhaps they were given 'in camera', benefit of doubt and all that.

But it would be of some interest to define who was the delegated the Part IIIA investigator 'conducting' and to sight a copy of the form '333', justifying the cost benefit analysis, both authorising and approving the investigation; as well as appointing the IIIA investigator. It is believed that Mr White was appointed to a new position created as a consequence of the Miller review and the 2010 Memorandum Of Understanding. In this position, one could reasonably expect White would have been totally cognisant of both the 2004 and 2010 MOU and the TSI Act 2003. Is it therefore reasonable to assume that White would also have understood all CASA obligations in relation to an ATSB accident investigation under the then effective 2004 MOU and the obligations to ICAO under the ANA.

Item 2 next time, this tale is not as long as Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga, but it has nearly as many twists and turns, the ending ?, Ah well children we'll just have to wait and see.

Selah.

Kharon
20th Jan 2014, 04:09
ToR. • the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety;

Having established under, the 2010 MOU, the means for direct involvement in the Pel Air investigation, one must next consider the motivation for the extraordinary series of events which were to immediately (the next day) follow. The chronology of events is 'interesting' from both an audit and operational perspective, but the really interesting parts don't stand out until much later; up front it seems that CASA have now elected to conduct an audit, 'special audit and IIIA investigation (got busy didn't they).

From the 'special audit', starting Thursday 26/11/09 to being operational again Friday 18/12/09. (Arithmetical interlude 17 working days + 6 weekend; travel time not included) to being able to satisfy all the CASA audit findings is remarkable. Just a quick look at the issue dates on the RCA (as were) refines and trims the time line even further. Not wanting to bore everyone with 'detailed' analysis, consider this; how long does a 'special' audit take to do, how long does it take to compose and produce the 'report', raise the RCA and findings and get the whole shebang back to the manager and out to the operator – usually (ish)?.

Then consider the number of RCA (as were) issued that needed to be acquitted; the last issued 23-24 December 2009: CASA FOI issues 14 RCA and a number of AO. Now these and the previous RCA need to be acquitted by 28/01/2010.

18 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 1 items and were able to recommence domestic operations.

Then consider the operator actions, RCA to be addressed, reading, meeting, discussions, ops manual amendments, publish and present to CASA. Then to have the operational parts 'accepted' and the Check/Train parts 'approved' and returned to the operator for distribution and acknowledged receipt. Remember some CAR 217 'bits' required evidence to prove that 'everyone' was up to speed.

24 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 2 items and were able to recommence international operations.

8 January 2010: CASA issue 7 more RCA and several more AO, some of which the manager (acting) as the Audit Coordinator signed off; on behalf of several SAR team members.

Pretty damn slick, no wonder CASA hired the PA chief pilot. It all points an inquiring mind in one direction, a two tier approach. Lots of glad handing and 'attaboys' up front, but a 'rock solid' pilot error case being built up for an AAT hearing; just in case. What a shame the files seemed to have 'co-mingled' (as they do when unattended). Don't forget the 'Chambers report' was in the works at about the same time: some say it was aimed at denigrating the 'opposition' within the Bankstown putsch; McComic swears blind it was commissioned for the betterment of aviation; cynics say it was used to con DoIT into parting with more money. Buggered if I know – you pick one, or invent your own (everyone else has).

While all this was going dear Greg (aka Robin) Hood was digesting the mountains of information being provided by the manager (acting) and his off sider (MAILU); Greg had the juice to sign the paper work you see, but of course he expected 'just the facts ma'am' on which to base his weighty decisions, CAIR 09/3 included. Must have been a shock when the R/T transcript and CAIR 09/3 revelation of indiscretions were closely followed by a letter from DJ's lawyers, along with a brisk, stiff little 'note' (redacted) following on their heels from he-who-do-voodoo, all went off with a quiet, just audible bang.

The Notice has been issued prior to a draft report into the ditching of Pei-Air flight VH-NGA off Norfolk Island being finalised by CASA. In these circumstances, the Notice is not appropriate. lt represents a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice that findings have been made regarding my client without him being given right of reply or without a report or even a draft report being finalised.

Here endeth the Monday lesson. Well Vicar, what's it to be, meat and three veg or wet salad sandwiches ?; the troops are hungry.

Selah.

Cactusjack
20th Jan 2014, 11:54
From the 'special audit', starting Thursday 26/11/09 to being operational again Friday 18/12/09. (Arithmetical interlude 17 working days + 6 weekend; travel time not included) to being able to satisfy all the CASA audit findings is remarkable. Just a quick look at the issue dates on the RCA (as were) refines and trims the time line even further. Not wanting to bore everyone with 'detailed' analysis, consider this; how long does a 'special' audit take to do, how long does it take to compose and produce the 'report', raise the RCA and findings and get the whole shebang back to the manager and out to the operator – usually (ish)?.
Kharon, back then, at the conclusion of the audit the Inspectors go their separate ways and write their individual analysis per their field of expertise or discipline. This information is fed back to the Lead Auditor of the group. Often he has to wait for the data because the other inspectors have other tasks to do, sometimes annual leave, trips to Montreal etc, before giving the Lead Auditor the information. He then collates the information and drafts a full report and executive summary as well as a breakdown of the NCN's and Observations individually. Then it goes to the Field Office Manager for sign-off/approval before being sent to the airlines key person. However, if there is some kind of spotlight or attention on the audit there may be a requirement for the Field Office Manager to pass the audit report on to the GM Operations (in Pel Air's case Hoody was in that role at the time) for further scrutiny before the operator receives the report. Occasionally Team Mrdak, even the Minister will be advised in advance, just incase some bad publicity is likely (of course it is all about self preservation and protecting their pathetic sorry asses).

Deep breath. So, how long does it take, as per Kharons question for the report to be finalised? Well how long is a piece of wet lettuce?? The average timeframe used to be around 6 weeks, perhaps a week sooner, sometimes 2 to 3 months, depends. Now there are risk review groups and the lame Sky Sentinel that are meant to cut the down the time it takes.

But one thing is certain, the Pel Air 'timeline' is odd, very odd indeed, and it is, in my opinion very short. Obviously such an in-depth query would be best not being answered by a mere armchair critic and spectator such as myself, but by a commission of inquiry by say someone like some independent senators. Or perhaps a Xenophon/Fawcett style duo, but not likely as they lack the necessary muscle. They are astute enough, even ballsy, it's just that their balls are held tightly by the governments robust hands.
Things really just don't add up do they? Anyhoo, perhaps if we can carve through the Pel Air crock of shit we can revisit the travesty called Transair/Lockhart before opening the next big can of worms - Canley Vale?

Leadie, interesting. I wasn't aware that Sergeant Shultz was possibly no longer employed with the CAA. Perhaps he will come back to Australia and take up the DAS role once the Angry Man has been sacrificed by the WLR? :E


TICK TOCK

Prince Niccolo M
20th Jan 2014, 12:04
Kharon,

We couldn't wait to see the ex-Minister for Transport front the Senate and explain from his perspective as the Chairman and a very well remunerated aviation consultant how Pel-Air got to be the way that it was and indeed how they proved to be so agile as to rehabilitate themselves in what clearly was unusual haste - but they were nowhere to be seen. :suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

Now, as I understand it, the leader of the Forsythe saga has made it clear that the terms of reference do not extend to revisiting the Pel-Air Inquiry and that the usual subjects who raise similar issues will be dispensed with as tendentious and vexatious whingers.

So what are the chances that the script already writ will be that Australian aviation regulation is not unreasonably different from the reference nations and we can all relax for the life of the 44th Parliament? :{ :{ :{

halfmanhalfbiscuit
20th Jan 2014, 14:07
Looking at the various versions of the report in trim might be fun. Sounds very efficient how quickly the report and ncn's processed.

Leadie, interesting. I wasn't aware that Sergeant Shultz was possibly no longer employed with the CAA. Perhaps he will come back to Australia and take up the DAS role once the Angry Man has been sacrificed by the WLR?

Somehow I think he'll have a few years more to wait yet. Hoody could then be ready?

The one question that needs answering is how come casa is taking so long. Easa has created one set of rules across Europe.

Kharon
20th Jan 2014, 20:39
Caution – long post. So, having quite happily given the Pel Air operation a gold star, a donkey on which to pin the tail became a requirement; as the pilot error scenario was writ and it very handily provided the least line of resistance the process was, with indecent haste, put in train. Dom James was a sitting duck, the whole thing was managed with extraordinary ease. I expect DJ had guilt, shame, shock, horror, disappointment, a certain amount of denial must have been mingled amongst the sheets of self doubt. This, combined with being isolated would (IMO) not be conducive to adequately boiling a kettle, let alone take on the might of CASA, on a mission – however; he stuck in and tried.

Having copped the humiliating suspension, (furry muff most would say); he soldiered on and passed the required exams. We all know how tough the ATPL exams are, particularly flight planning, but pass he did. A reasonable man would accept this as proof that an adequate knowledge was demonstrated – because if not, then every man jack here with an ATPL is operating on a false premise. The DJ exam results were examined and it was decided that a pass was not enough, having the requisite hours was not enough, in fact nothing else would do but:

Assessment of the ATPL KDRs conducted through an oral examination subsequent and separate to the flight test component. This assessment would include a complex scenario to assess the items from the Flight Planning Examination (Determine Sector Fuel Burn, Determine TOPD, Determine PNR/DP). This assessment would use the aircraft type from the ATPL Flight Planning exam (B727). The difficulty with this is finding an FOI with suitable 727 experience and recent knowledge of the performance aspects of the aircraft.

A suitable and preferable alternative is to base the assessment on the Westwind. Len Veger is very familiar with the
performance aspects of this aircraft as a result of his input to the investigation and AAT process. James is also suitably
familiar with the type.

The above is winnowed from the 200 odd pages I have ploughed through related to what was done, why and how to DJ. DJ is not an isolated case and it is important to us all that the flaws, (or loopholes if you like) that allow double and even triple jeopardy to become a weapon in the hands of ambitious, self aggrandising folk with no conscience whatsoever, is stopped; right here, right now.

It is interesting to note that the (acting) manager of this squalid affair selected three of the least qualified FOI to dream up the DJ re qualification scheme. None have ever flown 'serious' line operations, certainly not 'on international', in jet aircraft under multi crew operating rules. There are qualified, good men who could, conceivably, have dreamed up a scheme, but they were more likely to say - "well, he's passed ATPL, he's passed MECIR, give him a proficiency check under his CAR 217 system; if he passes that, what else is there we can or need to do. He's legal, turn him loose with a note to the HOTAC requesting a report on every check or training flight he undertakes". A reasonable response may even add a caveat – "should the pilot not be employed under a CAR 217, the ATPL may be deemed 'frozen' until such time as a proficiency check under a CAR 217 system is satisfactorily completed".

But no, not DJ. As I read and study the information I have it becomes apparent that not only was James to be suspended, but on the insistence of one man and despite some pretty good legal advice from Messrs Aleck and Rule, supported by a fairly nifty 'dodge' from Hood preventing his signing of 'the' managers (acting) letter the point was to be pressed home with preposterous determination and totally decimate the career of what could be; potentially an asset to an operating company. I should add that Messrs Aleck, Anastasi and Rule where simply and probably honestly attempting to provide sound legal advice to a twisted operational matter; bit like a pilot trying to act as a Barrister in high court, or a Barrister trying to act as PIC of an international jet; when you think about it. Interesting, but is it really practical?.

Said it before, but I'll say it again; DJ is not the only one there, suffering for one mans notions of justice. But it gets worse, when you think of why was it done this way (apart from sheer ambition driven spite).

A study of Hansard seems to clearly indicate that at sometime during the CASA investigation it was decided to abandon the Section 20A line of possible enforcement action. If this is so, the abrupt change of tack should also be identified in the mandatory documentation, submitted by the 'investigation' team reporting to the (acting) branch manager. It would be of some interest to see who instigated this directional change and whether it was due to CASA realising that a Safety Recommendation was imminent.

It would be of considerable interest to evaluate the entire document trail related to this about face and where the aborted brief of evidence is. The audit team, investigating appear to have been initially tasked with examining the potential for prosecuting the Pilot under Section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act; a strict liability, criminal penalty offence.

Thus revealing possible adverse implications from the findings of the Special Audit Team and subsequent enforcement actions inflicted on the Pel-Air pilot. Consider that several of the issued RCA were directly relevant to the Company and pertinent to the Critical Safety Issue. CASA attachment to Mr White’s letter states:

“Section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act also makes it an offence to operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person (or the pilot)

This appears to indicate that initially CASA were considering a line of enforcement action under Section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act.

There is seriously a lot of information to work through, the email chains require further, careful rearrangement in chronological order to extricate the story, entire; but based on the work so far, I'd say Dom and couple of other slightly less savoury cases have the wood on the wabbit.

The point of course is can the WLR handle the investigations required to 'see' through the smoke and mirrors to the fatally flawed areas of legislation where the vermin hides? That's a fair question I'd say, given the evidence so far.

A question then, to determine if the Vicar can cut the mustard?? What's wrong with following statements.

I spoke to Dominic James• regarding lifting the suspension on his CPL and CIR and the. conditions that CASA has a mind to apply to his licences. The summary of the conversation as follows:
• I asked James when he intended to address the complex flight planning, scenario and he indicated that he would
address in the near future however has not yet prepared for it.
• I asked if he then wished CASA to reconsider lifting the suspension on the CPL and CIR to which he said he did
want it lifted: •
• I asked that he send an email to that effect and he advised he would only do that if he considered CASA were
serious about lifting the suspension.
• I advised that CASA will seriously contemplate lifting the suspension.
• I also advised that CASA had a mind to attach the following conditions to his licence
o Requirement that CIR renewals to be conducted by CASA or a person approved by CASA
o Requirement to report to CASA his employment arrangements and any change in his employer within 7
days of that change. • • '
o These requirements would be in place for a period of 2 years following lifting of suspension.
• James expressed concern that this would prevent him being employed. I advised that these conditions were
necessary to enable CASA to conduct on-going surveillance In order to be satisfied that he maintained the
appropriate standards following lifting of the suspension.
• I explained he could consent to the conditions or CASA could take show cause action to vary his licence to add
the conditions.
• He asked I email the details as discussed. I will draft an emall and obtain review from XXX prior to dispatch.

Well, with any semblance of humour well and truly rendered nugatory, I'll go and see to Gobbledock's beloved Pachyderm (elephant), that never, ever fails to cheers me up.

Selah.

Cactusjack
20th Jan 2014, 21:09
Careful Kharon, references to Gobbledocks often end with threads confined to the tidy bin :=
However, the mystique of the Pel Air fiasco has more twists and turns than an inflamed Inspectors colon. There is no doubt that when a 'reasonable' person (watch CAsA try to define the word 'reasonable') examines the entire episode including Dom's statements, the Senate Inquiry revelations, the accident report, and the dubious timelines and prior oversight of Pel Air, one see's that Professor Reason's causation methodology of there being more than one contributing factor becomes easier to see than a 300 foot taxpayer trough sitting an inch away from a CAsA executives nose!!
Dom did screw up a tad, no doubt about that. Dom's actions are one aspect of the accident. The other aspect as we know, is the actions/inactions/reactions of those wily CAsArites and how they instantly scampered and dwucked down their wabbit buwwowes quicker than somebody could shout 'OINK'! Why would a robust safety upholder who claims transparency and accountability in most of its written rhetoric ( you know, glossy brochures, media releases and senate statements) act in such a manner?

Bring on Canley Vale!!

TICK TOCK

Sarcs
20th Jan 2014, 21:13
Hmm..perhaps a wedge shot to come in under the “K” extraordinary drive that smacked the flagpole on the 3rd hole…:E

If the rumour about the AFP stalled TSI s24 investigation be true perhaps the IOS dot joiners could lend a helping hand to the miniscule & WLR panel deliberations on the PelAir debacle?? :rolleyes:

I see the “K” tale is progressing along quite nicely, although he is still light years in front of the pack :confused:; and IMO the best chapters are yet to come, so backing up a tad….

Part Two: “Please Sir just sign here!”
Q/ Was the ‘Hooded One’ hoodwinked….:sad:

Knowing what we (the IOS ‘we’ not the royal ‘we’) now know in light of the revelations from the PA inquiry let’s refer to the original DJ NOS under the heading Facts and Circumstances…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture1-1.png
Hmm…spot the next dot (“K” certainly has)??:oh:

ps perhaps the following will help with the dot spotting..:ugh:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture13.png

Then we had, for my mind, the intriguing apparent black letter ops of r265 that has led to DJ being the only ATPL pilot in the history of Oz aviation (so far and prior to Part 61 being enacted) having to do what is essentially an ATPL flight test prior to all the privileges of his ATPL being reinstated. And it all started with the following passage from the original NOS…

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/NewPicture4.png

Definitely more to follow on the PelAir timeline of embuggerance…and if I sprint for a bit I can just see the outline of a certain fluffy tail heading towards the Ferryman’s dock...:ok:

ps Can't wait for the car chase scene...:D

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IT6j4_JyqI

Creampuff
20th Jan 2014, 22:00
I have zero knowledge of what actually happened, but I note that if DJ had been pursued for a contravention of section 20A, there would have been a very inconvenient consequence for the people who had an interest in a nice neat bow being tied around a closed ‘Only The Pilot Was To Blame’ file.

The owner and the operator would have been automatically liable as well, as they permitted him to operate the aircraft: Section 29(3).

PS: The attachment to Mr White's letter is mistaken in this regard. Section 20A doesn't make anything an offence.

Up-into-the-air
20th Jan 2014, 22:06
The following about DJ bears some very serious thought, as it demonstrates [and I am aware of other instances where the same mechanism has been used] - "to intimidate..":

• I explained he could consent to the conditions or CASA could take show cause action to vary his licence to add the conditions.

Frank Arouet
20th Jan 2014, 22:20
Re :Section 29 (3).


Questions;


1) Who is the owner/operator?
2) Who is a Director of the company that is the owner/ operator?
3) Who is the Chairman of the owner/ operator company?
4) Do any of the answers to the above suggest any political connection?
5) If there is any political connection which which political party?
6) Are there multiple political party's in the time line?
7) If there are, what would be any political party's agenda towards the other?
8) If 'the buck stops' with the Minister why are two of different ilk feigning indifference and allowing Bureaucrats to airbrush the incident out of history in any CASA 'review'?

Sarcs
20th Jan 2014, 23:01
Addendum:

Creamy it would appear that the s20A implied breach was resolved at the AAT pre-hearing conference which led to the matter being pulled out of the AAT.

Besides the reference in the White missive (CAIR 09/3) the only other references were in the NOS:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1s20Areferences.png


And in a reply letter from Rule to DJ's lawyer in the lead up to the intended AAT hearing:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/2s20Areferences.png

Cheers

Sarcs

Creampuff
21st Jan 2014, 00:01
As I said, section 20A does not create any offence. Section 29(3) creates the offence, only one element of which is contravention of section 20A(1).

If they did pursue the 20A line seriously, the inconvenient implications of section 29(3) would have had to have dawned on them eventually.

4dogs
21st Jan 2014, 01:17
Creamie,

Notwithstanding some exposure to legal scrutiny, I would imagine that the Chairman and the directors would rely on the "not us, Your Honour" provisions of s97A(2)... :*

Given that it appears that CASA was totally aligned with the corporate interests of Pel-Air rather than the public interest, the James' legal team would be hard pressed to establish for the judge what the standard for "took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the conduct" means. :ugh: :mad:

Are you aware of the frequency of successful (or, perhaps more tellingly, unsuccessful) s97A defences to the "the owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft" catch-all in such cases?

Stay Alive,

Creampuff
21st Jan 2014, 01:52
Unless DJ stole the aircraft or was expressly forbidden by the aircraft owner and operator from conducting the flight that ended in the ditching, I don’t see how s97A(2) has any relevance to the circumstances. (3) The owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft commits an offence if he or she:

(a) operates the aircraft or permits the aircraft to be operated; and

(b) the operation of the aircraft results in a contravention of subsection 20A(1).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(4) Strict liability applies to paragraph (3)(b).Was DJ permitted by the owner and operator of the aircraft to fly it in fact? If the answer is yes, that’s a tick against them and DJ under 29(3)(a).

Did the operation of the aircraft result in a contravention of subsection 20A(1)? If the answer is, as alleged by CASA, a ‘yes’, that’s a tick against 29(3)(b).

Strict liability applies to 29(3)(b). That is, the owner and operator etc do not have to know or intend that the operation of the aircraft resulted in a contravention of 20A(1).

How does 97A(2) make any difference? We are not trying to attribute any of DJ’s actions to a corporate entity. We are not trying to say DJ permitted himself to operate the aircraft and that that permission constituted the permission of the owner and operator of the aircraft in terms of 29(3)(a). The owner and operator gave their own permission.

Can we at least agree that section 20A does not create an offence?

Cactusjack
21st Jan 2014, 10:18
Questions;

1) Who is the owner/operator?
2) Who is a Director of the company that is the owner/ operator?
3) Who is the Chairman of the owner/ operator company?
4) Do any of the answers to the above suggest any political connection?
5) If there is any political connection which which political party?
6) Are there multiple political party's in the time line?
7) If there are, what would be any political party's agenda towards the other?
8) If 'the buck stops' with the Minister why are two of different ilk feigning indifference and allowing Bureaucrats to airbrush the incident out of history in any CASA 'review'?
Interesting and pertinent line of questions Frank ol chap. I do believe your bloodhound nose may have smelt out a trail of sorts :ok:
Now whether you have sniffed out a pooh trail, the scent of a trough, the scent of a scared wabbit running and urinating out of fright, or simply smelt a couple of droplets of political blood I am not sure, but nonetheless you can be assured if this - what the Senators don't sniff out, or what the IOS don't sniff out is nothing compared to the whiff of a smoking hole, and if that is to happen then all the spin doctoring grubs responsible will become familiar with the smell of the Styx Paddle wheeler, it's smoking chimney, and the stale sweaty smell of the hard working Ferryman. TOOT TOOT. Next stop Sleepy Hollow.

Didn't the band 'The Screaming Skulls' sing this?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-nrGcxFBkd0


TICK TOCK

Creampuff
21st Jan 2014, 19:55
I should add that sections 20A and 29 have been the subject of a fair bit of legislative fiddling over the years.

The last amendment to 29 was in 2001 and resulted in the drafting atrocity that is the current 29(3). :yuk:

Kharon
21st Jan 2014, 20:24
Last of the long posts: One of the email chains provided to DJ under FOI gives many clues, although the CASA 'legal opinion' guts are redacted. I'd just started this post when I realised (Sarcs a.k.a. Jiminy Cricket) many would not have a blind clue what I was banging on about so: to explain. As this squalid little affair has the potential to impact on any pilot unfortunate enough to be involved in an 'incident' I (figuratively) got hold of TOM (P7) at PAIN, they contacted the 'owner' of their DJ file who authorised the release of some DJ filed documents, to use as best pleased me. Now then, as many of the 'emails' are confidential and have been released under FOI I'm not sure if it would be productive or even 'legal' to post a link to them. But I will (time and patience permitting) attempt summarise the entire passage of play shortly, then add them to the ever growing Bankstown Chronicles. So:-

The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability and. competence to hold an ATPL'' and that the test was to include "en route assessment for CP/PNR and .the decision to apply a diversion to an alternate, focusing on weather with a minimum fuel scenario." The amended Notice (26 February 2010) confirmed that there was no objection to the flight tests being conducted in a Westwind aircraft and that the test would be tailored to address the specific deficiencies identified following the accident flight. It Is evident from the two Notices that the in-flight assessment was to be conducted with a degree of rigour consistent with the type of operation of accident flight.

CASA has conceded that the flight assessments may be conducted In basic, training aircraft - a Cessna 182 for the CP(A)L flight test, and a Beech BE76 Duchess for the IR-C(ME)A flight test. While these aircraft will allow the CPL and CIR flight tests to be conducted against the prescribed assessment criteria, they are not sufficiently sophisticated or complex for CASA "to make an effective assessment of skills, ability and competence to hold an ATPL ". An attempt to include these assessments in the CPL or CIR fight tests could be a compromise that may limit the effectiveness of the ATPL assessment and could jeopardise the integrity of these flight tests

The paragraphs above were written by a 'management (acting) team member' FOI who, operationally speaking, could not find a cat, in a cathouse with a candle. But, nonetheless an acknowledged master of 'academic trivia'; a specialist in 'tricky' little questions. The trite wording seems at first glance innocuous enough, but think it through. Just for fun cherry pick some lines and examine them against normal, standard, promulgated industry safety regulations for qualifying and the accepted routine practices used to do so. Do not let the white noise distract you or the pure bollocks to baffle your brain. Remember DJ has re sat and passed the ATPL twice now.....

The DJ suspension was indeed kosher, most would agree righteous. OK, so after CPL test etc. could his instrument flying be legitimately re challenged – I'd say a MECIR pass, four approaches and a ditching at night, in weather, knackered, with an impending fuel crisis would test the instrument flying skills of all. The CVR would be nice, to find out if the FO was worried about this aspect; alas. So, could his flying skills be reasonably challenged then, here again, on balance you have to say no; history of failure – No; any complaints of poor flying from Fo – No; managed a night ditching which all survived – Yes. Even the toughest, most pedantic judges would say 'flight skills' adequate. So what's left – flight planning – definitely shy of the mark. So re train, re test (ATPLx2 a bit OTT, however) and make sure the company ops manual carries enough information and guidance (in Braille if needs must) so even the worst offender has enough rope to be hanged with. (AOC management 101).

But the real travesty here is that the original, double jeopardy aberration has firmly taken root and the rest is just manure, to ensure growth; one has to ask why the venom. A half way decent lawyer could knock out the foundations of this evil just on the CAO alone. A decent chief pilot would clean up this mess in about five minutes – tell them it's bollocks and piss off.

"The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments" .etc.
Why. Against what?, measured how ?: MECIR nope; passed that. CPL fight test; nope passed that: CAO 40.1.5 possibly, but legal impediments loom and it's no fun when the base line is clearly stated in the orders. Better we invent one?.

"in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA". etc. who is to know what's going on? Veger; the lone Westwind' expert has a massive 4000 hours on type, but made a fearful hash (benefit of doubt) of the fuel planning figures (see Davis) but been no where near the bloody aircraft since circa 1996 or something. Was an independent observer requested and would it be allowed??

to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability' and. competence to hold an ATPL'
This homemade nonsense was drafted against and to reinforce the first suspension notice. It sounds great to a layman or lawyer but what, in operational terms, does it all mean ?. He had passed the CPL/MECIR. Even if they could make double jeopardy stick, there's nary a word about a LOFT session in a sim – , not even a whisper of base check under CAR 217, not even the smallest hint that ATPL does not require a flight test. But "no industry ATO" says the DAS, just to rub the salt in; testing only by a person specifically approved by CASA. Chop ride for DJ right there?, bit like the 'expert' witnesses they drag into the AAT and they wouldn't lie, now would they?.

I did ask TOM if PAIN were doing a report on the DJ embuggerance. After a beat, "not just DJ, there are others"; TOM reckons the final report would rock 'em - if they could ever define 'them' and get the report into the hands of someone who can and will actually do something useful with it.

The above represents (IMO) some of what the WLR is not tackling as it could be construed as (a) it's Pel Air and (b) it mentions CASA; but in the final analysis, it comes back to loose regulation written with good intentions, becoming 'bad' law when it is being manipulated. Clearly defined outcome based regulation would plug most of the holes, making it difficult for the small minority who, without a seconds thought will happily perjure or impeach as pleases; breach constitutional and human rights tenets on a whim, then boast and swagger about the damage inflicted on another human being; able to hound their victims through the industry with complete impunity. Some men, just want to watch the world burn.

Selah.

thorn bird
21st Jan 2014, 23:54
[Quote] "The original Notice of Suspension (24 December 2009) required in-flight assessments in an aircraft "sophisticated enough to permit CASA to make an effective assessment of ... skills, ability and. competence to hold an ATPL''

I'm really surprised Woger didn't insist the assessment be conducted in the space shuttle!!
Maybe Woger surmised if he made the requirements too onerous, DJ would simply give up and go away, thus the whole sorry mess could be kept out of the spotlight, the heirachy could get back to focusing on the trough or planning an interesting diversion for the next trip to Montreal.
Damn pesky GA pilots!! especially this one who just wouldn't lay down and crawl away.
Maybe Wodger developed a hatred of pilots during his days as a RAAF baggage handler? Who knows but it seems he revels in destroying lives and livelihoods.

Sarcs
22nd Jan 2014, 00:33
A reprieve on the fourth: “K”, ignoring the meandering dogleg where the rest of us mere mortals had all decided to lay up, again smashed the fanny out of his ball and drove it straight at the flag.

However (somewhat ironically) his ball again smacked the flagpole but this time ricocheted on a 45 and ended up on the fifth tee. In true Ferryman style, “K” has been forced to use his Texas wedge to backtrack to the 4th..IOS sigh of relief..:rolleyes:

The embuggerance of DJ under r265 is still firmly on the fairway and in the field of play, perhaps this provides the WLR panel the perfect reference point to assess the effectiveness of the Fort Fumble (DAS sanctioned) black ops enforcement action: Post #234 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-12.html#post8259475)quote - “Most of the regulatory decisions CASA makes are such that conformity with authoritative policy and established procedures will be conducive to the achievement of these outcomes. From time to time, however, decision-makers will encounter situations in which the strict application of policy, in the making of a decision involving the exercise of discretion, would not be appropriate. Indeed, in some cases, the inflexible application of policy may itself be unlawful.”Many on here were critical of DJ’s actions pre..post..ditching and especially in the Senate Inquiry, where most critics thought he was just trying to abrogate his responsibilities as the PIC. The following is his statement from the 22nd October public hearing: Mr James : I was the captain of the jet that ditched of Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009 without the loss of life. As the pilot in command, I wish to make it clear that on that night I was not operating by myself in a vacuum. I was licenced by CASA, trained by structures that CASA created and worked for a company using procedures CASA had approved, and yet CASA found I was the problem.

My employer, Pel-Air, found me skilled enough to make me a captain and never had cause to discipline me at any time. After the accident, they did not find that I had violated any of the company procedures and they too found that I was the problem. The truth of the matter is that I was a convenient solution to the problem both organisations faced—that is, that they had failed to do their jobs properly.

Then there is the ATSB report—a report which blames me solely for the accident and apologises for everyone else involved. It fails to detail the deficiencies that existed at Pel-Air and CASA at the time of the accident but discussed in detail the improvements Pel-Air has made and CASA intends to make.

The ATSB then addresses what they believe were my deficiencies on the night but then never discusses the steps I have taken since the accident to demonstrate my competence as a pilot. Why am I judged to a different standard? Where is the ATSB's own no-blame policy in this approach? If both Pel-Air and CASA have made improvements as the report admits, then logically something was inadequate to begin with that required these improvements, so therefore why doesn't the report discuss any of these deficiencies?

Before the accident had even occurred, many of the elements that created the accident were already known. To the misfortune of all those on board, although these elements were known, nothing was done to prevent their influence or remove them altogether. Norfolk Island was known to the ATSB as a problem destination for unforecasted weather, and recommendations were put forward to improve the situation but nothing was done about it.

Pel-Air was known to CASA for particular deficiencies in its operation, but that too was not acted upon. Then, after the accident, there was more inaction, this time in the form of the ATSB not disclosing in the accident report the findings of the Pel-Air special audit, amongst other things.

Why have the problems that created this accident been ignored and overlooked? Don't the two government agencies responsible for aviation safety—the ATSB and CASA—want to preserve the safety of the travelling public? As things stand today, nothing has been improved since the accident and most of the issues that caused the accident still exist unchanged. The ATSB report needs to be withdrawn, as it is full of pointless accounts of nothing worthwhile and it serves my industry and those who travel by air no benefit whatsoever. With so much to learn from what happened and the strong desire of those involved to share their experiences, there is a far better result available if the ATSB accepts its shortcomings and rewrites this report.

Finally, I wish to say that considering all the criticisms in the report as to the quality of the job I did on the night of the accident, and given the limited time and resources I had available to me, it strikes me as astoundingly hypocritical of the ATSB to have made these criticisms when the ATSB has failed to do its job after nearly three years and with almost unlimited resources.

My thanks to the committee for allowing me the chance to speak today and share a little of my story from the last three years. I hope that what I have to say helps the committee in its role of understanding better what has happened since November 2009. Following my public discussion with the committee, I wish to go in camera to discuss some other issues related to the accident.
{Note: IMO that statement still stands the test of time and almost perfectly summarises the case as we know it}

Again knowing what we now know, would those same critics be so dismissive of DJ’s statement??:= The worst part is that his original statement is yet to be adequately refuted or addressed by the “powers to be” and he is still living with the implications of an executively sanctioned black letter ops enforcement action and an apparent embuggerance of the original intent of the NOS & r265…:yuk::yuk:

Quote from CAsA official (at the time): “…DAS is obviously interested in this issue”…???

Frank Arouet
22nd Jan 2014, 04:24
I say this because I have first hand knowledge of how my own eyes gloss over and people 'loose me' when they talk of the innards of ADSB and other electrical gadgetry. It is beyond me why a pilot for another example needs to know how the constant speed propeller is made, assembled, tested and 'doctored' to its final specifications. As in PNG, the throttle is simple a gadget that 'pushemhegopullemhestop'. (not sure if I got that right but you get my drift). When you go into too much detail our 'fuzzywuzzie' mates just look for the next cargo cult party.


When saying I believe Truss is not fit for the job, I don't mean to be as offensive as it sounds, but simply he does not have the technical knowledge to get his head around some of the problems, so... he hands it over to his 'advisor' who is supposed to be knowledgeable in these things.


This is the 'Nigerian' in the woodpile I believe, and needs to prove to us all his knowledge of the 'problems' and he should expose and be transparent enough to show us his pedigree.


Truss obviously, is led by him.


But I was wrong once before.

Cactusjack
22nd Jan 2014, 10:26
When saying I believe Truss is not fit for the job, I don't mean to be as offensive as it sounds, but simply he does not have the technical knowledge to get his head around some of the problems, so... he hands it over to his 'advisor' who is supposed to be knowledgeable in these things.

Frank, you're a lot more diplomatic about Truss than I could ever be.
At the end of the day he doesn't care, never has never will. Politics is smoke and mirrors, an act, a show, and the real focus of Pollies is on self preservation, self wealth, self rorts, self retirement with millions in the nest egg and a fat consulting role to go to, and of course self ego. I see no difference between the current Liberal government and the former Labor government, and Liberals again before that. It's the nature of the beast, and this tautological merry-go-round will keep on spinning. Just look at the current policy on the asylum boats and the politically enforced media blockage, the governments refusal to give details, refusal to discuss any minor details and the arrogant thumbing of its nose against us tax paying citizens and now ask yourselves honestly 'will this government conduct a clear, transparent non biased open review on Australian aviations government safety structure, effectiveness, accountability and compliance'? Hmmm, there layeth thy answer.

I think we all know what the eventual catalyst for change will be, don't we?

TICK TOCK

Dangly Bits
22nd Jan 2014, 13:25
Who is Mr Truss's Aviation Advisor?

Kharon
22nd Jan 2014, 19:06
I must apologise to Len Veger and Ppruners – no excuses; I made a typographical error copying from my working notes and misquoted the Veger the 'time on type'. The paragraph below provides an accurate account of Veger's qualifications.

I have amended the offending paragraph to reflect accurate figures.

Mea Culpa.

I am endorsed to fly a wide variety of single and multi-engine aircraft including the Westwind 1124A.l have a total of 20,000 hours of aeronautical experience, approximately 4,000 hours of which was obtained in flying operations on the Westwind W1124 series I and 2. This included operations as a check pilot and pilot trainer, responsible for training of pilots on the Wll24, and flight crew competency assessment of qualified pilots as required under the terms of r. 217 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR).

Sarcs
22nd Jan 2014, 22:28
:rolleyes: Oops K at post #299 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-15.html#post8278385)…..“Errare humanum est, ignoscere divinum.”

“K” in the water off the fifth: In true Ferryman fashion “K” decided to ignore the water on the 5th and drive straight for the flag. It was a low trajectory shot that strangely resembled the Westwind skipping across the ocean at Norfolk, unfortunately the “K” ball fell a 100m short.:ugh:

As luck would have it the “K” ball was equipped with a GPS tracking device and a curious spectator took some video footage { Note: Unfortunately the vid footage appears to have been already shopped and spliced into a scene from ‘Happy Gilmore’. Ps.Although the IOS panel believe the footage at 1:18 is close to the true record of what happened}.

[YOUTUBE]The Price Is Wrong, Bitch - Happy Gilmore (8/9) Movie CLIP (1996) HD - YouTube

So while we wait for the next satellite pass and our resident IOS video expert to unravel the shopped vid, while also redacting certain expletives, we will take a short interlude...

Perhaps now would be a good time to see what other members of the IOS are up to in regards to the miniscule’s WLR. Hmm…it would appear that Ken & the AMROBA crew :D haven’t given up the ghost on the TASRR, coupla quotes from the latest newsletter Volume 11 Issue 1 (0114) (http://amroba.org.au/files/9213/9013/2989/Vol_11_Issue_1.pdf):This will be one of the biggest years for the aviation industry in Australia. A new government has rightfully implemented a review of the current situation and, like the education system that has seen Australia slide down the international scale, aviation has had so much red tape added that there is a decline in new pilots being attracted to the industry.

&

The Minister’s aviation review is the best and probably the only chance to turn this fundamental problem around so aviation can safely survive and grow.

There was once a ‘question’ used when drafting requirements, i.e. “what would be added to safety of any proposed new regulatory provision?”

The Minister’s review must recognise that the current legislative system is so out of sync that our aviation system is suffering.
And with this motto.. “Motto: Safety All Around”..I think I can see where the AMROBA submission is heading….:ok:

Ah well we will soon be cutting back to the 5th and further IOS discussions on FF embuggerance of the DJ, plus a flashback moment to..“who is responsible??”
:E

Frank Arouet
22nd Jan 2014, 23:18
Dangly Bits. I'm recently, (last 12 hours), told that he doesn't have one. Given his demonstrated lack of knowledge and readiness to accept anything is drastically wrong with the system sans a bit of a 'tune up' this is a reasonable assumption.


Mr dak and Mr forthwyth were mentioned as appearing to hold his attention. Perhaps they are the 'Nigerians in the woodpile'? God help us all if they are.

Cactusjack
23rd Jan 2014, 05:11
It's part of the new Liberal government approach - You can save money by not hiring advisors, technically minded people, or even ass lickers. All you do is implement a policy of 'we cannot tell you anything, shhhhhh'.
So forgot the inquiry, forget the current risks and forget everything you IOS!! Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The Screaming Skulls and Truss's Hermits unite;
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sT4oLQTj7Eg

Prince Niccolo M
23rd Jan 2014, 14:01
Mr Truss' aviation adviser is Ms Peta Credlin, assisted by John McCormick. There is no identifiable need for additional advice :E :yuk: :yuk:

Sunfish
23rd Jan 2014, 15:18
Cabinet has correctly calculated that nobody in Australia apart from pilots gives a **** about aviation.


.......at least until the smoking holes start appearing regularly.

Cactusjack
23rd Jan 2014, 19:33
Truss' aviation adviser
Mr Truss' aviation adviser is Ms Peta Credlin, assisted by John McCormick. There is no identifiable need for additional advice
Well there you have it really. An 'aviation' advisory team consisting of a young career bureaucrat racing industry PR spin doctor and a silly old pilot with alleged anger management issues. Both advising a well experienced turd polisher and gravy train connoisseur about aviation matters! In turn he of bucked tooth nature and turd polishing advises a Prime Minuscule who has adopted a policy of not being open and transparent on matters affecting our nation but instead telling the nation 'shhhhhhh we won't talk about things'.

My oh my, doesn't that install robust confidence in aviation oversight!

TICK TOCK

Kharon
23rd Jan 2014, 21:30
Rather than incur the wrath of Tidy Bin by drifting ever closer to the ragged edge of the 'stay on topic', no poems, no chanties and definitely no laughs lecture; thought I'd shuffle further discussion of the Pel Air story across to the Senate thread. It really belongs there and anyway; the WLR is not expected to sort out CWA knitting pattern arguments, let alone this mess. The treatment of pilots in the secret world of the aftermath needs to be brought, clearly and succinctly to the miniscules attention. Not that we'd expect anything done of course; but when the Wet Lettuce Review is over and if we get another wretched thing like the 'Albo white elephant paper' delivered; there will lots and lots for the Senate to play with. Rumour has it that Forsyth and Fawcett chat, which means Xenophon in the loop, so no need to abandon all hope just yet.

The WLB (both of them) come from foreign climes, from a different mind set, from a different rule set and an entirely un-Australian attitude toward the 'pilot-in-command'. I doubt they would credit what was done and still happening to DJ after he'd passed through a normal rehabilitation program. But then I just can't see either Canadian or European pilots being treated in this manner or putting up with it. No matter, there are other dark, but not so dangerous corners into which the WLB may shine their guiding light. The advisors will undoubtedly show the way.

Jinglie
24th Jan 2014, 03:23
K, if LV is so experienced, why did he screw the flight planning figures (see Davies submission) I wonder?? Perhaps Wodger should require him to re-sit all his ATPL theory and conduct a flight test by and industry nominated ATO!
What goes around....!:ugh:

aroa
24th Jan 2014, 07:13
WE / the IOS / GA industry can now all sleep well at night knowing that Ms Peta Credlin, the unknown ...is to be "assisted" by the unmentionable.:eek: FCS!

One seriously aviation knowlegable "safety adviser" she must be to need that kind of back up. Independent???...yeah, right!

Good one, "Minister"...this is CAsA CYA 101 PhD quality blanket move.:mad:

Looking forward to the White (dunny) Paper to tell us what a wonderful aviation environment we "live" in. :mad::mad:

You cant be an eagle if you're trussed like a turkey:{

Paragraph377
24th Jan 2014, 11:08
Sarcs, post #1692 on the senate inquiry thread, well done sir :D:D
It also applies to this thread, nice bit of work. Amazing how the same names pop up consistently whenever there is CASA shenanigans going on? Sarcs, are you using that robust program Sky Sentinel to put your data together?
There are so many clues in many of Fort Fumbles writing styles. It isn't too difficult to tell when you have been targeted by the GWM, or when Flyingfiend has been doing his thing, or when you are being wogered by Woger or when you are under the spell off a Voodooist.
The treatment of Dominic James is palpable. The method in which there was an attempt to slow bake him, the audacity of the Regulator in its modus operandi is deplorable and absolutely questionable, and the freeness, ease and dexterity of the Regulators disregard for ethics and systematic abuse and 'embuggerance' of the system is breathtaking at times.
The CASA house of cards has collapsed, the Frankenstein (as Creampuff correctly puts it) has morphed into something similar to "The Thing". It is a rabid dog that needs to be put down immediately. I have seen this all before in another country, and the end game isn't pretty. Hard decisions with dramatic results need to be made forthwith before the inevitable occurs.

Finally, can anybody confirm that Crudlin is in fact Mr Truss's aviation adviser per se? I know she is chief of staff for the big eared speedo wearers inner sanctum of oinkers, which includes Truss. I thought MrDak was Truss's information and technical adviser on all things aviation, with Crudlin being more the policy and spin writer? Perhaps not, I have lost track and the trail of political shit leads from one corner of Canberra to another.

On a final note, the current malaise and spotlight rests with the Regulator, and rightly so, but don't forget that the ATSB and ASA still aren't out of the woods. ASA has a lot to answer for, particularly from the Russell era with which many effects are still being felt today. And there is the ridiculous way that the ATSB has virtually prostituted itself to CASA, not to mention its complete loss of direction, standards, capability, reputation, and independence. Once again a feeble, inept attempt at creating perfection has resulted in an ATSB Frankenstein of monumental proportions.

Forget tick Tock, VOTE 1 IOS

Sarcs
25th Jan 2014, 01:51
Well less than a week out from WLR submission due date, perhaps now would be a good time for an IOS review of industry planned involvement, possible content of individual/organisational submissions & whether or not submitters are basically singing from the same hymn sheet...:confused:

At the same time maybe we can inspire the fence sitters to take the plunge and grab the keyboard, even if it is a regurgitation of a submission they may feel akin to, with a proviso of… “I agree wholeheartedly and unconditionally with what this mob are suggesting”….
:D

However before we kick off we need to mention the now familiar elephant in the room..:=


http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/Elephantintheroom_zpsd5f557692_zps7190d3cd.jpg



And much like Albo before him, the miniscule fails to address the EITR in his WLR ToRs...:ugh:


A true bona fide IOS member Maxtreight.. (however) ‘nails ’ the EITR in a comment tacked on the end of an Australian Flying article…Safety Review Open for Submissions (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/safety-review-open-for-submissions)

…“CASA needs to be completely removed from the General Aviation (GA) picture. It has shown total ineptitude with its involvement with GA, most recently with the aborted implementation of the brilliant new Part 61 licensing regulations. The structure of CASA may well be suited to the oversight of RPT operations, but as far as its involvement with GA is concerned CASA has been too far removed for far too long. CASA take a persecutorial approach to even the most minor of regulatory infractions by GA pilots and those who are on the CASA blacklist best just give up the game early or face the litigation-fest that is the CASA legal department….”

Refer to the link above for more of Max’s insightful comment…:D


{Note: Maxtreight your outstanding IOS membership fees for ’14 have been waived in lieu of this contribution}


Ok on to the IOS review…


Many of the various alphabet soup aviation organisations have expressed an interest in getting involved in the WLR, how many of those will actually make submissions is anyone’s guess..?? However a troll of g.o.o.g.l.e and organisational websites seem to suggest that there will be a healthy contribution from a large number of industry stakeholders:

FedSec Steve’s crew ALAEA - Aviation Safety Regulation Review — Submissions from members (http://www.alaea.asn.au/index.php/news/news/545-aviation-safety-regulation-review-submissions-from-members)

“..Now Open ALAEA members are invited to provide to the ALAEA any views, experiences or evidence that the ALAEA may use in preparing a submission to the Federal Govt on Aviation Safety. Our submission has to be completed and submitted to the Minister Dept by 31st January 2014. See media release below…”

The AAA (airport’s mob) - “ The AAA looks forward to contributing to the review process on behalf of Australia’s airport operators. (http://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AAA_Media-Release_Aviation_Safety_Review_14-Nov-2013.pdf)”

The SAAA – President’s Chat newsletter December 2013 (http://www.saaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Presidents%20Chat/Presidents%20Chat%20December%202013%20Rev%201%201.pdf)

“..We have a relatively short space of time to put together a written submission to the panel, I would therefore ask you to have a read of the terms of reference and then put your thoughts into an e-mail and either submit it yourself directly to the Panel, or preferentially to [email protected] so that we can present a united voice to the Panel & therefore the Minister…”

AMROBA - As quoted in my earlier post # 300 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-15.html#post8278760), AMROBA well and truly indicate where their submission is going in their latest Newsletter (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol_11_Issue_1.pdf)


“… Adoption of the Kiwi aviation Act & Regulations in toto would put us in a better position to obtain these important agreements…”

{Comment: The interesting thing with AMROBA & AAA is that both organisations are also part of… ‘THE AUSTRALIAN AVIATION ASSOCIATIONS’ FORUM’…so presumably their personal submissions will strongly reflect the TAAAF Aviation Policy (http://www.aafi.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TAAAF-Policy.pdf). Hmm…wonder if the TAAAF will also be making a combined submission??}

While on the TAAAF and the letter ‘A’, it is interesting that AOPAA chose not to sign up to this ‘alliance’ for the reasons stated in this Australian Flying article: AOPA Responds to TAAAF Issue (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aopa-responds-to-taaaf-issue)

So to AOPAA…this is one submitter that has made a draft submission publicly available and therefore open to IOS scrutiny… - Submission to regulator review panel, from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, (AOPA). (http://www.aopa.com.au/assets/424/AOPA_regulatory_review_submission_V2.pdf){Hmm..is this a conflict of interest submission perhaps??}

Well there is a small cross-section example to mull over on the Australia Day long weekend…more to follow K2 (Sarcs)…:ok:

Frank Arouet
25th Jan 2014, 02:44
Well, the AOPAA individual submission goes to a 'page not found' page and the president appears to have memory loss WRT membership numbers and exactly who he represents today, (not 60 years ago). This organizational miasma purporting to represent me also have a senior member as an 'expert' advisor to the 'review' do they not? I doubt Truss knows what a TAAF is, let alone SBAS/GBAS/WAAS or wassamattermate?

Sarcs
26th Jan 2014, 00:23
Frank:Well, the AOPAA individual submission goes to a 'page not found' page and the president appears to have memory loss WRT membership numbers and exactly who he represents today, (not 60 years ago).It would appear the AOPAA link is now defunct….:{

Perhaps it was…

…the COI query that did it..??:rolleyes:

…an extreme overload of the url link due to the many thousands of IOS members interest in what ‘the voice of GA’ had to say??

…sudden realisations that maybe the proposed submission may breach the unwritten, politically correct MOU with FF??

…an IT glitch and it was never intended for the submission to be available for general (IOS) consumption??

Shame really..:{...it could have been a good promo for future membership.:rolleyes:

The draft submission may have only been five pages and somewhat diluted for impact (i.e. as per the UMOU), but the general premise of the submission was on the whole pretty good...:D

Dilemma: How are the IOS to do a proper, comprehensive & transparent..:rolleyes:..review, of committed industry stakeholders to the WLR, without documented evidence such as the AOPAA draft submission?? :confused:

Well it just so happens that I downloaded a hardcopy of the AOPAA draft submission, so maybe some cherry picked paragraphs (again unverified for veracity..;)) could be of interest to the IOS review panel…:E
{Note: Please bear in mind that this is ‘draft’ only and 3rd hand, therefore not to be relied on for veracity & true final AOPAA opinion i.e. hearsay only}

Skipping the standard couple of pages with the usual preamble, organisation priorities..etc..etc; and the problems that AOPAA believe face GA, now and into the future; we finally get to the ‘meat & veg’ section (pages 3-5): Specifically, the aspects of the regulator that we believe requires change are as follows.

1. Industry consultation. Although communication (and subsequent goodwill) between GA and CASA has improved in recent years, it is a fact that new regulations or changes in regulations are frequently presented to GA as an ultimatum.
A consultative approach is required with those contending with and introducing innovations and technical improvements in all aspects of aviation. This calls for legislative reform.
It is apparent that the CASA legal department, whilst efficient and capable in itself, has an influence which leads to preoccupation with legalistic arguments. Legalism is an arid process. Aviation is an industry of practical and constantly changing technology. Legalism should give way to practicality in the development of aviation.

2. CASA enforcement. The industry is rife with stories of individuals who have been “persecuted” by CASA. Sometimes these cases do sound like individual disagreement “payback” fights, and sometimes problems occur through an area FO making his own interpretation of rules in contrast to everyone else. Sometimes these arguments go on for years at high cost to all concerned. Justice should be seen to be done and the processes
altered to enable that to occur.

3. Aviation should be encouraged by CASA as part of its formal charter. Having its charter limited to ‘Aviation Safety’ encourages negativism, which is widely seen in practice. There is no settled standard for ‘air safety’. This leaves CASA with a poorly identified obligation, and
no obligation to act for the benefit of Australian aviation.

4. Australian LAME training standards are lower than those of NZ. Our training schools don’t align curriculums to industry requirements, and those curriculums vary from state to state.
We should support an Australasian / Pacific approach to maintenance. CASA will base future AMR licences on academic achievement, with insufficient emphasis on experience.

5. Inconsistent CASA policies: CASA must be required to act coherently across all of its officers and offices.

6. To the outside observer, sometimes CASA appears to consist of 4 organizations in one, and each part appears to believe it runs the organization in the style of the Satraps. Those 4 parts are upper management, middle management, the field officers, and the legal dept.
This may be an unfair criticism, but again to the outside observer, CASA often appears to fail to adhere to government directives, or to enforce its own regulations. Different interpretation of regulations by middle management, field officers, and by the legal dept can cause the hapless aviator considerable difficulties.
The 4 parts of CASA make consultation with industry very difficult. Many is the time that various GA organizations have thought to have come to an agreement with CASA, only to find that an agreement has been ignored or reversed by another of CASA’s “parts”. A formalized consultative procedure that overcomes this problem would be very desirable.

7. Constant regulatory changes breed confusion, mistrust and doubt. A safety case should be presented and debated prior to any alteration to the Act, Regulations and other dictums.
CASA’s regulatory changes frequently have no perceptible safety outcome, or certainly none relevant to GA.

8. Pilot licencing: This extensive topic will no doubt be dealt with by others. We limit our comment to suggest that proper accord should be given to foreign training qualifications.
We have seen highly qualified and experienced pilots required to sit for exams in Australia, even when their overseas training was from facilities recognized as the best in the world.
This can be inconvenient and costly for Australian pilots, and can make it impossible for overseas pilots who wish to fly and/or holiday in Australia.

9. Medicals. This is probably the single biggest continuous issue that causes acrimony between GA pilots and CASA. Problems with Avmed include delays in dealing with medical assessments, demanding specialist reports that many would consider unnecessary, and frequent rejection of those specialist reports Avmed has demanded. Demands have become ever more complex and expensive; opinions of DAMEs are often ignored, and opinions of appropriate specialists are often ignored. Avmed has unique medical opinions which sometimes do not agree with overseas experience eg; FAA. Communication between CASA, AVMED and pilots has often been poor. It can be argued that CASA should rely more on its own DAMEs for issue of class 2 medicals, and where specialist opinion is required, CASA should at least listen to specialist opinion.

10. Passenger Insurance: AOPA calls for an industry wide insurance scheme in the manner of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act (Cth) to be made applicable and exclusively so for all passengers in all Australian aircraft, whether paying passengers, students or otherwise.

11. EASA rules. The GA industry appears to be universally against this implementation. These rules are designed for and suit airline aircraft, not private GA. They are too complex for a typical small GA maintenance organization, and thus add more expense. Most GA aircraft are FAA type-certified. It is perverse and inappropriate to adopt European Rules.

Other Pacific nations, including NZ (which has a thriving GA scene), use FAA regulations. In fact we would do well to align ourselves with NZ, in regulation of individuals (not organizations), training and qualifications, and with inspection authorizations.
{Note: The above would appear to be part of an exec summary, as there were numerous references at the end of each numbered paragraph. Presumably there is intended to be a factual addendum that addresses the individual points more comprehensively}

And finally the money shot..:E (i.e. Conclusion):D. Conclusion.


Without a radical revision, it seems that GA will follow so many other
Australian industries into oblivion, taking jobs, opportunities, and skills with it. The prospective GA pilot faces problems with access to airfields, high costs, and a far from appealing ageing aircraft fleet. The aircraft owner faces a frequently hostile airport owner, shortage of licenced maintenance engineers, rising maintenance costs, increased paperwork, and such uncertainty with both CASA and airport owners that it
is difficult to obtain finance to purchase new aircraft.
Addressing the problems with CASA would go a long way towards easing this situation, as has been demonstrated by NZ’s adoption of the FAA GA model about 17 years ago. It is fact that since then, NZ’s GA has outstripped Australia’s.
We have heard it said that where it takes a wheelbarrow to carry a copy of all regs pertaining to GA, New Zealand’s can be carried in one hand. This may be an exaggeration, but it is not an exaggeration to say that adoption of the NZ regulatory system for GA would improve the prospects of GA’s survival.
Hmm…so that'd be another tick for adopting the NZ regs..:D..Ok over to you IOS review panel….:ok:

Up-into-the-air
26th Jan 2014, 01:12
Browsing today takes me to the Truss words in Hansard when he announced the "Review":

Mr TRUSS (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FGT4%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (10:54): by leave—Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety—our safety performance is among the best in the world—and it is built on a strong regulatory system and the commitment to safety that is shared amongst the thousands of companies and the tens of thousands of individuals who make up our aviation industry. Aviation is an essential part of our economy—it links our regions to our cities, our cities to the world. The industry employs tens of thousands of Australians and supports investment and innovation, but it is also an enabler for broader economic activity, particularly outside of our major population centres.

Our aviation industry is growing strongly—and is expected to double in size in the next 20 years. We are also witnessing a myriad of changes:
the growth of new routes and markets with resulting changes in risk;



new air traffic management technology;
the introduction of new aircraft types and larger aircraft, with more sophisticated technology on board, and more complex support requirements on the ground;
the rapid growth of emerging segments of the industry such as recreational aviation;
increasing difficulty for the general aviation sector to cope with a more complex regulatory system; and
increasingly, an industry that must be able to compete internationally.

Any regulatory system must evolve to keep pace with the industry it regulates. Given the speed with which the aviation industry evolves, the need for continued improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system is even more critical than in many other sectors. So now is the right time to reflect and take stock of how our safety regulatory system is placed to deal with this economically important industry. The coalition government is determined to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to make our safety system even better.

Today, I am pleased to inform the House that the Australian government has met its commitment and commissioned an independent review of aviation safety regulation. This is a key element of the aviation policy we took to the last election. The review—to be undertaken by a panel of three eminent and experienced members of the international aviation community—will examine how well our regulatory system is positioned to ensure we remain at the forefront of aviation safety globally. This review will consider the structures, effectiveness and processes of all agencies involved in aviation safety, and the relationships and interactions of those agencies as they work together in one system. It will consider the outcomes and direction of the regulatory reform process undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and it will benchmark our safety regulations and regulatory systems against other leading countries. Safety will always remain the government's highest priority in aviation policy. That will never change.

In delivering on that unwavering commitment we can, and should, make sure we are regulating in a smart and efficient manner. The government has a clear policy of reducing the cost of regulation to business, and this goal will be part of the review. If there are ways to improve our safety outcomes and reduce the regulatory burden and the costs imposed on industry, then we can create a win-win outcome for the Australian economy overall. In doing this, I acknowledge the concerns being expressed by some sectors of the aviation industry, in particular, general and regional aviation, about the costs of regulatory compliance and how outcomes of the current aviation safety regulatory reform program compare with regulatory approaches in other countries.

The review will also consider matters raised in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations. That inquiry, with its long and detailed examination, highlighted a number of issues with our air safety regime that warrant further consideration. The committee's report will be a valuable perspective for the review panel.

I am very pleased with the breadth and depth of expertise that we have secured to conduct this review. Mr David Forsyth, a respected aviation engineer and former airline executive, current chairman of Safeskies Australia, and former chairman of Airservices Australia, will chair the review panel, bringing over 30 years of experience in safety management and aviation business. Made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2013 for his significant service to the aviation industry, Mr Forsyth will bring his leadership and safety experience to this important task.

To deliver an international perspective, he will be joined on the panel by Mr Don Spruston from Canada and Mr Roger Whitefield from the United Kingdom.
Mr Spruston was, until recently, Director-General of the International Business Aviation Council. He is a former Director-General of Civil Aviation and Transport Canada and a former adviser to the International Civil Aviation Organization, where he helped develop the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program which is now used across the globe as a means of assessing the health of national safety oversight systems.

Mr Whitefield combines over 30 years experience as a pilot and senior executive with British Airways with 10 years experience as a board member on the UK Civil Aviation Authority, giving him insights into both the regulation and the operation of civil aviation internationally. He was an external adviser to the Qantas Safety Board for six years and is Chairman of Air Safety Support International.

Together, the panel brings together a broad and complementary range of aviation experience across technical, operational, regulatory and management roles in both the public and private sectors. The panel will also be supported, as required, by specialist advisers to assist on specific aspects of the review. The specialist advisers will ensure that the perspectives of different sectors are heard.

I recognise that it is particularly difficult for the diverse general aviation sector to have its voice heard in a review like this and so I have asked Mr Phillip Reiss, President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, to take a particular responsibility as a specialist adviser to ensure that the concerns of general aviation and regional operators are well aired. His experience will provide valuable insight and technical expertise to the panel. But this panel, no matter how expert, could not take forward the review process without listening to the views and input of the aviation industry and members of the Australian community, and I would expect that many people will wish to contribute their views to the review. The review panel will engage with industry and other stakeholders, with a period of public consultation to take place over the coming months. Further details will be available on my department's website in the near future.

The review I am announcing today will be systemic and strategic in nature. It will not be reopening previous air safety investigations nor will it be a forum to resolve individual complaints or grievances. It is about the future regulatory challenges and growing our industry.

This government is determined to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to make a good safety system even better. I have moved quickly to establish this review and, to maintain momentum, I have asked the panel to report its findings to me by May 2014.

The aviation sector in Australia is vitally important for our economy and for the wellbeing of Australians. We must ensure that we foster an aviation industry that is dynamic, growing and overseen by a regulatory system that delivers the highest level of safety.

I table the ministerial statement and the terms of reference for the review. I ask the House for leave to move a motion to enable the member for Grayndler to speak for 8½ minutes.
Leave granted.

Mr TRUSS: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FGT4%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Grayndler for speaking in reply to the minister's statement for a period not exceeding 8 and a half minutes.
Question agreed to.

AND Albanese's reply:





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

It is also the case that, when it comes to aviation safety, we can never be too cautious. Continuous improvement must always be our aim, and our pursuit of the best possible aviation safety framework must always be beyond politics. When I became the minister, I commissioned significant reform to the aviation sector through a properly planned green and white paper process. That was the first time that Australia had put in place a comprehensive plan for aviation that went to safety and security, regulatory issues, workforce-planning issues, the general aviation sector and international agreements, so it was a comprehensive plan, not for just a year or two; it was a comprehensive plan for decades ahead.
All the recommendations on safety and security were put in place by the government. We had a process for a strategic plan, including accelerating the modernisation of Australian regulation. I would hope that this review takes it to the next stage. We introduced a board of governance for CASA, chaired by Allan Hawke—a process that received the support of the parliament. In terms of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we improved its governance structures as well by having commissioners and by extending the ATSB's responsibilities to also look at rail and shipping, so that you had a comprehensive approach to transport safety issues.

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

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

In fact, just before the recent federal election, I welcomed the ATSB's decision to invite the Canadian Transportation Safety Bureau to undertake an independent review of the ATSB's investigation methodologies and processes.
That review commenced in August. It aims to provide the ATSB with valuable insights about possible improvements in the conduct of investigations. It is due to report to the minister next year, and I look forward to discussing that process with him. I am pleased that Mr Forsyth will be joined in this new review by Don Spruston from Canada and Roger Whitefield from the UK. Both men are indeed highly qualified.

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

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

The proliferation of low-cost carriers, the huge growth of fly-in fly-out airline and helicopter services, and the emergence of unmanned aerial systems are just some of the big challenges facing aviation safety. Others include new aircraft types and the wider use of satellite based technologies. There is always a balance to be struck between safety regulation and cost. This balancing is best done by experts, not politicians.

I welcome the minister's acknowledgement today that Australia's safety performance is among the best in the world and that it is built on a strong regulatory system. The opposition will follow the review and carefully consider its recommendations when they come forth in May.

I say to the minister that I believe it would be appropriate that there be a confidential briefing given to the opposition before the release of the recommendations. I have committed to him, publicly as well as in private, to ensure that these issues continue to be held as those not the subject of political debate. As I say, I pledge cooperation with him on this matter and give credit to him for the way in which he dealt with difficult issues such as the introduction of body scanners here in Australia, which was introduced without political rancour and with bipartisan support.

No admission by Albanese of the reply that he never gave to the parliament.

Too hot to handle perhaps??

Frank Arouet
26th Jan 2014, 01:37
In the Truss website link below he invites input on various topics. Given he is the Minister for Transport, one would think this would be high on his list of invitations for comment. What hope have we got with this bloke?


Warren Truss MP (Federal Member for Wide Bay and Leader of The Nationals) (http://warrentruss.com/yoursay.php)

thorn bird
26th Jan 2014, 23:08
Absolutely None Frank, he's a seat warmer. His lifetime pension assures him a very comfortable lifestyle, he's hardly likely to rock the boat now.

Sarcs
27th Jan 2014, 19:58
4 days and counting on the road to doom or redemption...:ooh:

Moving right along...:cool:..noticed the non-powered crew (GLF) had an invite to meet with the WLRP prior to Xmas...;)

Aviation Safety Review (http://www.glidingaustralia.org/GFA/aviation-safety-review.html)

In December last year the Vice-President and I were invited to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister’s independent aviation safety regulation review panel to discuss important aspects impacting our aviation sector. We agreed to submit a Briefing Advice to assist the Panel’s review as a fore-runner to an eventual submission to the panel. A copy of that briefing advice can be found HERE (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SBxWtueKacQ1hkanJyYjMtcDg/edit?usp=sharing).


Submissions to the panel are to be lodged by 31 January 2014 and I encourage every Australian glider pilot concerned about the future of our great interest and sport make their own submission after reading our advice to the panel.I encourage every glider pilot and supporter concerned for our future to lodge a submission to the Minister’s Review Panel and express their personal thoughts about what they think is important for our gliding Freedom to Fly.
Coupla quotes from the briefing paper (mentioned above)...

...."5. On the basis of its outstanding safety track-record of the past, the GFA agrees that the current relationship based on exemptions and delegations is better served by the proposed Part 149 Approved Organisation Model. Most important is GFA's continuing right to self-determine and administer its own culture and rule-making, its role in supporting glider pilots in command, their clubs and the maintainers ensuring the operating efficacy of the craft they fly; plus GFA’s agreed Manuals of Standard Procedures, operating rules, record keeping and audit activities..."

..."7. CASA’s respect for GFA’s role in self-administering Australia’s gliding realm and to not remove it from that role without first showing due cause and a process incorporating natural justice..." {Natural justice you say?? What's that..:confused:..don't think that falls into the vernacular in the halls of Fort Fumble..:ugh: }

Ok moving on to the common themes...:rolleyes:


.... "11. Oversight by CASA must be only via the GFA's manuals, procedures and structures, and not by direct intervention. Two recent examples of CASA officers circumventing the GFA in its dealings with its members. This undermined GFA’s authority to oversee and administer gliding in Australia with consequent negative safety outcomes. The importance of a mutually respectful and mindful oversight of gliding in Australia must be paramount.

12. Oversight and compliance is mostly achieved through a watchful and caring culture where subtle layers of fellow club members, instructors, safety officers, duty pilots and pilot peers look out for each other. It is an elegant, effective and respectful approach to mentoring and performance development. On the rare occasions (< 0.1% pa) that stronger discipline is necessary, infraction has been satisfactorily resolved over time. Criminal culpability as currently proposed by CASA is counter-productive to the just culture and safety management Australian gliding has developed and refined over decades..."

Part in red...now where have I heard that opinion voiced before...??:ugh:

Finally GFA's message for the panel :D:1. GFA recognises and appreciates the cooperation and collaboration evident within CASA through the Associate Director of Aviation Safety and the Self Administering Sport Aviation Office,

2. The Part 149 Approved Organisation model is the correct way forward,

3. Funding and the method of fair audit of GFA requires further consultation,

4. GFA is held in high regard by aviation generally and is well placed with CASA to build upon its existing administration and oversight of gliding in Australia,

5. A punitive, authoritarian and disrespectful attitude exists within the regulator’s approach to serving the best interests of Australia’s aviation industry. This is out of touch and not aligned with modalities for success, and

6. A thriving aviation sector is critical for Australia’s future. CASA’s current thrust is detrimental to this outcome and is unsupportable. A Ministerial Policy is urgently needed directing CASA to adopt a core mission to support and promote a vibrant, successful, diverse and thriving aviation sector.Anyway over to the IOSRP...:ok:

Addendum: Someone sent me a PM link to the RAA's forum site that is currently running a similar thread..thank you for that..:D

Here's a particular (pertinent) post of interest from Oscar..:D: Post # 84 (http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/is-casa-a-liability-to-an-aircraft-industry.111541/page-5#post-405547)

Frank Arouet
28th Jan 2014, 00:00
Years ago I had a serious complaint against CASA and "ministerialised" them resulting in a recommendation I take the matter up with The Commonwealth Ombudsman, as one was able to do in those days. CASA immediately pushed for an "own motion investigation" which limited my complaint to a vexatious loss of my evidence and left me with limited scope to attack them on due process and my claim of cronyism.


Today I note Fairfax newspapers and "our ABC" exposing corruption in the Unions and calling for blood. This, to my thinking was calling for an "own motion investigation" based on left leaning entity findings. I found it amazing anybody would see anything remarkable with exposure of this activity with the Unions, indeed it has been ignored in the main for six years. But the similarities struck me. See justice done under our terms.


Wouldn't it be grand to have a review into CASA as an "own motion" idea?


Write your own terms of reference with as near as possible accurate complaints, refuse to include historic data and push to ensure a pre determined outcome, then sacrifice someone to appease the plebs and just continue as before. Same horse with a different jockey.


I hope I'm wrong about Truss and his agenda, but unfortunately I have no faith that he will deliver an outcome beneficial to aviation in Australia, especially to Manufacture, GA and Engineering fraternity.


We all should beware The Ides of march, not just The DAS.


I wonder, will he get a reference with his golden handshake?

Cactusjack
28th Jan 2014, 03:07
I wonder, will he get a reference with his golden handshake?
Of course he will Frank. If they frog March him out the door it will make the Miniscule look bad, so the cigar man will leave with a nice reference letter and an email saying he has gone to take on a new venture - spending time with the pot plants, starting up a lettuce farm, Captain on the Ferryboat, worm farmer, pineapple plantation caretaker.......
Toot toot, all aboard!

TICK TOCK

Paragraph377
28th Jan 2014, 11:34
Sarcs, I always enjoy your analytical posts and well researched information. 10/10. However, and there is always a however, it is painfully obvious that the WLR is a standard 101 government exercise in massaging the turd.
Truss promised a review of CASA as part of the Liberals desperate attempt to win votes at the election. A standard empty promise, but then they won! What to do what to do?? They must continue the farce and robustly look into the current malaise, and without rehashing old material, the WLR was born. A clever concoction of spin, magic tricks, massaging, deflection and of course 'all of it kept safe, in a safe, in the safe city of Canberra'!

The Australian aviation industry, the media (except some ABC reporters, Sandilands and Phelan) and most in general have been either duped by the pony act, are sadly as dumb as a pigs anus or quite simply couldn't give a shit (that will change when 200 charred fragmented unidentifiable corpses are removed from a smoking hole by using tweezers and a small spoon :mad:)

If Truss and his chief lettuce whippers of Mrdak and Credlin were serious about safety they would never have orchestrated this 'd' grade 70's porno flick called The Wet Lettuce Review. They would have launched a clear, transparent and credible review using known industry independents with real aviation experience and who have a spine. To get the real flavour of what CASA, ATSB and ASA have done, perhaps the WLR could interview the following people, just for shits and giggles;

- Dominic James
- Nick Xenophon
- Clark Butson
- John Quadrio
- Brian Aherne
- Boyd Munro
- Shane Urquhart

Now wouldn't that be a hoot, and my wordy wouldn't we see the real Australian aviation scene exposed :D
And I am confident that if the above 7 had their chance to explain clearly, logically and succinctly their personal dealings and in-depth knowledge of working within the system it would be done without the use of limp wristed lettuce leaf slaps, stern talkings and home spun verbal diarrhea.

Kharon
28th Jan 2014, 17:52
P377 # 319 "[couldn't] give a shit (that will change when 200 charred fragmented unidentifiable corpses are removed from a smoking hole by using tweezers and a small spoon". (etc).

Just a stray thought, a twiddle with first coffee; but I wonder if anyone is truly worried about the "smoking hole", CASA least of all. The 'big one' scenario is probably the least of their worries, the 'operator', government, the whole lot will go slip quietly into the bomb shelters and wait it out. The tragic thing is they may be the only survivors after the holocaust and emerge into the new world and (here's the bad bit) start breeding. They built their bomb shelters, finest your money could buy ages ago and have had many, many years to perfect the evacuation and survival plan. The statistics, the law, the system and government all combine to ensure their survival. Nope, for first coffee thoughts, I'd scratch the big bang theory off their list of priorities.

I wonder though, as McComic toddles off home if it's not the 'smoking hole' worrying him, but a 'smoking gun'. I mean once he leaves the building, he leaves all that lovely protection behind and probably some enemies to boot; what if someone had very carefully built an extensive dossier and decided to 'challenge' the man himself, publicly and legally rather than take on the entire organisation what then?. Aye, it has all the makings of a fine novel, but it's probably a much more scary scenario than a well prepared 'smoking hole' defence and much more chance of being published. Name, shame and scandal beats the blame game and when he's no longer pack leader, how long will it be until the other jackals attack. Now I will buy a ticket for that show, front row and centre.

All bollocks, but I can have a daydream with first coffee, can't I ?.

Toot toot.

Fantome
28th Jan 2014, 17:59
well K me old dog's body . .. . . that first caffeine fix is always a wake up call , in one sense at least. If it achieves one illuminating thing it is the thought that you and the others here who are intimately and indubitably informed and thereby able to apply the Conan Doyle scrutiny and analysis to the mix and the mess, are worth your weight in . .. . . whole loads of it, out the back. My first 'hit' was two hours ago as today I shall mosey up to Bris to lunch and parley with the man writing the definitive bio (it can only be hoped) of one Patrick Gordon Taylor (Bill to his confreres). Were PGT still with us he would view the malaise that ails the industry, the chiefs and the sad culpable people who frame and administer the law , most askance.

The seven that para has come up with as potential informants is a good start. As facilitators your 'brigade' should take the thought of calling to arms the blokes listed to another stage. An integrated concerted platform consisting of these and others with like insight, need not be pissing in the wind. Brief them now so they are ready to go down on their marks when the time is ripest. Get some 4 corners type early warning system organised. Have someone like Chris Marsden supplied with a holding brief. Then start grinding them beans again, old bean.

Like 'The Games' it could morph into a droll mini-series . John Clarke could play a credible Skull . On his ear.

Sarcs
29th Jan 2014, 20:33
One more day...:rolleyes:

Hope you don't mind BL but since we're into 'share and share alike'..:D..thought your post from RAA forum was well worth regurgitating?? Kind of put's perspective on history, politics, the current malaise & future choices/actions by industry stakeholders of GA if certain actions/decisions aren't made:ok:: Firstly: We are the only ICAO signatory in the world, whose National Airworthiness Authority DOES NOT have immunity from prosecution in the course of their normal affairs - thank you the Balmain pig PM, Paul Keating. As a result, CASA has had a degree of ****-covering since 1988. Secondly, the several attempts to introduce "and foster" into the Act have all failed, thanks to luddite fools in parliament or the senate. This is a matter of record. Thirdly, Dick Smith did (and still, I suspect, does not) understand the link between "airworthiness" and engineering judgement; so Keating - via Brereton - used him to gut CASA of most of its engineering heritage. Since then, with the exception of Byron, Ministers have been appointing fighter pilots to direct CASA. In parallel, since Anderson's era, our NAA has abused its discretionary authority, flouted the constitution, and exhibited a culture of arrogance that began to lose the credibility of supporting expertise in the late 1970s.

Currently, CASA officers are trained in their responsibilities under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1988, but completely ignore their KNOWN responsibility towards natural justice, when directed by the head fighter pilot. There is no system of internal checks and balances, because CASA has neither the economic resources nor, it would appear, the moral resources* to successfully implement systemic change to the culture. It must be made clear that, at any point in time, CASA has (and has had) a significant number of highly motivated, well educated, and highly capable people, of high personal probity and good intent, who find themselves virtually paralysed in any attempt to reform or improve, due to the pervasive nature of the post-Anderson culture. CASA firmly believes that it has a near-divine responsibility to tell people what they can't do in the interests of safety, and that appointment to a position in CASA automatically imbues the appointee with moral authority, irrespective of the actual expertise. Within this culture, the few persons I have experienced who are persuing personal agendas have virtually no limits on their ability to negate the positive efforts of the most of CASA, most of the time.

*The structure and methodologies of CASA do not allow the officers any discretion to speak of, in allowing their personal probity to inform them in matters of regulatory judgement; I have a letter stating that CASA has a team of lawers to guide officers in making each regulatory judgement. it's not a lawer's bloody job to make engineering judgements, but this is the outcome of Paul Keating's all-embracing comprehension of the economics of management of hardware.

Now, CASA is - pointlessly, because Australia is very much not the US, OR the EEC - trying to emulate those NAAs, but at the same time do not have the corporate guts to recognise that the bulk of aeronautical expertise in Australia is in private industry, and can be used as a resourse to fulfil our ICAO obligations. because, as a member of CASA Engineering Services said to me (in personal conversation), "you can't trust pilots". John McCormack said to me, personally, face to face, in a room full of the operators of Approved Aircraft Maintenance organisations (LAMEs to a person), "what do these guys know about airworthiness? Nothing!". He was a fighter pilot (Mirages), so he knows.

We have a few career politicians, who have been exposed to CASA for so long, that they realise that the furphy of CASA's untouchable expertise is a Furphy; and we have a few relatively young, generally independent MPs, who are sufficiently iconoclastic to consider that CASA may, indeed, be somewhat less than perfect. Well, if they fix the frigging laws, so that CASA people can do their bloody jobs without looking over their shoulders all the time; admit that Australia deserves an aviation industry, and include "foster" as a prime directive in the CAAct; allow the reformers in CASA to work, under a director who (like Byron) was never a fighter pilot; and outsource airworthiness as the FAA so successfully has to DERs (who are members of the FAA when DERing, even if not employed by the FAA - make THAT work in Australia!)... then, in about3-5 years, our industry might start to recover.

Otherwise, we need to really work the trans-tasman bilateral, and move our industry to New Zealand. Of politics & aviation - Too little..too much??

Interesting article out of the States...;):
Congress to the Rescue?

The role of the legislative branch in aviation regulations is a troubling one.

By Robert Goyer / Published: Jan 28, 2014

How do you feel about Congress stepping in and telling the FAA how it should regulate aviation activities? Well, that probably depends on how you feel about the subject they’re weighing in on.

While it’s difficult to come up with hard statistics on the subject, industry observers believe that over the past few years Congress has taken a more active role than ever in mandating aviation regulations from the Hill, with little interference from the President when it comes time to sign them into law.

Over the past several years Congress has weighed in on pilot duty time, pilots’ rights, required experience for airline pilots, contract towers, FAA furloughs, drones, Part 23 regulation, fat pilots and a number of other issues.

Whether you agree with Congress’ views on the individual issues is not the point — we agree with some of its actions, like the Pilots’ Bill of Rights, and disagree with others, like the new ATP requirement for airline pilots. Regardless, the question is still this: How far should Congress go in writing aviation regulations?

It’s not an easy question to answer. For one, as the branch that doles out the dough for federal spending, it is smack dab in the middle of the FAA’s business. Which programs get funding, which ones don’t, which ones get more than their share and which one’s get the shaft, is all in Congress’ power and within its constitutionally delegated duties.

Still, the issue is similar in nature to juries deciding fault in aviation accidents. How can 12 lay-citizens be expected in the course of a couple of weeks to develop a sophisticated enough understanding of aviation issues to render a fair judgment on who was at fault for an accident that was likely so complex that veteran investigators would disagree on the root causes? The answer is they can’t be expected to be good judges, but that’s the system we’re stuck with.

The same could be said for Congress. How could 535 non-aviation professionals (with a few exceptions) be expected to create laws requiring aviation regulations that make sense in the complex aerospace world in which we live? The answer again is that they can’t be, but that’s the system we’re stuck with.

Of course complicating the matter is the fact that the FAA needs a babysitter. The agency is so entrenched and unresponsive to the needs and rights of the industry it regulates that Congress often has to step in to set the bureaucrats straight.

Read more at Congress to the Rescue? | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/congress-rescue#XWea8c2D27JSGe3M.99) Hmm think I'd prefer the Yanks conundrum than ours...:ugh:

Paragraph377
30th Jan 2014, 11:17
Great post Sarcs. A very succinct description of the CASA, and this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
One of the greatest concerns is the power, obstinance and free will of the LSD. Although they purport to be relatively hands off from most non legal decisions made at CASA that simply isn't true. And their powers, authority and decision making is not clear whithin CASA's charter or structure. When you research their function and basically who is calling the shots they won't answer you, neither will the Miniscules department and nor will the AG's department.
But don't forget the now LSD has had over 20 years of influence and plenty of time to structure themselves just where they want to be. And of course Dr Voodoo, Number 3 at CASA, ensured his 'system' remained solid and in place after he climbed the greasy pole, because he handed the reigns on to his long term apprentice, Mr AA.

But going back to the pathetic $230 million reg reform Frankenstein, it would be alleged that the Skull has stated that it will be completed come hell or high water and what is introduced is here to stay! A regulatory nightmare, unworkable and a Frankenstein of gigantic proportions is what we have.
Leroy Keith didn't do a bad job as Top Dog, but of course members of the Iron Ring did not like his methods and ensured he got pineappled. But he did manage to roll some of his plotters. Bruce Byron for all his faults also tried to end the regulatory reform debacle by adopting European ways, and this too upset the Iron Ring immensely and they immediately started undermining him. He too survived for some time, and managed to kneecap some of his plotters but eventually he also walked the green mile. Which leaves us with McCormick. A curious individual and certainly one could speak for days on the topic of 'he who must not be named' but the upshot is that he is trying to rush through the remainder of the reg reform folly for no greater purpose than to please his Masters. He knows it is shite, but again we have a situation where the Director does not call the shots. I am surprised he has lasted the 5 years as generally he does not like being somebody else's bitch! And at CASA the largest degree of power never lays with the Director :=

But anyway, it's all fun to watch, beer and popcorn stuff really, maybe a dash of lettuce thrown in for good measure would spice things up, and a few slices of pineapple wouldn't go astray, but the outcome will be soft, very soft, a bitch slap from a limp wrist. That is inevitable, no government in Australia will ever admit it has created, contributed to or 'fostered' a hybrid species, a DNA clusterf#ck, an abomination that grows, morphs and assimilates daily, CASA.

Sarcs
31st Jan 2014, 01:05
Top post P377....:ok:

..."One of the greatest concerns is the power, obstinance and free will of the LSD".. A fascinating subject matter but perhaps the LSD power base history; the Voodoo doc's legal interpretations of the CASRs/CAOs and; the criminalisation of the CAA discussion would be best carried across to the Senate thread...:rolleyes:

The Boss (slightly edited): “The Skyways jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive… Everybody's out on the run tonight but there's no place left to hide….”


P377:A curious individual and certainly one could speak for days on the topic of 'he who must not be named' but the upshot is that he is trying to rush through the remainder of the reg reform folly for no greater purpose than to please his Masters. He knows it is shite, but again we have a situation where the Director does not call the shots. Interesting observation that you make Para..:sad: Especially in light of the DAS's latest, first and (hopefully) third last missive for '14 (CASA Briefing January 2014 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101882))...:confused:

Passing Strange: It is almost like this missive has been penned (keyed) by someone else...?? Gone is the swagger, the bravado, the "my way or the highway " or the parting tautological IOS comments, that we've all come to expect and grudgingly admire (my bold):I appreciate and value the effort made by everyone who takes part in regulatory development because CASA cannot do this job on its own. We need the expertise and practical knowledge of people working in the aviation industry to test ideas, translate concepts to safety regulations and to ensure the best possible safety outcomes are achieved with the appropriate level of regulation.

I understand the regulatory development process can at times seem cumbersome and drawn out. However, like many things in life, the devil is in the detail, and we must get the rules right. At times this means revisiting sets of rules to make improvements to ensure the right safety outcomes are being achieved with regulations that do not place inappropriate burdens on the aviation industry. It is largely feedback from aviation people and organisations that informs the review and improvement of rules and this was the case with important amendments made in December 2013.
And finally:These changes flow directly from the feedback CASA has received from aviation people and organisations. By listening and acting CASA has created better regulations that still strive for the best possible safety outcomes while reducing costs and red tape where possible. One gets the impression that the DAS has been given the unofficial nod and his glory days are now well and truly behind him...:{

Oh and the red tape comment didn't go unnoticed by the IOS...:ok:

thorn bird
31st Jan 2014, 08:07
Sarksi??? red tape?? what red tape??
OH that

RED TAPE !!!!!

halfmanhalfbiscuit
31st Jan 2014, 08:48
Red tape challenge. Sounds familiar, I'm guessing a trip to the UK has happened? Perhaps the Brit on theTruss review has brought up the CAA red tape challenge.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1123%20CAA%20response%20to%20GA%20Red%20Tape%20Challenge. pdf

denabol
31st Jan 2014, 09:54
Ben's blog has jumped on India being busted to level 2 over a failed FAA audit and is asking the question if we are next?
FAA busts India's air safety rating, Australia next? | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/31/india-busted-to-level-2-safety-rating-is-australia-next/)

This may not be enough for Australia to avoid suffering a similar fate to India, mainly because of the gross failures of integrity and competency displayed by CASA and the ATSB in relation to the failed oversight of of Pel-Air’s aerial ambulance work with Westwind corporate jets before and at the time of the crash of such a flight near Norfolk Island in 2009, and the appallingly flawed crash report that was exposed by a Senate inquiry that the new Minister for Transport has yet to respond to.
The consequences for Qantas and Virgin Australia of such US sanctions on their American code-shares and services would be costly and serious. While some argue that such an outcome is unlikely, the FAA’s sanctioning in the past of Israel and now India makes it possible.
Pel-Air is a scandal that keeps on stinking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/11/15/pel-air-fiasco-about-to-be-dragged-back-into-spotlight/), as does the failure of CASA to do anything material to fix the rules that applied to the fuel and flight planning of such missions for more than four years, even thought it has admitted that changes need to be made.
If very decisive action isn’t taken over deficient or ineffective public administration of air safety standards and operator oversight in this country, Australia will-get-busted, just like Israel and now India.

Paragraph377
31st Jan 2014, 12:20
Passing Strange: It is almost like this missive has been penned (keyed) by someone else...?? Gone is the swagger, the bravado, the "my way or the highway " or the parting tautological IOS comments, that we've all come to expect and grudgingly admire
Sarcs, I once knew an individual very similar in nature to Mr Skull. Occasionally he would pop some new pills, attend anger management classes, 'clear the pipes' down at Kangaroo Point, things like that. On even rarer occasions he would indulge in a bar fight or cruise around town aggressively in his convertible displaying road rage skills that would impress Mike Tyson! Perhaps that is one of the reasons why 'he who shan't be named' appears suddenly subdued?
Then again somebody might have laced his stoogies with wacky backy, or perhaps planted an aphrodisiac in his office pot plants? Perhaps Dr Hoodoovoodoo has placed a happy spell on him? Or maybe he has become aware of a tragedy that has befallen a member of the IOS and that has mellowed him and cheered him up?

On the streets of Can'tberra last week a robust rumour was circulating that Mr Angry wanted to resign his post in February and sail off into the sunset with a golden TRIM file and a hug, onboard the S.S Styx. But allegedly the Miniscule refused this request and has demanded that Mr Angry remain with Fort Fumble until the wet lettuce review has been completed.
Interesting rumour if it is true, because a rumour of such nature could indicate that the Miniscule is currently sharpening the Pineapple and getting ready to insert it?

Oh well, the streets of Can'tberra can be a strange place at times, and with the amount of crowded street corner troughs, free roaming pigs and endless supply of pineapples it becomes a complex confusing place for one to roam around.

Frank Arouet
31st Jan 2014, 21:16
I can't work a wet lettuce in, but Dr Hoodoovoodoo and Herr Skull are like apples and oranges. Adding the pineapple has the making for a really good fruit salad.

Creampuff
31st Jan 2014, 21:25
On the streets of Can'tberra last week a robust rumour was circulating that Mr Angry wanted to resign his post in February and sail off into the sunset with a golden TRIM file and a hug, onboard the S.S Styx. But allegedly the Miniscule refused this request and has demanded that Mr Angry remain with Fort Fumble until the wet lettuce review has been completed.Utter tosh. :*

The Minister can’t make anyone who wants to leave, stay.

Sarcs
31st Jan 2014, 21:44
P377: On the streets of Can'tberra last week a robust rumour was circulating that Mr Angry wanted to resign his post in February and sail off into the sunset with a golden TRIM file and a hug, onboard the S.S Styx. But allegedly the Miniscule refused this request and has demanded that Mr Angry remain with Fort Fumble until the wet lettuce review has been completed. Interesting rumour...:rolleyes: Maybe, reading between the lines, the DAS missive indicates a prelude to the main event, where the DAS will be presented with a pineapple nicely wrapped in a wet lettuce...however Creamy's post would suggest otherwise?? :confused:

denabol good catch...:D Have been monitoring the FAA audit of India for sometime...:cool: Although the Indian DGCA makes the FF trough swillers look like naughty choir boys..;), there was significant parallels in the findings by the FAA with our last ICAO audit...:=

The most alarming aspect, for the Miniscule and his minions, of the Indian Audit is the speed in which the FAA has acted. Maybe this is because the Indian avsafety admin is a more serious basket case than here in Oz...hmm or maybe the FAA are sick of certain NAA's taking the piss?? :=

Either way it would appear that the FAA are not interested in brokering diplomatic deals (unlike the reprieve we received in the past). Here is an article on India's attempts to placate the FAA: All safety issues addressed, says DGCA's report to FAA (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-22/news/46463012_1_flight-operations-inspectors-dgca-faa)Among the concerns raised by the FAA over 33 issues were filling up of several senior positions including those of fulltime Flight Operations Inspectors (FOIs), beefing up of aviation safety training programmes and preparing manuals and documentation on certain safety issues.

FOIs are senior pilots who would be taken on contract and paid salaries consistent with the industry norms that could be higher than that of the DGCA chief himself. An estimated Rs 40 crore would be needed annually for this purpose. Another concern highlighted by the FAA about training DGCA officers on the new types of aircraft entering the Indian market, including the Boeing 787 Dreamliners, would be addressed soon, they said.

DGCA's oversight on training schools and schedules would also be beefed up. The FAA, which has over the years downgraded several nations including close ally Israel, Mexico, Venezuela and Philippines, uses 'downgrade' as more of a tool to pressurise countries to shape up their regulatory schemes but not as a warning of imminent safety problems, they said.
Now to the linked article in Ben's piece: FAA downgrades India’s aviation safety rankings (http://www.livemint.com/Companies/VBs85pY9lO5OD6nTSX5akJ/US-downgrades-Indias-air-safety-rankings.html) Quotes of concern for the Miniscule & his head bureaucrat Mrdak...:( : The decision reduces India to a safety category that includes Ghana, Indonesia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe, and means that Air India and Jet Airways—the two Indian airlines that fly to US destinations—wouldn’t be allowed to expand flights and their existing flights would be subjected to additional checks. They would have to snap ties such as any code-sharing arrangements with US airlines.

Jet has a code-share agreement with United Airlines while Air India is joining Star Alliance, the club that includes American airlines.

Shares of Jet Airways, India’s largest listed airline, plunged 3.94% to Rs.236.45 each on BSE on a day the benchmark Sensex edged up 0.08% to 20,513.85 points.

A category II safety rating means that the civil aviation authority does not comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao) safety standards and is deficient in one or more areas, such as technical expertise, trained personnel and record-keeping or inspection procedures, according to FAA.

While a downgrade does not reflect on the safety of India’s airlines—the rankings measure the ability of the Indian regulator to follow safety processes and not that of the airlines—India risks being perceived in a negative light by aviation authorities in other countries.

“The only area in which India lacks marginally in effective implementation of a critical element is ‘organization’. For this, India has already created 75 posts of chief flight operations inspector (CFOI), deputy CFOIs, senior CFOIs and FOIs. After the recruitment, it is expected that effective implementation in this element also would rise much above the global average,” Singh added. Most disturbing parallels
- Perhaps a look into the crystal ball??A member of the government-mandated safety council, formed in the aftermath of the Mangalore air crash that killed 158 people in May 2010, said the government had not heeded several letters sent by the council about the risk of a downgrade in India’s safety ranking.

“I am not surprised,” said Mohan Ranganathan, who sits on the Civil Aviation Safety Advisory Council.

“The deceit of DGCA and aviation ministry has finally been exposed. Blatant abuse of regulations in safety and flight standards...were swept aside for political and commercial considerations. The last two years have seen the lowest in integrity levels. Persons responsible should be held accountable and not let off lightly for bringing this shame upon India,” he said. No comment...except TICK..TOCK! :ok:

Addendum: WLR update courtesy of the MMSM yesterday...;)Opinions pour in for regulation review (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/opinions-pour-in-for-regulation-review/story-e6frg95x-1226814143039#)

REGULATORY reform is emerging as a key issue in the federal government's aviation safety review as submissions officially close tonight.

The panel is expecting up to 150 submissions and has already met about 100 people as it works through the concerns raised by a wide-ranging cross-section of the industry.

Submissions were still coming in "thick and fast" yesterday and chairman David Forsyth said he expected that to continue today and through the weekend.

"We reckon we're probably going to finish up with between 120 and 150 submissions, which is good," Mr Forsyth said. "Most of them have been really constructive; there's a lot of really good information in there. A lot of people took a lot of time (over the) recommendations, so we've just got to go through and digest all of that."

The panel of Mr Forsyth, Roger Whitefield and Don Spruston will reconvene in the second half of February to discuss the submissions and the issues stemming from them.

The review, ordered by Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, was tasked with taking a detailed look at aviation agencies such as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia.

The inquiry was prompted by dissatisfaction in sections of the aviation industry about the aviation regulatory regime and problems with the ATSB and CASA highlighted in a Senate report into a crash off Norfolk Island involving Pel-Air.

The government was also worried that the agencies were not working together effectively.

Mr Forsyth said there was a consistency among most of the issues aired in the submissions, including the relationship between the various safety agencies and the effect of regulation on small business.

"The hardest job by far is the regulatory reform program," he said. "That's been going on for so long, it's such a big issue and any potential solutions for it have such huge implications, it's going to require a lot of thought and lot of discussions with people and industry and government."

The panel chairman said there had been few surprises in the submissions, but people were passionate about the issues.

He said there was a huge amount of pride in the industry but also a lot of concern about its future and worries at the small business end about its ability to change in line with the new regulatory regime.

"So, early days yet, but it certainly has been interesting," he said. "We've been really pleased with the response we've had wherever we've gone. The industry has been very good, it's been articulate, a lot of people have put a fair bit of work into it."

The panel now intends to change tack somewhat after conducting interviews based on the terms of reference, and will start to home in on key issues such as regulatory reform.

Members will go through the submissions to nail down the issues and Mr Forsyth said he expected some, where there was agreement on what needed to happen, could be dealt with reasonably simply in terms of recommendations.

But there would be others where there would not be agreement, and those would need a lot of thought and discussion.

"Those targeted type of interviews is what we've started and when the panel's back here in the second half of February, we'll be doing more of that," he said. "We'll be going out again to selected people in industry."
The panel may hold a couple of general discussion meetings in Western Australia and Queensland to complement those held in NSW, Victoria and South Australia.

"We have spoken to people in those states but we think at some point we'd like the panel to get out and get the lie of the land in couple of those places," he said.

The panel does not plan to post the submissions online, mainly because many people wanted to keep them confidential, but expects to quote in its report from some that people are happy to make public.

Mr Forsyth said the panel was "looking pretty good" in terms of meeting the May deadline for submitting the report to Mr Truss.

"The reg reform program's the only one that is threatening that, but we're still pretty confident we'll be able to work our way through that and come up with some recommendations," he said.

Frank Burden
31st Jan 2014, 23:21
Until the Minister is at risk players such as MM, JM, MD and the various advisers are on safe ground until their contracts come up for renewal. The Minister has mitigated his risk by appointing a committee of review (with appropriate terms of reference) and any recommendations coming from that process will be stated in broad terms allowing the Government to take appropriate action (read slow, purposeful and limited).

Given that the Minister is not at risk, it would be surprising if someone below him in the hierarchy (regardless of their personality type) considered resigning unless there were dire personal rather than work circumstances present.

I am surprised that people continue their broad ranging personal attacks on this forum.

While it makes interesting reading, it only increases the resolve of the current players (most of which have won many campaigns before) to stare the opposition out.

Sun Tzu talked about the importance of knowing your enemy. In his day 'the enemy' was relatively easy to identify.

In a contemporary Australia, the enemy is not the inner circle of departmental and agency heads, advisers and personal hand maidens, but the Minister himself.

Australian Governments operate on the Westminster principle. This principle is a constitutional convention, under which ministers are the link between Parliament and Gov- ernment action. Public servants carry out the activities of Government through their work in departments and agencies, and the Government directs them through ministers responsible for their activities.

Stop wasting your time on the also rans and sharpen your swords for the right purpose.

One Minister slipped away unscathed and the second is planning on doing the same.

Until the Minister is at risk, not much will change!

The former cranky but now reformed Franky!

ozaub
31st Jan 2014, 23:56
Further to DENABOL's quote of Ben Sandilands’ Plane Talking blog, and the downgrade by FAA of India to a second tier aviation authority, the downgrade is by FAA but ICAO provides a handier tool to compare safety capabilities at http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx (http://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx).
Looking at the results of ICAO audit of Indian DGAC versus results for CASA, it’s clear that both perform better than global average. That’s not surprising because ICAO average is pulled down by many small states that have no pretensions of ever flying to the US. Note that India ranks better than Australia against half of audited performance criteria. Note too that ICAO last audited Australian in 2008 whereas India was reaudited in 2012.
So Australia’s vulnerability hinges on whether it has improved over past five years. Make your own judgement.

Paragraph377
1st Feb 2014, 11:45
Frank (Burden), I agree with you, but here's the thing 'Ministers are never at risk'. If it were you or I we would be hung in the gallows, but never ever will that happen to a politician. They are virtually untouchable, non accountable, and free to act with impunity and in complete disregard to the rules that the rest of society must adhere to. The pathetic Craig Thomson affair is just one example.
No Minister such as Truss, Albo, or any other will ever fall on their sword. It's one set of rules for them and one set of rules for everybody else. All until a revolution comes along anyway.

Creampuff, I disagree. If the Minister 'has the goods' on an individual, he can use that as leverage, in several ways. I can't go into detail publicly but rest assured a politician with power is capable of performing many tricks using his abundance of aces up his sleeve. C'mon Creampuff, you've served time on the inside of a bureaucracy, surely you have seen that sort of game played out before? If you haven't then you have only worked within the fringes of a bureaucracy!

Sarcs, considering the seriousness of the FAA findings against Fort Fumble 5 years ago, it certainly does seem like a long time in between the drinks breaks doesn't it? I wonder what sort of risk framework the FAA use? It must be one made from wet lettuce because I cannot believe they haven't been back for a thorough audit in that period of time under the circumstances?
A lot has happened in 5 years, CASA has become a bigger joke, the Beaker has put his personal wrecking ball through the ATSB, the regulatory reform program has......aagh well, nothing new to report on that one!! Let's see what else? Oh yes, a damning senate inquiry took place that has been ignored, there were some international incidents with Australian airlines, Pel Air and Canleyvale occurred, CASA's pot plant watering budget hit the six figure mark and the very man who the industry should be able look up to, respect and trust for safety leadership has done nothing but take QON's, continued his attack on anyone who speaks out against his dictatorship (AMROBA) as an example and refused to stand up and be counted, regardless of what his puppet masters threaten to do.
Yep, time for the CASA to undergo another audit I reckon.

Creampuff
1st Feb 2014, 20:34
So Mr McCormick wants to leave, but the Minister 'has the goods' on Mr McCormick and is using them to 'force' Mr McCormick to continue to endure the living hell of a circa $500k no-risk salary, Business Class travel and Five Star accommodation at the top of a high profile government agency, rather than take the opportunity to replace him?

Wow. Clearly my knowledge of the machinations of government is sadly lacking.

My guess had been that the Minister is very happy with Mr McCormick's performance and wants him to stay. :confused:

No Hoper
1st Feb 2014, 21:55
CREAMPUFF post#4 - - Just another 7 months or so and all the problems in aviation regulation and accident investigation in Australia will, for the first time ever, be revealed by external experts and rectified by the government.
And then it will be aviation Nirvana.
Lucky I have the attention span of a goldfish. Otherwise I’d remember the last 3 or so times I’ve heard the same crap.
I’m saddened that many of the people who fly or fix aircraft in Australia appear to have the attention span of a goldfish. Worth considering by the four amigos who keep posting here.
I can't go into detail publicly but rest assured a politician with power is capable of performing many tricks using his abundance of aces up his sleeve. Come on Oleo, go into it publicly, there is no law against it shirley

Frank Arouet
1st Feb 2014, 23:02
That challenge should be ignored. It's Lawyer bait and thinly disguised.


You may be half right however. If we consider for example, how it would look for Cardinal George Pell to 'defrock' himself during a Royal commission. An assumed admission of guilt would apply as would any other person holding a senior role in The Bureaucracy. Threatening to sack that same person before the results are in would put the 'ace' firmly in the wielders hand. Reverse psychology and all that.


Also it may be advantageous that he stay so the wielder can use his 'ace' against him thus protecting his bum and making the person accountable for his actions or non actions. The word scapegoat comes to mind.


At present I can't see why the DAS would want to hang around any longer than he has to, thus giving me the impression there is purpose to his extension of tenure for such a short period.


But I was wrong once before.

No Hoper
1st Feb 2014, 23:04
Superannuation comes to mind Frank

Sarcs
1st Feb 2014, 23:24
ozaub the ICAO link provides an interesting comparison that hopefully does not go unnoticed by the powers to be in Can'tberra..:rolleyes:

I noticed you also posted your last on Ben's article..:D: aubury martin (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/31/india-busted-to-level-2-safety-rating-is-australia-next/#comment-21086) Perhaps Comet's post (a couple above) goes to the real risk, that the Miniscule should be concerned with when the FAA casts their roving audit eyes our way..:cool:: comet

Posted February 1, 2014 at 10:01 am | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/31/india-busted-to-level-2-safety-rating-is-australia-next/#comment-21071)

A downgrading of Australia would produce short-term pain, but long-term gain.

It would force Australia to improve its aviation regulation, just like India is now taking action to improve the way it regulates aviation. The improvements that India is now making would not have happened without the downgrade.

In Australia, the Labor government failed to take action when needed. Now it has become clear that the Abbott government is also not taking decisive action.

Therefore, an FAA downgrade is the only thing that will force Australia to get its house in order. A downgrade is preferable to a downing of an aircraft.
:D:D

But moving along & reference Forsyth's WLR update...;) Coupla noteworthy quotes...

Mr Forsyth said there was a consistency among most of the issues aired in the submissions, including the relationship between the various safety agencies and the effect of regulation on small business.
Read RED TAPE TB..:E

And the RRP headache..:ugh:

"The hardest job by far is the regulatory reform program," he said. "That's been going on for so long, it's such a big issue and any potential solutions for it have such huge implications, it's going to require a lot of thought and lot of discussions with people and industry and government."


"The reg reform program's the only one that is threatening that, but we're still pretty confident we'll be able to work our way through that and come up with some recommendations," he said.
Well Mr Forsyth perhaps you need only refer to your GA panel support team's final submission for helpful hints...:E (c/o Australian Flying) AOPA Advocates Kiwi System
(http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aopa-advocates-kiwi-system)
30 Jan 2014

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA) is advocating the New Zealand system of regulation be adopted in Australia.

The statement was made in AOPA's submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review and posted on their website.

Dealing specifically with the issues general aviation has with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the submission stresses that dealing with individual problem would help the situation, but that a larger solution was needed.

" ... it is with some regret that our organization has come to the conclusion that continuing to patch up problems is like renovating a house with rotten foundations," the submission says. "You spend twice as much time and money and at the end of the day you still have an old house.

"We now believe in nothing short of a clean sweep of the old, and adoption of FARs [Federal Aviation Regulations], as has been demonstrated by NZ’s adoption of the FAA GA model about 17 years ago. It is fact that since then, NZ’s GA has outstripped Australia’s.

"We have heard it said that where it takes a wheelbarrow to carry a copy of all regs pertaining to GA, New Zealand’s can be carried in one hand. This may be an exaggeration, but it is not an exaggeration to say that adoption of the NZ regulatory system for GA would improve the prospects of GA’s survival.
Or maybe refer to the AMROBA submission which should have similar sentiments...(reference: Vol_11_Issue_1 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol_11_Issue_1.pdf)AMROBA newsletter )

Act: An Act is required to enable the setting up of an aviation regulator to meet Australia’s obligations under international treaties,
especially the Convention and subsequent Protocols.

Regulations: Provide Head of Power for Aviation Safety Standards that were previously promulgated as ANO/CAOs. Abandon the two-tier legislative system for the three-tier legislative system that has a proven
legislative record and safety outcomes.

Standards: The Act provides for CASA to promulgate Aviation Safety Standards (ASS), not Manual of Standards or CAOs. Adapting EASRs/FARs, as applicable, as Civil ASS aligned with NZ Rules would adapt a safe aviation legislative system.I'm sure there will be many other submissions with pretty much the same solution...so Mr Forsyth the RRP recommendation should be a no-brainer..:ok:

Paragraph377
2nd Feb 2014, 00:06
Frank, you got it one mate :ok: But shhhhh, don't tell the others.

Cactusjack
2nd Feb 2014, 09:51
Worth considering by the four amigos who keep posting here.
Just for Blackie -
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8MEvtK9srno

Frank Burden
2nd Feb 2014, 22:28
The perfect bureaucratic outcome is for a solution where there is no accountability attributable to any of the major players (especially the Minister) as the deck chairs are re-arranged.

The Minister will herald any changes as regrettable but necessary due to the inactions of the previous Labor Government. He will make a strong statement that under the Abbott Government action is now being taken 'to greatly improve aviation safety in Australia for the long term'.

I would not rule out organisational changes and responsibilities as a likely political strategy to get past the current situation. For example: CASA and ATSB returning to the public service and being part of a mega Department of Infrastructure. This way Mr Dak will have a much larger empire while assuring the Minister that this approach will resolve the personality induced events that have occurred in the past. (Interestingly, they will leave AMSA as an independent statutory authority arguing that the current model works for this mode of transport.)

Another approach would be for the department to take over setting aviation safety regulations (and accident investigation) while a much smaller CASA would have a very limited responsibility for enforcement. However, there would be performance indicators for this 'policing' agency to meet.

Interesting times but to quote Cold Chisel: 'I've had a bellyful of livin' on the same old merry-go-round.'

The former cranky but now reformed Franky!

Frank Arouet
2nd Feb 2014, 23:18
If CASA draft the regulations, (appallingly I admit), they have no right policing those laws and claim any independence or statutory authority under the mantle of safety.


1) CAA, (omit the safety), should draft the regulations based on FAR's.


2) A new branch of Commonwealth Police should enforce those rules, carry out investigations aided by an in-house ATSB and,


3) The DPP prosecute any breeches.


4) Get rid of the AAT and give The Commonwealth Ombudsman more open terms of reference to enable third party investigations outside the umbrella of government and give him powers to make findings not just recommendations.


As for smoking big holes, the buck stops with The Minister and his Advisors.

dubbleyew eight
3rd Feb 2014, 07:46
in my neck of the aviation woods the only reason the rules seem to work is that they aren't policed and you can use common sense instead.

the thought that we would actually have to adopt the rules chapter and verse is intolerable.

I think I might retire to new zealand just to be able to fly somewhere sensible.
....or canada.



just how many nutters make up a CASA?

Up-into-the-air
3rd Feb 2014, 21:31
Here is another one- This has taken 6 years to get to this stage.

Documents

30 January 2014



Consultation Draft for proposed Part 175 CASR - Summary of Proposed Part 175 of CASR (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib91135/part175-summary-proposed.pdf)
Consultation Draft for proposed Part 175 CASR - Exposure Draft (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib91135/part175-exposure-draft.pdf)

All comments should be submitted via the Project Leader, Roy Tuomela ([email protected]) by close of business 14 March 2014.

History

31 Jan 2014

Consultation Draft 1402AS for proposed Part 175 of CASR - Aeronautical information management
All comments should be submitted via the Project Leader, Roy Tuomela ([email protected]) by close of business 14 March 2014.
7 Oct 2009

NPRM 0901AS - Aeronautical Information Services (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93425)
Comments closed 4 December 2009.
11 Mar 2008

Project AS 08/05 - CASR Part 175 - Aeronautical information management
Project announced.

RollOn the US-FAR's

aroa
3rd Feb 2014, 23:15
Hey, Roy,...what have you been up to for the passed six years? Do tell.

Seems like "progress" on CASR 175 Aeronautical Information Management has been somewhat glacial.

Seems very strange to me that an "agency" that can't even manage itself and its staff properly has the temerity to postulate 175. ! FFS:mad:

Still, we the taxpayers must remember that these important "safety" issues must be considered, on and on and ongoing forever to keep people "employed" and in a career for life. All part of the empire building process.

For example...heard the anecdote years ago that in changing from the bound log books, with numbered pages to the coloured tab, loose leaf file arrangement...the design of, took two years to finalize.
Yep...no doubt about it if you have the right contacts in CAsA ...there's bucks to be made. Yours.:mad::mad:

thorn bird
4th Feb 2014, 00:48
Damn it all!!! just renewed my Jepp subscription.
Oh well back to DAP's, can't see anyone else bothering to try and comply with that cr..p.

Cactusjack
4th Feb 2014, 05:58
Just some of the important sojourns in the past few months!
Seems like the skies the limit for those who love hypothetical bureaucratic banter.

Dr Hoodoo at the ‘National Transport Regulations Reform’. Showcasing CAsA's 25 year $250 million white elephant?
National Transport Regulations Reform - Sydney - Eventfinder (http://www.eventfinder.com.au/2013/national-transport-regulations-reform/sydney/northern-suburbs)

Dr Hoodoo helps build aviation future. Interesting 'theory' (untested of course). CAsA contributes to aviation a future?? Please help me off the floor.
http://www.aviationaerospace.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/AAAAI_AustAviationMag_Aug_web.pdf

Dr Hoodoo helps the medical field with creating Just Culture. Oh my, CAsA just culture philosophies shared with another government bureaucracy clusterf#ck?
https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/dr-aleck-in-conversation-tickets-8625215251

Dr Hoodoo goes to Bali and spends time with his ‘old friends ICAO. Good times, philosophical musings, a little intellectual banter and a beach massage! Count me in.
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2013%20APACAIG1/IP_04%20-%20APAC-AIG-1%20-%20ICAO%20Safety%20Information%20Protection%20Task%20Force.p df

Line up now to get tickets to the great Hoodoo 2014 extravaganza! No doubt 2014 will also be a robust year for travelling, mingling, musing and 'troughing'?
Perhaps a puppet show will also be on the cards - Dr Hoodoo using the Skull as a hand puppet?

Oink oink

aroa
4th Feb 2014, 09:20
Cactus...thanks for the cackle :ok:

The CAsA Bali puppet show is characters on a stick,or sticks stuck up a few characters, with lots of activity, alas casting but shadows, mate, just shadows.

That's why we never get anything concrete out of the place...its all myth, make believe and ephemeral.

Time to bring in Punch and Judy.!:ok:

Sunfish
4th Feb 2014, 20:33
CASR 175 is called " A licence to print money".

It is in Jeppesens interest, for example, to ensure that the process of becoming approved under CASR175 is as difficult, complex and expensive as possible, as well as maximising the costs and complexity of maintaining approval. This process is called building a "barrier to entry".

By doing that you will deter would be competitors from entering the market and can therefore charge exorbitantly for your product.

CASA needs to have clauses inserted into its rectum that require it to promote the aviation industry as a whole. One corrolary of such a clause is that you don't build unnecessary barriers to entry into aviation related markets.

To put that another way, does anyone think pocket FMS, Ozrunways or anyone else is going to spend the money to become CASR175 compliant? I can see myself buying paper charts for years to come even though I wont be using them at all. ....Just bought a Garmin D2 watch last week as well:E

Up-into-the-air
5th Feb 2014, 02:09
Just comes to light from FF by e-mail:

Project SS 14/03
CASR Part 99 technical amendments (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101889)

Issue

Recent practice and advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions have identified flaws in the Part 99 legislative scheme relating to alcohol and other drug (AOD) testing.
Although Part 99 is presently the subject of a post implementation review, urgent amendments to the scheme correcting these issues is essential to the basic efficacy of the scheme. Legislative change is required because the current legislation is likely to preclude the basic operation of the scheme.
There are two main issues:
The first issue is a technical one. The legislation applies to persons who are 'performing or available to perform' safety-sensitive aviation activities. The test of 'performing or being available perform' is a threshold issue that determines who can be asked to provide a body sample for AOD testing. Further, the test of 'performing or being available to perform' is relevant to many of the offence provisions in Part 99 as well as several procedural requirements.
Part 99 also confers on testing officers certain powers in connection with the administration of AOD tests. Those powers include requiring a person being tested to cease performing or being available to perform a SSAA, and to remain in the testing officer's presence during the testing process. As part of CASA's standard procedures, testing officers require persons to cease carrying out any applicable SSAA, and to remain in the testing officer's presence, for the time it takes to provide a body sample and to complete the testing process.
The DPP recently returned a brief for prosecution under CASR 99.375 of a pilot who failed an alcohol test. One element of the offence in that regulation is that the person must provide a body sample for testing while the person is performing or available to perform a SSAA. The DPP expressed the view that the offence provision could not be made out because, having been required to remain in the testing officer's presence, the person was no longer available to perform the applicable SSAA. Accordingly, the element of the offence described above is impossible to satisfy.
Well this is not just the first example of this type of thing.

Remember Quadrio had the brief returned and no case to answer.

Problem was FF went on and on and on and on.

aroa
5th Feb 2014, 02:48
Just love it!!:ok:
Real expert legal people in CDPP pointing out to CAsA pretend lawyer "experts" the error of their wordy ways.
What a crock of dodgy legalese CAsA loves to entertain...!

"technical" amendments ?...sounds like a serious legal correction to me.

CAsA must be pissed!.... remember these are the people that have made the statement .." the courts sometimes don't give us the results we require"
( or words to that effect)
Oh bugger...the rule of law.:eek:

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 02:48
You watch: It’ll start raining aluminium because now everyone can get drugged or p*ssed to the eyeballs and not get prosecuted. Just like they did before. :rolleyes:

It’s surreal.

All of the time, cost and aggravation to make and implement Part 99 in response to theoretical rather than substantial safety problem, and it’s fundamentally flawed.

Two words to fix Part 99 properly: “Re” and “Peal”.

dubbleyew eight
5th Feb 2014, 03:08
CASA's drug and alcohol push fascinated me. the entire thing was bought in on the basis of american statistics.

american statistics apply to the american population, not australians.

in 40 years in and around aviation in this country I have heard only two tales of alcohol and aviation.

one concerned a tiger moth pilot who flew lubricated all the time. he experienced a number of crashes during his time and all occurred when he was sober.

the other was a group of guys including one of my instructors who went for a fly in a twin after a party one night. they were all pilots. in the air they realised that none of them was sober enough to land the aircraft. the harrowing part of the tale was them trying to work out who was the least affected. my instructor drew the short straw. they survived ...just.
that story of horror told in the hangar must have been far more effective than anything casa has ever achieved.

it is all nonsense.

the technique seems to be
1. create a mythical fire breathing monster.
2. terrify all the kids with lurid stories of doom.
3. set up an authority to conquer the mythical monster.
4. perpetually seed the world with lurid tales of derring do.
5. pay themselves high wages as evidence that it is all serious stuff.
6. prohibit anyone from forming a contrary opinion.

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 03:19
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

Up-into-the-air
5th Feb 2014, 05:05
The following is the people involved in this debacle:

Project management

Project Leader/s: Paul Hibberd ([email protected]), Special Counsel, Legal Services Division
Project Sponsor/s: Adam Anastasi, EM Legal Services Division
Standards Officer/s: Grant Mazowita ([email protected]), Manager, Standards Development and Quality AssuranceInteresting to look at the backgound of the Project Leader:

Paul Hibberd

Current

(self employed)

Education



The Australian National University


Background and Experience

Maritime affairs public international lawyer (self employed)
February 2012 – Present (2 years 1 month)Canberra

- Advice to Governments on preparations for maritime boundary negotiations including the preparation of relevant documentation.
- Assistance with the preparation of submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the presentation and defence of such submissions, including associated legal and project management advice.
- Advice and drafting assistance regarding maritime zones legislation.
- Drafting of legislation regulating the conduct of deep seabed mining.
Commonwealth Secretariat

Legal Adviser
Commonwealth Secretariat
March 2010 – December 2011 (1 year 10 months)London, United Kingdom

Project manager on legal and technical assistance projects to Commonwealth member countries in relation to the delimitation of maritime boundaries, drafting and implementation of maritime zones legislation and the preparation and presentation of submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
Preparation of advice on the implementation of multilateral treaty obligations by Commonwealth member countries and the impact of such treaties on sovereign power to negotiate maritime boundary agreements.
Drafting of joint management agreement provisions for shared areas of continental shelf beyond the EEZ.
Management of project budgets and consultants, liaison with high level executive and parliamentary representative of client governments, coordination of multiple inputs to submissions.


DLA Piper
Senior Associate
DLA Piper
October 2001 – February 2010 (8 years 5 months)Canberra

Complex administrative law and legislative interpretation advice to Australian Government clients.
Ad hoc public international law advice to private sector and foreign government clients, including in relation to international aviation law and maritime boundaries issues.
Australian Government procurement, contracting and probity advice and the negotiation and drafting of tender process documents and contracts.
Secondments to several agencies, including the Department of Human Services and Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Litigation: including representation at coronial inquest and complex commercial disputes.

Senior Legal Officer
Office of International Law, Australian Attorney-General's Department
September 2000 – June 2001 (10 months)Canberra

Legal research and advice on maritime delimitation issues.
Research, advice and drafting of treaty provisions relating to the unitisation of hydrocarbon deposits in the Timor Sea.
Preparing Australian Government responses to communications by individuals to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Advice on other issues of public international law as required.

Legal Counsel
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
July 1997 – September 2000 (3 years 3 months)



Advice to CASA on issues of public international law relevant to the performance of the Authority's functions.
Advice on the interpretation of legislation administered by the Authority.
Legislative drafting and the preparatio of drafting instructions.
Commercial law, contracting and procurement advice.
Legal-policy advice and policy development.
Administrative law advice and litigation.
Advice on corporate issues.

Any comments???

Sarcs
5th Feb 2014, 05:45
...the 36 Red Rats & 11 Vestile Virgins that went to a NYE piss up??
Well now they're all apparently in rehab...:rolleyes:

[YOUTUBE]Amy Winehouse - Rehab - YouTube

Fifty Qantas and Virgin airline and alcohol drug testing (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/fifty-qantas-and-virgin-airline-and-alcohol-drug-testing/story-fni0cx4q-1226800199631)

Love this bit..because according to the experts (WHO & the AODCA) we're all doomed to a life of tea totalling (& no more snorting lines on the tarmac) or else?? :{ Last year a survey of more than 300 members of the Australian and International Pilots' Association pilots revealed a culture of heavy drinking.

It found one in seven was at risk of significant life problems because of excessive alcohol consumption. Eight pilots scored above the cut-off for alcohol dependence, according to a World Health Organisation scale.

The report compiled by former Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia chief executive Dr Donna Bull found three-quarters of international pilots drank at hazardous levels.

Forty per cent admitted to imbibing six or more drinks in a single occasion at least once a month _ the accepted definition of binge drinking.
Hmm...heard through the grapevine that this is just the tip of the Avmed iceberg in relation to the big end of town airlines, who are consequently..."NOT HAPPY JAN!":(

Oh the FF PMO will be rubbing his hands in glee...:E

Cactusjack
5th Feb 2014, 06:20
UITA, I have plenty of comments about that, but I am sick of being thread banned because I refuse to change my wording into a format or style that doesn't offend those soft at heart who like to appease puppet masters.
The upshot is that CAsA will do as they please, nobody who wants to expose them is allowed to and they have the doors slammed on them at every avenue whether it be legally, morally, factually or even via a tendentious blog.

CAsA =1000, IOS = 0

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 07:19
UITA and Cactus

If it’s possible for you to set aside your blind prejudice and be a teensy bit objective just for a little while, you might be able to comprehend the fact that:

- no one in CASA drafted Part 99, and

- no lawyer in CASA or elsewhere decided that Part 99 was good policy.

Think about it. ;)

Cactusjack
5th Feb 2014, 10:58
Oh Creampuff, yet again you stick up for your 'lawyer friends' in CAsA. Hey didn't do it, it was not us, we were in Montreal at the time!
That's a nice quality that though, loyalty. And yes even amongst the ranks of CAsA it can still be found. And after all life would be dull without a loyal team such as the Witchdoctor, that other 'bloke' from the west and Flyingfiend at Sleepy Hollow.
Who knows Creamy, perhaps you should initiate a 'special audit' on myself and UITA := Do you need to borrow an enforcement manual or is there still one on your bookshelf?

Up-into-the-air
5th Feb 2014, 15:44
Come on I will bite cp

You well know as others on the thread that the individual departments write and hone the material, submit it via OLC then via AG's for approval then mrdak [Head of Department].

The part is then tabled usually sliding via parliament without notice for foisting on the great unsuspecting unwashed.

But not always when wide awake senators like David Fawcett and Nick Xenophon move disallowance motions

Go Sen nick - See cao 48 up for disallownace now.

Reasonable summary cp?

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 18:53
No, because it is wrong.

Regulations are drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, on instructions from the relevant policy makers. Office of Parliamentary Counsel - About OPC (http://www.opc.gov.au/about/index.htm) (Regulations used to be drafted by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publication, but it was recently ‘absorbed’ into the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.)

Office of Legal Counsel in CASA hasn’t draft any regulations for a looooooong time.

Office of Legal Counsel in CASA doesn’t have authority to decide the policy around D+A testing.

But feel free to blame OLC: That’s exactly what the organ grinders want you fools to do. :ok:

Up-into-the-air
5th Feb 2014, 21:59
But a little research may just enlighten you and remind us of the process.

This comes from the Parliament House web-site.

I imagine that this could be relied on CP.

Preparation of a bill (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_7_-_Making_laws)

A bill, which is a formal document prepared in the form of a draft Act, is no more than a proposal for a law or a change to the law. A bill becomes an Act—a law—only after it has been passed in identical form by both Houses of the Parliament and has been assented to by the Governor-General.

The original ideas for government legislation come from various sources. They may result from party policy, perhaps announced during an election campaign, from suggestions by Members and Senators or from interest groups in the community.

Many proposals, especially those of a routine nature which may be thought of as matters of administrative necessity, originate in government departments.

In whichever way a proposal originates it is considered by Cabinet or the Prime Minister and, if agreed to, the Minister responsible has his or her department arrange preparation of a bill. Bills are drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in accordance with detailed instructions issued by departments.

Draft bills are usually examined by government party committees on which Members of Parliament belonging to the governing party or parties serve. The Parliamentary Business Committee of Cabinet determines the program of bills to be introduced for each parliamentary sitting period.
Maybe this is the reason casa employ the "Project basis", but sorry I would be telling someone who was a casa person [maybe] how the process really works.

For us mere plebs, it probably works like this:

FF thought bubble:rolleyes::confused:

"Wonder how many people had too much ....... much last night"

:8"Are there any regs that cover that???"

New FF thought bubble:

:eek:"I know - Lets have a new project to make sure the plebs don't do that again"

FF completes a part and the process starts:

Including "Notices, consultation and the rest" that FF ignores when it arrives.

The great un-washed get another tosser idea, via the Department head.

Sarcs
5th Feb 2014, 23:04
Perhaps UITA you should change your name to Nutrigrain & carry on your Cereal Wars with Creamy elsewhere...:rolleyes:

Interesting AQON (in part) to the former Miniscule for Ag Senator Ludwig (who you will remember right royally buggered up the live Cattle export trade to Indonesia..:ugh:) which is relevant to the thread..:E: Senator Ludwig asked:

1. Since 7 September 2013, how many new reviews have been commenced? Please list them including:

a. the date they were ordered;
b. the date they commenced;
c. the Minister responsible;
d. the department responsible;
e. the nature of the review;
f. their terms of reference;
g. the scope of the review;
h. whom is conducting the review;
i. the number of officers, and their classification level, involved in conducting the review;
j. the expected report date; and
k. if the report will be tabled in parliament or made public.

2. For any review commenced or ordered since 7 September 2013, have any external people, companies or contractors been engaged to assist or conduct the review?

a. If so, please list them, including their name and/or trading name/s and any known alias or other trading names.
b. If so, please list their managing director and the board of directors or equivalent.
c. If yes, for each what are the costs associated with their involvement, broken down to each cost item.
d. If yes, for each, what is the nature of their involvement?
e. If yes, for each, are they on the lobbyist register? Provide details.
f. If yes, for each, what contact has the Minister or their office had with them?
g. If yes, for each, who selected them?
h. If yes, for each, did the Minister or their office have any involvement in selecting them?
i. If yes, please detail what involvement it was.
ii. If yes, did they see or provided input to a short list.
iii. If yes, on what dates did this involvement occur.
iv. If yes, did this involve any verbal discussions with
the department.
v. If yes, on what dates did this involvement occur.

Answer:
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Aviation Safety Regulation Review

1. Yes, Aviation Safety Regulation Review

a. The review results from a 2013 election commitment.

b. 14 November 2013.

c. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development.

d. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

e. External review of aviation safety regulation in Australia.

f. See Attachment A.

g. See Attachment A.

h. Mr David Forsyth AM, Mr Don Spruston and Mr Roger Whitefield.

i. SES1 x 1, EL2 x 1, EL1 x 1, APS6 x 1, APS4 x 1.

j. May 2014.

k. This is a matter for Government.

2. Yes

a. Mr David Forsyth AM, Mr Don Spruston, Mr Roger Whitefield, Mr Phillip Reiss (trading as Reiss Aviation).

b. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged as an individual or sole-trader.

c. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged at a rate of $1,500.00 per day ex GST plus reasonable expenses incurred.

d. Each person listed at 2.a. above is engaged to provide advisory services.

e. None of the people listed at 2.a above are on the lobbyist register.

f. The Minister met all four people listed at 2.a. above on 9 December 2013.

g. The Minister approved the selection of all four listed at 2.a. above on the basis of advice from the Department.

h. Yes.

i. The Minister approved the engagement of all four people on the basis of advice from the Department.
ii. Yes.
iii. Various dates in October/November 2013
iv. Yes.
v. Various dates in October/November 2013
Hmm AQON at 2(c)...:confused:..not bad coin if you can get it...:E

Creampuff
5th Feb 2014, 23:20
UITA: You continue to conflate the ‘idea’ (the policy) with the activity of drafting the words giving effect to the idea (the Regulation). You said:You well know as others on the thread that the individual departments write and hone the material, submit it via OLC then via AG's for approval then mrdak [Head of Department].

The part is then tabled usually sliding via parliament without notice for foisting on the great unsuspecting unwashed.The individual departments don’t write and hone the material. They come up with the bright ideas (policies) and tell OPC about them. OPC then drafts the Regulations to give effect to the bright ideas.

Someone in CASA now has to do the boring as batsh*t job of explaining to OPC why Part 99 has to be changed to address the problems identified by CDPP, so that OPC can draft a Regulation to amend a Regulation. How many pilots and engineers in CASA do you think volunteered for that?

If it makes you feel good to believe that CASA’s OLC dreams up all the evil policies and drafts all the regulations that you don’t like, so be it. The ignorance of industry is one of the reasons the regulatory reform program is where it is.

Frank Arouet
6th Feb 2014, 00:21
I'm beginning to believe it' just a twenty three year combined clusterfcuk that happened in the usual course of events, but you have to admit working backwards someone must have been a catalyst for the end result.


I'm also getting strong 'vibes' about some functionaries that were wearing black hats now wear white hats out of frustration of how it all arrived at the morgue platform instead of the interstate express platform. As for someone now having to do a boring as bat$hit job, well we all reap what we sow. If a white hat got that job I feel sorry for him. If he's a senior functionary with a white hat, I feel sorry for him, but I hear the wages are pretty good without getting 'feeling sorry for yourself' penalty rates.


Apologies if the metaphors are vague but I'm attempting to give one alleged white hat the benefit of the doubt for now and don't intend to compromise him. He should be cognizant of exactly who invented payback however, if he intends to do harm to my most trusted friend who is doing likewise. Enough said, so don't PM me. I won't tell.

Cactusjack
6th Feb 2014, 01:41
Frank, I understand your shanty, cheers. :ok:
But what about Cactus? I have a hat too, but it isn't black or white , it is maroon with a pair of boobs on it, what does that mean?

And does anybody know where one can purchase a cap with IOS written on it?

Frank Arouet
6th Feb 2014, 02:33
I think it means your a Queensland supporter. The boobs are a dead giveaway. Anyone in business would probably stump up for the caps if they are in CASA's jurisdiction.

aroa
6th Feb 2014, 03:43
caps are easy.
How about a T shirt?
...The wearer is one of the Ills of Society,due to of overdose of bureaucratic bullsh*t

ps neither the GG or the PM do regulations...as some CAsA persons suggested to me that they did ! :ooh::confused:

Does IOS have a logo ?

Frank Arouet
6th Feb 2014, 04:43
'We're here to help'

Sarcs
6th Feb 2014, 07:00
aroa: Does IOS have a logo ? Perhaps a pic with a pineapple sticking out of the cargo door of VH-NGA..hmm on the back you could have It's the PIT(s) {PIT- Pineapple insertion team}...:E

On ToR 'any other safety related matters' I noticed the AAA have made their submission publicly available..:D

AAA- SUBMISSION TO THE AVIATION SAFETY REGULATION REVIEW (http://airports.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Submission-to-the-Aviation-Safety-Regulation-Review-Jan-20141.pdf)


And Australian Aviation provides a summary of that submission..:ok::AAA calls for aerodrome safety regs review

1:35 pm, Thursday February 6 2014

The Australian Airports Association (AAA) has called for a full review of the CASA regulations governing the operation of Australian aerodromes as part of its submission to the government’s review of aviation safety regulation.

Specifically, the industry body says MOS Part 139 should be reviewed as a matter of priority to bring the standards up to date with current systems and technologies. The Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139 – Aerodromes is the set of regulations established and maintained by CASA which covers all aspects of the operations of aerodromes.

“Industry has identified a number of serious issues with MOS Part 139, including the need to update the text to reflect the latest developments in aircraft technology and airport operations,” Caroline Wilkie, CEO of the AAA said in a statement. “MOS Part 139 contains many conflicting rules and definitions, right down to the most basic interpretation of an ‘aircraft’. The lack of clarity and consistency in MOS Part 139 has the potential to cause safety risks at aerodromes.”

An AAA standards group has made several other recommendations, including:


CASA increasing their stakeholder engagement in relation to regulation and audit process changes;
All future changes to safety regulations be made using a risk based approach;
Implementation of a clearly defined and documented change management system to track any changes made to key safety and compliance processes;
Establishment of a joint working group between CASA and industry to work on future regulatory requirements for aerodromes;
Development of training programs in the areas of airport and airport operations;
Separation of responsibilities for the policy making and regulation of aerodromes;
The timely release of safety reports into incidents that have occurred;
Increased capacity for CASA to approve or not approve developments that could impact on airport safety;
An increase in staffing levels for the Aerodromes section of CASA to meet growing industry demands; and
The increase of the CASA board to eight members and to include experienced aviation industry professionals.

The AAA’s full submission to the aviation safety review can be viewed at Submissions | Australian Airports Association (http://airports.asn.au/policy/submissions/)

Further to India ICAO Category 2 story - The following is an article that highlights the potential knock on effect if we were ever to be bumped to Cat 2 by the FAA :{...

Singapore Raises Inspection of Indian Planes After FAA Downgrade (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/singapore-raises-inspection-of-indian-planes-after-faa-downgrade.html)

Addendum: Although I am fully supportive of the AAA submission I thought the following (real AOPA) , from the yanks, makes for a feel good read...:ok:

Perhaps shows (much like Archerfield's Tenancy group..:D) what can be achieved by small, committed, like-minded individuals if they combine and put their collective efforts to a common cause...:ok::
'Benign neglect' (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/January/22/VeniceAirport.aspx)

Venice Airport has a new lease on life
January 22, 2014

Venice Municipal Airport in Florida, once a victim of “benign neglect” according to its supporters, is in trouble no more. The historic former army base on the Gulf Coast of Florida has turned itself around, thanks in great part to a small cadre of supporters who never stopped believing.

AOPA Manager of Airport Policy John Collins saw firsthand the accomplishments at Venice Municipal Airport Jan. 15 as he toured the 835-acre airport, spoke before the city’s economic development advisory board, and was a guest at the monthly meeting of the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI). “You have a very valuable and economically viable airport here,” Collins told the advisory board. “The differences between my visit in 2010 and today are incredible—the rehabilitation of Runway 5/23, the new fencing, the obstruction removal, the realigned taxiway. We can’t thank you enough for your support of your airport.” He conveyed the same message to city council members and VASI members in the audience at the VASI meeting as well.

Venice Municipal faced opposition in this small resort town (population 21,000), which welcomes “snowbirds” January through March, when northerners trek south to Florida’s sunny shores. Venice is a charming and quaint small town bordered by the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway. The airport, established in 1947, was a training base and later an active general aviation airport. But as the city grew and economic belts tightened, the airport began to suffer from “benign neglect,” according to Paul Hollowell, a member of the VASI board of directors.

And because of the city’s neglect of its airport, its detractors started to nibble at the airport's 835-acre footprint. They wanted to shorten one of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways. They wanted to deny new business. They wanted to take airport land—the golf course and the mobile home park, and the restaurant, and the former Barnum & Bailey Circus winter headquarters—all airport land tenants. Even though the airport was self-sustaining and an economic boon, detractors started a smear campaign, which called out the airport for noise, jet traffic, and being a bad neighbor (one of the terrorists of the 9/11 attacks had trained at the airport).

It worked. The most vocal detractor and two of her friends were voted onto the city council. One was the mayor.

Noise reduction signs were installed by the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI) in 2009. The “Always Fly Friendly” signs verbally and graphically depict noise-reduction flight procedures at the departure ends of each of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways.

Noise reduction signs were installed by the Venice Aviation Society Inc. (VASI) in 2009. The “Always Fly Friendly” signs verbally and graphically depict noise-reduction flight procedures at the departure ends of each of the airport’s two 5,000-foot runways.

VASI President Emeritus and AOPA Airport Support Network Volunteer Nick Carlucci calls these times “The Troubles.” When the airport detractors stirred up the citizens, they picketed landing jets at the airport and stood on the island’s bridges with signs telling visiting pilots to go home. They forced legislation and worked to close the airport.

Carlucci, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a Cessna 172 owner and pilot, hasn’t lost his Brooklyn accent, nor his Brooklyn brashness. The former Marine Corps colonel joined forces with Hollowell and some others and activated VASI. They worked with AOPA and the FAA. Carlucci’s tenaciousness is a key factor in why Venice Municipal is no longer under attack.

“Tremendous advocates,” is the phrase Venice Mayor John Holic uses to describe Carlucci and the VASI members. “They love flying above just about everything else, but the love they have for the city has turned out positively for Venice and its airport.”

The situation at Venice Municipal was so poor that when airport manager Chris Rozansky accepted the job in October 2010, a friend said he wouldn’t wish that job on his worst enemy. And, initially, Rozansky suspected his friend might have been right. He was harangued and badgered, but with the help of the team from VASI and a new mayor and council members, he slowly was able to “tell the airport story.” A story of how much income the city derives from its tenants and users, how only three percent of the 60,000 takeoff and landings are from jets, and that the FAA wasn’t planning on taking residential housing.

“Often the stated concerns like noise are symptoms of a larger, unrealistic fear,” Rozansky says. “I listened—we listened—and when we could get to the root problem, which was usually unrealistic fears, we could get people on our side.”

With a supportive mayor and council, the vigilant work of VASI members, support from the FAA, and silenced detractors, Venice Municipal recently opened a reconstructed noise-mitigation Runway 5/23 (there’s a plaque outside the airport manager’s office that says Rest in Peace for the old runway). There are 220 based aircraft, an FBO, avionics shop (Sarasota Avionics, which has contributed to AOPA sweepstakes aircraft projects), two flight schools, and maintenance facilities. The Sarasota County Sheriff’s helicopter, providing law enforcement and firefighting support, and Agape Flights, a missionary organization, are based at the airport.

“Venice Municipal Airport has gone from the poster child of neglected airports to a business case in one turning around,” proudly states Brett Stephens, VASI president.

Council Member Kit McKeon, who served on the past council and was re-elected for a second term said, “We’ll remain vigilant against those who might try to diminish our airport, but let me assure you that the modernized Venice Municipal Airport is open for business.”

Paragraph377
6th Feb 2014, 11:03
Creampuff,
The individual departments don’t write and hone the material. They come up with the bright ideas (policies) and tell OPC about them. OPC then drafts the Regulations to give effect to the bright ideas.
Creampuff, you are a bright individual, and obviously somebody with a passing interest in legal things, tell me, would organisations such as AMSA or NOPSEMA also operate in the same said manner as what you mention above in relation to CASA? Just curious really.

Creampuff
6th Feb 2014, 19:27
Precisely the same manner.

Instructions for Regulations go from them to OPC (nee OLDP).

You might be getting confused with Civil Aviation Orders, Marine Orders and delegated legislation other than Regulations. :confused:

Sarcs
7th Feb 2014, 05:43
Have been reliably informed that there is a number of submissions, some requested by the panel themselves, from some very heavy hitters in the Aviation legal fraternity. Here is a couple of publicly available submissions that I have been able to find thus far...:cool::

Submission of the Australian Lawyers Alliance (http://www.aviationlaw.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Australian-Lawyers-Alliance_ASRR-Submission.pdf)

In brief, the Australian Lawyers Alliance recommended that the Panel should advise Government that:

1. Guidance material on CASA’s enforcement policy which guides CASA decision makers should be legally binding and itself enforceable under an Ombudsman-type arrangement akin to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
2. Strict adherence to AAT expert evidence guidelines and procedural rules be demanded of all litigants in aviation administrative matters (both CASA and represented applicants).
3. Australia’s fatigue risk management system rules should be further developed by CASA in light of the merits of the US FAA approach which came into effect on 14 January 2014.
4. Australian aviation drug and alcohol management (DAMP) policy should be clarified by adding an “Objects” section to either Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth), or Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), to reflect Parliament’s intention that DAMP rules operate to minimise harm in aviation, not punish.
5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
6. CASA should undertake as a priority, a review of the need for regulations on cockpit automation and adapt and implement relevant recommendations of the FAA in its comprehensive September 2013 report on this subject including, in particular, a proposed requirement for Australian AOC holders to create explicit flight path management policies.
And from a solely victims perspective..:D:

Shine Lawyers submission (http://www.aviationlaw.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Shine-Lawyers_ASRR-Submission.pdf)In turn, Shine Lawyers recommended to the ASRR Panel that it should advise the Government to:

1. Extend the concession Commonwealth employees travelling on Commonwealth business enjoy under Part III of the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act 1963 (Cth) (AACL Act) to all Australians, or repeal Part III of the AACL Act; or
2. Review the AACL Act’s consistency with the policy behind the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) (CACL Act), and update the AACL Act to reflect its original intent as expressed by Parliament in 1963; and
3. Remove all references to the term “personal injury” in s.12 of the AACL Act (or return that term to the wording of the CACL Act for consistency); and
4. Legislate for the imposition of adherence to the IATA (or some other suitable) intercarrier agreement as a condition for non-Australian airlines which service Australia (as recommended at Preliminary Finding 4 of the 2009 DOIRD Discussion Paper).
Just can't go past supplying a couple of cherry picked quotes from the ALA submission...:ok:

On Fort Fumble in the AAT:ugh::
"...Anecdotally, confidence in decision making by CASA is at an all-time low. Furthermore, there have been several indications from Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) members indicating that the AAT has been the (erroneous) venue for criticisms of CASA’s investigative or decision making processes.20 Unless an independent alternative forum for such critique is available, Tribunal resources and CASA resources will be wasted in the pacification of litigants who claim misfeasance or similar civil wrongs, and/or decide to use particular decisions of CASA as springboards to attack CASA policies. This assists no-one.

It is recommended that the decision making processes and considerations outlined therein be reduced into a legislative instrument to ensure accountability by CASA decision makers as a matter of right, and that this oversight be the responsibility of an independently established Ombudsman in the vein of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO).

We submit that the EM is so precise that it lends itself to independent oversight for contravention. This would reassure aviation stakeholders that potentially incorrect or “not preferable” decisions would not just be reviewable in the case of individually affected or aggrieved stakeholders, by virtue of an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Thus, independent oversight as proposed here is not intended to supplant proper access to administrative review in the AAT. Rather, the mechanism proposed below or any variation of it, has the capacity to reduce costly litigation in the AAT and Federal Court which can sometimes be motived by allegations of erroneous or misapprehended decision making, to a forum of its own, where compliance by CASA officers with the EM can be addressed practically and openly to ensure future adherence with the policies underpinning it...

"...3. In our opinion the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner is not a suitable entity for such oversight, given its strictly limited and dissimilar roles under its own Terms of Reference.22 Rather the oversight of regulatory decision making should lie with an entity which is particularly charged with the singular and unfettered role of examining regulatory decision making by reference to CASA’s own policy, and setting suitable penalties for noncompliance in instances where the policy has not been adhered to…"

On Fort Fumble MLR obligations:yuk::
"...A matter which has bolstered aviation operators’ lack of confidence in administrative decision making, which criticism has been relayed to the ALA, together with our own examination of decisions on CASA decisions reaching the AAT, results in the identification of a further issue which should be considered by the Panel.

The AAT recently set aside the decision of CASA to cancel the medical certificates of a Queensland commercial pilot who was alleged to have no longer met medical standards after suffering an attack while out with friends in March 2013: Daniel Bolton and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2013] AATA 941 (23 December 2013).In this decision what is remarkable is that this conclusion could have been jeopardised by seemingly minor procedural omissions by the representatives of the parties who were prosecuting the action…"

On FRMS :rolleyes::
“…The relevant CASA surveillance which resulted in the requests for corrective action predated the existing FRMS requirements, but post-dated the commencement of CASA’s original Civil Aviation Order 48.1 which prescribes duty flight time limitations.36 This means that minimum rest time for pilots was set by CAO 48.1 and not strictly the subject of a formal risk management system as it might be argued might now applies to such an operator. The issue then becomes less one of FRMS per se, but one of FRM regulatory oversight. Is a prescribed duty time limit easier to enforce and better than a FRMS which leaves such decisions to pilots and operators in the high demand environment of commercial aviation?...

…In our submission the criticism for the Panel to note is that the FRMS rules now applicable by virtue of the commencement of the Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Instrument 2013 (No. 1)38 on 30 April 2013 are not only subject to major contrary views but this view was acted upon by a motion to disallow in the Senate which lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued on 5 August 2013 prior to the Federal Election. Since that time, and following the opening of submissions to the present ASRR, a second motion to disallow was made, and is presently pending for resolution in the Senate by 24 March 2014. These indications of public discontent must not be forgotten in determining a way forward for resolving the debate on flight time limitations…”

On systemic oversight beyond LHR..:=:
“…No submission to a review of aviation safety regulation would be complete without addressing the regulatory safety factors identified by the ATSB in its investigation report of Australia’s worst modern air crash disaster, the collision with terrain of a Fairchild Aircraft Inc aircraft operated by Transair north west of Lockhart River in Queensland on 7 May 2005.

In the report, just as with the Pel-Air report, 43 deficiencies with industry surveillance and consistency of oversight activities with CASA’s policies, procedure and guidelines were implicated in relation to the lack of detection of fundamentalproblems associated with Transair’s management of regular public transport flights operations (such as pilot training, checking, supervision of line flight operations, standard operating procedures, risk management processes etc).44…

….The ALA’s submission is that while there is now a proactive aviation atmosphere with respect to safety risk management for aviation service providers, as evidenced by CASA’s reliance on such principles in preparing its own responses to SARPs on fatigue risk management and drug and alcohol risk management in aviation, these principles should also not be forgotten in the broader context of the results which can eventuate in the absence of such principles in guiding surveillance or oversight of AOC holders (such as the crash at Lockhart River).

Thus, the ALA recommends and endorses updating of the Australian State Safety Program, as published on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website, as this was last considered in April 2012, well before the commencement of Annex 19.52 The benefit of this would be to demonstrate to the public the Government’s continuing adherence to regulatory oversight and surveillance at a national level and inspire confidence in smaller air operators to embrace safety risk management principles in the management of their aviation businesses…”:D:D

I could cherry pick more but then I would destroy the intrigue for the avid IOS readers.:zzz:.


IMO it is well worth the time..;)..more to follow K2 (Sarski) :ok:

Paragraph377
7th Feb 2014, 11:21
Interesting that you should raise this one Sarcs:
On systemic oversight beyond LHR..:
“…No submission to a review of aviation safety regulation would be complete without addressing the regulatory safety factors identified by the ATSB in its investigation report of Australia’s worst modern air crash disaster, the collision with terrain of a Fairchild Aircraft Inc aircraft operated by Transair north west of Lockhart River in Queensland on 7 May 2005.

In the report, just as with the Pel-Air report, 43 deficiencies with industry surveillance and consistency of oversight activities with CASA’s policies, procedure and guidelines were implicated in relation to the lack of detection of fundamentalproblems associated with Transair’s management of regular public transport flights operations (such as pilot training, checking, supervision of line flight operations, standard operating procedures, risk management processes etc).44…
This remains a travesty. Fort Fumble could've learned from this. Tombstone technology to coin a phrase. An accident happens, it gets properly investigated and lessons are learned. Unfortunately the only lesson CASA learned from Lockhart was one of CYA. If anything the stakes have gotten higher and the system more dysfunctional and of a higher risk. Justice still awaits the loved ones of those killed, and a different form of justice still awaits those with blood stained hands.

Australia's two biggest in around 40 years - Transair and Pel Air and yet the regulator still obsfucates, ignores, eludes, hides, weaves, denies, distorts and distances itself? Vile individuals.

Sarcs
7th Feb 2014, 22:35
“...All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not....”


Or basically put "do as I say not as I do" is no longer going to be accepted by IOS as legitimate excuse for bureaucratic spin & obfuscation at any level...:=


Yes Para the ALA recommendation 5 provides a subtle but clear message that even a simple knuckledragger, tinpusher or gingerbeer can understand …;):5. In light of the Pel-Air and Transair air disasters, Australia should update its State Safety Program in recognition and reflection of Australia’s adherence to safety management standards set out in Annex 19 to the Chicago Convention which entered force on 14 November 2013, to assure the public of confidence in future regulator oversight and surveillance of operators.
Comment: The IOS ‘Great Unwashed’, with elephant memories :oh:, may recall that Annex 19 was a topic of discussion way..way back on the first but ‘CLOSED’ (RIP ‘lest we forget’:{) Senate thread on about page 85. {Note: For those that need a refreshing of the neurons Annex 19 references started around.... post #1682 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-85.html#post7831962)}

But back to ALA R5 it is worth bringing up the footnote #52 link provided, which will lead to a pdf version:

AUSTRALIA’S STATE AVIATION SAFETY PROGRAM APRIL 2012 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/files/Australias_State_Safety%20Program_2012_FA7.pdf)

Then it is well worth reflecting on the Foreword to that document:FOREWORD

The safety of the aviation industry is paramount to its ability to maintain the confidence of the travelling public as it continues to grow and to connect people, communities and nations.

Australia has an excellent aviation safety record with a mature regulatory framework and a broadly accepted and industry-supported safety culture.
Even a mature safety system must include processes for ongoing improvement. Continuing rapid advances in navigation and aircraft technology and the intense commercial pressures of the aviation industry require the continuing improvement and refinement of our aviation safety systems.

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

Australia’s State Safety Program plays an important part in identifying, monitoring and maintaining the effectiveness of the various elements of our safety systems. The Program identifies and describes current arrangements and outlines the steps we need to continue to take in order to respond to safety challenges in the future.

The history of Australia’s formal oversight of its civil aviation operations dates back to the enactment of the Air Navigation Act by the Commonwealth Parliament in 1920.

Over the ensuing 90 years, regulatory oversight of the safety performance of civil aviation operations has required continual revision and modernisation in response to, and on occasion in anticipation of, a range of technological advances and changes in the operational environment.

Australia was a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) in 1944, and has been a member of ICAO since its establishment. From the outset, Australia has been an active participant in, and a strong supporter of ICAO’s activities, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to the enhancement of the safety, security and environmental sustainability of civil aviation. As a large island nation, the availability of safe, regular and efficient air services within Australia and between Australia and the rest of the world is critical to our national interest.

A number of Australian Government agencies have responsibilities for aviation safety including the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Department of Defence, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. These agencies have now produced the first revision of Australia’s State Safety Program. I would like to acknowledge all of these agencies for their contributions to this Program and for their continuing commitment to aviation safety in Australia. The State Safety Program will be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it reflects evolving aviation safety standards and practices.

Mike Mrdak

Secretary

Department of Infrastructure and Transport

April 2012
Then quietly remember that this bureaucratic masterpiece was promulgated prior to the PelAir sh#t storm…:ugh: :yuk:

Hmm..do you reckon the Department boys’n’gals..:rolleyes:..(& possibly PMC) are going to be very busy over the next year..while dreading the knock on the door from Mr FAA {ICAO} :{?? :E

Prince Niccolo M
8th Feb 2014, 04:38
Back in the closed thread at #1772, I said http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-87.html#post7839442

Annex 19 - Panacea?


All this enthusiasm for Annex 19 as some form of panacea for the ills of Australian aviation is a little bemusing. My understanding of Annex 19 is that it is a collection of existing provisions, edited only for document continuity. As I further understand it, there will be no new provisions for a number of years.

Any existing shortfalls in Safety Management at a State level will continue as shortfalls when measured against Annex 19 (when it transitions from the current 'green' version to a fully-fledged 'blue' version).


Well, it is now a blue version and the foreword reconfirms:

This Annex consolidates material from existing Annexes regarding SSP and safety management systems (SMSs), as well as related elements including the collection and use of safety data and State safety oversight activities. The benefit of drawing together this material into a single Annex is to focus States’ attention on the importance of integrating their safety management activities. It also facilitates the evolution of safety management provisions

So, all of the compliance issues that may exist are old, meaning everyone waving Annex 19 around like the Sermon from the Mount should have previously identified and complained about any shortfalls with the pre-existing SARPs :ooh: :hmm: :uhoh:

Frank Arouet
10th Feb 2014, 04:44
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/skulldigging.jpg

Cactusjack
10th Feb 2014, 09:57
Frank, were they digging the foundations for a new ergonomic worm farm? Or perhaps they ran out of carpet to hide things under so with all the current heat on them they decided to 'go big'! Maybe that photo is actually a photo of Sky Sentinel, the $3 million dollar lemon? Is that what it does with collected information, buries it? Perhaps that pic is a premonition (bit of voodoo hocus pocus) of a future crash in a muddy swamp where retrieval of 'bits' is being undertaken?
Then again, it could be Senator X at the wheel of that robust excavator, digging a channel wide enough for the Styx Houseboat to make it to Fort Fumbles front door and pick up its nervy passengers!!!
TOOT TOOT all aboard, TOOT TOOT

TICK TOCK

Blue Ruin
10th Feb 2014, 15:03
FWIW, the AFAP submission is located here...

http://www.afap.org.au/files/nrteUploadFiles/92F022F201443A453A25PM.pdf


OVERVIEW
The Federation's submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR or Review) is structured in accordance with the Review terms of reference. Our submission supports that:

1. All aviation agencies and responsibilities be brought back under the oversight of a single Aviation Minister or, at a minimum, the Director of Aviation Safety should not be able to operate independent of a Board structure.

2. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) should be better resourced. That programs and initiatives aimed at greater self-regulation do not come at the expense of internal expertise within CASA. The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular is in need of an overhaul to ensure clearer processes and that specified service standards are delivered.

3. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) remains independent and purely safety focused. In line with this, that legislative immunity is provided for flight crew who raise safety concerns and the material gathered by the ATSB during investigations is protected from any other party.

4. Airservices Australia (AsA) improves its methodology to ensure appropriate service responses to rapid changes in traffic movements. AsA should also conduct a review of radio and operational procedures for all airports in G Airspace that involve regular public transport operations.

5. The operations of the Office of Transport Security (OTS) are an excessive cost burden on the industry and that many security screening processes are illogical or unnecessary.

6. The recommendations of Senate Committee Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations be revisited and implemented as a matter of priority.

7. In accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Annex 13, information gathered in safety investigations or mandatorily supplied be protected and not shared between agencies.

8. The Regulations be re-written in plain English, targeted at and comprehensible to the industry.

9. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process be reviewed such that sensible and defensible timeframes are provided and adhered to.

10. Jurisdictional issues regarding Australian aircraft operating in New Zealand and New Zealand aircraft operating in Australia needs to be clarified.

11. Fatigue management legislation encompasses all safety sensitive personnel.

12. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) surveillance is implemented in all Australian airspace above 10,000 feet.

13. The upgrade of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) to Cat 3 at all Australian capital city airports.

14. Flight data is provided with legislative protection that ensures it may only be used for safety purposes and prohibits the use of this information in civil or criminal actions.

15. The recommendations of the 2000 Senate Inquiry into the incidents of contaminated cabin air are revisited and implemented as a matter of urgency.

16. Land use planning around airports be controlled and coordinated to ensure airport capacity is not restricted or that development does not adversely impact on existing operations.


A few quotes from the submission...

Whilst we do not object to a user pays model to cover the costs incurred in providing aviation services, we believe it is necessary to accurately quantify those costs and identify who the end users are to ensure that they contribute a fair share rather than attempting to recover the full cost of service provision from the industry. This applies to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia (AsA), the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Office of Transport Security (OTS). In this light it is somewhat disturbing that CASA reported a $12M profit over the last year.


The Aviation Medicine section of CASA in particular appears to act without due regard for the impact its decisions have on individual pilots and the industry. There is little or no communication about delays in the medical certificate renewal process or transparency about the reasons for delays occurring. Certificate holders are obliged to follow up with the section to find out why their certificates have not been renewed only to receive requests for additional medical reports and tests. The Federation has received numerous complaints from members as to the apparently arbitrary nature of decisions and the bureaucratic and incompetent processing of renewals. These delays threaten the livelihood of our members, and undermine the productivity of the businesses for whom they work. We have previously surveyed members and written to the former Minister on this issue1. An overhaul of the Aviation Medicine section of CASA should be a priority. This would include additional resources, clearer processes, specified service standards and improved training of staff.


The security screening processes applied to pilots are arbitrary and unnecessary. Continually screening pilots before they go airside so that their tweezers are detected before they take control of a jet aircraft with an axe in the cockpit seat beggars belief. Particularly when other airside workers, such as baggage handlers and catering staff, are not subject to the same screening processes. In addition, pilots are also subject to continual “random selection” for bomb trace detection tests in airports. This practice not only inconveniences aircrew, but also devalues the testing regime by targeting testing away from ordinary passengers. These measures appear driven by political and public relations concerns rather than any safety case.

Fantome
10th Feb 2014, 15:21
so is there any sign of avmed getting its act together?

Creampuff
10th Feb 2014, 19:27
From the “Aviation Safety Yearbook 2013” page 17:CASA is determined to improve the delivery of medical certificates. One initiative being examined is the capability to issue a class 2 medical certificate at the time of the of the DAME’s office, right then and there. …”It just shows how weak the fabric of government has become.

A regulator can, at a whim, stuff up a system that was working well, then, without even a hint of embarrassment or irony, print a glossy magazine nominating that as a system the regulator is determined to improve.

But they can’t make a decision and implement it. Oh no. It’s an “initiative being examined”. Some very important matters have to be considered (and objective safety data have to be ignored). First step will have to be drafting a plan as to when they plan to complete the examination of the initiative. By the end of 2006, perhaps?

And they couldn’t contemplate giving up the capacity to stuff at least someone around. Hmmm, how can we create the most mayhem for the least effort? I know: Class 1s. Let’s keep them! Yay! Class 1 medical holders can continue to pay us to stuff them around. What a hoot!

Here’s an idea for an initiative, CASA: Get out of the way and leave medical certification to people who know what they are doing.

Sarcs
10th Feb 2014, 21:31
Blue Ruin thank you for that, not being a member of the AFAP I was unable to access what appears to be another significant contribution to the ASRR...:D {Q/ BR what is the current membership number for the AFAP?}

IMO AFAP members should be (especially given the short time to prepare) suitably happy with the end result, as the submission appears to encompass many of the main membership concerns while providing historical, simple examples and practical solutions/recommendations with strong adherence to the ToRs...so bravo AFAP...:ok:

Supplementary to BR quotes (same hymn sheet..:rolleyes:):

7. Alternatively, we believe that the Director of Aviation Safety should not be able to operate independent of a Board structure.


8. We consider it imperative that all senior appointments to any agency with a safety related role should have significant prior experience in a relevant field.
Further to CAsA, other than Avmed debacle (my bold):11. Policy changes aimed at greater industry self-regulation than currently exists should be opposed. In a climate of reduced resources a philosophy of self-regulation may appear to be an attractive short term option. However, self-regulation is a self-fulfilling principle; the more that CASA devolves to industry, the less expertise resides within CASA to identify shortcomings, the less CASA is seen as ‘the Regulator’ and the less it accepts that responsibility.

12. The perception of CASA by our members is one of constant change, characterised by high staff turn-over and low morale from within. Whilst we understand any regulatory authority will continually review its internal policies and administrative operations to improve service delivery and efficiency, there is a need for a clearly articulated long term goal of what the Regulator wants to achieve and how this will be done.
On the ATsB & PelAir report:16. We support legislative immunity for flight crew who raise safety concerns and measures that allow flight crew to report directly to a better resourced and independent ATSB.


17. We oppose any relaxations which may allow greater access to information obtained by the ATSB during safety investigations.
25. We note that the Minister whilst in opposition supported demands for the immediate implementation of those recommendations and request that this Review revisit the findings of that inquiry and recommend the implementation of those recommendations as a matter of priority.
28. This is contrary to the intent of ICAO Annex 13 which states that "the objective of an investigation of an accident or incident is prevention of future events" and the ICAO Safety Management Manual which states that "information should be collected solely for the purpose of aviation safety and information protection is essential in ensuring the continued availability of that information". It follows that ATSB reports on accident or incident investigations or any information from the mandatory reporting process should never be made available for regulatory enforcement purposes or civil actions.


29. For a safety reporting regime to operate effectively people must be confident that disclosure will not result in punitive action unless the action was deliberate or reckless.
Finally on RRP, I could quote the whole lot..:D..but to summarise:41. In contrast to Australia’s CASRs 1998, the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules are clear and comprehensible. While in no way endorsing the content of the New Zealand legislation, we would support clear plain English regulations aimed at and comprehensible to the industry, not just lawyers.


42. We therefore request that the regulatory development process be reviewed in the interests of achieving the goals of clear, concise and unambiguous regulations delivered in a timely manner.
{Comment: Especially liked the 'Aeroplane' definition example from para 35-39..:E}

I could go on cherry picking but this submission has already got the IOS tick of approval...again bravo AFAP!:ok:

Note: AFAP sub quote at the end...

"...As previously stated, the Federation would welcome the opportunity to supplement the above written submission via verbal submissions to the Review Panel..."
Although the time frame is still limited, it would appear that the panel would be willing to accept further supplementary submissions in support of original submissions, see here...

Submissions are now closed
The formal submission period has now closed. However the Panel will endeavour to consider late submissions.
To make a late submission please use the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions.aspx)

Addendum: Noted this short summary article from Australian Flying on the RA-Aus submission, where it seems the primary membership concern is the imposition of the ASIC: RA-Aus Weighs into ASIC Debate (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/ra-aus-weighs-into-asic-debate)

aroa
10th Feb 2014, 22:24
Had a visit to this regional field, no RPT, by some young AFP chappies recently who left a card which states ..."you are the eyes and ears of the airport, and if you see something suspicious call 131 AFP
And on the front See it, hear it Report it.

Quite fascinating that this was the very attitude taken in the USA after 9/11 and they DID NOT institute cards because they said the very words of the above...you are the eyes and ears etc..and those people at the field are part of the solution...seeing what goes on.

Its only taken 13 years then ?

So...is your "security " card ASIC soon to be changed to an ASAW, Airport Security Amateur Watchdog with a cheque for $200 to encourage you to keep a look out.:ok:
Dont think so somehow.

Up-into-the-air
11th Feb 2014, 02:35
From todays e-mail stream from FF.

FF loses it again - How on earth can there be a "by close of business" reply to a draft AC???:

CASA wishes to advise that Draft AC 21-42 v2.0 – Light sport aircraft manufacturers’ requirements (http://casa.grapevine.com.au/lists/lt.php?id=f0UDDAYBBgwFUR9VAwMCTA0IBQgE) has been published on the CASA website for comment and review.
Comments are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Ben Challender ([email protected]) by close of business
and the link does not work [just the same as the FF regulators!!]

Paragraph377
11th Feb 2014, 09:36
Latest ICAO release;
ICAO and Singapore Forge New Agreement on Leadership and Management Training (http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-and-Singapore-forge-new-agreement-on-leadership-and-management-training.aspx)

Cherry picked out of the press release (my bold);

SINGAPORE, 10 February 2014 – The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Government of the Republic of Singapore signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
“Singapore is a strong advocate of developing aviation leadership and human capital, which are key to addressing the challenges facing global aviation.

Director General of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. “Singapore’s partnership with ICAO in leadership and management training affirms our commitment to contribute in a meaningful way to advancing international civil aviation.”

ICAO-Singapore collaboration under the new MOU will be focused around the development and delivery of leadership and management training and professional programmes, joint conferences, seminars and courses, the sharing of speakers, moderators and instructors and the exchange of information in areas of mutual interest in the field of civil aviation.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Stasi CASA could even remotely consider such a non punitive approach? Instead we have a legacy of incompetence and disgraceful abuse of unlimited power.
Dear Mr Truss and your Wet Lettuce Review team, please go talk Messrs Quadrio, Butson, Fernandes, James and Davy to name a handful. Then look at how most involved in causing these operators so much pain then got promoted to where they are today.
Sorry, at this point in time the review is a complete crock of shit.

Sunfish
11th Feb 2014, 16:45
...and Qantas thinks it has something to teach Asia?

Sarcs
11th Feb 2014, 22:12
The headline on Australian Flying's article that summarises the AAAA’s WLR submission,is spot on…:D
Aerial Ag Gives CASA a Spray (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/aerial-ag-gives-casa-a-spray)

The Ag crew do not hold back, the submission is akin to dumping water on Fort Fumble with a DC-10 fire bomber..:E
AAAA WLR Submission (http://www.aerialag.com.au/Portals/0/AAAA%20Sub%20Av%20Safety%20Review%20Jan%202014(1).pdf)

Standby for some overspray quotes…
“Dear Miniscule, …noxious weeds are out of control”
CASA is now performing so poorly as to demand significant change of its internal management and its relationship with industry so as to implement practical systems that will lead to commonly accepted benchmarks of practice and outcomes. CASA is dysfunctional at nearly every level, its relationship with industry has been junked, and it is suffering from such a pathological culture that major surgery will be required to realign the organisation with the common hallmarks of a sound safety regulator. CASA must walk the talk.
There has been a complete breakdown in the relationship with industry at the highest levels, an example which has now cascaded throughout almost the entire organisation.

There are many good people working in CASA who are simply unable to make headway against the prevailing culture. They are increasingly isolated and powerless.

There are also some who delight in the culture of ‘gotcha’ that exists and is encouraged at various levels, where the ‘zero-sum game’ against industry is strongest. The lack of systems and confidence to allow the free flow of information both up and down the chain of command within CASA sustains the negative aspects of the CASA culture, and reinforces and encourages behaviour that in a healthy, open and just culture, with a clear focus on cooperation with industry and positive safety outcomes, would simply not be tolerated.

As with all cultures, the problem starts and is sustained at the top.
CASA demonstrates no strategic engagement, with industry withdrawing from meetings and discussions that involve senior management due to fatigue from being lectured to.

There appears to be a complete disconnect between words spoken by senior CASA management and what happens on the ground – with no consistency of policy or interpretation being a long-standing concern. CASA encourages industry to adopt sound management principles and systems such as SMS, ‘just’ cultures and strong executive control of aviation companies, but is hypocritical in not applying these same principles and practices to its own operations.

CASA does not have ‘aviation issues’ – it has management and cultural issues. A resetting of the CASA/industry relationship is critical to establishing a more mature regulatory safety culture in Australia.
“He’s not the Messiah..”:ugh:
Many people in aviation believe that the critical component in sound aviation regulation is to have the ‘right’ person in key jobs, such as the CEO of CASA.

Unfortunately, this ‘messiah’ approach is fundamentally flawed if not supported by longer-term strategic approaches, systems and checks and balances, as demonstrated by the history of CASA and its predecessors.
When industry first heard of the shift of CASA to being a ‘Big R’ regulator, industry accepted that clearly that was the right of the regulator and, industry assumed, was being done with the support of the CASA Board and the Minister. What industry did not anticipate was that the move to a ‘Big R’ regulator was code for the introduction of a bullying and intimidatory culture that would lead to a breakdown in relationships between CASA and industry, a significant reduction in the focus on innovative safety programs and increasingly shrill policing activities that are not delivering real safety improvements.

As previously stated, no aviation association has the track record of AAAA of working positively with CASA for the improvement of aviation safety and regulation. But it is not possible to continue to return to the table when it is clear that there is no trust and no respect being shown for industry’s genuine concerns and its innovative suggestions for improvement.
On RRP spray ‘drift’ problems..:{The regulatory reform program is certainly not ‘reform’ any longer.

There is no overall goal in play – ‘safety through clarity’ has been abandoned and there is no real reason for regulatory reform other than for its own sake. Key outcomes, goals, timelines (ie strategic planning) must be established.

Key goals for regulatory reform should include increased safety, reduced cost, simplification and harmonisation.

Key regulatory triggers or thresholds must be established – ie if CASA staff have a good idea, that does not mean, ipso facto, it becomes law. It should have to meet the key goals identified as a trigger for reform. Similarly, if it adds considerable cost for little or no safety benefit, it should not become law.

Regulation should be seen as the final option when other approaches have been exhausted – such as education and safety promotion including joint ventures with industry associations – rather than the default setting and starting point for guiding all aviation activity.

This is a fundamental shift in CASA’s worldview. It is the view of best practice regulators the world over. Of course there need to be rules, but there do not need to be rules for every possible eventuality.
I could go on and on (it's that impressive..:ok:) but I guess the real message here is…:rolleyes: …“Dear Miniscule, noxious weeds eradication program urgently needed!!”:E

Up-into-the-air
11th Feb 2014, 22:37
This really hits the nail on the head:

While a more detailed report card on each agency is provided later in this submission, suffice it to say that the stand-out exception is CASA which can most optimistically be described as underperforming, and at its worst is clearly pathological and in need of significant surgery and cultural rejuvenation.Let's just do it

US-FAR's now, then the industry can become inclusive for the first time.

Frank Arouet
11th Feb 2014, 22:51
you've got to lance the boil before you can squeeze the puss out.

Up-into-the-air
11th Feb 2014, 23:22
Using a tree killing chemical would be best!!

but just hope we don't get "Brush-off" by the WLR and Minister

Up-into-the-air
11th Feb 2014, 23:25
Nice to see casa reads pprune (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-20.html#post8313802):

CASA wishes to apologise for the previous subscribers notification regarding Draft AC 21-42 v2.0 – Light sport aircraft manufacturers’ requirements (http://casa.grapevine.com.au/lists/lt.php?id=f0UDDAYNBAAEUx9VAwMPTA0IBQgE). The closing date for comments had accidently been missed.

Comments are to be forwarded to the Project Leader, Ben Challender ([email protected]) by close of business 25 February 2014.

Creampuff
11th Feb 2014, 23:48
Hats off to the AAAA. :D:D Australia would be better off outsourcing aviation safety regulation to them!

Just one more gem in its submission that I can't resist highlighting: AAAA expressed strong concerns to ATSB management with previous attempts during investigations to attempt to mould evidence to fit a theory, rather than objectively analysing and presenting the evidence available.Seems to be a pattern of ATSB behaviour! :=

brissypilot
12th Feb 2014, 01:07
so is there any sign of avmed getting its act together?

It appears not... :ugh:

Also in the AAAA submission:

One area in particular that struggles with continuous improvement is CASA’s aviation medicine branch. Examples are plentiful of questionable rulings on pilot medicals that fly in the face of genuine expert opinion (for example in cardiology) and result in the trashing of careers for no safety purpose.


The ability of the branch to hide behind the façade of medical qualifications is well known in industry and under current systems, is an almost unassailable position that has drifted far from actual safety issues, or the leading non-CASA advice on medical issues.

Paragraph377
12th Feb 2014, 03:53
Excellent submission by AAAA, perfectly worded, straight to the point, factual and truthful. This is just one example of what group consensus about CASA is. Surely it is not possible for such an overwhelming percentage of the IOS to be categorically wrong? The fact is that the Australian aviation industry has voted, the results are in, and it is a big ‘VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE’ in CASA and its legacy of Minister puppets. The facts speak for themelves. The industry has had a gutful. And similar feelings are expressed towards the once respectable ATSB. I cannot speak for others but this spiralling mess is getting worse by the week, the Department has lost control (never had any really) of its wayward hybrid abomination.
I think that group submissions, much like what has been submitted to this weak handed Wet Lettuce Review group and previous senate inquiries needs to be submitted directly to:
· ICAO
· United Nations
· Top end Legal firm

The regulatory reform program needs to be halted immediately. It is now officially The Regulatory Deform Program. It has failed. The money is gone, class it in the same category as the pink batts scheme or the BER – It failed, the money is gone, no results are to be gained, end of it. It is time to kick back off where Byron was headed before the Iron Ring castrated him and many likeminded before him. The lunatics in charge of the asylum have also lost all control. They contradict each other, bully industry and in some instances do it with malice, contempt for law and ethics, with impunity and in a way that would indicate some have severe psychological and sociopathic issues.

The countless millions spent on junkets, rorts, legal pursuits of the innocent, the reg reform mess, abuse of power, unjustified salaries, ‘field excursions’, hypothetical discussions and almost everything else they do has to be stopped. As the AAAA has stated, what is good for the goose is good for the gander! Where is CASA’s SMS? Where is CASA’s change management process? Why doesn’t CASA adequately review its own risks? Where is CASA’s accountability? Why do CASA keep stuffing up, redacting, changing and repairing mistakes? Where is CASA’s just culture? Where is CASA’s ‘robust’ SSP, why is it flawed, a mess, created and implemented by an admin Johnny (should be Juliette as it is a ‘she’) who has taken off to VA? Absolute hypocrites. Enough is enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank Arouet
12th Feb 2014, 04:09
That's easy for you to say. Thank God you don't stutter.


I've been advocating public disobedience for years. After all, they started it.

Creampuff
12th Feb 2014, 04:56
More solid gold from the AAAA submission: The most recent incarnation of the pathology of CASA’s relationship with industry was when CASA attempted to blame industry for the deferment of the start date for CASR Part 61 – Pilot Licencing.

In fact, it was clearly CASA that had failed to produce the essential Manual of Standards in time, CASA that had failed to map out a coherent transitional plan for existing pilots, CASA who had no advisory material in place to support implementation, CASA that was unable to provide adequate training to its own staff on the operation of Part 61 so that industry could in turn be educated, and CASA who did not have the approval system in place for the supporting CASR Part 141/142 training organisations.

Unjustifiably trying to scapegoat the ‘regulated’ for the failures of the ‘regulator’ is a novel approach to building good relationships, especially after industry has contributed – at its own cost – thousands of hours of support, experience and advice through the various Standard Consultative Committee and working groups. AAAA alone has been involved in more than eight CASA working groups and committees since 1999 and many of the issues identified back then remain current today because CASA appears to be incapable of positive, progressive outcomes.:D :D

Sarcs
12th Feb 2014, 05:31
Maybe if Aerial Ag Phil was to replace the other, Department picked, Phil (:yuk::yuk:) as the GA expert adviser to the WLR we may end up with a well-tended lettuce & pineapple crop for ’14 :D, we could certainly expect Pete the pot plant to get some respect…:E
Again I question the legitimacy of the other Phil’s mob…especially after reading this disturbing bit of the AAAA submission..:{: AAAA was aghast when the CEO of CASA unilaterally cut sponsorship support of a number of Associations and then linked that action to criticism of CASA by those Associations. AAAA has no problem with CASA spending its sponsorship dollar where it thinks it will get the best return – after all, most of the ‘dollars’ come from industry.

While the size of support AAAA received was immaterial ($9,000 per annum to support the National Convention – for which CASA received considerable commercial sponsorship benefits) the principle of trying to intimidate Associations by manipulating funding was simply disgusting.

To draw a direct line between CASA patronage and intimidation of free speech not only flows against public service guidelines or good practice, it is an unethical approach to managing the relationship between CASA and representative industry bodies that have previously worked genuinely with CASA over many years to deliver regulatory change and safety promotion.

The main reason many Associations have purposefully withdrawn from any contact with the senior management of CASA is because it is a completely unfruitful and hostile environment. AAAA certainly feels that the resources of members are more usefully applied in areas other than trying to maintain a clearly failed relationship with the current senior management of CASA
That passage beggars belief :(, sort of like what you would expect to hear coming out of a dictatorial or socialist bureaucratic regime….FFS! :ugh:

VOTE 1 for Aerial Ag Phil (not the other Phil..:=) :ok::D:D

Creamy I'll raise your two clapping hands with a thumbs up for the AAAA submission..:E

Creampuff
12th Feb 2014, 08:29
I have to say that even cynical ol’ me is starting to believe the government is going to have little choice but to take real action in response to all this.

There appear to be too many people with too much credibility using too much blunt language. A wet lettuce response is unlikely to be tolerated by lots of people who have to date been prepared to tolerate lots.

My main point of disagreement with the gist of AAAA’s proposal is that I don’t believe the (reinstated) Board makes much of a difference, whether or not it’s stacked with people with ‘industry experience’.

The fundamental constraint that ‘outsiders’ overlook is that the CASA Board can’t make or unmake decisions to e.g. refuse, suspend or revoke an AOC. The CASA Board can’t direct a delegate to make or not make a regulatory decision.

A CASA Board could have prevented some of the output of the regulatory reform Frankenstein that successive governments have allowed CASA to create. But a properly qualified and experienced CEO and executive team could have prevented the same outcome without the benefit of a Board’s guidance.

Whatever the reasons, the regulatory reform Frankenstein exists, and the review panel, at least, can’t ignore the mayhem left in the monster’s wake.

Interesting times.

Cactusjack
12th Feb 2014, 10:03
So we have numerous submissions and some very interesting ones at that. The AAAA and Ag Phil are officially welcomed into the IOS brotherhood, good to have you onboard boys :ok:
These industry submissions are serious stuff folks. We are talking about groups of professional aviators, experienced, smart and highly skilled individuals. Their wording and the message they are articulating should make the government sit up and take notice. The industry has had enough, and justifiably so.
The Skulls verbal contempt for AMROBA, and now we have questions as to CAsA funding not being provided to organisations because the organisation hasn't spoken favourably about CAsA?? It is time for Mrdak and The Board to bow out disgracefully and take the DAS trio with them. Truss you are being made to look like a complete idiot, well one questions whether you are anyway.

Please Mr ICAO and Mr FAA come back and play. Time for a review of Australia's declining aviation oversight. Time for a robust audit. Time to cut the head off the fish.

TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

LeadSled
12th Feb 2014, 14:38
Folks,

Over the last 15+ years, nobody has worked harder to be reasonable with CASA in dealing with CASA, to the degree that AAAA Phil and several I could name have crossed swords, believing him to have taken too soft an approach ---- AAAA were buggered around for 10 years over Part 137 --- the level of "regulation" of aerial application here, compared to, say, NZ or US, borders on the ridiculous, just look up the page counts for the Part 137 for each of the named countries.

That the AAAA submission is as it is, just shows just how the most reasonable and reasoning person will finally just give up, as the reasonableness is only interpreted by the "CASA Culture" as weakness.

Well done AAAA, a pity the AOPA submission didn't have a bit of backbone, but that would have have imperiled CASA funding of some AOPA activities.

Long gone are the days when a central AOPA policy was "pay your own way, have your own say".

by close of business 25 February 2014.

Hardly serious consultation, is it, it's token consultation. Barely two weeks to comment on something that is core to one of the few areas of light aviation not bordering on comatose.

Tootle pip!!

halfmanhalfbiscuit
12th Feb 2014, 19:11
According to Stephen Fry Vogans are the most bureaucratic people in the universe.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy-Vogons - YouTube

Sarcs
12th Feb 2014, 20:24
Not quite the headline statement of the AAAA (Aerial Ag Phil) submission, nonetheless of substantial quality and still singing from the same hymn sheet, is the submission from ALGA (Australian Local Government Association). This submission also strongly backs up the AAA (who is also in alliance with the AAAA through TAAAF) submission:D:

ALGA ASRR submission (http://alga.asn.au/site/misc/alga/downloads/submissions/2014/ALGA_Submission_Avn_Safety_Regulation.pdf)

5 Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of Australian airports are owned and operated by local councils for the regional and remote communities that they serve. For many regional communities, access to air services is essential for their social and economic wellbeing. These air services provide access to major cities and other major regional centres facilitating out-bound and in-bound tourism, personal and business travel, personal and business freight and importantly access to social and community services that are less readily available in regions, such as education and health services.

Australia’s agricultural production is also considerably enhanced by aerial agricultural services like crop dusting and mustering operated from regional and remote airports. Further, some regional airports also provide pilot training facilities which assists with sustaining the aviation industry. In addition, other regional and remote airports provide a valuable service in enabling fire-fighting to be undertaken in areas where road transport is not possible or is too slow.

The economic contribution of Australia’s regional and remote airports is significant, estimated (in 2011) at $329m with $216m in gross operating surplus (GOS) and $113m in wage payments accumulated from the activity generated from regional and remote airports, although this is conservative estimate of this sectors contribution, for reasons explained earlier in this submission.

However regional and remote airports face considerable challenges in maintaining, let alone growing, the service they provide to their local communities. Maintaining and developing the capacity of these airports is expensive. This situation is compounded by the fact that the costs of regulation at these airports are disproportionately greater than for capital city airports – often by a factor of three.

Therefore, there is a serious need to review and address safety, security, environmental controls, as well as development planning and control regulations which may not be fit for purpose. ALGA looks forward to working with the Commonwealth to address unnecessarily complex and inconsistent regulatory requirements which are not sufficiently sensitive and flexible to the challenging circumstances faced by our regional and remote airportsFound a ‘V’ in my alphabet soup??:rolleyes:

While on the subject of airports it would appear that one of the VIPA WLR submission’s focal points, along with the CAO 48.1 debacle, revolves around Sydney Airport, Ben’s Article yesterday...

Virgin pilots highlight Sydney Airport’s serious problems (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/02/12/virgin-pilots-highlight-sydney-airports-serious-problems/)The association will make the congested airport’s problems a part of its submission to the federal government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review when it meets with its panel in Brisbane this Thursday.

VIPA is also calling for a restructure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), measures to reduce pilot fatigue and other aviation regulation reforms.

The association’s president, Captain John Lyons, said “For pilots, the issue of a second Sydney airport is faster becoming an urgent debate about safety, rather than economics.”
Still on airports I heard a rumour..:cool:..that the Archerfield’s tenancy group submission is as equally heavy hitting as the AAAA sub…hmm wonder if I can get a copy??…:E

LeadSled
13th Feb 2014, 02:43
SARCS,
The Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce submission, as I understand it, largely draws on the major legal action initiated by the AACC, much of which is in the public domain.

See if you can find a member of the AACC and ask them for a copy

<http://www.aacci.org.au>

Tootle pi[p!!

CASAweary
13th Feb 2014, 04:36
So why have the taxpayers forked out around $40k so that Terrence can have an A380 endorsement? Is this an accompliment to Sky Sentinel?
Why does a near 80 year old geriatric who couldn't even move his arthritic bones into the flight deck need such an endorsement? Is it for ego, out of boredom, some perverted sense of pride or just an addiction to wasting taxpayer money?:=:=

CAsA executive management's nosewheel has hit the ground and the remainder of the organisation has skidded to a halt (Oops, Creampuff know's all about nosehweel scrapings:D).

Why do bullies like Terry, Herr Campbell and Flyingfiend get promoted through the ranks? C'mon Flyingfiend, come out and play. What, scared of the AFP? Not so brave anymore old chap are you.

Why is 'the Doc' gaining behind the scenes votes? A showdown coming? Is he working with the department to rid the Skull? MrDork must be desperate, but then again he is the main problem. Get rid of all the DAS, MrDork, Truss, The Board, the lot of them. CAsA is a bunch of arseclowns
and are supported by the department and the Ministers office. What a shonky bunch of muppets and serial trough abusers.

C'mon Gaunty, Flyingfiend and Clinton, come out and play!!

Cactusjack
13th Feb 2014, 06:21
Gold Casaweary Gold!
But I thought Terry was older than that :E

thorn bird
13th Feb 2014, 06:57
Casaweary, please tell us!! their not actually going to let him fly a real airplane are they?? by that I mean actually sit in a control seat and play
"I'm an airline Captain"?? surely not....I mean think of the risks!!..If he's just going to sit on the jump seat not so bad but I can envisage a raft of NCN's for improper operation against the operating crew because he is now an annointed expert, hell even if they are not endorsed FOI's direct how operations are to be conducted.
Thats up until a ding happens because of their insane procedures, then of course..."ME your honour?? Absolutely not!! these "Not fit and proper persons, criminals really" totally misconstrued what I was forcing....err suggesting they do".
We had a Captain sheik once, son of one of the rulers, decided to be an airline captain because he thought thats where the chicks were!! His country had to underwrite the insurance every time he flew...paid out a few mil in heavy landings and screwed engines its rumoured.
So who underwrites the insurance if this geriatric has a brain fart somewhere and bends an A380??...Damn it all my daddy said I should have been a lawyer!! Why didnt I listen!!

LeadSled
13th Feb 2014, 07:17
Industry often comments that it is not possible to make this stuff up – only CASA has the prerequisite levels of incompetence to create and sustain such regulatory nonsense.

Folks,
Of all the quotable quotes from the AAAA submission, the above is just about my favorite.
Tootle pip!!

Paragraph377
13th Feb 2014, 10:15
My favourite part of Casaweary's post:

CAsA executive management's nosewheel has hit the ground and the remainder of the organisation has skidded to a halt (Oops, Creampuff know's all about nosehweel scrapings).
Seems Casaweary knows a lot of history? Creampuff care to respond?
As for the quote about the deputy DAS, if this is true then whoever authorised his endorsement is not only an idiot but obviously a fellow abuser of the taxpayer purse. These blokes really are disconnected from reality aren't they? No wonder industry has started to revolt.

Thorn bird, no A380 will be bent. The old geezer can only bend the taxpayers purse by becoming endorsed. I doubt he could see all those gauges, colours or words on the FMS anyway. Plus incontinence is a problem for the elderly too so the flight deck is not the place to be!
Wonder if signed him off as being medically fit, Hemples doctor? Or maybe Terry is one of those blokes from the movie 'Cocoon'?

Creampuff
13th Feb 2014, 19:24
Creampuff care to respond?My parents always advised me not to make eye contact with lunatics.

Jeremy Clarkson cautions against trying to engage in intelligent conversation with mouth-breathers.

So I’ll pass. :ok:

thorn bird
13th Feb 2014, 22:32
Para, all is well. no need to worry about A380's landing on the house.
Apparently the endo for Terrence was not so he could play "I'm an airline captain", just put a bit of icing on his retirement cake, something about being based on his last years salary which should be the equivalent of what a real A380 check and trainer earns, which is fair enough now he's an A380 expert.

Frank Arouet
13th Feb 2014, 22:46
How come Gaunty got a mention. Is he part of the iron circle?

LeadSled
14th Feb 2014, 04:13
Folks,
I have a bit of a problem with this A380 story.

If the said gentleman's pension is to be based on an (presumably QF, as the only Australian example) A380 Check and Training Captain, I would have thought that was a reduction, compared to the CASA senior executive salary levels.

Tootle Pip!!

Boratous
14th Feb 2014, 05:43
Creampuff

I agree with your comments about the AAAA submission. It's very perceptive and accurate.

However, I'm not sure about your comment that:

"The fundamental constraint that ‘outsiders’ overlook is that the CASA Board can’t make or unmake decisions to e.g. refuse, suspend or revoke an AOC. The CASA Board can’t direct a delegate to make or not make a regulatory decision."

I think it's true that the Board can't direct delegates how to exercise their delegated powers. But I think that the Board can probably issue, suspend, revoke AOCs etc. This is because such regulatory powers (and most powers) are given to "CASA".

Subsection 53(3) of the Civil Aviation Act unambiguously states that -

"(3) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Board are taken to have been done by CASA."

So if the Board issued an AOC (or refused to issue or revoked an AOC) in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then that would be a lawful exercise of CASA's power. However, no doubt the Board would not want to actually exercise any regulatory powers for fear of getting it wrong and being accountable.

This is the same sort of power that the Director uses under s 73(2) of the Act which says that:

"(2) All acts and things done in the name of, or on behalf of, CASA by the Director are taken to have been done by CASA."

What do you make of subsection 53(3)?

LeadSled
14th Feb 2014, 06:06
CASA Media Release - 14 February 2013
Director of Aviation Safety
The Chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board, Dr Allan Hawke, has today announced that Mr John McCormick will not be seeking a further term of appointment as Director of Aviation Safety.
Mr McCormick has, however, agreed, to the Board’s request to stay on in the position until 31 August 2014.This will allow for an executive search process to fill the position and enable the Director to assist the Board’s initial consideration of the Government’s Independent Review of Aviation Safety Regulation scheduled to be completed around the end of May.
Mr McCormick’s leadership over the last five years has been the critical factor behind the significant improvements to Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime and CASA’s performance. The aims he set out when taking up the position have been largely achieved, including:


refocussing CASA on regulation of aviation safety as its core activity;
improving CASA’s governance by restructuring it around functional lines;
ensuring CASA staff are properly trained and deployed through the Brisbane-based training school and establishment of the Central Region and satellite offices at Broome, Gove, Horn Island and Kununurra;
addressing emerging issues such as remotely piloted aircraft and Australia’s ageing aircraft;
completion of the major part of the modernisation of aviation safety standards in a most expeditious manner and the attendant improvements in industry performance through the regulatory reform program;
introduction of advanced air traffic navigation and surveillance equipment;
reform of CASA’s surveillance and safety management systems oversight; and
enhancement of air traffic services at major regional and capital city secondary airports.

These improvements have come at a time of increasing and more complex demands on CASA with major growth in Australia’s diversified aviation sectors and record numbers of domestic and international passengers flying in Australian skies.
Australia’s outstanding international reputation for aviation safety owes much to John McCormick’s stewardship and the reforms and initiatives undertaken on his watch.
Dr Hawke acknowledged that CASA had had to take significant regulatory action in relation to a few aviation operators, aircraft types and aircraft equipment over the last five years. Dr Hawke praised Mr McCormick’s key role in ensuring that these actions were taken by CASA to protect the travelling public and industry operators.
The Authority has also developed a more stable funding model under Mr McCormick’s direction to underpin sustainable and effective operations for CASA.
The Board has regarded it as a privilege to serve with John McCormick in the interests of “Safe Skies for All” and wishes him all the very best in his future endeavours.
Media contact:
Peter Gibson
Mobile: 0419 296 446
Email: [email protected] ([email protected])
Ref: MR1214


Folks,
Don't you just luuurve spin doctor's press releases, when about 95% of the aviation community agree to a large degree with the views of the AAAA, RAAA etc., (except for AOPA, sadly, but he who pays the piper calls the tune))
Tootle pip!!

Creampuff
14th Feb 2014, 09:25
Boratous: You are conflating the consequences of what the Board does with what the Board has power to do. Section 53(3) does not determine what the Board has power to do (just as section 73(2) does not determine what the Director has power to do). A Board has functions. They are set out in s 53.

If the Director says "I claim this Island in the name of CASA", or "I purchase this casino in the name of CASA", I'm confident CASA won't own the Island or be obliged to pay for the casino.

But I could be wrong: Submit your next AOC application to the Board and let us know if the Board resolves to issue you with, and issues you with, an AOC.

Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution.

Interesting times.

Boratous
14th Feb 2014, 22:13
Creampuff
I’m not sure that your example is a valid example. Of course, neither the Board nor the Director could simply say “on behalf of CASA I grant you a passport”. This is because CASA itself does not have any statutory power to grant passports – or to claim an Island or casino (as in your example). Section 53(3) clearly only works in the context of CASA’s statutory powers. On this basis, if the Act or regulations give "CASA" a power to do something, then section 53(2) expressly states that if that thing is done by the Board in the name of, or on behalf of CASA, then it is taken to have been done by CASA (similarly with the Director under 73(2)).

The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions. This does not seem to be relevant to the exercise of CASA’s statutory powers.

This seems to be the basis on which the DAS, for example, makes Civil Aviation Orders, eg:

“I, JOHN FRANCIS McCORMICK, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under subregulation 308 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
[Signed John F. McCormick]
John F. McCormick
Director of Aviation Safety
22 March 2011”

The power to make Orders is given to CASA not the DAS. But acting under 73(2) the DAS can on behalf of CASA make an Order. If it was minded to, I think that the Board could also make Orders and do anything else that CASA was empowered to do. etc. But it obviously chooses not to do so for whatever reasons – probably fear of having to accept responsibility for any such decisions.

Sarcs
14th Feb 2014, 23:00
Creamy: Re the Press Release, Leaddie It would not have been released without the blessing of the Minister. The government is still hoping for a wet lettuce solution. That might be so Creamy but it is interesting that, so far at least, the only government site (including the Miniscule’s office) that is publishing the Hawke rubbish is Fort Fumble...:rolleyes:

Maybe, in some bizarre way, Hawke is right and Skull has done the industry a huge favour..:confused:, after all where would we have got the term…“Ills of Society”…from if not for the, soon to be former, DAS??:ok: Would industry groups have been quite so motivated to produce excellent submissions, like the AAAA one…:D , if we had a lesser sociopath at the joystick?? :E

As for the WLR solution from the Miniscule, well it is fast becoming a rather forlorn hope while submissions like the following from ALAEA (FedSec Steve’s mob) keep popping up..

ALAEA WLR submission (http://www.alaea.asn.au/attachments/article/548/ALAEA_Aviation_Safety_Regulation_Review_Submission_20140214. pdf)

Although obviously somewhat more subjective, the ALAEA submission still contains the same underlying & strong message (i.e. ‘same hymn sheet'), here are their recommendations: Part 4 - ALAEA Recommendations

1. Based upon extensive professional experience Australia’s Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers recommend:

2. That CASA realign its organisational structure and priorities to the primary auditing and oversight role required as the supervisor of an outcome based aviation rule framework;

3.That in order to address the inherent conflict arising from outcome based approaches in a liberalised (commercially focused) industry, CASA must increase the strength of its enforcement activities and penalties (similar to the enforcement policy of the US FAA);

4.That CASA be required to respond in an official, open and timely manner to breaches and safety concerns brought to its attention and advise the outcomes of investigations or the reasons for non-action;

5. That the Government develop legislation supporting an aviation Whistleblower Protection Program. And that CASA develop the policy for the WPP and administer the program and an associated Whistleblower Hotline service;

6. That the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner be established as a separate statutory office and be given powers to investigate and report to the CASA board and Minister on complaints in regard to aviation safety regulation administration;

7.That the Government consider amendments to the Fair Work Act to support employees acting in accordance with their professional reporting obligations under the Civil Aviation Act 1988;

8.That the government and CASA ensure reciprocity of Australian Part 66 engineering maintenance licensed with the EU or remove the recognition of the EU aircraft maintenance license as the basis for issue of an Australian part 66 license;

9. That the government reassess the replacement of Australian regulatory content with EASA rules where the Australian rules are more appropriate for our specific national requirements and industry;

10.That in any ongoing process of ICAO regulatory harmonisation, Australia adhere to the longheld principle of independent professional license holders and not allow the transfer of certifying authority from license holders to non-licensed personnel or company authorisations;

11. That CASR 42 should require a CAMO to ensure that any system of recording certification formaintenance (including an electronic system) must be able to delineate and identify a person and their authorised certification privileges in relation to the work being certified; to ensure unauthorised persons are not certifying for work outside their scope of qualifications and authorisation.
{Note: It is also worth perusing some of the member’s submissions/comments from pages 36-40}


FedSec Steve’s mob are also strongly supportive of the ‘small end of town’ GA operators..;)..and were quite disturbed by what they witnessed at the, now infamous, AMROBA 2013 meeting:

26. The ALAEA is concerned about reports that some CASA officers have exercised a heavy handed approach to regulatory enforcement on a large number of smaller General Aviation operations. The ALAEA attended a meeting of small maintenance organisations and operators in 2013 (also attended by Senator Ian McDonald) where a number of these actions were discussed. Some organisations had said that they were going to close down because they could no longer bear the stress and financial burden of meeting vague and often contradictory new standards. Aircraft were being grounded late on Friday afternoon over administrative errors and reputations were being trashed.

27. GA operators were finding that issues that had been sanctioned by CASA officers for decades had suddenly become no-go items with CASA taking an increasingly hard and inflexible line. On the other hand, CASA appears to be allowing larger operators to regulate themselves and seems extraordinarily concerned with any cost imposition the more powerful operators might have to bear. ALAEA questions the disparity in enforcement activity that appears to be taking place between the industry’s segments. Unfortunately for Hawkey the ALAEA submission (along with many others) does not paint the same, rose coloured glasses, exemplary picture of the current FF (Skull led..:yuk:) regime..:ugh:..more to follow K2..:ok:

dubbleyew eight
15th Feb 2014, 00:23
item 4 in their submission is an item that is a bit of a concern.

the regs are a pox because a few of the underlying assumptions are wrong.

australian regulations have never really been in synch with private property rights.
we have the concept of "private property" in this country.
an owner has the inalienable right to use, enjoy and maintain private property.
that is what ownership is actually about.
except in aviation the regulatory mindset is observably ex-RAAF, an environment where private ownership was totally unknown, where one never did one's own maintenance and where subservience to "orders" was the operating method.

Australian aviation laws have it wrong. The canadians had the penny drop after a safety case they ran and they introduced two things. Canadian Private Owner maintenance and the facility to de-certify a production aeroplane and there after maintain it on a stand alone basis if it was in private use.

The ALEA demand that CASA act on reports is all well and good until you realise that australian law doesn't adequately recognise private ownership concepts. Seeking to preserve the LAME mandate over private owners just impinges on an area where the laws are observably deficient.

Of course what actually is General Aviation?
there is a whole area of GA that is nothing to do with commercial operation.
their voice seems totally drowned out in all the angst.

Frank Arouet
15th Feb 2014, 01:43
The Liberal Party denied any liability that may arise from saying sorry to the traditional owners, (who reckon to have some sort of a claim against my property), in much the same way that CASA rarely, (I can't think of one actually), admit liability to anything they may have caused by their own negligence, incompetence or vexatious means. Rudd did and I don't feel any more guilty than I did before although it is touted as 'statesmanship' at its finest. Probably beats the Gillard rant about Abbott hating women when he was attacking Slipper for the same thing, but the end result is probably manna from heaven for our legal brethren.


No, I doubt Truss will find anything that could lead to such an avenue being opened up as a result of his 'review'. Worms everywhere and the government is fiscally broken.


The best one can hope for is to rid ourselves of some floating and available slime and put an end to the RRP and introduce FAR's in such a way as they can be manipulated to suit the snouts in the troughs.


Someone once called me an anarchist, but seeing as I don't understand the law as it is writ, I don't know how to break it. Perhaps the FAR's will be more understandable and I can break them with a clear understanding of what I hate about authority.

Creampuff
15th Feb 2014, 03:18
The issue that you are referring to seems to be covered by 53(2) – which gives the Board power to do all things necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Board’s functions.And what are the Board's functions, Boratous?

Re the ALEA submission, Sarcs, I'm not as big a fan of the ALEA submission as I am of the AAAA submission. I suspect a lot of ALEA members haven't heard of the Waddington Effect or its causes.

Creampuff
15th Feb 2014, 20:50
PS

I'm intrigued to find out what everyone believes these Boards can do that results in so much faith being put in a Board as part of the solution?

In regulatory regimes like aviation safety regulation, the exercise of delegated powers is determined by the relevant criteria in the legislation and the general law of administrative decision-making. The Board can’t override or change any of that. The Board may make or endorse policies that are relevant to and within the narrow scope permitted by the legislation, but these are generally very broad statements of strategic principle – dare I say motherhood? CASA has an ample supply of warm and fuzzy policies.

My view is that the only practical thing a competent CASA Board could have done is prevented the creation and growth of the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program. But the far better way to have achieved that outcome was to not have given CASA the job in the first place.

You’ve seen the experiment right before your eyes: CASA with a Board and CASA without a Board. What difference did it make? One of those Boards had Dick Smith and Bruce Byron on it (among other people with business and aviation expertise). What difference did it make?

Board or not, CASA’s functions and powers must be constrained to a very narrow and simple regulatory role (which does not include managing the regulatory reform process), and the senior executives of the organisation must be qualified and experienced in managing regulatory organisations.

Kharon
15th Feb 2014, 21:45
At very little expense, the WLR has been gifted, once again the benefit of hundreds of collective years current, valid operational and legal experience. The old Kenwood fridge, posing as a security system must be bursting at the seams if current estimates of between 150 and 200 submissions are to be believed. This is significant, not only in the amount of paper and words but in the value to gummermint.

For example, the Australian Lawyers submission runs to 30 pages of first class opinion, if the WLR had commissioned such a report, the invoice would be significant. Here is a yet another submission provided by professionally qualified, competent people prepared to support their arguments at very little cost to the public. I always feel the 'legal' eagles are a bit like the ambulance, fire and police crews attending a nasty prang on a highway; they get to see, on a regular basis the darker side of life, the bodies and the aftermath. These folk deal with reality everyday. The legal folk, whilst not attending the crash must deal with the fall out. Their concentrated knowledge is of value; most here may be involved once in a lifetime with a CASA aberration and occasionally, vicariously get some sense of the trauma someone like Quadrio or James are enduring. To aviation lawyers this is the stuff of life, they live and breathe this on a daily basis. Their opinions are valid, their time and effort is appreciated.

The same is true of the majority of 'organisational' submissions, the writers are immersed, professionally on a daily basis with 'their' speciality area and with the exception of a couple of no hopa groups can justly claim to represent their tribe. A small amount of self interest and own agenda is, on consideration, forgivable. Their expert opinion is of value and, once again, provided to the WLR – pro bono.

I just wonder, does the Vicar hosting this tea party fully understand that this is not the first time that candles have burned late into the night, lighting the desks of those who, after a long day sit down to voluntarily draft and edit a submission. Miniscule – the real expertise resides within the industry: you must thank your gods everyday that the continuing safety record of Australia rests with folks who bet their own time, money, talent and expertise to maintain that record; despite the lack of tangible safety advice from those paid handsomely to provide it or those paid equally as well to administer that advice.

Just for fun, compare the AAAA submission to the Chambers report. Carefully examine the pathway each of those documents have taken to end up on your desk and the motivation for them being there. One is a heartfelt, intelligent, comprehensive assessment, the other simply beggars belief.

Ask yourself miniscule, which is the one you paid for and which one was provided gratis?

Ask yourself miniscule, which is the one that rings true and which is a plagiarised, self serving, cynical hidden document.

Ask yourself, which is the better value to Australia, the industry, the people who work in aviation and those who depend on aviation for business or pleasure.

Then ask yourself, would I sleep better at night with the Ills of Society running the industry or the likes of the McComic/ Farq-u-hard-son team supported by those creatures named and shamed in the Senate committee response to Pel Air. Forgotten those names?, well we haven't. There are 150 + submissions which may provide the answer to that riddle; I'd suggest that there are just a little more honest folks providing answers than an alleged 'few' disgruntled, tendentious bloggers having a whinge. Do we have a problem here ? – Oh yes miniscule and you are parked right on top of it.

Selah.

Sponsored by the IOS benevolent fund for Safe Elephant and Pot plant Transport Inculcating Catastrophe. (SEPTIC).

Up-into-the-air
15th Feb 2014, 22:09
and the senior executives of the organisation must be qualified and experienced in managing regulatory organisations. Pity creamie, but skull never had those requisite qualifications.

Then, with his disgraceful display at the AMROBA Archerfield meeting lost any respect that may have remained from industry.

That the gibson press release, full of spin, spin and more spin followed up by the Australian which took the gibson relealease to a new "high" is to be deplored.

The Board now has the final say in the "management" of casa.

The last para of the gibson release points to this situation developnig further:

The Board has regarded it as a privilege to serve with John McCormick in the interests of “Safe Skies for All” and wishes him all the very best in his future endeavours.I believe those words take us to a "...resignation of the ceo..." and as a result, where does that leave the management of casa until the new ceo is found.

Does this mean that "management" falls to the Deputy DAS??

If that is the case, where too from here??

And just to remind us, here is a clip from the casa corporate plan, which is not downloadable (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/corporat/corpplan/corpplan13.pdf):

http://i774.photobucket.com/albums/yy27/flyingoz/casacorporateplan-part_zps443d4974.png

which of course as we know, has not been met.

And the full page:

http://i774.photobucket.com/albums/yy27/flyingoz/de75aafc-54ba-4787-bf91-829c72c58afe_zpsa7d144df.png


http://www.pprune.org/ ElEQVR4nO1dS7LbOAx8B5lFvJyrziI3yTLn4yxeSqHRjSZIQR/b6Eqp9CgQP4GwBNDOVysUkvB1tQKF90EFUyENFUyFNFQwFdLwFExfP39//fxt/sSRYxU6XkQc91HmPpoIPAfTf7++fv7++u/Xnz9//v4eoVePUqiTuM4kSc8T7A3iPpoI2I+5fgWYzEQveTeeTjQnVBDS0GRJNcGJ3 iBVzDv3rBv6J+6ooW8Fwwhl0GTt6iFYMMnM1I+LXIV8Ng79kXKjx14HehRXP Z0jctE6LV37ijgqJj1ytee2x9ve3CHczBQ5MeeUz3DicEHohTWULq4iZ6qMZ h60bqhqxPCgW/aYLJgP4WYmE8s4ItZuP4tyoPz7cZ2ZjBRv/VmVfIuMXGoF8lmwjjhqZJGwVHuYjns8qVZHZaY+hCOhOlw3HjexXIaiRT4wV gSX6XDVzlo3tEgbvpx4giZP3WKiBhnyP2X/ioxlJkMTfAKjRzPLk0J5xvXZ/8wUyZHITftNeMm7axF9BM+czNS6gI2MCDGRZYH8zclw4aIUOje4TD1lhqZFT BZe8pgjmef5oTIRk2dvsbUlSFcoDFHBVEhDBVMhDRVMhTRUMBXSkBZMU4/9F0K/Z4mXHc3tQtxBh2/kBVO4GnEtglVySok27rSa6hDUP0uHRPAKOC3S9FcNcZMLXVeAtNApYqrSkJJ eFZTU6riq3lWhVWSKsL2dBd6b649N1lJxXHPTfDZZcU3EOEoJ8v+j/KhGL+QKu/46J1D3N3lrwfYz85b6mMPY9wbxT0oc4UMZDoUi8ZDtkL+39JHblF2ejcM/vUFte0SNLLi9ueY8K3jPHCIzGZpghuvneutbaKhzSYR//JlpZ+b2fIiZSegw1OcEDJ6ZsjKToPGm7MxMQ7Z7MpM5WUhCVMSUS4XOZ2ajJ 93s33I19+fLK28qM1FNIhoGM1PcUuQsZE35Rx/tlCXbw/GwC+uZqSc244abx98TKgY1sTnXlLN8qPLikjBBeGN5SkSfo3HfCjhdl4U749 7BdMUHf2EZ9w6mykwvhfsGU+HlUMFUSMNcMAVf2Y7ArJQ3fuS6rWnzwRSoyR 4BLUXXhd8MtMJ0B7i/ghKsuNBBr9ZCxI+KPcgBp5gRoZWox2jdIgrTf1MEQ8979gpV0a7jQH4FRZx/r4ngsZ8brOcOJQZ1oJz1VatYmKeWFdF56PkgN+q39dCYB89MkVVuZgXXllJF zqLTxVW9WD1tqTLe4JBbIkHQJ3FvHwHSTmnPn8rbcRvfrv4ZDGQmpYFcnQtX UaugLKoV8oxzQz298yGHKas9/Y+G6s31f9KrYtBcdcU7H/liFdIpmgyVmcpM3nK/T2YSJ2fC3TXw58/nPEQz0J7MJJ5d+vGeD8pCPpRz5BmFStc8BbfZzKS952UmcY88tx8ENzOJP81 4MBlw8U5miohGHSL0qJWnodZqLZcMzyOcIw4XPj8OVQF/Q5z/HvdH7vkiC4eiMlMhDZc8Lf0RfYnUwluigqmQhgqmQhoqmAppqGAqpKGCqZCG p2D698djeH4+tPRl3R5HGhXRKq558F4sWGS47fTJUzA9/nkMz++GZd0ODaaQAkuai1n7LcoMpo0dHi9B7vo2ONMuKmtW8296OivrTp0UT I8fD7MmtpHHPw9zdRvpx7cRza2n7Dn0V410vLrpYOSiJj2lsWWovzg3HJCP1 tyMGz7a29QuwVnfHfSeQCiY/v3x2I7fZP3ItlbM+thWkqFBboZnP9K6tUj18aT3lIJbT2muart6nem5p8OU3 1A3T3/DAaUMOaNvjZQhyNscPi3h5zR9oqJZoT963JCGSqcc6Drr54oVj+PeqkV6Y6m QheNac7RUZzKqoRcEgrOnCeVDQYKJvjtgLvFWWGPr1ctPRi5dGVofulKplKA t/Xr1+KOGXvYStmvNez4iXxrvmVnGe0POwqII8utMw1WYLjGR88I77H65x/nkZBxStMSs0yDHpEtM5xPkuTMUrq3h5aIq4IU0VDAV0lDBVEhDBVMhDeNgEh WLbGWmMdRhoWpC30aDc8fMZ/pxiR4WFT5Bzy/5Wn1WZorfnoOWytS7W6IOa33AWawE0x1y0obEtY415XSkZ6agnrM5aW1Hg93 PRGu47bmPo/tNuhItas2U0tMkUn1ussJrxr0jtdF4DCvUEcpeQ9Eh0OPD7gKt6Q+r+Z5dhs bcaNLoFT2pfgTL7br27Z0jf3NV66M7iboDP7Su56A16SVGKJE/tTeorR4xVnhy4x7z8hbZaemtA3E0Cnl1ZC9nbCM0L2Jm6ulx9Q8t6glQOpVC NUGJHiW1a6ih0FboLPw59HDQY94TFc9MXnRvUUnH6Uo1PPtINw7yMhNyMPTD de/pgJSap9YZvYSUXg7T9sazjhgXHvb2LAh9GsNbvc2JPvx+ngiaiV8LuR57n2B KDKA4T7Fz6FUgMs0s3ieYCpejgqmQhgqmQhoqmApp2BVMC3sRsTq1LBeln/xWRWtaEeTqeZrVw7u2K5iWd0nvDKY9/aM7IFfzc/wQkXJ2ZqIjHh89vrBf+3J4OXU/z7WrWVK+YX9rAHtDeG4oTa2F1mpF58uruZvxXgfRPxK6eedoqfAG1c2T7s3y quFGn2GPIdKToHfHcMD7O+RDwX8F5SG76H3ll/ZuNg4N+kEmpOhK9caNRK+j5HXQhp1/QW+4eZaiD1ETj0OcnnqVesa7O+hJ44GekvKh4L+CguuGKoSreRsXeQgVRVn0 qcisoeEsLw95Vhj9p6xGreiK92i0bsM+JvrfaKWtoM9D4h55cDNT61aMOW/+/h6PTz/L8KeqYz4wclsgn+H69nTWeZcuANxNILIO1ZPKQv4NcjBmFM8z2odC4tDbFFV nOhBe5h5PnKS/CSqYjkXwaQNnHaHM0ahgKqShgqmQhgqmQhoqmAppeLFgWu4GTvFf7nZ5cnc+ UB/UfUt/zH+xYIp3A9d6Ujfs8R33ZvehwSSq1YJ+IU+k54D9N0zUx3M577edfNVpWAtu ULFFGtrJ8uq2PQejCaUXvScqsXXh5fWksIrtVf9RW9Gt050DGijDGrdXH6d1 eXq/dIdDdD401P9QEOz+tOcY30ZMv+wB3XLs+PSzkKeR63WzhSyjrdgHgbMMvdEf OfcjnpeoDh4HsXcAeWp7kTNyM/pEoP7vFC9nNNn90fmpwXOJoaGUIs8hRGZCu4wVIj9R3bysII6eRT3n+Nwpnk F7UZMgQt/oFaufjoi+eiQzeRKRM1LqLOWtaaH/MDPR/B3ZaYQ8h5QiizTH24YzZqzICMqiWHwAv+Fbzwci/m47Rb+MxWA6qPJRiGPqA2j26WcNr1EaKLwEKpgKaahgKqShgqmQhgqmQhoqm AppqGAqpKGCqZCGCqZCGiqYCmlQuwboucAJBfvTpCRK93ZJpMi91hsGaj8TP ReoYDqHw21BtqDQYwRHUObO3YNZb2g++3HDoIwGk7f3qD+nO2Bw36O310fw1 CMeT81BaItzxb6o4b4rz0ti1xTuIjKzxG4nuhvsHISCabiXGec2tk8P9xB6e 8kNn+bsuvR0aGyHpCdF77CmnvGk97KQ/8bH2y/fyxp61fv0OG33EoK8zeHTEj4z0ScqXOtopP4A1Tmjp9E6GOl0X2VPI24J1Q2 tM5S4H1LvL33609/tqY/CP+eABJO3C5t+e8TkmG0Wrng8NyNmLq4woYPOW1TnNsp21DOY7Yz+hpunfyQ zeVnW+HPot9PwznWmS54bPhkVTIU0vHMwFU5GBVMhDRVMhTRUMBXScF4wJT4 On1xBoS/wWPF3py9pm2jjaS8iL5mZLvk+sVfGnJ21JmsP3jOYxGoTBuv6+2kQwbRm15Q sLWWB2xFwf59JV7Ebq+c2pwNlRnrzdJVcS6G/duJpS63z6Ic1a+GHoV20wo5XPW8Pu5Ce/ifA/b9T/g4+97c3SlyXhtLrePezvL6ekdXP2viI/nmvQ09vpAT3LOAsw23NrohctNfjqXcrtFOg/u+U7TzSk0dK7HvTvr2hMSOo1bADRa2gcmne8iylWWePXQY0G3l20X0KHs2VH 3N0B5JRa7jnhmYmw8GKhp1JvVa93OHeo55nhN5b2SKT6bwlNI9nJvQGDbImf X7m3qbL3uYueSP7xqHOPcGu04JjFtcE07XuOE76CXZd8iYbxEvWmQr3RAVTI Q0VTIU0VDAV0uB+o3eD9zq6B6c9gNP97Ik8Cz0GmemgKuppwZT+7nPb1/I7YBBM6VXUPXluYVZ6FqEFwxQ+bwDbm6O9oQZV2n4Ea9ZYQ6fjorJsatZ0HD n//XNUx/e6XVi/9uRG+gTIIcjT84O2+nLYZybsQH3/+WC9aNrHNl0t3auiffKeEke8PhdyoPobrbajt5vAnAt6ah3VJG6L8OfjuUN3 B5DMtJ1vx8b6R/2sbbx1xtPnFdHtotwEf6QxOlP9ae7xtO01DAYBle5ZEeET8edNMJGZWrci+3 O9hry9O0ZKJDNR+g1D3bxdPmJcZFmts9ZK2K794GWmm4RU1ZkycZObehUqmN JwtyeY81HBVEhDBVMhDRVMhTRUMBXSUMFUSEMFUyENFUyFNFQwFdJQwVRIQw VTIQ0VTIU0VDAV0lDBVEhDBVMhDRVMhTRUMBXSUMFUSMNTMH39/P3187f5E0fO0+7GOMIzr+7e52D679fXz99f//368+fP398j9OonI8UzPQdv5LVgP+b6xWEyE73kGU8Jtj/7S4JyqACdTudSoWuGmJEhQUTJuCvuHG0smGRm6se9FWmu4goWR8q/Hzd6oiZxnp6exhuCv6HZYyN6WHDbd9OPgpuZIifmHJkMz4fTh3LpVT2XSl82 ZM1GKtEzaqjnTeBmJm+VbCPLmQlpPB3MLJGZ4lZ4GsYzk9Awzplq/imZqV8fw8URWYtiza1lJkOvddY5Y8oQT7HhVc/VeHLnbNSD1Jn0M4EZSclMU89MRq63vo97ZtrGjURt1/AJcopP6N6eDhZMsBTEiGcYJRDrUvDX48HMZKyIL/2hId6fVHSEjPp8qOcd8KEV8Duv79fFBwWTl7EKWfigYGrs+a+QiM8KpsKhqG AqpEH15lbYJT2LUD71oHNzqN7cCrukt6RIZbzQbuaTQQU8Uv7xqj5TxRWv4j IsDkViF9/jlnXY74ShMmIWFXSf91OemfCor5ojpRxyaN06W7iqjNzRwx9WroXHFmrx8Vk LfjgaPDPRNTGkbLCAkANdVR5zj2dEvSE3b+6UlAUnBD0zO+sOmMtMrdnOduQ qZiZDH+lS9XPpVWWk7A8uSKG5QV9F/t752qw7YJyZvKvxRYkcXG1iqzM9M1GL9KxlJ0xlpp2zTsY1z0x/xe3ITGLtWqNi2Siig6ez4HBCZuopL8SutzlD2Zq7gpG/xxPJkPlwimeU5kzt8mYtOyF+vkZ5IV6yAu6twps8PYgc+d54zWAaPVWcD5qu Pg2vGUw3eD5A3OfZ5Sq8ZDAV7okKpkIa0oLpYx8UduKd/JYXTKvPCh/77vONd3rGUhVwUY8xxE2+YYkXHF2z8Uo7Ynpc1hRnHEyZLnz7ihhXwJusyeL 4kNsTQUY93TsOZU1xjmu7k3L5Xl4O9TFHs46XioarSicM+ied4hEMJ8ZNG5q scwyVFTH/3TJTg45VP0KvmvEhN0vA+Hgr2NBHzqmsNW7GRu0Bms+Ef5DDy2HwzLQzM1Fu lMYQB/lMZaa4aWsm45QUtV8IE89MfwhSn5k8PlNPNvr8r6CkZyatuSdrmHGR/8thPTP1xM1ZVfHM5C1rzScrM6F6Q3GCLCLLUAq1XwifXgHX+fJ8fV4aFUyhd 8xCBBVMlZnS8OnBVEhEBVMhDRVMhTRUMBXSUMFUSMNTMD3+eQzP74NvrYa6P X6MlT+CJkL/ZngKpn87+73zm+D7VmXdsDMD7o1hP+b6m5R7w3Ix1G0qm54cTCdk+kvuWjSY Hj8eJj9tI//+eJir28h2bJ15ZlY/19BjRkTOPTekMXyELUhJteploRS018z1ZtGrxreeV1FPzzNHIxRMj38e2/EPWTeyrTMTNOapy4zj1Z4PSqTjWkNqUZAz1UpTGtu1N+gI0uM45dnraaQbKw 4FeZvDpyWaIfCcZqDtHDMTzurXEyqGDsUPO5Qe5BzJVZ4saqP2Bh1Behz3bK TePvnDjgSTt2LEat5GtlnDtU4zE81PRjfMTMjZoxG24PjQimBmQis8iVQHz3 ZjkTf34sx0FegqfHXM2vLStt8omBp89r8BKpgKhRVUMBXSUMFUSEMFUyENi8 F0ULfuno+fV2mla1qnqzPGYjAd9M51z2C6CsIb93znXc9MR9z4NZ4vGoLD7C LseoHM5NVqdV2V9tQoN1EXHvbLDE+sd2uJhtJIwateHZxK1JpQqz2v9tJ1rf +GNTnS6A32jHSH6AE7Asy44UalUP4P6IdvRyHRk4KzqKVej8yznfL3rEavmg ASnb5bZWWy0zLYzfZ6Xoae8tcrcqhDe3a3cbRn0awUzIKog7addgBRH8NBay J8cjl4ZsL1h1mh+TnjG/HMNJRLeVJ9hESRXcTVjcbToedjOOA+JLTayKJXvR1O7ebBVCgso4KpkIYKpk IaKpgKaahgKqShgqmQhulgwupInjKulDS2jrZZVpz5or5T1hEeng4m+i2OdN yz96Rxss47PX+Eti+WmdbW0zk9rNM6ZaLiP8HkhMzk1Zd1BdbrUlF6etXrXt FqtTmnsihn3d0zI8PaPfJE3bz+gZEiav1xj1Hbe396+mSB7Bqg/XOvc9TTb0fDc6P3vtHWn+N337CDFunceV2zSA+O2mLovW+x4TfdPD3FbgUqy 2jiydVeFX7Yj/GvoGD/y5iE0a35bBCdKcw65irl33Pzuma68+VZpOmFbpGOG830ZhZq4skVujW4m+24 YGrP+cOoLrroOjNhboivcpOZqD5Uls6vrXOiZxfmA0/zXmf0FV4VNg49Y3Tu+QT9IDLZThxeZwp+KieaNCU3jnQNz8fRew0OD6bgW0O 6eelvK28QTO05+6ajKuCFNFQwFdJQwVRIQwVTIQ3nBVPWA+xpD8KR90FaJV/geXkvklanZvF6mem0YIq89SCNnnVa/24WrxFMx9V7jl7NC5kJR8yNuTwDfQPD5ZBgMlVXr6qLteD+nFZvvUq6V9vVN WhPB61zczpZlLPXB6Tdxn7Eu9r7x9CLajX1s9CZ1rhpTVz4ikocgvfmjNKi3/Rg36czVyN8ejUerOPtfSutpxd7AYwO3u4AIbcfwblmBHUQOqP3kDPqT3kipa ensZeOzO4s4P93Cq6AnkZEru6FDTvq27noPeEsTNG4wqhWXlfLs07MRXuH/tE5T9PgOPrBy5fi2Os8lZO+4X6jl+YVE7Pfl4aZySgtMgfKamw195RUB8GBy hVaBfcIeJnJsw69LbhRz9Bz7655eX2Y0dczUxALMVuYxRFd/aNRwXRfTGWFO+D16kyF26KCqZCGCqZCGiqYCmmYC6ZDH71FVabwErhRMCH/13qXKdw6mCozvRZsb86rftLqs9elojVorFD39M2vXBu5hduC7xpoTheJNhbE HoEGT0LYM6KUor9duC3IroF4B7ufZfiYnNTP0n0ib6Rwf6x8o7cfx1mUXu+z 2WiazE/93MINcVSdqTLKB6KCqZCGqoAX0lDBVEhDBVMhDRVMhTRUMBXSUMFUSEMFUyE NFUyFNFQwFdJQwVRIw/h3wJvc8YhtkxO+7TXkH9RhSs89DaIPaS7x3xoQ5wY0mJJ0czHcOxDUYWoPwo cExB6QLSj06CE3mIJzI5kphc8Cz/18brXzfcrqaDDhXkdvnyTdt2TGDTfcq6l3Y+rfFhK/gUT3Vxn98Sru5aI6U8op3Qw3j4PQ1psboad6Tu1xDQVT5HdFvF/hEFc3Grr30uRFsQ+TakV/S8mzAmcJ3ajEoYbiN0YebEe8kNXzDI6L31pBTajPIyBvc+J3g5AGPwq9lUf5 97PEsflryNCgDmYupTeWTu1/p1J0zvOko+baOk/bYU5Fzp51e4OJvseZmMURL/eI3wrqxw29/qaKR4NSgt+Q8TTEvNLrias5kpm0T+jixFlBbam9eg8+9XmLoepMb4vzf+Gpg umdgdn3UFQwFdJQwVRIQwVTIQ0VTIU07A2m3DeFZW77v+k7yyFIf9qblKsAq 4y3DI8h7pWZLnT9EW89l3fZvA7BQVgPpiNu/CzPRB2ydiJM8ZxmuOSfa+pMXn0ZO1BY+cWqa4M6h1cRpiNDWboaruvCPY2uD lOJHj3a7vlH80df0bsT91uvrdcNpONYYRdw/+8U2l3CMj+lpN3vnvM2TvcXmPNgn0vwjOwO8LqNkT5gb5fQxEhHPthTM088Q hZ6GO8a1c3IQo+h7R7c/9WJdotoMNFOHB2h/bLm5wPKoR/3zj1bKCXaS62gWa2n92z3pPeWDv2g74LhRudS2+m9Qw9QnyBsZsKViuN0xXi 7YdBU2jmn9N6eoX4u3ZeDPFEurv5tFupAz3uauHWeT+I+N/o3wNBjIgtu9FpnCncP+Mci6LgsxJ9ILsRKMB1Re3gtXOIBfEa5FeK63avOVH hpVDAV0lDBVEhDBVMhDWn/3UVwv/Cd31kKO5ETTFPViMK74qRgqgrWJ4BUwPvz2Qo1rUdjJXrj2Y8YiZRPu31V5p NBvtErelum70O/NYbjDeq8lFJ8L+wB3fLCDUEq4KLr7rUYh21IkY2MdMrH41a4FXhmEnmiJ6aZ qR/XNFqimevtOCjcB1VnKqShgqmQhgqmQhoqmAppqGAqpKGCqZCGCqZCGiqYCmm oYCqkoYKpkIb/AWU/Mr2OGM4dAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

Kharon
15th Feb 2014, 23:34
The current board is insignificant; equally damned if it do or if it don't do; being, to a lay point of view, either complicit or negligent. No doubt they are aware of this and have taken steps to limit the damage. They may well be legally capable of defending their individual positions and no doubt will; however in any national discussion on the well being of industry, they must, collectively hang their heads in shame. In any event, they become a spent force, distrusted and suspect.

The Minister has committed to enhancing the CASA Board with two additional board members, both with aviation experience. Although in theory this is a good start, the likelihood of redressing the present situation where CASA is perceived to be 'out of touch' with the Australian aviation community, is questionable.

The chronic, endemic problems are considered to be more fundamental, requiring much more than a simple restructure of a board which is obliged to; "ensure that CASA conducts its activities in compliance with government policies and its governing laws, the Civil Aviation Act and the Commonwealth Authorities and Corporations Act".

It is noteworthy that the Board has significant legal qualifications, this may be one desirable attribute. Regrettably, the net effect, visible throughout all levels of CASA, promotes a “legal bias” first approach, rather than a tight focus upon safety related outcomes. Hopefully, with Board who's skills are biased towards a higher level of technical competence the whole organisation would become more safety outcome focused, rather than being simplistically totally reliant on 'legal' (black letter) compliance.

The previous Board has been let down by poor quality legal and technical advice from the CASA executive. The current CASA senior management structure is ineffective, an unnecessary extravagance and clearly a hindrance to the efficient operation of the organisation. The Director of Aviation Safety (DAS), with the luxury of a board should be able to run CASA with, at most, a deputy responsible for the corporate aspects of managing CASA. The present structure, with a board, a director, a deputy director and an associate director is simply excessive, conveniently diluting both the responsibility and accountability of the director.

It is noteworthy that the predecessor to CASA (CAA) was efficiently and economically run by a general manager within the Civil Aviation Authority. The current arrangement is an onerous burden and unnecessary impost on industry.

The board represents but a small problem to industry compared to the problems which are left behind, the management level must be completely gutted and cauterised. Mark my words in some dark, damp corner the monsters are waiting for the storm to blow over. Changing a DAS is a band aid, little more than a cheap publicity stunt. If the government will not lay bare the dreadful truth, then it falls to the IOS to ensure that every single act of malice, every untruth told in court or the AAT is exposed and those who initiated or are associated with those acts are ruthlessly, vigorously and very publicly prosecuted. The board has a duty of care which honourable men would accept along with being suitably recompensed for exercising that duty.

Enough of the board with a lower case b and a regulator with a capital R – it's all bollocks; we know it, they know it and now the miniscule knows it. Will he get off of his arse and take the opportunity offered for the second time now to actually do something??.

All aboard – Toot toot.

triadic
16th Feb 2014, 01:07
Well said!!

One of the options, which may not be that far fetched is to put the knife through the organisation and start again. There are no doubt many options that the Minister might consider, however one that places safety first and not 'R'egulation (as I don't believe you can regulate for safety)... If this means splitting up the existing CASA then so be it. Safety promotion and education should go to the ATSB or be outsourced with a similar budget. Other areas could also be moved elsewhere. The "S" in CASA is not what we are seeing right now! More like an "R":ugh:

Sarcs
16th Feb 2014, 21:08
Note: Slight drift from boards, directors & IOS submissions..:ok:

From post # 297 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/490723-merged-casa-regulatory-reform-15.html#post8261767) of the Reg Reform thread..

sprocket: If CASRs were supposed to be in plain English, why is there a dictionary as Part 1? Surely plain English words are sufficiently defined in Webster's or Oxford and one should not need to invest in Black's? Well according to the 1072 page, 1 July 2009 version, on ‘How to use the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998’ (http://my.lawlex.com.au/tempstore/consolidated/10211.pdf) {Note: Which as a point of interest was around 6 months after the Skull’s appointment :rolleyes:}, under the heading of…

“…Definitions and meanings

30. A piece of legislation often includes definitions of terms used within it. The terms defined are principally the ones that are specific to the legislation in some way — for example because they have been specially invented. Ordinary dictionary words are not normally defined; they are assumed to take their ordinary dictionary meanings. Terms defined in the Act take the same meanings in the Regulations unless redefined in the Regulations. Legal terms also are not normally defined; again, they are assumed to have their ordinary legal meanings.

31. Naturally, the Regulations use many technical terms. A term of which the meaning is well known within aviation and generally accepted is usually not defined. If an unfamiliar word or term occurs in the Regulations, it may be defined in a general dictionary. For example, chord, empennage, fuselage, and longeron are all defined in the Macquarie Dictionary.

32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise. For example, although everybody knows what ‘take-off’ means, it may be necessary, in a particular case, to treat taxiing as part of a take-off. It is not certain whether the ordinary meaning of ‘take-off’ includes taxiing or not. In cases like this there will be a definition in the Regulations.

33. Definitions may be either in the Dictionary at the end or in the text of the Parts.

34. A few terms that are used in the Regulations and that are not defined either in the Regulations or in standard dictionaries are discussed in the Note on Terms at the end of this Guide.

35. Although the Dictionary is not called a Part of the Regulations, and is not numbered, it is as much part of the Regulations as any of the numbered Parts.

36. If a definition that applies throughout the Regulations is in the Regulations but not in the Dictionary, there is a ‘signpost’ in the Dictionary to the regulation where the definition is. For example: major change, for a type design — see regulation 21.093.

37. The standard definitions of aviation terms are those laid down by ICAO and published by it in International Civil Aviation Vocabulary (ICAO Document 9713). Generally, terms defined by ICAO are used in the Regulations with the meaning given by ICAO. There may still be a definition in the Regulations, but the definition will usually be followed by a note to the effect that the source of the definition is the ICAO definition. (The ICAO definition will either be used unchanged, or rewritten in minor ways to be clearer and easier to read.) Often, where a term defined in the Regulations is used, there will be a note nearby saying where to look for the definition.

38. See Subpart 1.A for general provisions about interpretation and definitions.….”

Well that should clear it all up for all those muddle-minded AOC holders, gingerbeers, skygods & knuckledraggers….:E

We all know the tale now on how the CASR 1998 has grown from a paltry 190 pages, back in 1998-9 to (at last count) 2186 pages and that it all originally came about (the need :ugh:) because of the desire to…

….“ 1.003 Harmonisation with FARs

(1) These regulations contain provisions based on the FARs.
(2) An object of these regulations is to harmonise certain parts of Australia’s aviation safety law with the FARs.
(3) The words ‘Source FARs’ below a regulation indicate that the regulation is based on the section of the FARs, as in force on 1 January 1997, stated after the words and, if the section number is followed by the word ‘modified’, the word indicates that the FARs section has been modified for the regulation..." {Q for WLRP: Hmm how do you think we are going with that original endeavour??:confused:}

I’m sure the WLR panel are all over this..:D..but for those of us that were contemplating suicide while studying ATPL Air leg, or trying to apply for an AOC, or just finding out whether they’re operationally legal or not :{; the HG to the CASRs put out by the OLDP should have a powerful sedative & anti-depressant effect…;)

Hmm wonder if there is a QRH version to simplify the task for the WLR panel..?? :E


OK back to boreds and other areas of significant contemplation for the WLRP...:ok:

Kharon
17th Feb 2014, 17:16
You can tell, the drafter really has a good grasp on matters aeronautical:-

32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise. For example, although everybody knows what ‘take-off’ means, it may be necessary, in a particular case, to treat taxiing as part of a take-off. It is not certain whether the ordinary meaning of ‘take-off’ includes taxiing or not. In cases like this there will be a definition in the Regulations.

TWR – ABC Clear for immediate take off.

FO. – Wodger that – now, standby whilst us defines if you have actually cleared us to taxi and then take off; should we not have been cleared to taxi to the threshold, then pwoceed??. (Extracts manual from flight deck library thumbs through index to find the appropriate regulation before proceeding to correct definition section).

TWR – For FS ABC - get rolling.

FO. – Well !, how very un PC of you. The Captain advises that this will be reported. I am, after all only asking for you to clearly define what precisely you expect us, as a fully qualified legally compliant flight crew to do.

Segue to tower windows shattering multiple controllers, headsets, chairs and coffee mugs flying into space, pursued by an eerie, blood curdling primal scream. Monty Python (or Stephen King?) eat your heart out. In Australia we have weality.

Creampuff
17th Feb 2014, 19:29
My favourite:car, in relation to a lighter-than-air aircraft, means basket whenever, in the case of any particular type of such aircraft, a basket is a constructional feature of that type.That, and the definition of “aeroplane” in Part 61.

Fantome
17th Feb 2014, 19:48
32. Occasionally a term that is in general use may be defined because the general meaning of the term is not sufficiently precise.
a UDF has been defined as an unducted fan

in this context, Dick Rutan ('Voyager') was one who bemoaned the tendency to define things in terms of what they weren't instead of what they are.

we are now going to roll a joint. . . which will not be a chiropractic manoeuvre

and to be more specific -

we shall require a receptacle for the denuded weed. . . . .
or more precisely . . . an ashtray

and when you are ordered to cease what you are doing . . ..
think "stop it'

(else you go blind?)

a well known CFI, a redhead incidentally, had this notice on his desk for years -


WARNING - When one has reached my age, noise and non-concurrence cause hyperperistalsis of the gastric mucosa and I become .. .
A NASTY BASTARD

Up-into-the-air
17th Feb 2014, 21:16
This would exlain a few things:

WARNING - When one has reached my age, noise and non-concurrence cause hyperperistalsis of the gastric mucosa and I become .. .

A NASTY BASTARD

dubbleyew eight
17th Feb 2014, 23:52
car, in relation to a lighter-than-air aircraft, means basket whenever, in the case of any particular type of such aircraft, a basket is a constructional feature of that type.

I wonder if that is an admission that the CAR's (civil aviation regulations) are a basket case.:E

Paragraph377
17th Feb 2014, 23:57
Creampuff,
Utter tosh. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif
The Minister can’t make anyone who wants to leave, stay.

Really? Well I was correct. Herr Skull wanted to leave in May but he has been 'asked' to stay until August! And Creampuff before you delve into any legal wankery definitions about the word 'asked', don't bother. It is what it is, Mr Angry wanted to bail but if he does he won't get his glowing reference and farewell pen.

Frank,
Not sure why Casaweary mentioned Gaunty, he has never been part of the iron ring, it could be because he has 'friends' in government. Either way Gaunty is irrelevant in the context of the current review. Although he has probably shared canopes with Creampuff and Flyingfiend.


UITA,
Skull has (had) a nice office, great view of the Airport, some pot plants, patched holes in his walls, conference phone, keys to the trough, things like that.

Frank Arouet
18th Feb 2014, 00:10
I hear there's silver whistle involved also.

Paragraph377
18th Feb 2014, 00:28
Frank,
The whistle is a nice gesture. He can blow it loudly to attract the attention of the Styx River Boat Captain, however something tells me that he won't need it as the Ferryman always knows where his passengers are! Toot Toot.
As for pot plant Pete, the real Pete resides in the office of Senator Nash. As for the Skulls pot plants they are withered and droopy (like other senior managements genitalia) as the poor plants have been processing carbon shite-ox-ide from his office for some time.

I am amazed at what has transpired in the past few days, and the dribble that has been preached from the bloated mouth of Mr Hawke is just plain nauseating. Why oh why won't Truss send him and the rest of his pathetic Board, and MrDak on their way with a golden lettuce and a fist pump? CASA as it is, has to go in its entirety. Keep the handful of good lower level managers and Inspectors (yes there are a couple still there) and pineapple the rest.
It's funny, Truss was warned how the IOS would react if change wasn't sanctioned by him. I am predicting Dr Voodoo will possibly get the gig, not certain though. But either way Terry must also follow suit and head to the retirement villa, A380 endorsed what a f#cking joke. Take any manager around the network who has been there over 10 years and take all of LSD as well.

The time has come for the Iron Ring to be smashed once and for all!!

TOOT TOOT

Creampuff
18th Feb 2014, 00:30
P377

Wow! Slavery must have been revived in Australia. :rolleyes:

Mr McC being ‘forced’ to stay is just a delusion that helps some people reconcile what is, to them, irreconcilable: If he’s been so bad, why is he still in the job? Answer: Because he’s been ‘forced’ to stay.

It must be devastating to be forced to tolerate circa $500k pa in the kick, business class travel and 5 star accommodation for another 6 or so months.

Get a grip. If he wanted to leave now, he’d leave now and no one could stop him. :=

Paragraph377
18th Feb 2014, 00:37
Creampuff, me, get a grip?
I noted in another thread your 'kindness' shown towards AMSA. Wonder why that is??? And somebody even supported you to become the next DAS? Second bite at the cherry perhaps?

Oh well, I am off to have a beer with some of the IOS including 'K', Gobbles, Casaweary and UITA. Frank and Sarcs are busy turd polishing today.
Promise not to talk about you mate.

Lodown
18th Feb 2014, 01:46
A new political force in power? Oh goody! Review season!
Let's put official reviewers in charge who assisted the XXXX (insert name as appropriate) Party in rising to power to thank them for their service.
Number 1 requirement of the review: have the results of the review wrapped up at least 12 months prior to the next election.
Number 2 requirement: if Number 1 is not possible, extend the results of the review until 6 months after the next election.
Number 3: do not embarrass the party in charge.
I see the usual hopefuls are lining up to have their say and extend their 10 minutes of fame.
Wake me when it's over.

Frank Arouet
18th Feb 2014, 02:23
P337: Listen carefully for I will only say this once and won't elaborate.


"whistle/ computer". (rumor only of course at this stage).


BTW By LSD are you referring to lysergic acid diethylamide or Legal Services Department. If it is the latter, they don't provide a service to anybody except CASA and I think they've changed letter heads again. If it's the former, they probably already take it.

Cactusjack
18th Feb 2014, 04:28
Frank it could mean: LSD Little Spike Dudley (pro wrestler)

Or:

LSD Least Significant Difference (statistics)
LSD Limited Slip Differential (drive axels on cross country vehicles)
LSD Limited Slip Differential
LSD Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (Beatles song)
LSD Lake Shore Drive
LSD Love Sensuality Devotion (Enigma album)
LSD Long Slow Distance (fitness training)
LSD Low Sulfur Diesel (fuel)
LSD Law Student Division (American Bar Association)
LSD Landing Ship, Dock (aka Dock Landing Ship)
LSD Lietuvos Standartizacijos Departamentas (Lithuanian Standards Board)
LSD Last Stage of Delirium (Polish web security group)
LSD Least Significant Digit
LSD Fisher's Least Significant Difference (statistics; analysis)
LSD Low Self Discharge (battery chemistry)
LSD Love's Secret Domain (album by band Coil)
LSD Lysosomal Storage Disease
LSD Local Spin Density
LSD Lakeshore Drive
LSD Louisiana School for the Deaf
LSD Lumpy Skin Disease
LSD Legal Surveys Division (Canada)
LSD Latin Square Design (statistics)
LSD Lean Software Development (efficiency in software development)
LSD Life Sciences Division
LSD Pounds, Shillings and Pence (UK slang for currency)
LSD Lyserg Saeure Diaethylamid (German)
LSD Life Science Dictionary
LSD Liquid Sound Design
LSD Large-Screen Display
LSD Lansing School District (Michigan)
LSD Low Speed Data (videoconferencing data channel)
LSD Life, Sex, and Death (band)
LSD Lead Singer Disease (when a singer leaves a band to go solo due to ego)
LSD Light Shaping Diffuser
LSD Labor Saving Device
LSD Love Spirals Downward (band)
LSD Lamborghini Style Doors (automobile design)
LSD Librae Solidi Denarii (Pounds Shillings Pence) UK & Ireland
LSD Laboratory for Simulation Development
LSD Love Sex & Dating
LSD Lysine-Specific Demethylase (biology)
LSD Lysergic Acid Diethlamide
LSD Legislative Services Division (Montana)
LSD Location Service Daemon (Java EJB)
LSD Long Slow Death
LSD Low Side Driver (electrical engineering)
LSD Little Snazzy Drummer
LSD Laser Supported Detonation (waves)
LSD Life Saving Device (song)
LSD Lashed Secured Dunnaged (shipping)
LSD Linacre School of Defence
LSD Lower Slower Delaware
LSD Lead System Designer
LSD Light Sensitive Diode
LSD Legal Services Developer
LSD Legal Self Defense
LSD Lexington School for the Deaf (Jackson Heights, New York)
LSD List Sphere Decoding
LSD Lorenzo Saint Dubois (movie,The Producers)
LSD Lone Star Draft (beer)
LSD Loud Style Design
LSD Lethbridge School District (California)
LSD Low Starch Diet
LSD Legal Survey Description
LSD Logarithmic Standard Deviation
LSD Learn, Start, Do (Grand Theft Auto)
LSD Lighting Sensitive Displays
LSD Littérature Sémo-Définitionnelle (Italian)
LSD Laboratory for System Dynamics and Signal Processing
LSD Least Separation Distance
LSD La Sourie Deglinguee (French rock band)
LSD Line Signal Detect (equivalent to carrier detect on a DSU)
LSD List Server for Domino (email list program; Bright Ideas Software)
LSD Little Silly Dish (small consumer grade satellite receivers)
LSD Logistic Support Detachment
LSD Lowland Search Dogs (UK)
LSD Los Santos Delivery (gaming, GTA:San Andreas)
LSD Large Scope Dissemination
LSD Liberal Studies Division
LSD Liberty Sanitation Department (Grand Theft Auto reference)
LSD Louisiana Super Dome
LSD Logic and Semantics for Dummies
LSD Local Slope Data
LSD Logistics Support Directorate
LSD Land Surface, Depth From
LSD Local Service Desk
LSD Lucifer's Stained Dress (song)
LSD Large Size Dry
LSD Lulie St Dash
LSD Laser Spot Detector
LSD Loop Signaling Device
LSD Lost Souls of Darkness (game)
LSD Lifestyle and Social Discourse
LSD Love Stops Depression
LSD Langley Swim and Dive
LSD Live Status Display
LSD Lashing, Stowage und Dunnage (German)
LSD Lymphatic System Disorder
LSD Liquid Scintillator/Scintillation Detector
LSD Lowest Significant Dose
LSD Lunar Surface Drill
LSD Logistics Support Data/Document
LSD Lucid Sun Divine (Mary Pranksters song)
LSD Large-Scale Distributed (computer systems)
LSD Layton Service Desk (Tampa, FL)
LSD Limit States Design (engineering)
LSD Leafy Sea Dragon (marine fish)
LSD Life Span Development (psychology)
LSD League for Spiritual Discovery (est. 1966)
LSD Law School Discussion (forum)
LSD Land Systems Division (various locations)

Either way, the CAsA definition or should I say intent of LSD is complete bollocks. Hey Witchdoctor and Anustasi - stick that in a minute!

Frank Arouet
18th Feb 2014, 06:40
you're a funny bugga Cacktus. P337 would probably agree number 46 aptly describes what they're doing to industry, but is it really an acceptable definition? Number 11, Lietuvos Standartizacijos Departamentas (Lithuanian Standards Board) is probably correct.

LeadSled
18th Feb 2014, 13:08
61.025 Definition of aeroplane for Part 61
Aeroplane means an aeroplane that has flight controls providing control of the aeroplane in 3 axes.

Folks,
Don't you just love it !!!
Tootle pip!!

PS: Bunnings Terry Hills have axes on special right now.

dubbleyew eight
18th Feb 2014, 13:39
this is like standing in a lift as an innocent tourist then slowly realising that all around you had slicked back hair, black suits and pocket bulges that matched an uzi with a full clip.

I do hope the protagonists here aren't all ex casa axe grinders.

the casa system really is fckued, overbearing and stupidly draconian.
there are a lot of good people standing their reputations in submissions to try to correct the situation.

it would truly be a shame if the efforts were able to be dismissed as just the rantings of ex casa staff. there really is a problem that needs to be fixed here.

dont fcuk it all up for civil aviation in this country.

I have been an office bearer in one of the alphabet groups, I am definitely not a supporter of CASA.

Creampuff
18th Feb 2014, 19:32
I disagree with you, W8.

Therefore, you’re a CASA stooge.

(Don’t worry: There was a full moon earlier this week and the usual lunatics went a little loonier than usual. Just nod and smile and avoid eye contact …) ;)

Sarcs
18th Feb 2014, 20:02
Opinion piece by Steve Hitchen (c/o Australian Flying), highlights the importance of getting the next DAS appointment just right to effect a 'just cultural' shift in Fort Fumble...;)

An Issue of Leadership (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/an-issue-of-leadership)

19 Feb 2014
Steve Hitchen

Opinion
The announcement that John McCormick is departing CASA in August will have several identities within aviation punching the air. McCormick has–rightly or wrongly–come to symbolise all the problems the industry has with its regulator. Therefore, his departure is also seen as being crucial to the solution.

For sure, McCormick continuing in the job would have been awkward after the Senate referred him to the Australian Federal Police over the Pel-Air investigation, so his leaving CASA is the best resolution for everyone involved: himself, CASA, the Senate and the aviation industry.

Also, the industry was watching nervously to see if McCormick's contract would be renewed. The outcome was held up as an indicator of whether or not the Aviation Safety Regulation Review was a serious attempt to get to the bottom of the way CASA is run, or just another coat of political paint from the same brush that gave us the White Paper. And so, with his departure, the aviation industry will get what it wanted.

Or will it?

It is far too simplistic to say everything will be sweet with a change in Director, because to do so is to infer that the total collapse of CASA's relationship with industry was his doing and his doing alone. Where that contention falls down is when we consider the tenure of his predecessor, Bruce Byron. The dysfunction was evident back then, and many in the industry cheered with gusto when he was replaced with John McCormick. Clearly, serious issues preceded the McCormick years.

Five years later and we're not only off the McCormick bandwagon, but also cheering just as heartily for a new top dog at CASA ... again. And if this change is the only one that happens, in five years time we will be opening our lungs to get rid of the next Director as well.

The problem the aviation industry has with CASA goes deeper than just the person at the top of the hierarchy chart; it penetrates deep in to the middle management level, and replacing the Director will work only if the embedded culture of those below is rooted out as well.

You can cut the top off the blackberry bush as often as you like, but unless you dig the roots out of the ground the dreaded prickles will come back again and again and again.

We're talking about a culture of punishment rather than encouragement, a determination to be proven right regardless of the cost to tax payers, regulatory reform that has dragged on for an unacceptable time, micro-management, bum-covering and–to some extent–incompetence or a lack of expertise.

Trust, respect and integrity have been eroded, and will erode further should the new person at the head of CASA be unable to change the culture for the better. But given that good men have failed before, what will the incoming director be able to do that others have not? How do we squeeze the CASA bureaucracy so much it changes shape?

History has a parallel from the early days of the colony of New South Wales. The rampant, powerful New South Wales Corps controlled the fledgling society for their own benefit, and for all their authority from London, Governors Hunter, King and Bligh had all failed to drag the Corps into line.

After the soldiers rebelled against Governor Bligh's attempts to restrict the Corp's influence, they arrested him and seized power themselves. The incident has become known as the Rum Rebellion because of the Corp's control over the liquor trade.

Given that replacing Governors had not worked in the past, London sought a permanent solution. In analogy, they decided to uproot the blackberry.

They sent a new Governor, army officer Major Lachlan Macquarie to oust the rebels and restore power to the crown. But, most importantly, they also sent the troops he commanded, the 73rd Regiment of Foot. The regiment replaced the NSW Corps, and because they were loyal to their commander, order was restored, the power of the NSW Corps collapsed and vested interest had to yield to proper leadership and benevolent autocracy.

With the NSW Corps broken and its leaders–including John Macarthur and Major George Johnston–in Britain defending themselves to the crown, Macquarie set about advancing the colony. He laid out the streets of Sydney again, established a bank and currency and set about a building program that included roads, bridges, a lighthouse and barracks.
He also authorised Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth to cross the Blue Mountains and is credited with being the first person to use the term "Australia" in an official capacity.

Macquarie grew the colony into what it should always have been, and he did it because he had a mandate from his superiors to deal with the NSW Corps and they gave him the tool to do it: his own regiment.

That's what the aviation industry needs the new Director of Aviation Safety to have: a clear direction to clean-up the culture at CASA and the tools to do it with. At recent industry meetings several people stressed to Senator David Fawcett the impact of the middle-management culture on the industry and the ramifications if the new Director came from the ranks of the current CASA cadre.

After the arrest of Bligh, Johnston made himself Lieutenant-Governor of NSW and the problem only deepened until Macquarie and the 73rd arrived. Likewise, if the new Director is already part of the current culture, the rift between CASA and the aviation industry will also deepen and the industry will be stifled rather than given a chance to flourish.

The new person needs to come with intelligence, passion, heart and integrity; with no qualms about what needs to be done and a clear mandate to get on with it.

It's just a pity Lachlan Macquarie died in 1824 ... he would have made a great CASA Director.
:D:D

{Comment: IMO equally as important as the next DAS appointment is the search for the next Chief Commissioner to bring back some much needed credibility to the ATsB}....:ok:

Kharon
18th Feb 2014, 20:33
W8 "this is like standing in a lift as an innocent tourist then slowly realising that all around you had slicked back hair, black suits and pocket bulges that matched an uzi with a full clip."

The trick in this situation is to not draw attention to yourself. The gentlemen will step out of the lift on the appropriate floor at the appointed time; which leaves the sensible observer a couple of options, pissing in the corner not being one. The gents are on their way to see if miniscule Truss cannot be persuaded to act honourably, to get there the forces of the murky Machiavellian must be dealt with, hence the Uzi equipment. Wet lettuce and paperwork won't work against the defensive wall, built of conceit, mortared by arrogance and reinforced by self interest, about the minuscule 's ivory tower.

W8 "dont fcuk it all up for civil aviation in this country."

Seems to me the men in black would not be needed if the industry had not allowed every travesty, injustice, fiasco, stupid decision or dictate to go unchallenged. Hell, Dolan is still standing after the Pel Air fiasco, McComic is thankfully on his merry way to perdition but there has been no apology made, not even a token Wabbit sacrificed to appease the insulted masses. This is not the fault of the miniscule, it is the fault of industry for gutlessly allowing it all to happen while they looked on, wringing their hands, shaking their heads saying "Oh me, Oh my, what's to be done" as they scuttle back to their bunkers, tails between legs should the regulator so much as break wind.

So W8, don't be a feared of the Gents in black, just stand quietly at back of the lift, listen to the muzac, and let them do the dirty work that "office bearers" have failed so miserably to do. When Truss disappoints you; as he will, perhaps you may wonder if you put enough truth and plain speaking into your submission. This is not a polite game for those who have turned the other cheek only to have been shot in the arse, while running away.

"Oh please stop rocking the boat". Bollocks to that.

Sunfish
18th Feb 2014, 20:45
The new person needs to come with intelligence, passion, heart and integrity; with no qualms about what needs to be done and a clear mandate to get on with it.

And the CASA charter has to be changed to foster the Aviation industry. This then means that the Mantra throughout CASA has to be JOBS, INVESTMENT and GROWTH for the Aviation industry.

WIth the recession that's coming down the pike now, anything CASA does that prevents the creation of jobs, investment and growth has got to be instantly stopped and replaced with jobs and investment friendly policies. This same policy mantra is going to have be applied throughout Federal and State Governments if we are to have any hope of coming out of the recession with society intact. I speak as someone who worked in the industry development field when Victoria was a wasteland after the Cain/Kirner Labor government made us the laughing stock of the nation.

Cactusjack
18th Feb 2014, 21:49
I do hope the protagonists here aren't all ex casa axe grinders.Doubleye, protagonist is an offensive reference. 'lls of society' although still offensive is more endearing. I think that if you were to have access to the hotel safe that securely contains the individual submissions to the wet lettuce review you would find that the majority of said protagonists have been unfairly rogered in some form or the other by CAsA, and some to the tune of millions.

Frank, Master's has much better pricing for Axe's mate, I will pick you up an extra one on Sunday := Just so long as you don't practise on Creampuff's nosewheel ok?

Ills Of Society 2013 - CAsA practise session number 1 (Gobbledock in the far left position)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcR28Yqt4mY

Now I believe I may have found part of Mr Hawke's 'farewell John' message that missed the printing cut-off time of 16:59 pm;

Mr McCormick has presided over a time period in which CAsA has reached an all time low as far as standards and service are concerned.
Mr McCormick has presided over a time period in which Australia's regulatory reform program has not advanced and under 5 years of his leadership has not been completed.
Mr McCormick has presided over a time period in which industry trust and respect for CAsA has reached an all time low with some of the most scathing criticism ever to be raised against CAsA.
Mr McCormick has presided over a time period in which the Pel Air and Canley Vale accidents as well as the post Lockhart accident have been poorly and obtusely handled.
Mr McCormick has presided over a time period in which incompetents, egomaniacs and psycopaths have been allowed to flourish and be promoted through CAsA's ranks.
Mr McCormick has presided over a time period in which he, his executives, his Board and his Ministerial adviser have created and fostered an atmosphere that is detrimental to Australian aviation, and ALL of the people in these positions need to go in August as well.

TICK TOCK

Cactusjack
19th Feb 2014, 00:02
Just heard that Truss's trusty adviser wants Hawke to introduce the below process into the CAsA regulatory suite. It would appear a new breed of Management has been in the making for some time, they are called 'MrDak in Black', and in the following clip you see them testing their new anti IOS equipment! (It can also be used on tendentious bloggers, resigning CAsA managers, 'good' Senators, non-flattering inquiry submitters, ATSBeaker staff, all aviation stakeholders, pesky reporters, and even the worms in the worm farm. Apparently the process is non invasive and leaves no scars, unlike the standard 16:59 fax or a large pineapple)

WARNING: Not to be used on pot plants.

MrDak in Black
[MiB] Men in Black Neuralyzer/Flashy Thing - YouTube

Creampuff
19th Feb 2014, 01:48
The “culture” and the “roots of the blackberry bush” are entrenched in the rules.

If the rules aren’t changed, it won’t matter whether every manager and executive in CASA is tossed out and replaced with musicians from the Sydney Symphony Orchestra or skygods with squillions of hours in their logbooks. What they can do and how they can do it is driven by the thousands of pages of regulations that have become the self-perpetuating regulatory Frankenstein.

It is true that the development of the current rules was driven by the people in CASA - they had no choice but to do ‘something’ - but now the Frankenstein they have created is driving the people, including the DAS.

Don’t expect anything to change if the new DAS is yet another skygod tasked with fixing everything including the regulatory reform program. He will, yet again, turn out not to be the messiah but just another naughty boy.

dubbleyew eight
19th Feb 2014, 04:24
despite the criticism I still think Creampuff shows the legal acumen and respect for others that I would like to see all throughout CASA.

he is right about the rules. CASA passes the guff to the australian parliament in a bundle of smoke and mirrors, or is it just snow? and the parliament of australia enact all this crap without so much as a moment's reserve or doubt.

how the hell could you
1. introduce EASA synchronisation when the real reason is to allow the wholesale sacking of the australian maintenance workforce?
2. turn all of aviation law into a series of criminal offences for anyone who disagrees with CASA ?

the australian parliament needs to hang its collective heads in shame at all this crap.
if ever there was proof of total abject stupidity by parliament the bazillions of pages of crap enacted as aviation law provides it in spades.

there is much more than just the head of casa that needs sorting.
maybe I should stand for a seat in the next elections.

Frank Arouet
19th Feb 2014, 06:39
Christ, he is not.


Creampuff has his critics, (and I am not blameless in this regard). The man is genuine, has been known to have a drink with those that have given him the sword in the past. He comes with a knowledge only someone from inside the 'iron circle' would appreciate. Unfortunately he has 'baggage' and as much as I see him as friendly with accurate advice, I can't, nor will ever be, convinced he is the person to cut out and replace the cancer that is the CASA.


I'm uncertain why anybody would want the 'poison chalice' anyway.


The old DCA may have had its problems, but by and large they were respected. Nobody of recent CASA vintage can claim that handle except perhaps Mike Smith or our original ICC, Mike Hart.

thorn bird
19th Feb 2014, 06:48
Dubya, I can only agree with you, Creamie is a tad blunt, occasionally a little arrogant, but mostly when you get your eye's to focus again after the slap in the face, what he says makes a whole lot of sense.
Unfortunately us passionate types let our passion cloud reality at times, whats the old saying? couldnt see the wood for the tree's!!. Creamie with a clip over the ears, draws us back to reality.
That reality is, its very hard, if not impossible to fight entrenched bureacrats,
especially when there is no political will to force reform on the agenda.
The iron ring have regulated us into a position which makes real reform impossible, a wet lettuce minister cements their legacy.
Other than line up the tumbrils for madam guillotine, we should all seriously consider moving our businesses to New Zealand or Singapore, because there just aint no future in Australia.

dubbleyew eight
19th Feb 2014, 07:16
this is a red herring anecdote.

mike smith was presenting at the pilot forum over a decade ago in perth.
as part of the presentations a gorgeous girl from Air Services gave a presentation on their publications.
Mike introduced her as the youngest lear jet training instructor in the country and extolled at some length her instructing prowess.
the old wizened commercial pilots in the front 3 rows went into quietly vocal rumblings of frustration. there she was, young gorgeous and female. most opined that they would have killed their grandmothers for the opportunity that she had obviously wangled.
prior to the presentations I had spoken to her in my alphabet capacity so during the coffee break I searched her out on the air services counter.
I whispered in her ear "you don't look old enough to have the hours that gets you in the left seat of a lear jet"
she whispered back "I was so embarrassed up there. I don't even have a pilots licence"

now the world dealt harshly with mike.

however for the man to have the pluck to stand in front of the entire WA pilot scene and tell a "dad joke" to get them to stop being over awed by the chrome plated advertising, to me speaks absolute volumes for the quality of the man.

I'd give him a chance.

back to your original station programming....

Creampuff
19th Feb 2014, 08:05
Is it a full moon again already? :confused:

I'm sure some of you are sure you know who I am, but I can assure you I'm just an acne-stippled, wheelchair-bound geek from Hicksville USA. The chances of me being a candidate are nil.

As to actual potential candidates, government won't be silly enough to choose a popular flying messiah again.

Dangly Bits
19th Feb 2014, 08:59
W8 I was there too! The man can certainly think on his feet. I giggled my way through it as I saw her face was in shock!

I've met Mike Smith on a number of occasions and he is a genuine guy who loves this industry. I think I recall that he is a LAME, CPL, and an Instructor. Who better to revive the industry I reckon.

He has my vote too.

Kharon
19th Feb 2014, 18:38
Any new appointee would need to be someone who has significant, past experience managing change at executive level, guiding change within an aviation regulatory authority as well as qualifications in flight operations and/or aircraft maintenance.

The CEO must be known as a senior executive with a demonstrated high level of management expertise: technically competent. The CEO must also be a person who embraces reform; one who sees change as opportunity and importantly, one who has tangible experience of effecting reform. An able leader, one who can retrieve the lost respect and confidence of industry. This person needs to have the integrity, energy and enthusiasm to interact with CASA staff across the organisation and an ability to lead, with commitment in the new direction.

IMO - It is highly unlikely that such a person will come from within the ranks of existing CASA management. Indeed, it is doubtful industry would tolerate such a selection.

Now Nigeria has managed to slay the beast and is looking good; the link here – Academia (http://www.academia.edu/4088340/Aviation_Reforms_In_Nigeria_How_Well_So_Far) – is recommended reading for anyone who thinks Australia's wee problems cannot be beaten, they can with the right crew and political will. For those who prefer the potted version – Article (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channelstv.com%2Fhome%2F2013%2F05%2F11% 2Funderstanding-nigeria-aviation-reforms%2F&ei=UgEFU8LGDsnZigeR3oHACw&usg=AFQjCNGhRR9oC3NaGnJ4wah8NcX5nh7FLA&bvm=bv.61535280,d.aGc)– provides some food for thought.
“Nigeria has a robust aviation reform agenda. One of the best promising in the world” - US Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood
“This time, the whole Aviation world is praising the government of Nigeria and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) for the extraordinary way they have transformed the aviation face in Nigeria, in less than five years through a robust safety reform agenda”-Boeing’s Director for Africa and Middle East, Aviation Safety, Chamsou Andjori

hiwaytohell
19th Feb 2014, 20:14
The old DCA may have had its problems, but by and large they were respected

That is because: a) It had its own Minister who gave the industry the attention it deserved, b) It comprised mostly of competent people... remember the people of Russ Evans era! and c) They were fair!!

Sarcs
20th Feb 2014, 01:05
Kharon..“Now Nigeria has managed to slay the beast and is looking good…they can with the right crew and political will…”

Top example “K”..:D..and how embarrassing when previous & current 3rd World countries are catching up and overhauling a former bastion of high aviation safety standards, that punched well above its weight, while proactively contributing to aviation safety risk mitigation worldwide.
While we continue to sit on our hands and contemplate our navels (or have a sleep like the Hare did..:rolleyes:), here in short summary is what Nigeria has been able to achieve since their ICAO audit in 2006 (http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/CSAfinal/Nigeria_csa_Final_Report.pdf):ICAO Audit: Nigeria Makes List Of 14 Best In Africa — August 22, 2013

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has listed Nigeria as one of the 14 countries in Africa that have achieved effective air safety implementation above the global average of 61 per cent.

This rating is contained in the ICAO 2013 Safety Report (http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents/ICAO_2013-Safety-Report_FINAL.pdf) compiled by the ICAO auditors who investigated the compliance with stipulated international safety standards by individual countries across the world, especially its 200 member countries.

The ICAO 2013 Safety Report lends credence to the Category One certification granted Nigeria in 2011 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States of America for meeting stipulated international standards and practices on safety and security.:D
Maybe the risk is minimal of the FAA actually knocking on our door anytime soon (let’s face it they’re only up to “I” in the alphabet) but perhaps the potential effect of such an action could be the ultimate catalyst for creating the political will :ugh: for change.

The current knock-on effects reverberating from the recent Indian ICAO downgrade (to CAT 2), should provide a reasonable insight & warning to the Government/Department of what is really at risk if the current status quo is allowed to drift without any effective, ruthless & proactive change.

Lengthy but educational article worth reading: Why US' downgrade of India's safety rating threatens to send aviation sector into a tailspin (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-09/news/47149185_1_air-india-government-run-airline-indian-aviation)

‘Actions speak louder than words’

Quote from article:Timely Action

For these reasons, many experts believe that the FAA action is godsend. "The one silver lining in the downgrade is that it may act as a serious wake-up call and that India may take the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive White Paper review of the state of aviation safety in the country," said the Capa note. Craig Jenks, president of Airline/Aircraft Projects Inc, a New York-based aviation consultancy, said Indian aviation at least now strives to catch up globally.
After our last ICAO audit findings came out (much like the Indians post ICAO 2009 audit) the spin doctors, bureaucrat Mandarins etc all went into hyperdrive and produced the previous government’s Aviation white paper and initiated Australia's Aviation State Safety Program (SSP), however at the end of the day these documents are only words and while the various responsible agencies only pay lipservice to those words the clock will continue to TICK..TOCK! :E

Ps: Heard a rumour that the FAA(ICAO) are seriously considering, due resourcing issues, sub-contracting some of their auditing duties out to the Singaporeans (due to their exemplary, some would say extreme, compliance record to ICAO SARPs/Annexures) :confused:.

The rumour also included that an arrangement may now be in place for Singaporean inspectors to up the rampings (not just the Indians) of all airlines that operate into the US...hmm better make sure all those tyre dustcaps are accounted for and secure..:E

dubbleyew eight
20th Feb 2014, 10:18
can anyone else see a glaring fault in the ICAO logic?

as I read the cut and thrust of the ICAO guff I am left with the impression that "aviation safety" is solely concerned with international commercial airline operation.

ah penny drops. I'm not involved in "aviation" wink wink.

if tomorrow is a nice day I am taking my reciprocating petrol oxidiser for a 3 dimensional translocation at a wider earth radius than the planet's surface.
NOTE one and all; it is not "aviation" in the ICAO sense and hence is not illegal.
it involves the evaporation of money for which there is no legislated objection.

see newspeak can be made to work for you.:ok: wink wink.

Centaurus
20th Feb 2014, 12:07
and c) They were fair!!

Sometimes they were far from fair.. A piece of corporate history for those with rose coloured glasses. This story is as accurate as I can remember it. In 1969 this scribe left the RAAF (sigh..) for the security of a job as an airways surveyor in DCA Head Office in Melbourne. Having been allotted a dark and dingy office with no window, my boss a former RAAF Hudson wartime pilot (Lloyd Milne no less,) told me to attend a conference between DCA officers and reps of the British BAC One-Eleven company in Australia to try and sell their product. The DC9 had recently been approved to operate into 30 metre (100 feet) wide runways in WA and NSW. To obtain that approval flight tests were needed to ensure that in event of engine failure at V1 the aircraft could maintain within six feet of the centreline until stopped or airborne. The BAC One-Eleven reps said they were happy their aircraft could meet the same requirements.
DCA officials, including my boss, had serious misgivings about allowing the British aircraft into Australia. It was a political thing, I think at the time.
So DCA told BAC they would allow sales to Australian operators but that the crosswind limit on the 100 ft wide runways would be restricted to something like 15 knots which was a piddling figure. As far as I recall there were no sums made - just someone's gut feeling.

I was told to draft the confirming letter to BAC which would be signed by Sir Donald Anderson after passing through the desks of numerous officials up to Alan Lum, the biggest wheel under Sir Don. I penned the first draft and after reading it, my boss told me to amend the crosswind limit to five knots if the runway was wet. I knew enough about jets to know that five knots limit on a wet runway was bullshit and I said so. Just do as you are instructed, said my boss Lloyd Milne.

Why this rubbish about crosswind limits said I? The One-Eleven can take 35 knots in England. My boss says you will soon learn the game of politics. It goes like this, he said. When the Poms get the letter limiting the One-Eleven to five knots on wet 100 ft wide runways, especially when wet runways were never discussed at the meeting, they will protest and say that is unfair. And that is true. We will get their reply but we will not reply back. Now there are millions of dollars of sales at stake here, and again they will come back urgently to us asking why five knots and again we won't reply.

With that, BAC will bypass us in DCA and go straight to the Minister for Air (Civil Aviation) and bitch that his DCA officials have put ridiculous cross-wind limit restrictions on the introduction of the BAC One-Eleven into airline service in Australia when similar restrictions are not applied to the current DC9 ops in WA.

In quick time the Minister will contact us and ask what the hell is going on with you people, and why the restrictions on the One-Eleven? We reply it is a safety matter since 100 ft wide runways leave no room for error should an engine fail on take off. When hearing the magic word "Safety" the Minister is supposed to fold under. BUT, we tell the Minister, if money is available from Federal or State authorities to enable DCA to widen the runways where the One-Elevens will operate in competition to the F28 and DC9, the safety problem is overcome and we (DCA) can approve the introduction of the BAC One-Eleven. In other words DCA will screw BAC in order to get funding for wider runways in NSW and WA.

History reveals the BAC One Eleven was never ordered by Australian airlines. However, Sir Robert Menzies who was Prime Minister in that era, directed the RAAF to buy two BAC One-Elevens for the RAAF No 34 (VIP) Squadron use. These arrived in 1967 and both aircraft gave sterling service. The above tale is a generalised account of events as I remember them. But the dirty tricks did originate from DCA and in my view was unfair to BAC.

Creampuff
20th Feb 2014, 19:20
We reply it is a safety matter …. When hearing the magic word "Safety" the Minister is supposed to fold under. BUT, we tell the Minister, if money is available …Sounds very familiar.

Kharon
20th Feb 2014, 20:08
Chance of a second coffee and the Centaurus post above, provoked some semi lucid thoughts related to how things have and do work in the murky world of power, politics and self interest. I reckon from the moment Mr. Ugg in cave 1 discovered there were folks in cave 2 it was game on; we learned the game from the other animals, push, shove, scratch and bite. Wasn't if Freud who said something about the first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization. The refinement of process into the sort of 'politics' Centaurus mentions whilst unpleasant is, regrettably part of the price we pay for the world we live in. One of the very bad side effects is the loss, through embuggerance (cheers Sunny) of good people when the balance of good and evil is loaded toward the dark side. However, Australia's loss has been another countries gain. Some of the best aviation success stories have been writ large by 'disgruntled' former employees of our failed regulator.

The harsh treatment of some has benefited nations like Nigeria, one very fine man who could, given the opportunity, have dragged Australia into the 20th century was instrumental in the Nigerian success. But someone made a wrong call and instead of a Nigerian like story, we had the White paper and the McComic years of repression, micro management, predetermined outcome, legal skulduggery and technical incompetence. Look back at the quality of people who have declined to work for CASA or, those who have tried to work within the system only to leave; disappointed. Compare those departed folk with those who not only could stomach McComic, but have ably aided and abetted the demise of what had been a workable, if imperfect system.

You don't have to look far; IMO the loss of Hood and the rise of Campbell gives you a pretty clear indication of what's afoot. A short study of Tiger, Polar, Barrier, Quadrio, Pel Air, colour vision, maintenance, part 61, CAO 48 etc. etc, will provide a crystal clear vision of why the industry is in such a desperate state and who got it there. I have, as yet to work out the why; any luck at your end miniscule?

I wonder - Cometh the hour, cometh the man ????

Cactusjack
20th Feb 2014, 21:03
Chocolate frog award to Kharon,

You don't have to look far; IMO the loss of Hood and the rise of Campbell gives you a pretty clear indication of what's afoot. A short study of Tiger, Polar, Barrier, Quadrio, Pel Air, colour vision, maintenance, part 61, CAO 48 etc. etc, will provide a crystal clear vision of why the industry is in such a desperate state and who got it there.

Couldn't be more accurate if one tried. But Kharon, you naughty boy, how could you forget Dr Voodoo, Herr Boyd and the geriatric A380 endorsed Don of the GWM??

Sarcs,

After our last ICAO audit findings came out (much like the Indians post ICAO 2009 audit) the spin doctors, bureaucrat Mandarins etc all went into hyperdrive and produced the previous government’s Aviation white paper and initiated Australia's Aviation State Safety Program (SSP), however at the end of the day these documents are only words and while the various responsible agencies only pay lipservice to those words the clock will continue to TICK..TOCK! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

You speak of the standard bureaucratic approach to systemic issues - Panic when exposed. And that is what CAsA have been doing. But the tin of turd polish is empty, there are no more sacrificial lambs left in the pen (or are there?), the Witchdoctors powers and potions are almost spent, and the strength of the GWM has declined immensely. What to do what to do?? Well an ICAO or FAA audit might be one way to kick the wounded dog in the nuts.
As we all know, the only way to force serious action within a government agency is to do something that spotlights the portfolio's Minister or the PM him/herself. I would suggest that very shortly a campaign be embarked upon to highlight the Minister and PM's role in the current malaise. Target their inaction, incompetence, and arrogance towards the serious aviation issues. Who gives a sh#t whether they have inherited this mess or not, they are now in the drivers seat and must do something now. So c'mon folks, lets turn up the heat and take aim at the very top of the ladder. Threaten the existence of these career trough dwellers and put their reputations and ludicrous salaries and pensions at risk and we may stand a chance.
Anybody who has ever seen a 'ministerial request' come down the pipe at CAsA will know exactly what I am talking about.


TICK TOCK and TOOT TOOT

Creampuff
20th Feb 2014, 22:18
The Minister is busy focussing on what government is really about:Former deputy prime minister John Anderson will don his transport hat again to lead a government-appointed group tasked with progressing the Melbourne to Brisbane inland railway project.

Federal Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss appointed Anderson, a former Nationals MP and transport minister, to chair an implementation group responsible for determining construction priorities and ensuring engagement with the community and stakeholders.Sophie Mirabella’s helping out with submarines, Tim Wilson with human rights, Peter Costello with the Future Fund, Nick Minchin with our overseas relations.

So many friends; so little time.

Sarcs
21st Feb 2014, 01:54
Excellent post Centaurus! Just goes to show it is really the un-elected bureaucrats that hold and maintain the axis (balance) of power…:ok:
Kharon: I have, as yet to work the why; any luck at your end miniscule?
Hippocrates once said… “There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance.”

Upon reflection In the lead up to Albo very proudly releasing his beloved Labor government’s GWEP (Great White Elephant Paper :ugh:), Truss as the then Opposition shadow miniscule was very vocal and opinionated on the Rudd government and the , wet behind the ears :rolleyes:, DoIT Miniscule (love the last two paragraphs..:E):Truss ridicules Albanese over aviation review (http://www.fullyloaded.com.au/news/industry/0804/truss-ridicules-albanese-over-aviation-review/)

By: Jason Whittaker
Date: 10.04.2008

Shadow minister for transport Warren Truss has labelled his counterpart a know-nothing minister who has no grasp of the challenges

Shadow minister for transport Warren Truss has labelled his counterpart a know-nothing minister who has no grasp of the challenges facing the transport industry.

Truss ridiculed Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese as lacking the will to make tough decisions after he announced a policy review into aviation, which adds to the 73 other reviews launched by the Rudd Government since it came to office in November.

Albanese today launched an aviation issues paper which highlights significant issues affecting the industry, such as skills shortages, regulatory reform and climate change.

The aim, according to Albanese, is to create a national aviation policy. The industry is being asked to submit its views to Albanese by September.

Truss, however, sees the launch as another indication of the Government being content to steal Coalition ideas, sub-contract work out to Labor mates and other government bodies or launch reviews.

"After 11 years in opposition, you would have thought Labor might have known what it was going to do when it was elected to Government," Truss says.

"The sad truth is the Government and its very green new minister, Anthony Albanese, have no idea about transport policy and infrastructure."

Truss says the late Howard Government had implemented a number of aviation reviews while in office, which laid the groundwork for progress to be made.

"This latest aviation inquiry is yet another example of Rudd Labor governing by review and avoiding what we pay them to do, which is to make decisions," Truss says. Dear Miniscule… ‘proof is always in the pudding,’ this could be your ultimate swansong where you could be remembered as the Miniscule who was prepared to put his cohunes on the line and cut through the bureaucratic red tape; dice up the trough swillers & iron ring geriatrics…

Dear Miniscule…now is your chance to prove that your government truly are the infrastructure & transport gurus...or I suggest (as the PM recently said in Parliament)…“get out of the way!”

Dear Miniscule…“Mayday..Mayday..Mayday” is fast approaching …TICK TOCK!;)

Ps Congrats to FedSecSteve and the ALAEA on getting MMSM coverage for their WLR submission in today’s article Engineers’ submission calls for CASA refocus, tougher penalties (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/engineers-submission-calls-for-casa-refocus-tougher-penalties/story-e6frg95x-1226833055162#mm-premium):D:D

Cactusjack
21st Feb 2014, 02:57
Good work Creampuff,


Sophie Mirabella’s helping out with submarines, Tim Wilson with human rights, Peter Costello with the Future Fund, Nick Minchin with our overseas relations.

So many troughs, such little time. Isn't it a treat to see that at least one class of Australian gets to go through life never having to fret about paying a bill, never having to worry about where the next paycheck will come from, never be concerned about having to fly cattle class somewhere, never have to dread being retrenched or being part of cutbacks or pay freezes! No, just become a politician, the world is your oyster. And when you retire, your mates look after you and ensure the trough remains full and the work continues.... These people make me sick. The aviation industry has made me sick.
I support Frank, it is time for an Australian revolution. The Haitians did it, so did Iran, Cuba and China, the Turks, Russians and Yanks did it in style and the Frogs set the bar when it came to 'forcing change' and kicking the collective arses of societies elite parasites.
I think if we took those in Australian aviation (including QF staff), the Ford, Holden and Toyota workers, plus the general populous being screwed via the fuel companies, electricity companies and myriads of government agencies through pension cuts, social welfare cuts for the disabled etc, I think we have a great starting point!!!
So perhaps a different directive is needed? Forget submissions, handsy slaps and finger pointing at those in their ivory towers. Its time to take out the chainsaws, pick axes and demolition explosives (just a metaphor) and burn it to the ground!!


P.S Creampuff, no it's not a full moon mate, just a weary soul who has been cost almost everything in life by a bureaucratic malfunctioning cluster f#ck of immense proportions. You're right, I am angry, very angry.


TICK TOCK? Hell yeah.........

aroa
21st Feb 2014, 04:05
Cactus, you have many brothers in anger, that's for sure.

If and when the WLR review goes off like a wet squib, the Truss bitch about Albo, a few post above could just have the names swapped around and be presented back to him.

Great pic of Miniscule Warren in todays OZ "Aviation" (sic) p26....
"Sydney plan brings second site closer " To what you might ask ?

The caption that should go with his mug shot reads "Oh sh*t, do I really have to deal with this !!!!!"

But wait, there's more..! a 20 year masterplan to consider. Oh yes, oh yes.!
...major developments will require further planning processes...etc etc

Oh Citizens,!! pineappleus extractus, Viva la revolucion !!!:ok::ok:

Up-into-the-air
21st Feb 2014, 05:17
ALEA (http://www.alaea.asn.au/attachments/article/548/ALAEA_Aviation_Safety_Regulation_Review_Submission_20140214. pdf)

This submission (http://vocasupport.com/asrr-alea-submission/) follows a similar line to the others we have seen (http://vocasupport.com/election/regulatory-review-2013/asrr-submissions/).

In part it says:

At page 9:

a. The RRP has failed to produce clear and definitive regulations in relation to aircraft maintenance engineer licencing and aircraft maintenance activities.

i. The resulting confusion and uncertainty is having a disastrous effect on small General Aviation operations as they struggle to comply with contradictory, opaque and complex rules;

ii. In High Capacity RPT engineers are inadvertently breaching the regulations due to large grey areas that have replaced what used to be a clear scope and system of licence privileges.

b. A Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the maintenance and maintenance licensing regulations is required as soon as possible;

c. A review into CASA’s internal processes for regulatory development is essential.and:

6. Unfortunately, CASA has not fundamentally altered its organisational or consultation structures from those used in the previous prescriptive system. The Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) remains the focus of consultation and essentially has the same long standing mode of operation and consultation. The ALAEA is disappointed that CASA management apparently have not understood the critical necessity for organisational restructure required to realign with the new regulatory environment – even though constantly highlighting the virtues of the new outcome based system.and:

12. A measure of CASA’s effectiveness (ToR 1) is how it approves and polices the industry it regulates. Unfortunately ALAEA’s experience is that in maintenance oversight CASA’s performance is often substandard.and:

23. In the ALAEA’s view, CASA has a dubious history of approving overseas organisations and has admitted they are not able to inspect them with the same freedom that that they inspect an Australian facility.and:

Some organisations had said that they were going to close down because they could no longer bear the stress and financial burden of meeting vague and often contradictory new standards. Aircraft were being grounded late on Friday afternoon over administrative errors and reputations were being trashed.and:

33.The ALAEA believes that in the context of increasing commercial pressures, and operatorself-oversight responsibility as outlined above, an Australian WPP is critical as both a safety initiative and a measure to restore confidence in Australian regulatory compliance.and:

40.There are no workplace regulatory protections that allow an employee to fulfil legalobligations placed on an aviation employee by the Civil Aviation Act and associated regulations in the workplace without threat to their employment.and:

49.One of CASA’s main functions as set out in s9 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the act’)amongst others is to develop and promulgate appropriate, clear and concise aviation standards. Interestingly, no amendment has been suggested to the Act to better align CASA’s functions with the new outcome based policy of the government.

50.Unfortunately the regulatory reform program for airworthiness and maintenance has notsatisfied the requirement for clear and concise aviation standards. The ALAEA has spent a considerable amount of resources in the two and a half years since the new maintenance regulations were introduced attempting to clarify and define numerous ambiguous clauses within the regulations, manuals of standards and regulatory supporting material. CASA was unable to answer any of our questions in a concise response, appearing themselves to also not understand the regulations they created.and:

52.Aviation safety regulations as they were read yesterday, if unchanged should mean the samething today and tomorrow and so on until a change is made to them to alter their intent. With the way the current maintenance regulations and support material have been written, interpretation of the intent by CASA officers is in many cases is given with reference to “CASA policy” or “CASA considers” rather than being clear from the regulation. But the CASA policy/s referred to can’t be produced. What this infers is that there are internal unofficial policy/s that CASA officers use to make determinations of regulatory interpretation that may vary between CASA officers and over time.and:

61. It should also be noted that an 18 month old draft Advisory Circular (AC 145-3-0) that contains training standards directly relating to the Part 145 MOS is still circulating, despite being outdated by the proposed amendments to the MOS.

In short it’s all a dog’s breakfast...and:

81.The ALAEA has put to CASA on numerous occasions (and has support from a wide sector ofthe industry) that the qualification level for a Category A licence needs to be raised. Despite our numerous requests (and industry support) CASA has not responded or taken action.
I think what the ALEA is saying:

Lets have the US-FAR's

Creampuff
21st Feb 2014, 19:42
Yet more friends in need of help:They were appointed in the spirit of austerity to identify billions of dollars to hack from government spending.

But the Abbott government's audit commissioners have been accused of failing to walk the walk on what they are taking from the public purse.

Audit chairman Tony Shepherd has so far been paid $25,000 for the equivalent of 17 days' work.

He and his four fellow commissioners, including former Liberal senator Amanda Vanstone, are in the highest pay bracket that exists for specialist advisers to government. … Audit commissioners earn top dollar for advising on cuts (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/audit-commissioners-earn-top-dollar-for-advising-on-cuts-20140204-31yqr.html)

Sarcs
21st Feb 2014, 23:11
While we are waiting for the WLR panel to wade through, the reportedly, over 260 submissions and for UITA to catch up…:zzz: :ok:

URWE (‘Blast from the past’): In the dying years of the Howard Government and in the eventual lead up to the 2008 Senate Inquiry into the admin of Fort Fumble, Labor Senator O’Brien had this to say to his fellow Senators (cherry picked quotes)…
“Senator O’BRIEN (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8O6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (10:29 AM)
….I must say at the start that I am disappointed that government senators are opposing this reference. I am not surprised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, is opposed to it and is calling for government senators to oppose this motion, because this reference was a test for him—a test he has failed. Mr Truss does not want Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime subjected to a detailed examination by a committee of the parliament, and the question needs to be asked: why? It is obvious that it is because he is worried what an inquiry might reveal…

… Another important change has occurred: Liberal and National Party senators no longer exercise any will of their own. They take the whip not just from their respective party rooms but straight from the executive. In this case it is a National Party minister calling the shots: the metaphorical tail wagging the dog….

…The simple fact is that many Australians have lost confidence in Australia’s aviation safety regime. In particular, they have lost confidence in CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority...:{

… A recent survey commissioned by CASA that measures views on aviation safety in Australia shows that many Australians have lost confidence in flying. This survey, released in January, shows that public confidence has fallen since it had last been measured, in 2002….

…CASA did, of course, report the survey results with a big dose of self-congratulation.According to CASA, public confidence is ‘sky high’ and the survey results are ‘good news for the aviation industry’. That is what they say. At the time the survey was released I urged CASA to reverse the decline in public confidence in flying by concentrating on its core activity: improving safety in Australian skies—that is, a little more action and a little less public relations, please. The reality is that if Australians lack confidence in flying the responsibility rests with the regulator….

….Mr Shane Urquhart, the father of Ms Sally Urquhart, a young Queensland policewoman who died in the crash, supports this inquiry. In fact, he has told Australian Associated Press that a move to block the inquiry would show that the government has ‘something to hide’. Mr Urquhart says a decision to block this inquiry would ‘show the government has no compassion, no concern for its citizens getting justice, and lacks the guts to question anything CASA does’…

…I have no doubt that at some time in this debate a government senator will say something like: ‘Well, hang on, you can ask all the questions you like during Senate estimates hearings; you don’t need a references inquiry.’ To that I say: turn to the Hansard of May last year and you will discover that the CEO of CASA, Mr Byron, was too busy to appear to answer questions. He skipped estimates to attend a one-day aviation conference in Europe, the cost of which the government is still refusing to reveal… (sound familiar..:confused:)

….Have a close look at that Hansard and you will find CASA evidence that it conducted a full audit of Transair’s operations before the Lockhart River tragedy and gave the airline the all clear. That is evidence the regulator gave again at October and February estimates hearings, despite a finding by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that there were manifest deficiencies in the airline’s operations, including a failure to lodge load sheets at departure and a failure to ensure pilots had the training mandated in the company’s operations manual. What the Senate estimates committee has heard from CASA are excuses, not answers.

On the question of risk profiling, CASA has refused to reveal whether Transair was clearly identified near the top of its risk profile table in the months leading up to the May 2005 tragedy—the top meaning the biggest risk. That is my understanding, but CASA has obfuscated for months. First, senior officers said they could not remember. Then they told us the risk profiling was unreliable. Recently, they claimed the risk-profiling table was filled with dummy numbers just to show what it could do if they ever got it to work. None of that is good enough….

…It is not just this side of the parliament that receives complaints about CASA’s performance, either. Recently we have all heard horror stories about CASA’s handling of pilot photo IDs. We have also heard complaints about CASA’s new cost-recovery based charging regime. Senator Eggleston came into the Senate a couple of months ago and laid out a case against CASA in relation to its dealings with Polar Aviation, a company operating in his home state of Western Australia. He said at that time that the ‘claim that CASA has failed the test of an impartial regulator seems not unreasonable’. He went on:

It seems difficult not to conclude that the behaviour of CASA in this matter warrants further investigation...

…At the end of the day, if the minister wants to hide CASA from scrutiny then it is the minister who will be responsible if the system continues to break down. As Mr Urquhart said, the government needs to have the guts to give the Senate the power to look at CASA because, at the end of the day, Australians want to have confidence in the aviation safety regime. They want to have confidence in the regulator, but every time the government hides the regulator from the scrutiny of parliament, more questions will be raised in the minds of doubters in the Australian community about Australia’s aviation safety regime. More questions will be asked. The numbers in CASA’s survey will probably deteriorate further, indicating a deterioration in confidence in the safety of Australia’s aviation regime, and ultimately that is not good for any operator of an aviation service in this country.

It is certainly not good for the public. It is not good for the parliament generally. And it will not be a good thing for this minister, Mr Warren Truss, because at the end of the day it will be seen that he has obscured an authority over which he has ultimate control from the scrutiny of the parliament…. :ugh:

{Note: The full Hansard text for the Senator O’Brien & Senator McLucas debate speeches can be viewed here: O’Brien, Sen Kerry (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2006-03-02%2F0058;orderBy=date-eLast;page=68;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards,hansardr80,h ansards80%20((SpeakerId%3A8O6));rec=14;resCount=Default); McLucas, Sen Jan (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F2006-03-02%2F0059;orderBy=date-eLast;page=68;query=Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards,hansardr80,h ansards80%20((SpeakerId%3A8O6));rec=14;resCount=Default)}

History will show that the motion from Senator O’ Brien and Senator McLucas was voted down..:{, however it is worth noting the post division comment from Senator Ian McDonald (witness to the infamous AMROBA meeting :ugh:):Senator IAN MACDONALD (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FYW4%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (11:02 AM) —by leave—I came down to participate in the debate but came a little too late. I did want to say that I was going to be voting against the motion, but I was impressed by some of the things said by Senator O’Brien and particularly Senator McLucas, who comes from an area where I fly a lot in small planes as well. Whilst I voted against the motion because I know it is something that the minister will be pursuing, having heard what was said I simply wanted to associate myself on the public record with the sentiments that were expressed by the two speakers. I would certainly urge the minister to carefully consider the matters that have been raised, and to address them forthwith. I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered. Which comment was then acknowledged by Senator O’Brien:Senator O’BRIEN (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8O6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (11:03 AM) —by leave—I thank Senator Ian Macdonald for confirming that this is purely a decision of the minister and that the executive of the government has called the shots for the Senate chamber. I simply say: this will not be the end of this matter.
Hmm..indeed, now nearly 8 years later, it isn’t the end of the matter…:=

Dear Miniscule…TICK..TOCK!:E

Cactusjack
22nd Feb 2014, 02:10
Sarcs, glad to see you aren't allowing this one to slide into the vastness of space (or TRIM :E)

….Have a close look at that Hansard and you will find CASA evidence that it conducted a full audit of Transair’s operations before the Lockhart River tragedy and gave the airline the all clear. That is evidence the regulator gave again at October and February estimates hearings, despite a finding by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that there were manifest deficiencies in the airline’s operations, including a failure to lodge load sheets at departure and a failure to ensure pilots had the training mandated in the company’s operations manual. What the Senate estimates committee has heard from CASA are excuses, not answers.
Shayne should be conducting the Wet Lettuce Review, by god it would have a different outcome. There are many many red flags behind the scenes of the Transair accident and those flags have alphabet soup written all over them. To date those deaths have not been mitigated. Nobody at Fort Fumble or it's owner (the Government) have been called to account. There were some questionable regulatory activities leading up to the accident and there are still many unanswered questions. I can only wonder how the Government payroll employees who have gotten away scott free would feel if it was their loved ones who had died in circumstances where government were a contributing factor and no justice was served? Instead promotions, shuffles and organisational 'changes' were made, removing the chance of any justice being received by Shayne and the other families affected by the accident.

But my thoughts are tautological, been expressed before, probably will be again, and I expect the same inaction, shoulder shrugging and pooh poohing of Cactus to remain the order of the day. So the clock keeps on ticking, the industry keeps on tocking, if nothing changes soon the next accident will be probably end up involving 300 or 400 Shayne's calling for justice, then action will happen. It's just a shame that one pointy ended little Metro prang is seen as just that, rather than for what it really is. Anyway, don't ask me, what would I know? Perhaps the puppets undertaking the WLR could pencil in some time to speak with Shayne..........indeed, I wonder if they have the balls or fortitude to do that?
Anyway, I have a moon to go bark at, some lettuce to water, worm farm castings to remove, pot plants to feed and holes to plaster in the Skulls office. Toot toot

Is it Ozzy or one of the IOS? You be the judge;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WExRpfSQn3k

TICK TOCK goes the Truss Clock

Kharon
22nd Feb 2014, 03:10
The trusty wheat board miniscule had better cover his fundamentals; the noises in the background, identified by Willyleaks, are those of the Barnaby clan leader, (champion clock cleaner) preparing to go to work and of all the little Barnaby's sharpening their knives in anticipation of fresh meat and new salad (lettuce and pineapple) being put in their trough.

O'Brien ...[I] must say at the start that I am disappointed that government senators are opposing this reference. I am not surprised the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Warren Truss, is opposed to it and is calling for government senators to oppose this motion, because this reference was a test for him—a test he has failed. Mr Truss does not want Australia’s aviation safety regulatory regime subjected to a detailed examination by a committee of the parliament, and the question needs to be asked: why? It is obvious that it is because he is worried what an inquiry might reveal…
Well, now he knows and this time he's betting it all on the same crew that managed the 2008 heartbreak and what with the Barnaby clan salivating at the thought of an inevitable cock-up, perhaps more time with the family would be a good idea.

Lucas "[You] cannot simply stand by and say, ‘CASA had nothing to do with the fact that 15 people died at Lockhart River.’ Surely Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce have a responsibility to allow this inquiry to proceed. What do they have to hide? More importantly, who are they protecting? The bottom line is that Liberal Party and National Party senators are lining up today to protect Mr Truss and, before him, Mr Anderson rather than allow the proper scrutiny of the actions of CASA in the lead-up to the Lockhart River tragedy. For all of the bluster of Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce, protecting their leader is more important than allowing scrutiny of Australia’s air transport regulator.

Macdonald " [Whilst] I voted against the motion because I know it is something that the minister will be pursuing, having heard what was said I simply wanted to associate myself on the public record with the sentiments that were expressed by the two speakers. I would certainly urge the minister to carefully consider the matters that have been raised, and to address them forthwith. I do not think we need the inquiry, but perhaps if they are not properly addressed in the future this is something that could well be considered.

Bartlett [I] want to speak particularly because a lot of the arguments that were made referred to the tragic accident in North Queensland, my home state, and I also want to have the Democrats’ view clearly on the record. I was intending to speak briefly in the debate and I thought I would wait until after the government speakers so I could respond to their arguments. Unfortunately, there was not a government speaker so the vote was done. But I want to put clearly that the Democrats supported that motion, as indicated by our vote. I think it is very disappointing that the government is so dismissive of the Senate’s desire to inquire into important issues that it could not even be bothered putting a case against it, let alone supporting it.

Yes miniscule you are in a very tight spot, the things denied in 2008 are home to roost, this time supported by what may be described as an avalanche of opinion proving you had very bad advice last time; it was wrong then and it is still wrong now.

As Einstein said Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Frank Arouet
22nd Feb 2014, 07:48
Civil disobedience will come next, you betcha!


I have tonnes of Catheads, (thanks to global warming), They should go well through the hopper of a Dromeder. Parliament House lawns could use some I reckon?

Sarcs
22nd Feb 2014, 21:51
It would appear that the Kelvinator fridge (safe) is well and truly full as the ASRR web page has been updated from this…

“..The formal submission period has now closed. However the Panel will endeavour to consider late submissions.
To make a late submission please use the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission Form. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions.aspx)...”

To this…

“…The formal submission period has closed.
If you would like to provide further information to the Review Panel, please email [email protected] ([email protected])...”:{

Oh well perhaps the WLRP could get the DoIRD to set up a blog & comments page, certainly save the panel from being distracted from replying to copious IOS emails…:p

Here’s a thought..:rolleyes:..why not just provide a link to this thread…:E

Speaking of blogs & submissions, here is hoping that Phearless Phelan was able to get the updated ProAviation submission in on time:

ProAviation’s submission to the ASRR (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2147#more-2147)

Wow mammoth effort PP & Stan!:D

Warning: May require IOS members to update the Kelvinator with a fresh slab before considering reading in full!:rolleyes:Executive Summary

This submission concludes that a pervading “culture” exists within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that has degraded relations between the regulator and most industry sectors to a point where it is impacting negatively on air safety in ways that we illustrate by reference to examples.

It is submitted that this culture has developed, evolved and progressively expanded and consolidated since CASA was established in July 1995 and first designated as an independent statutory authority. We believe several symptoms of the existence of this culture can be identified in the examples we cite, and that it is manifested by the interaction between CASA departments which our examples illustrate.

It is acknowledged that a number of quality employees remain employed by CASA, although their numbers are reducing and their capability to influence the way the regulator carries out its functions has been so limited that numerous key figures have voluntarily left the organisation.

A majority of the aviation stakeholders we have consulted observe that the embedded anti-reform culture still exists and thrives within the organisation. They point out that it has already survived several high-level enquiries; and that events have proven that no reform can be effective unless those influences are identified and permanently negated.

CASA has operated, and continues to operate under the notion that to be legal is to be safe. Nothing could be further from the truth, particularly when the industry is forced to operate under flawed and ambiguous legislation while separate offices; and at times different officials in the same office, make differing decisions when applied to different operators requesting identical approvals.

We consider the situations we detail demonstrate that solutions cannot be developed and implemented without significant amendment to the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations.

Introductory notes

Our submission is based on current and past research, some of which has been previously published in articles that are now part of this analysis. Those articles, whilst not always identical with the original, have only been reviewed to the extent necessary to bring them up to date, in some cases by adding a “sequel.”

We note the Minister’s advice that:

[The review] will not be reopening previous air safety investigations nor will it be a forum to resolve individual complaints or grievances. It is about the future regulatory challenges and growing our industry.

In that context we respectfully submit that the case studies which we reference clearly typify both past and current regulatory processes, and that this can also aid in identifying changes that will be necessary to regularise the management of similar events into the future. Furthermore, the point must be made that some individuals are more frequently involved than others in both past and contempoary cases, and that a number of these still occupy positions that offer opportunity for continued misconduct.

We emphasise that matters we quote as examples represent only a fraction of the material that is stored in our files. Much of this material comprises matters which we submit would warrant completely independent external investigation.

Some of the regulatory adventures detailed in the case studies are related to the regulation of flight operations by flying operations officers and their supervisors. Some are related to airworthiness and principally involve airworthiness inspectors and their supervisors.

However, they all involve CASA lawyers in varying roles. Additionally reporting to the General Counsel and Executive Manager of the Office of Legal Services, are the office that attends to freedom of information applications, the investigations office which oversees the activities of CASA investigators, and the Senior Advisor, Enforcement Policy and Practice, whose responsibilities are detailed by CASA as “developing enforcement policy, strategies and procedures, coordinating enforcement and monitoring, on a centralised basis, all aspects of CASA’s enforcement related activities.”

We also draw the Panel’s attention to a major “enforcement” event which is still current; and which calls for close attention as to CASA’s decision making and conduct throughout the processes of investigation and subsequent enforcement activity. This is the process by which Barrier Aviation is currently being managed out of existence.

None of this analysis is intended to denigrate individuals or organisations. Instead we recount events and leave the Panel to form its own impressions. Our own opinions when expressed are labelled “Comment:” and represent the opinion of the author and/or the publisher.
Hmm..kind of put’s the Airborne Gentry’s submission in the shade:

RAeS Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.raes.org.au/news/raes-submission-to-the-aviation-safety-regulation-review/)

Comment: IMO, despite a stiff upper lip, the RAES submission is very much in the ilk of the AOPAA (wet lettuce) submission I’m afraid (but that is just my opinion)..:E

More to follow K2…:ok:

Up-into-the-air
22nd Feb 2014, 23:36
Pro-Aviation has made the case that fully supports that:



The US-FAR's should be introduced now;




The Act [CAA - Civil Aviation Act] must be changed;




CASA must be re-formed.



Also, the RAeS makes similar (http://www.raes.org.au/news/raes-submission-to-the-aviation-safety-regulation-review/) submissions (http://vocasupport.com/election/regulatory-review-2013/asrr-submissions/).

brissypilot
23rd Feb 2014, 21:44
Kharon just posted this latest submission from Dr Rob Liddell on the Empire Strikes Back thread (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/527897-empire-strikes-back-colour-defective-pilots-5.html).

He has weighed into the Avmed debacle in his submission to the WLR - published on the Pro Aviation website.

Dr Liddell speaks out for Australian pilots | Pro Aviation (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2172)

In a supplementary submission to the ASRR Panel, Dr Robert Liddell, an airline pilot who was also the regulator’s Director of Aviation Medicine for nine years, has spoken out bluntly on the flurry of medical uncertainties now affecting Australian pilots. As always, Dr Liddell identifies not only the problem, but the solution:

Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission
Dr Robert Liddell

This submission is a personal submission in relation to the medical certification of aircrew.

I am a current holder of an Australian, British and FAA Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence. I have 7000 hours of flight experience with over 3000 hours in jet operations, mainly in Boeing 727 aircraft in Europe and Australia.

Between the years of 1988 and 1997 I was employed by CASA (then CAA) as the Director of Aviation Medicine. This position has now been re-named Principal Medical Officer.

Following my resignation at Director of Aviation Medicine the position has been filled by Dr Peter Wilkins, Dr Ian Hosegood and Dr Pooshan Navathe.

The international nature of aviation and the relationship of each country’s aviation authority with the standards and recommended practices that they are signatory to in the International Civil Aviation Organisation has resulted in a safe system that most major aviation countries have seen fit to deviate from in various ways. The country with arguably the most differences from ICAO is the country with the largest aviation industry in the world, namely the USA.

In Australia we have had minor differences with the SARPs since their very inception. In some areas we are more restrictive than the SARPs and in others we are more relaxed. For example during my tenure as Director of Aviation Medicine I had occasion to be called as an expert witness in the Federal Court where a Qantas pilot was claiming discrimination on the basis of age as Qantas were requiring him to retire having reached the age of 60 years. This was done ostensibly on the grounds of medical risk. My contention has always been that age is not a good predictor of risk and many pilots are high risk at a relatively young age and many are low risk even in their 70s. The judge upheld the appeal and Qantas since then and Australia therefore became one of the few countries to allow pilots to fly heavy jets regardless of age. To achieve this it was requested by the judge that CASA Aviation Medicine develop a risk mitigation strategy.

Consequently we became the first country in the world to put a risk matrix over pilots at every medical examination, and those that are at increased risk of heart disease are required to undergo an exercise ECG to prove cardiovascular health. This is an example where Australian regulations were far more stringent than the ICAO SARPS. In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around 1990 and remained in place until recently. There are now hundreds of colour defective pilots flying commercially in all types of operations and who over 20 years will have built up thousands of hours of accident free aviation.

These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is available to other contracting states through ICAO.

Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards. This move is without any evidence that adopting more restrictive practices will have any effect on safety but rather will discriminate against some pilots.

I now have several pilots, one of whom has over 16,000 hours of operation, most of it flying night freight in command on Boeing 727 aircraft and who in mid-career are being advised that they do not meet the standard because of their colour vision and so cannot hold the required class of licence to retain their occupation.

I suspect that due to my previous role in CASA, I seem to attract many pilots who are totally confused and despondent at their medical certification by CASA aviation medicine. This involves conditions such as head injury, hearing, cardio vascular disease and prostate cancer, where the opinions of the pilots own specialist doctors are ignored and stringent and expensive repetitive imaging and blood testing is required if the individual wishes to retain their medical certificate. On a weekly basis I receive requests for assistance by pilots with conditions ranging from renal stones to early type 2 diabetes where the pilots own specialist’s advice is ignored by CASA and further expensive or repetitive testing in required to obtain a medical certificate.

The dangerous result of CASA’s draconian regulatory measures is that now many pilots tell CASA as little as possible about any medical problems in order to protect themselves from expensive and repetitive investigations or possible loss of certification . Most pilots are responsible people and they have no desire to be in charge of an aircraft if their risk of incapacity is unacceptable. When their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then the pilot’s lose confidence in the regulator.

In medical certification CASA appears to have lost sight of the fact that all pilots self-certify themselves fit to fly every day they take control of an aircraft. The only day in the year when a doctor has any control over their fitness to fly is the day that they have their medical examination.

Dr Robert Liddell

:D:D:D

dubbleyew eight
23rd Feb 2014, 23:02
Recently there has been a move for reasons that remain unclear to change the Australian regulations to be totally compliant with the ICAO medical standards.


that is easy to explain. the age old "reference to a higher authority" it is used all the time to negate criticism.

CASA are nutters. just look at the volume of guff produced in the name of regulation. "ICAO" and "EASA" must be wonderful tools for the deflection of criticism.

Sarcs
24th Feb 2014, 01:05
Quotes from RL submission: In other areas such as colour vision, due to a lack of any accident data related to colour defective vision in pilots Australia chose to allow pilots to fly commercially even if they failed the colour vision testing. This was a difference from the ICAO SARPS. This change was brought in around 1990 and remained in place until recently.These contracting state differences are advised to ICAO as a difference and the information is available to other contracting states through ICAO. In ICAO Annex 1 the reference for CVD is at Chapter 6 paragraph 6.2.4 and reads:6.2.4 Colour perception requirements


6.2.4.1 Contracting States shall use such methods of examination as will guarantee reliable testing of colour perception.

6.2.4.2 The applicant shall be required to demonstrate the ability to perceive readily those colours the perception of which is necessary for the safe performance of duties.

6.2.4.3 The applicant shall be tested for the ability to correctly identify a series of pseudoisochromatic plates in daylight or in artificial light of the same colour temperature such as that provided by CIE standard illuminants C or D65 as specified by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE).

6.2.4.4 An applicant obtaining a satisfactory result as prescribed by the Licensing Authority shall be assessed as fit. An applicant failing to obtain a satisfactory result in such a test shall be assessed as unfit unless able to readily distinguish the colours used in air navigation and correctly identify aviation coloured lights. Applicants who fail to meet these criteria shall be
assessed as unfit except for Class 2 assessment with the following restriction: valid daytime only.

Note.— Guidance on suitable methods of assessing colour vision is contained in the Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984).

6.2.4.4.1 Recommendation.— Sunglasses worn during the exercise of the privileges of the licence or rating held should be non-polarizing and of a neutral grey tint. The last known list (that I can find) of Australia's notified differences can be tracked back to AIP Supp H12/11 (http://airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s11-h12.pdf). Now if you scroll down through the list, of over 1500 differences notified..:rolleyes:, you will eventually get to the relevant section: Chapter 6 Medical Provisions for Licensing

Para 6.2.4.4 Candidates for an air traffic controller licence who fail an Ishihara 24-plate test are, in practice, not employed by Australia’s ATS provider.
In other words there is currently (again as far as I can make out) no notified difference to the SARPs in regards to CVD, other than the possibly discriminatory hiring practices of the ASA..:confused:

Unless you've kept a copy of each AIP GEN 1.7 amendment dating back to 1990, it becomes very hard to track, it is however worth noting that in the 2009 & 2000 ICAO audit reports there was no mention of any notified difference issue in regards Annex 1, 6.2.4.

So my QONs 1) Was there ever really a notified difference? 2) If there was a notified difference, when was it pulled and why wasn't (as is required) industry notified?? :{ Maybe I'm missing something...if so 'please explain'??? TIA:ok:

Ps For those of you interested in getting up to speed for this afternoon's episode of the Senate Estimates soap opera here is a video link for the last episode on the 18/11/13: Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport [Part 2] (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=211501)

Up-into-the-air
24th Feb 2014, 03:49
This is currently happening:

Senate estimates and casa answers have just been posted: (http://vocasupport.com/avmed-casa-fol…dames-to-issue/ ‎)

In part, skull throws out scraps to aviation (http://vocasupport.com/senate-estimat…-february-2014/ ‎) and makes a long and time wasting statement.

So McCormick [24th February 2014] in Senate estimtes says they will now allow DAME's to issue Class 2 certificates [PPL holders].

What a back down.


The questions by Senator Fawcett continues to search for the person responsible for the CVD issues. CASA refuses to answer again.
The Senator has gone to that there are no recorded incidents of CVD problems resolving to accidents over past 20 years.


He asked: "Where is the safety case [for CVD]??" and then calls into doubt McCormick's answer about a US 727 case. McCormick then goes on to obfusicate about some British material [which is academically derived] and what CASA is up to.


McCormick ducks the question again as to a "..valid safety case..", then Senator Fawcett reveals a January letter withdrawing a pilot's certificate on the basis of CVD.


McCormick says he knows nothing about the letter.


Is it not true the "personality is changed, not the actuality" Senator Fawcett asks of McCormick. However, McCormick does not let up at all.

Sarcs
24th Feb 2014, 07:10
Poohtube link already posted on Empire Strikes Back thread but well worth regurgitating here..:E
[YOUTUBE]CASA Questioned on CVD - Senate Estimates - 24/02/14 - YouTube
...:D:D (double clap for DF & NX today..:ok:)

Still haven't got an answer for my QONs...err anyone??:rolleyes:

In case you've forgotten here they are..:confused:In other words there is currently (again as far as I can make out) no notified difference to the SARPs in regards to CVD, other than the possibly discriminatory hiring practices of the ASA..:confused:

Unless you've kept a copy of each AIP GEN 1.7 amendment dating back to 1990, it becomes very hard to track, it is however worth noting that in the 2009 & 2000 ICAO audit reports there was no mention of any notified difference issue in regards Annex 1, 6.2.4.

So my QONs 1) Was there ever really a notified difference? 2) If there was a notified difference, when was it pulled and why wasn't (as is required) industry notified?? :{ Maybe I'm missing something if so...'please explain'??? TIA
:ok:

Ultralights
24th Feb 2014, 09:03
http://pamuva1.smugmug.com/Other/SmugShots/i-hwZvQHL/0/X2/casablind-X2.jpg

Sarcs
24th Feb 2014, 22:19
To begin Ultralights that is pure gold!:D

Although yet to be officially tabled, the DAS did endeavour to rush through most of the FF WLR submission (so rushed I was beginning to wonder if he would ever draw breath..:E) yesterday in Estimates...:=

[YOUTUBE]CASA Senate Estimates - 24/2/14 - Part 1 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/9E7GwFBX24A)

Although it is extremely helpful for the IOS to get a sneak peek at the FF submission, my beef is that all other submitters (who would be keen on the same exposure) will not be afforded the same opportunity to state their case and refute FF's before the Senate Committee. Hardly natural justice but then what would you expect??..:ugh:

neville_nobody
24th Feb 2014, 22:28
Cannot believe CASA are still holding up that 727 accident in the US as a reason to abolish colour blindness.....:ugh:

Creampuff
24th Feb 2014, 22:44
Safety, Neville! Safety!

We're all going to die if all CVD pilots are not hounded out of the sky! Any objective analysis of the data show that .... errrrmmm .... I withdraw that.

Safety, Neville! Safety!

gaunty
26th Feb 2014, 03:43
Creampuff

Yeah, old Navy Commander mate of mine now well retired as part of his skill-set requirement acquired a "navigators" ticket which i understand allowed him to navigate any navy ship into any port in the world unassisted by tugs.

Some years ago tried to get a SPL on the road to becoming a PPL.

Was defined as a "potential hazard to aviation" due to failing the Ishihara.

Dilemma, ships in close quarters are largely navigated by coloured lights, so how come he continued to pass the very rigorous Navy system and operated safely for many years without incident.

He was smart enough not to test CASA confidentiality by protesting with the Navy evidence.

Go figure.

Kharon
26th Feb 2014, 06:04
Page 1 – CASA : The McComic attempted filibuster was so full of bollocks, threats, smoke, threats, mirrors, threats, contradictions, threats, bollocks and rubbish, it was a relief when Bill H pulled him up, "that's your lot, now STFU". For that alone, I will always hold Heffernan in high regard. It is unbelievable that the board would allow such a 'speech' (for wont of better) to be made by that director to an educated, cynical audience of Senators, harder to believe that Truss is prepared to be shamed and humiliated in that manner, publicly and on the record.
McCormick "To adopt certain parts the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety, including amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, the introduction of non-criminal penalties, the reconstruction and reconsideration of other CASA parts recently made, and other major changes.

It did 23 years ago; and all we got for $230,000,000  was a non working, clockwork Frankenstein, it is absolutely time we quit that project. But at least the solution is clearly defined, finally the penny drops. Just lets do it once, do it properly and be done with it FFS. I second the motion to unscramble the Gordian knot, with one clean axe stroke.

McCormick : "This will be a long-term undertaking, involving several additional years of legislative redrafting and industry consultation."

Naughty disingenuous man, a pro team, not the bunch of old could have the new Frankenstein ticking over, even with the dead beats clinging to pensions at Sleepy Hollow within two years – tops. This stick, carrot, threat and salvation technique was outmoded 100 years ago; it's a crock; a scary story to frighten children and politicians, no one else would believe it. Aces and Eights is not a winning hand.

Sarcs
26th Feb 2014, 07:26
This should help "K", the full, non-rushed, unadulterated version nicely tabled for IOS consumption..:E FF WLR submission (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/tabled_doc_03.ashx)

And attachments: Attach 1 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/tabled_doc_01.ashx) & Attach 2 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1314/infra/tabled_doc_02.ashx)

:oh::oh:

Cactusjack
26th Feb 2014, 07:55
Herr Skull will leave with a nice juicy package. If you take an average of his salary which has varied between $420k to $520k over the past tautological 5 years, so lets make the average $450k and then worked out the super contribution (employer only) multiplied at the juicy government special public service rate of approx 15.75%, the old geezer will pocket around $350k in super for just 5 years. What a beautifully filled trough!
(Sample picture below features several unnamed CAsA Execs)
Exhibit A
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3Dz-tY4vuYwtnjmfB3ds9oCoN0Eo7mQeyI3vXnkfdY4Xn_GXq (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=GSATqNvPM5vj3M&tbnid=SFLsukVIFLf0FM:&ved=0CAgQjRw4Uw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscathinglywrongrightwingnutz.********.com%2 F2013%2F01%2Fcon-hogs-at-trough.html&ei=FqoNU9XaNsa1kgXn0IGoAQ&psig=AFQjCNFIwMPCyrk7rCv_lrD5es1NLjtAlA&ust=1393490838949982)


But don't worry, as soon as one oinker leaves there is always another young, unblooded oinker ready to fill the spot at the trough;
Exhibit B
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQT95KOOXB12v0seOirUNBoDamvmLGqPwp4dGt3GG0 vyXzDOK7slQ (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=bl5ntARBbBdgvM&tbnid=8dI67XaP2e9lXM:&ved=0CAgQjRw4bA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmackhillfarm.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fnobody-likes-brussel-sprouts%2F&ei=NasNU9kTx6CTBcLygZgP&psig=AFQjCNFfWK0XPBoP3PxhQJNk6Wuzqnbsew&ust=1393491125058793)


And of course one cannot forget the Masters of the trough, the Government Miniscules, Associate Miniscules and Head Miniscule, also enjoying the festivities of the taxpayer trough;
Exhibit C
http://goodfoodgoodwinegooddog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/our-farm-happy-pigs.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=zCERieZNuBCC9M&tbnid=tzRDRJaQUL4zXM:&ved=0CAgQjRw4eA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgoodfoodgoodwinegooddog.com%2F2012%2F12%2F0 4%2Ftoo-big-to-do-right%2F&ei=tawNU_PECofPkQXg-4HoCg&psig=AFQjCNHANBjHT1oVHaDs9tnfcf6XfmodZA&ust=1393491509221976)

Dangly Bits
26th Feb 2014, 11:59
If i could vote for Sen Fawcett I would! It's great to see someone who knows what he is talking about.

I think he has the measure of those who sit in front of him.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
26th Feb 2014, 12:25
Yes, he certainly wasn't fooled by the safety argument and 727 case presented batting it straight back. The questioning for a real safety issue in Australia justifying the change rather than the academic uk argument was interesting.

A more naive environment may well have been fooled.

Kharon
26th Feb 2014, 18:10
CHAIR: How did it go from a critical incident to a 'don't worry about it' incident?

Mr Dolan: That is a matter we did "rehearse" with the references committee. In short, our initial assessment of the issue of guidance as to dealing with the situation, weather deterioration and what was planned, we over assessed it as critical at an early stage and by applying our methodologies we concluded by the end of the process that it constituted a minor safety issue.

CHAIR: Can I commend you. You look really well. You look less stressed than you used to for some reason.

Mr Dolan: It is probably the lack of the beard.

More like old Johnston and MM parked either side like a pair of gargoyles to make sure the minuscule's line of delay, deny, defer, deny, refute and defend were followed to a T. Poor old Beaker: looked like one of those nervy, hairless dogs you see old ladies clutching, you know the ones, pop out eyes, yappy and useless except for being of a size convenient for hoisting over the fence.

CHAIR: With that particular incident of which I just spoke no thinking person would believe that bureaucratic answer. You cannot go from a critical incident to a minor one or whatever it was without something happening on the journey. Anyway, we will not go back there. To any sensible person it sounds like either a cover-up or a balls-up.

Gods alone know what the Canadians think they are looking at, those ToR are not published, the Senate committee appear to have them, but are they available for industry scrutiny??. Canely Vale is up for review, perhaps a copy of one chapter of the Bankstown Chronicle should find it's way to the land of the Maple leaf; love to be a fly on that wall.

CHAIR: Could I just make a clarification? If there was a review to be had by the committee, Senator Fawcett, it would be the reference committee, not this committee?

Senator FAWCETT: I apologise; it is the references committee.

Now then, how do we get hold of the reference committee Hansard ?, any answers.

Sarcs
26th Feb 2014, 19:35
Kharon:I was wondering who was sat next to Dolan, because Dolan kept looking at him before beginning every statement – in Hansard representing the Government was Senator the Honourable David Albert Lloyd Johnston, if you can find the segment below on the U-chewed clips a student of body language and lip reading may, perhaps gain some insight.
Hmm..it is interesting that you should mention the other DJ (Senator that is & Minister for Defence)...:*

Maybe the good Senator representing the miniscule was being made aware that the Trusster had just answered a Dorothy Dixar in question time that somewhat contradicted the FF WLR submission, read out by the soon to depart DAS. It went something like this...:E

"Regional Aviation

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:28): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will the government's policies assist regional aviation and the jobs that it supports?

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for the question and for the privilege of being with him in his electorate during the break. It was good to see and talk about some of the important infrastructure projects that this government has planned for Wannon and the neighbouring electorates.

The member would also know how important regional aviation is for so much of country Australia. People who live in regional communities depend on aviation not just to get to other places in the country or around the world but also for many of their basic services, such as health, education and the professional services they need in their community from the people who fly in to provide those services. Alternatively, country people so often have to go to the cities to get the health care and other things that they need. So the aviation industry is very, very important to regional Australia. It has been an industry facing significant competition and, obviously, high cost. It is a difficult environment.

However, since the carbon tax was put in place, the cost of regional aviation has increased dramatically—6c a litre added to the cost of aviation kerosene and 5c a litre added to the cost of avgas—and that puts up the cost of operating aviation right across the country. We all know that regional aviation companies have been reporting declining profitability. Sharp Airlines in the member's own electorate—

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lingiari!

Mr TRUSS: reckoned that this tax is costing them $400,000 a year, money that they find very difficult to recover from their passengers, and of course it also affects their profit margin. Rex have talked similarly about declining profit projections.

There is something that this parliament can do to make regional aviation more competitive and that is get rid of the carbon tax. If the opposition is serious about jobs in this country, then it should be voting to get rid of the carbon tax. It is a job-destroying tax. It is a service-destroying tax. It is a tax that tears particularly at regional communities because they have to pay such a significant share. So when members opposite talk about the need to look after Qantas and Virgin and the other major airlines, there is something that this parliament can do right now. The Senate should vote to get rid of the carbon tax that will tear hundreds of millions of dollars out of the cost structure of our airlines, to make them more profitable, to enable them to employ more people and to provide better services for the people of Australia...."


"Gentleman please synchronise your watches.."
:E

So maybe "K" it was all about the lining up of the ducks??:rolleyes:

I also find it passing strange that Senator (& Minister) DJ just so happened to be sitting in on this particular committee's additional estimates hearing, as the rep for the miniscule?? Rumour has it that DJ & DF have had a strong affiliation & friendship for a number of years (harking back to the days when DF was a Defence Dept consultant & lobbyist), it is not too long a bow to draw that DF in government is in a similar role as confidante to the Defence Minister...interesting times indeed..:cool:

Okay let's go backwards from "D"s to "B"s...'Beaker Bashing' that is..:ok:

Cactusjack
26th Feb 2014, 23:43
Just found some footage as to why the ATsBeaker is sporting his new look;

The Muppet Show: Muppet Labs - Hair Growing Tonic - YouTube

It seems that Dr Bunsen Mrdakdew decided to clean up his young apprentice prior to the questioning so as to impress the wily Senators. Don't think it worked......
Perhaps the other 'philosopher' belonging to Team Skull will also sport a new look soon?

'Safe mimimimi for all'


TICK TOCK

LeadSled
27th Feb 2014, 04:50
"To adopt certain parts the New Zealand rules could well require a broad reconsideration and revision of the Australian aviation safety legislation in its entirety, including amendments to the Civil Aviation Act, the introduction of non-criminal penalties, the reconstruction and reconsideration of other CASA parts recently made, and other major changes.

Folks,

At least Mr. McCormick got that much right ----- and most of that was Government (but not CASA middle management) policy in 1996, and recommended in the final report of the PAP in 1998, but it did not take long for the "iron ring" to re-assert itself, and formal Government policy was ignored/undermined/generally subverted to produce the mess we have now.

Toller, and to a lesser extent Byron, did not know or understand what was going on underneath them, and the presence of a Board or otherwise has proved to be irrelevant.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled
27th Feb 2014, 05:02
If i could vote for Sen Fawcett I would! It's great to see someone who knows what he is talking about.
I think he has the measure of those who sit in front of him.

Folks,
He certainly does. For the first time in about forty plus years, we have somebody in the Parliament who has an in-depth aviation knowledge, and the skill to sort the sheep from the goats, not only in CASA/ATSB/AsA, but all those who approach him from the aviation community.

As a result, a very experienced aviator is very well briefed in the Senate hearings, as was clear on 24 Feb, just after 1400 AEDT.

It was equally clear, even thought, in my opinion, Mr. McCormick intended to muddy the waters over CVD matters,that he, Mr. McCormick did/does not understand the legal basis of Denison, or what ICAO or our own regulations actually say about what is required to demonstrate pilot proficiency.

Tootle pip!!

dubbleyew eight
27th Feb 2014, 12:55
one interesting item that came out was that the supposed problem for Colour Vision Deficit pilots was the PAPI aid.

well the papi aid is just 4 lights that show white too high, half and half on the glideslope and 4 reds when too low.

if it really is a problem then change the colours to white and amber.

the level of moronic stupidity shown by the casa people just beggars belief.

to a man I think they would be more appropriate working in the catholic church than in casa.

dubbleyew eight
27th Feb 2014, 16:09
I have been lying in bed sleepless pondering something that doesn't make sense to me.

Tonight I discovered that the CASA head medico, dear old Poohsan, is actually an associate professor, presumably of medicine.

You would think that an associate professor of medicine would be held in high regard by his peers. after all they don't normally make idiots associate professors. the thing that doesn't stack up for me is that all three of the practising qualified doctors that I have spoken to about poohsan think he is an idiot with the weirdest take on medicine they have ever encountered.

how could you be an associate professor and yet seen by your peer professionals as an idiot?

the only logical explanation I have come up with is the question, "are Poohsan's qualifications bogus?"

CASA's HR selection process doesn't seem to check backgrounds if the last idiot I encountered from CASA is anything to go by. I wonder...

Sarcs
27th Feb 2014, 21:17
Kharon's last has a certain finality undertone to it??:bored: Could it be that the Ferryman has already got forward bookings and is just going through the motions?? :hmm:

Oh well still time to play while the miniscule is still MIA and coming to terms with a ten tonne Dumbo permanently parked in his office..:E

The (soon to be former..:D) DAS had this to say on page 6 of his WLR submission:

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

Now I find the typical back-handed comments...

..."especially useful indicator" & " even on this crude basis"..

..passing strange given a certain tendentious blogger, in his recent WLR submission, makes just such a comparison: Finally, this summary would be incomplete without a comparison with similar legislation in other jurisdictions. An example lies in a single regulation covering the “sharp end”:


Australia – 351 words

USA – 94 words

New Zealand – 96 words


91.060 Responsibility and authority of pilot in command

(1) The operator of an aircraft must ensure that the following information is available to the pilot in command of the aircraft to enable the pilot in command to comply with subregulation (5):

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

(c) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have an operations manual — the operations manual;

(d) if the operator is required by these Regulations to have a dangerous goods manual — the dangerous goods manual.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, and any cargo on board, from the time the aircraft’s doors are closed before take-off until the time its doors are opened after landing.

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for the start, continuation, diversion (if any) and end of a flight by the aircraft, and for the operation and safety of the aircraft, from the moment the aircraft is ready to move until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight and its engine or engines are shut down.

(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft has final authority over:

(a) the aircraft while he or she is in command of it; and

(b) the maintenance of discipline by all persons on board the aircraft.

(5) The pilot in command of an aircraft must discharge his or her responsibilities under subregulations (2) and (3) in compliance with the following:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft;

(b) the airworthiness conditions (if any) for the aircraft;

(c) the operations manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command;

(d) the dangerous goods manual (if any) as it applies to the pilot in command.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

Note These Regulations also contain other requirements and offences that apply to the pilot in command of an aircraft.

(6) An offence against subregulation (1) or (5) is an offence of strict liability.

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.



91.203 Authority of the pilot-in-command

Each pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall give any commands necessary for the safety of the aircraft and of persons and property carried on the aircraft, including disembarking or refusing the carriage of:

(1) any person who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug where, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, their carriage is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants; and

(2) any person, or any part of the cargo, which, in the opinion of the pilot-in-command, is likely to endanger the aircraft or its occupants.


Author’s note

The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, and similar to the NZ version, doesn’t even address the subject matter in the heading. It devotes the first 91 words (highlighted in blue typeface) to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as “shelfware”; a GA pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight but whose carriage is mandatory. Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft’s operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire. Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content and wording of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn’t always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.

The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime and who is incurring the penalty, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than those of the pilot.

The Aussie version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring him (or her of course) to the shelfware that has already been listed once.

From this example it is clear that far from putting the “finishing touches” on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn’t even started yet.

The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 says in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event (but only) if requested to do so.

Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and druggers.

In real life literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to any pilot in command, and they are spelt out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.

The new regulations are rich in similar examples. Phearless Phelan's WLR submission's next paragraph heading is...Strict liability offences

It has been explained to us that offences are designated to be of “strict liability” so as to exclude intent from the elements defining the offence, and that for that reason the concept has no place in legislation on operational matters. It has also been explained to us that the reason that almost every regulation is assigned the maximum of 50 penalty points maximises the amount of the available administrative fine where that is an optional alternative to criminal prosecution.
Hmm..:confused:..interesting that in the next breath of the DAS (soon to be retired..:E) missive he goes onto comment about a Civil Penalties:ugh: solution that CAsA are apparently batting around the halls of Fort Fumble and in consultation with industry minions for the past two years...:rolleyes:

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

Passing strange that...more to follow..K2!:ok:

Up-into-the-air
27th Feb 2014, 21:46
Well another project, because the reg was wrong:

Project SS 14/03 - CASR Part 99 technical amendments (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101889)

Issue

Part IV of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) empowers the making of regulations for the conduct of alcohol and other drug (AOD) tests on persons 'performing or available to perform' a prescribed 'safety-sensitive aviation activity' (SSAA). Part 99 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) details the requirements for the conduct of AOD tests contemplated in Part IV of the Act.

CASA has identified several technical issues with the operation of Subpart 99.C of the CASR, which deals with the conduct of AOD tests by CASA officers. CASA proposes to amend Subpart 99.C to correct these issues and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the AOD testing scheme.
I think that this has happened because casa had the wrong protocol for where a person was tested, the work environment and the ultimate legality that results.

There is an ambiguity in the legislation that makes it desirable to confirm that a person who has started the testing process is considered to be 'performing or available to perform' an SSAA for the purpose of completing the test. You must ask the question:

"What are these people on????" and with the amount of money paid

How on earth can this type of thing happen.

skull, your 24th February rant to the Honourable Senators was wrong [wrong, wrong, wrong]

We do need new regs, just not yours, as this shows, you can't get them right at all.

In with the US-FAR's

TICK, TOCK indeed gobbles

Kharon
27th Feb 2014, 22:49
The next close encounter with the estimates committee will (or should) have the miniscule's response to the Pel Air mess for the panel to play with. It's been a long gestation period but there is a sense that the interminable delays have not blunted the anticipation. No doubt the Senate panel will do it the justice it deserves. The response, whatever form it takes is a potential no win situation, but I just can't see the Senate panel swallowing it and saying thank you.

ASA, under Hood direction have bearded their lions and, through the Mildura incident, have clearly demonstrated acceptance of their issues, parallel to the Norfolk event, and are addressing them. The well known McComic dislike of Hood, which may just have encouraged Hood to toddle off was a grave error. Hood is a keeper. Hood knows where the skeletons are buried and (IMO) he's a lot smarter than the likes Campbell or Chambers. Given the elbow room and some encouragement; things may have been very different for CASA and the ATSB. But they are not; not now, are they?

No matter what platitudes, promises and humbug McComic and Beaker have pumped into the ministerial response, no matter how good the MM damage control, no matter how carefully the words are massaged; without a shred of credibility remaining, any response to Pel Air will expose the Minister, Board and those involved as either willing participants or negligent on lookers. Yet there is hope. People, the calibre of Forsyth, Hawke and Johnston, not to mention a couple in the PMC have a basic structural integrity, are intelligent, sophisticated, worldly wise and, when presented with facts, no where near politically stupid. Their disgust may not be publicly displayed, but I'd bet a long cold beer that behind closed doors that disgust would be clearly displayed, with some venom. Truss on a spit? - hell yes.

But what about the 'other' interested' parties? The WLR panel for example, or the Canadian TSB. What are they to think? Someone has been 'at it' on the Terms of Reference (ToR), for both 'investigations'. The CTSB review has been carefully shaped, to provide the right response within the ToR; as writ. There was and probably is very little 'non standard' in the ATSB methodology or paperwork, 'no brainer'. The WLR was to be the same – same: but the wheels have come off; 260 + submissions is too much to sweep under the miniscule carpet.

What will the Senate committee do? Between McComic and Dolan the whole infrastructure has been publicly (at least to industry) embarrassed; now it falls on the shoulders of Fawcett, Heffernan, Xenophon et al to retrieve the miniscule's chestnuts from the fire. Truss just needs to take a deep breath and do the right thing, not only for his reputation, but for that of the other bystanders likely to be politically damaged, through association, by the fall out.

Minion – "Yes Minister, you have a problem". Minister "Yes I can see that; lets get some advice and fix it, quick smart". See, easy as pie: the advice is there, the good troops are there, the power is there; so what FCOL is the hold up ??? This could be a gold star for the transport minister. Huge money leak, plugged. Aviation industry world class and recovering, exemplar in accident investigation; world leader in regulatory reform; the best administration of matters aeronautical – anywhere. All to play for, all obtainable, a long festering sore healed, credibility restored: all at the stroke of a pen. Just do it, for pities sake.

Selah.

[Aside]. Some fool in the estimates was taking the Mickey Bliss out of the Abbott comments on how bad roads affect the mental health of people using them; the fool should have been on the M5 yesterday morning where he could have clearly seen the results for himself. He should have stood on the side waving a banner – "Abbott talks bull on bad roads" he'd have been road kill in about 10 seconds – flat. Idiot.

PS - Hansard transcript can be downloaded - HERE (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Ff3681c2b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0000%22)- Start page 52: Adobe (PDF) counter p. 56.

Kharon
28th Feb 2014, 17:50
Phelan never felt the slippery hand of plagiarism as McComic gabbled out the (thankfully interrupted) nonsense speech in last estimates. The infamous nonsense speech had many pundits, (those not rolling about laughing) scratching their heads and mumbling into their drinks. The ever alert Sarcs nailed it down; Phelan's submission.
Sarcs # 499 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-25.html#post8343683) –"Now I find the typical back-handed comments..."especially useful indicator" & " even on this crude basis"....passing strange given a certain tendentious blogger, in his recent WLR submission, makes just such a comparison:

Pro Aviation's opening gambit is a 150 page epistle and no easy read, being complex and detailed. The funny thing is; Paul was having web site problems and there was a delay in publishing on the PA site. You can check the dates yourself, then have a read of the PA submission, then write a rebuttal. It is indeed passing strange that McComic could have read, considered, drafted, edited and polished a speech within the time frame - ProAviation (http://proaviation.com.au/?p=2147), updated February 21, 2014 – quite remarkable. We know the WLR panel keep their cheese sandwiches and a couple of beers in the Kenwood (for security), perhaps the mice got in.

The McComic filibuster, considered against the Phelan submission will take on quite a bizarre aspect, to those unfamiliar with the CASA style and penchant for lifting the work of clever folk from Google without even the courtesy of an "acknowledgement" to the author. This stand alone is dishonest, but worse than that, it's bad manners. Then to brazenly put yourself up as the author of a piece and claim credit for being the Messiah, is beyond the pale. But it seems to be 'de rigueur' for the 'guns' at Sleepy Hollow; sad really.

But at least we now know that Phelan has their measure, it's passing strange that McComic didn't take on the AAAA submission or AMROBA; both freely available, concise, written in English and published long before Phelan and PA got their act together. I particularly dislike the cunning use of (adjusted) without explanation and the sly, thinly veiled, derogatory remarks made as part of the McComic nonsense speech. The implications speak volumes on the type of man; and by extension his supporters, we see being slowly, but very surely publicly revealed. I have always found that bullies are invariably cowards and usually cheats attracting a definite type of follower. To take on and deride a journalistic submission where legal threat may be in play, rather than an industry peer group where it is not; is not the behaviour of an officer or a gentleman. Ask Ben Sandilands if you don't believe it; or, better still ask

Senator McDonald.

Now then, how many sleeps till August?.