PDA

View Full Version : Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Kharon
26th Nov 2014, 18:29
There is so far no indication that Skidmore intends to change anything; in fact, the first public words from the man casually stated that "he" was aware of 'some' murmuring and muttering' out there: and thus, from the Ills of Society (IOS) and tendentious 'Bloggers' the MaM was born. Clearly from the first ball of the day, the die is cast. So be it.

There are only really a couple of options; and, if the MaM is to be so casually dismissed, brushed aside in the first press release, I see no reason change anything, in fact I only find a need to continue and escalate the exposure of CASA, it's bastardry and those who smugly continue the tradition. Skidmore is starting down a well trodden path, mouthing the same vomitus platitudes, taking the same fatuous advice, from the same crew that brought us the McComic half decade of disaster and leading the same motley crew out to 'deal' with industry.

Industry can wag it's tail, caper about, slobbering and being all welcoming like. Willing to talk. But it must remember Mum's advice and ask for a new frock, flowers, dinner and dancing before selling it's virtue, cheaply, once again. Not me! There is no point in rolling out a welcome mat; it's been crapped on, too many times. More talk and more listening have not, as history demonstrates, made the slightest difference. Perhaps his 'new-old' advisors can warn him; this is a war zone, a hostile environment where no quarter is given or asked; for indeed it is a fight to the death. The other side have simply changed their mortally and morally wounded leader, dragged the carcass off the field and dumped it in a paupers grave: good riddance. But nothing, absolutely sod all else has changed; la partie continue.

No, rather than rolling about, having my tummy scratched I, like all good watchdogs, intend to treat the intruder as hostile until I know better, that way no one is disappointed. Treat the newcomer exactly as though he were McComic's lobotomised clone, go hard from minute one. This bugger doesn't need time to 'study' and talk and listen, he needs to get off his arse, from the get-go and do something, tout de bloody suite; the tooter the sweeter.

Get on with it FFS; supposed to be a leader of men, well then lead; or follow, as pleases, but do not get under anyone's feet. Change is not a polite suggestion, it's a Senate made, industry supported demand.

Warm up time is over and; there's the whistle. Game on.

Selah.

Do not ask for credit, refusal often offends. Cash and no bull-pooh always works best.

Toot toot. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGGtSkyasNA)

On edit- to add a thought: If there was ever a shred of doubt the CASA world is totally insane, this should remove it. :-

Pythagoras' Theorem: ........................................24 words
Lord's Prayer: .................................................. 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: .........................................67 words
Ten Commandments: ........................................179 words
Gettysburg Address: .........................................286 words
US Declaration of Independence: ......................1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: ............7,818 words
EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: .........26,911 words
Part 61 REFORM............................................Have a guess.....you know you want to.

Frank Arouet
26th Nov 2014, 21:10
Industry has spoken via various Senate hearings, reviews, mass exposure by Ills of Society, and media comment. Further "consultations with industry" should be seen for what they are and should be boycotted by industry.


What more can be said?


Those that wish to follow the "consultative path" will have to accept the inevitable branding and carry a white flag.

Sunfish
26th Nov 2014, 22:32
Boycott CASA, period. The Governments response to the review will be published between Christmas and New Year. Skidmore conveniently starts 1 Jan 2015. That means he gets to field the industry response.

Skidmore will then say "it's nothing to do with me, you must make the best of it, I believe your concerns are unfounded and that you are exaggerating".

Sure as eggs. Now back on deck and head out of Ton Sai bay for little ko phi phi island.

Sarcs
26th Nov 2014, 22:56
Editor's Insights 27 November 2014 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-27-november-2014)...It’s common knowledge within the industry that Mark Skidmore will be on the CASA payroll from 1 December, but know we learn that he won’t effectively be DAS until 1 January. Instead he will spend the first month (coincidentally the first weeks of the ‘silly season’) meeting people from industry and from inside CASA.

That’s certainly sounds like a worthy task but we’ve waited too long already for a new DAS and I think we’d all feel more comfortable if we knew the new man was on the job immediately. After all, if he wants a thorough briefing on CASA and the industry there’s a pretty good one out there already, called the Forsyth Report.

And there would be some advantages in getting to grips with the issues without first having laid oneself open to the persuasions of individuals and sector interests. A bit of space for a while between him and those vocal interests could assist in some dispassionate assessment.

But it’s not going to be, so we’ll have to hope the man can maintain some useful perspective in the face of a likely onslaught of ‘advice’ from every direction. If I was him (not that I’d ever want to be) I’d be sticking pretty close to David Forsyth for a while.

The Australian Airports Association conference on the Gold Coast this week was undoubtedly a success, although all those late registrations had Caroline Wilkie and her team on edge for a time. As did the fact that it was the first week of ‘Schoolies’. But all went extremely well for what is now Australia’s second biggest aviation event (after the Avalon Airshow).
And like all such events, large and small, the really useful thing is the networking, despite the attractions on the speaker and panel program. I caught up with a lot of people that I may only see once a year, but who are movers and shakers in our industry with a lot of background to provide about what’s happening behind the scenes. I need that sort of confidential information and perspective, not to share with others of course, but to inform the opinion that I can share.

I thought too that this was an occasion when it would have been good to see new DAS Mark Skidmore around the edges of the conference, even for a day. Not in an official capacity of course as he doesn’t take up the job for another week. But it would have been a valuable piece of PR. And in a non-threatening environment, because it hasn’t been the airport sector that has been baying for CASA blood... Verdict FFS:mad: get on with it Skates or suffer the consequences of facing a hostile but well informed Senate Committee (see here (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/QoN_Index.pdf) from page 92 onwards) armed with an angry Senator X - who now potentially holds the balance of power...:D:D:
254/CASA/XENOPHON/Aviation Safety Regulation Review:
1. Has CASA formulated a response to the Government's Aviation Safety Regulation Review? Will this be made public?
2. The findings of the review were very critical of CASA and its relationship with industry, describing it as 'adversarial'. Does CASA agree with this description, and how will it go about regaining trust from the industry?
3. Recommendation 11 relates to redrafting the MoU between CASA and the ATSB. As CASA would recall, this issue was raised as part of the committee inquiry into the Pel-Air ditching. How will CASA respond to this recommendation?
4. Recommendation 19 states that the ATSB should transfer information from Mandatory Occurrence Reports to CASA, without redaction or de-identification. As CASA would be aware, this has caused significant concerns that this information could be used to target individuals making or involved in the reports. In turn, there are concerns that this will reduce the rate of reporting, because individuals will be concerned about possible impacts on themselves – including identification to their employer or repercussions from CASA. How will CASA address these concerns? MTF...:ok:

Soteria
26th Nov 2014, 23:39
Skates has commenced his tenure at Fort Fumble at a very interesting period of time. The Australian aviation community is a bit like the now no longer sleepy town of Ferguson, Missouri. It isn't going to take much more to see the whole community erupt into a vicious fight back. Our community has had a gutful of the ineptitude, arrogance, bullying and victimisation. It is only going to take one little spark to ignite the flame and cause an insurrection. The IOS and MaM have had enough of the Governments deceptive stalling tactics and obtuse nose thumbing that it directs at its people.
Enough of the bullshit please. Skates - no talking, no mingling, no industry forums, no cucumber sandwiches at various committees and no turd polishing.
We know more about your newly inherited chickenshit outfit than you do. Just get on with it. No more BS, we want action, NOW!

Australopithecus
26th Nov 2014, 23:44
If Skidmore actually referred to industry concerns using the words "mutterings and mumblings" then I think we can dismiss him as a contender. If someone dismissed my input so condescendingly I'd give him a knuckle sandwich. Mutter that, pal.

LeadSled
27th Nov 2014, 02:32
"mutterings and mumblings"

Folks,
On that basis, one must assume that the ASRR/Forsyth report (including major input from the big end of town) and various Senate inquiries is no more than low level bitching, in the eyes of the new CASA DAS/CEO.
Hardly confidence inspiring, is it.
Tootle pip!!

Stasi Hunter
27th Nov 2014, 02:37
On edit- to add a thought: If there was ever a shred of doubt the CASA world is totally insane, this should remove it. :-

Pythagoras' Theorem: ........................................24 words
Lord's Prayer: .................................................. 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: .........................................67 words
Ten Commandments: ........................................179 words
Gettysburg Address: .........................................286 words
US Declaration of Independence: ......................1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: ............7,818 words
EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: .........26,911 words
Part 61 REFORM............................................Have a guess.....you know you want to.

I'll have a guess at 75,000 just for Part 61, we then have to consider the MOS with a similar word count.
What should be kept in mind is that these are fluid documents and their size and content are subject to expansion and contraction depending on which Court or Tribunal you select.

I doubt that the likes of Anus Stasi would be familiar with any of the above with exception on the "EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: .........26,911" The higher the word count the greater the scope (safety)

My question to MaM would be the actual dollar value per word, or is it the more words the greater the productivity, There's a good one for the Productivity Commission. CAsA's own RIS (Regulatory Impact Statement) passes part 61 with flying colours!

Frank Arouet
27th Nov 2014, 05:36
If the DAS wants to engage with industry, he must do so in their backyard, and without the accompanying circus performers. He may well get away from the meeting unscathed. Everything that needs be said, has been said, and sufficiently enough to give him all the briefing he needs. He should also ask himself if he is up to the job that others rejected.


He has inherited a poison chalice tainted with the blood and impecunious suffering of hundreds of victims.


Please, Director, another marriage failed today. A further consequence of your inheritance, and although an unforeseen event for you, it has the potential to further escalate for the poor bugger involved.


Shame-shame-shame! You cannot be absolved of things like this.


Do something. Now.

Kharon
27th Nov 2014, 18:39
Friday retrospective for Austral – Stasi:...:D..:ok:..

The first mention of the IOS becoming the MaM was bruited by Brother Sarcs at post # 2390 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-120.html#post8720928), last month – 'The Australian' (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/former-air-vice-marshal-mark-skidmore-named-director-of-air-safety/story-e6frg95x-1227107623428) ever faithful CASA handmaiden, published a touchy, feely, happy-clappy, semi religious, 'puff' piece of spin and waffle, probably drafted by some PR catamite working for the unspeakable master of spin, dribble and fractured fairy tales. Be in no doubt children; despite contrary rumours, manufactured to soothe, the AVM (Ret) is quite willing to be enmeshed in the toils of the status quo.

“I think initially for me it’s going to be waiting for the government’s response to the ASRR and seeing how that’s going to shape CASA into the future,’’ he said. “So I’m keen to see that, I look forward to getting that response.

It's clear from the above statement that it will the governments call on how CASA will be reformed and the DAS intends to 'toe the line', he even says how much he's looking forward to it. Now any fool in the market knows what the governments 'preference' for CASA is likely to be; and, that which the department 'allows', will become policy, fully supported by the DAS. Therefore, in the elegant words of the oracle – "You're rooted mate, good and proper".

Then, just to be sure the message is clearly understood, the IOS, Sandilands, Phelan, the Senate committee, the Rev. Forsyth, 64 polite recommendations, 10, 000 not so polite suggestions are neatly swept up and dumped into the great shredder of life, with the first half line:-

“Really in the regards to the rest, yes, I’ve heard murmurings and mumblings out there.

The rest of the line being used to state an irrelevant, self aggrandising fact, suggesting that as 'the pilot', he keeps "running into things".

Obviously, being a pilot myself you run into those type of things.

Not an auspicious beginning; the likes of the Boyd and the mysterious 'Phantom Board', like the crew of the Marie Celeste, seem to be mysteriously missing. One hears rumour of course; like:- "there is a board" and ""Skidmore's a doer" and "Mrdak is smiling, big time" and etc. The real proof is in fact, not fiction.

We have no wabbit proof fence, the 'executive and managerial levels are planning home extensions and taking up new loans in the certainty of continued employment during the upcoming financial downturn. New cars, plans for overseas trips, new type rating courses being booked at Flight Safety etc. In fact, it's high spirits and handshakes all around at Sleepy Hollow, seems things are looking up and the grim reaper turns out to be Mother Goose fooling around.

Not certain the Senators agree; but, no worries, the Murky Machiavellian and his clammy handed crew are at full throttle, in 'fix' mode. AOC and license cancellations may be despatched at 16:59 on Christmas eve; but the DCM's are even as we speak, on their way to the shredder. All that's missing is the fat lady, perhaps she has been delayed at the seriously underestimated Senate committee tea party. Let's hope so..

Toot toot.

Creampuff
27th Nov 2014, 19:53
So Mr Skidmore isn't the Messiah? Whoda thunk it.

But you should get some consolation from the fact that he is, by all accounts, a "pilot" and a "good bloke".seriously underestimated Senate committeeIt's not possible to underestimate the Senate committee. It doesn't do anything.

Remember: Half of the Committee are members of the government. You know: the government that decided there would be no safety purpose to be served in reopening the Pel Air inquiry.

Repeatedly posting videos of their rhetorical fist-waving at Committee hearings merely reminds us that their strong personal opinions rarely get in the way of base political interests.

Kharon
27th Nov 2014, 20:44
CP "[merely] reminds us that their strong personal opinions rarely get in the way of base political interests.

Agree, but Pollies can (so it's rumoured) be influenced and influence: it's a game they play, selling and buying the stuff. #1 "Your new road, will need some help to get the money" (statement of fact). - "Well, my project, supporting land rights for gay whales, is stalled and could do with a push from your department". #2, "Look, lets have a chat, over there where it's quiet; what'll you have, wine?". And so it goes – 'numbers' also seem to matter, in the desperate search for 'popularity' and the need to retain a 'seat' (rather than get a real job), numbers are constantly worked, reworked and massaged.

I doubt the minuscule and his sore 'tummy' worry too much about Pprune numbers as they are not 'Qld mug voters'; but they do represent both domestic and, thanks to some assistance, international interest in matters aeronautical. For example:-

The closed Senate thread has attracted some 7000 reads this month: the current thread sits at 624, 053 (on my screen). That is (combined) about 1,220,000 'views', the current thread has peaked a little this month with some 74,250 'reads'. The Truss thread has also had some interest shown, with nearly 26,300 'reads' this month. (rough numbers from Pprune counter). I believe the Senate could, at a pinch call that continuing, albeit tacit, support for their united efforts. They way I'd read that is CASA 0 – IOS 1,430,000.

But, as you say, they don't vote so it's a bust; but in the small world of aviation; influence and opinion, they matter. Who knows what will matter in the end? Not I, and that's for certain sure.

Right then, best crack on with my knitting and find some patience and fortitude to watch and listen (double whammy) to Ms Staib as she once again, dazzles the impotent Senators with sparkling wit, stunning rhetoric, unassailable logic and; Umm, impeccable argument.....:ok:

Toot..:yuk: toot...:yuk:

On edit: Just had a PM from Sarcs, who defines the readers as follows:-

IOS – Ills of Society.
WOIS – Women's Ills of Society.
WWIOS – World Wide Ills of Society.
SSIOS – Sound Senators Ills of Society.

MTF....:D

Sarcs
27th Nov 2014, 20:50
Kharon - Not certain the Senators agree; but, no worries, the Murky Machiavellian and his clammy handed crew are at full throttle, in 'fix' mode. AOC and license cancellations may be despatched at 16:59 on Christmas eve... The signs are ominous; depite the Olive Branches on offer, (OB's) but they are there...:ugh:

OB1: First let us take a look at another part of the FF vomitus..:yuk:..missive - No need to rush to get new pilot licence:
...Pilots are being reminded there is no need to rush to get a new licence. While new licences under Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations are now available, pilots are being asked to wait until they update their qualifications. This is to allow an orderly transition of all licences to the new regulations. Right now CASA is receiving more applications for licences conversions than can be managed immediately.

Applications are being prioritised so those pilots who have a need to convert their licence to Part 61 are not disadvantaged. Those applications that are not given priority may face delays. Never-the-less CASA is doing everything possible to keep up with the demand for new licences. Pilots do not need to submit an application for a Part 61 licence until they complete a flight review, gain a rating or endorsement or apply for an additional licence...
Then if you go down the page to this header - Act now if you need services over Christmas-New Year - we get yet another strange dichotomy..

"...Leaving it until mid-December may mean you will not be able to use your licence during the holiday period. Talk to or email the CASA Licensing and Registration Centre as soon as possible if you need their services as a backlog of requests may develop in December..."

OB2: But the real proof of the pudding is in the M&M speech to the AAA conference attendees as highlighted in today's..

"...'The Australian' (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/former-air-vice-marshal-mark-skidmore-named-director-of-air-safety/story-e6frg95x-1227107623428) ever faithful CASA handmaiden, published a touchy, feely, happy-clappy, semi religious, 'puff' piece of spin and waffle, probably drafted by some PR catamite working for the unspeakable master of spin, dribble and fractured fairy tales...":D:D

Mrdak stresses need to protect airspace from residential projects (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mrdak-stresses-need-to-protect-airspace-from-residential-projects/story-e6frg95x-1227137381906)

Some weasel words from M&M:"Safeguarding our airports from inappropriate development around them which will have the potential to constrain the growth of our airports, I think, is a key fundamental planning area for reform in Australia.

“And this will become a more intense and difficult challenge as our major cities grow.’’“It is very vital that airport planning take into account the *development around airports but also that airport planning be rigorously transparent,” he said.

“But just as important is that … planning by state and local *governments take account of airports, their role and value to the community.

“Developments around airports and under flight paths can constrain operations, either directly, where they conflict with the safety or airport operations, or indirectly where they lead to public pressure to change flight paths or impose on increasing restrictions on operations.’’ But the really carefully crafted cynical weasel words are laced in this passage of bollocks:
Mr Mrdak said proscribed airspace was defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and any building penetrating it *required commonwealth regulatory approval informed by advice from CASA, Airservices and the industry.

“If our advice is that if the construction activity will reduce safety or efficiency for an airport, we cannot and will not approve it,’’ he said.
“I’m afraid it’s going to be that simple and we have to be much more determined on our position on these matters.

“And I know this is becoming a much more resource-intensive task for our major airport operators and it can be an unwelcome distraction, but if we don’t protect that airspace now, we will in the long term come to rue our failure to do so... Notice he conveniently steps around the words secondary or General Aviation...:ugh:

Ms Wilkie do not be fooled by this false OB; which is contrary to the AAA concerns highlighted in your study report - Airports Association Publishes Metro Study (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/airports-association-publishes-metro-study)

The olive branches have been baited; the horse is on its way to the front gate...:ooh: The only question is will the WIOS/MaM let it in? "Nah...let's bloody well burn it down!" :E

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
28th Nov 2014, 22:18
The Last Minute Hitch: 28 November 2014 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-28-november-2014)..;):
...This week took me to Canberra for a sit-down chat with the new Director of Aviation, Mark Skidmore. Now there's a bloke that has jumped enthusiatically into the hottest aviation seat in Australia. Fortunately, Mark seems to have the determination and thick hide needed to beat the regulator into a more reasonable shape. We talked about some of general aviation's woes including CASA's culture, AVMED, the problems with recruiting good staff, whether or not we should adopt US or NZ regulations and, of course, his brilliant little Globe Swift. There was one thing he managed to impress me with: the willingness to say "I don't know" rather than try to sound authoritative with an answer constructed to sound like he does know. That makes you tend to take him at his word when he says he wants above all to display honesty and integrity.

The news seems to be all about airports this week. Firstly, it's good to see CASA is going to review its airport regulations (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/casa-to-probe-aerodrome-regulations)to try to ease a bit of the burden on operators. The only weak point in all this is that Acting DAS Terry Farquharson has said the aim is to remove "unnecessary regulatory burden". My question is: who gets to decide what is and isn't unnecessary? And if there is unecessary regulation, how did it ever get in there? Airfield operators are under significant regulatory burden, of that there is probably no question, so any news of a review will likely be greeted with applause. A more enthusiatic welcome will greet a review that brings about real change and real cost relief.

Real change also seems to be the theme of the metro GA aerodrome study released by the Australian Airports Association this week (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/airports-association-publishes-metro-study). By "metro" they mean the big seven, the six former GAAP airports and Essendon. The common thing that ties all these airports together is that they are all former federal airports now leased to private companies. They come under a lot of artillery fire from pilots and other airport users regularly, so I can imagine some of their woes will fall on deaf ears from tenants who will likely do what they can to oppose some of these airports' desires. It's another one of those Catch-22s of which aviation in Australia seems to have plenty: we need healthy airports so we can use them, but to do that, some of the government controls needed to constrain them may have to be relaxed. Damned if you do ...

The clock now ticks for Jabiru. With the deadline for public consultation on the proposed restrictions now expired, they are in the position where they have to await their fate. In the meantime, the company has released a heart-felt response (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/jabiru-responds-to-casa-limitations) calling for the proposal to be scrapped. No doubt founder Rod Stiff will be doing everything possible to stave off what will be a disaster for his company...MTF...:ok:

Kharon
29th Nov 2014, 21:50
Hitch, mate, for Pete's sake the news was bad enough before you start telling us 'the pilot' has NFI. How then, did he get the job in that case? Most of us have, in varying quantities a thick hide, are determined, honest and have some form integrity and we can fly; some even own 'pretty' aircraft, so what? I find the phrase "he wants above all to display honesty and integrity"- very disturbing.

Merely "wanting to display" is a bloody long march from stating, categorically that he intends to restore 'honesty' and 'integrity' and 'honour' and common sense as a priority. Particularly as that is a simple, grass roots place to start. An easy fix that will send a message to those who have acted at the borderlines of illegality, perverting CASA powers, using unlimited government money and 'flexible' interpretations at the extreme limits of the law. I shall, as a professional courtesy, assist - start at the bottom, have a look at some of the decisions, administratively enforced which affect some individuals and companies, then simply set them to rights. Fire those took the law into their own hands, disgraced CASA and have a taste for the McComic dance macabre style of 'embuggerance for fun' and integrity is immediately restored.

Shortly, there will be two separate cases landing on the Skidmore desk, both cases are based in actions of the purest bastardry, McComic generated Wabbit executed. A team of four people who do know what the law is and can manage 'operational' decisions will monitor every step taken along the road to resolution. If Skidmore has any sense, whatsoever he'll grab Jonathan Aleck and the Ethics committee, resolve these and other similar matters and take action against those who have perverted the system. This sending a clear, unequivocal message to the organisation; this stops, right here, right now. Anything less – well the public may just be asked to become the jury if Skidmore decides to be seen as continuing in the McComic traditions, guilty by association, complicit through knowledge and identified as a willing accomplice.

There are many small acts of bastardry, perversion, malice aforethought and embuggerance which can be addressed, without recourse to a court or tribunal by a man of honour, honesty and integrity. Start there Mark and you will achieve, for the investment of a week of your time and half a dozen strokes of the pen, more to restore industry faith than any number of Royal Commissions and Senate inquires could achieve this decade. Shake the burrs off the saddle blanket, initiate ALL the Senate and Forsyth recommendations, put your feet up and sit back to watch the industry blossom.

Mighty oak trees grow from the small, humble acorn.

Selah.

Sunfish
30th Nov 2014, 13:41
Folks, lets get real. Most of you fall into the same trap that the Qantas LAMES used to fall into: endless exhortations to " be professional", "businesslike". "fit and proper persons" in CASA lingo.

Unfortunately what you forget is that there is no requirement on CASA, AIrservices or the ATSB to only employ "fit and proper persons" and that is where you are screwed every time.

You are constrained to act as a "fit and proper person" the regulator and his staff not so.That is the crux of your problems.

To put that another way, in the current stoush between CASA and Jabiru, Jabiru is required to employ Marquis of Queensberry rules, CASA not so.

Same with Quadrio, Polar, Lockhart, Pel AIr, etc. etc....you are enjoined to be professional, gentlemanly, fair and act like a "fit and proper person" to the extent that even your use of the litigation privilege (ie in a fight you are entitled to defend yourself) is held against you.

So let me tell you what will happen to Jabiru. CASA's mind is made up. Jabiru engines are now deemed unsafe by the regulator, I explained previously that because CASA has made that statement, it is impossible for it to retract it without accepting liability for future engine failures, no matter how much positive safety evidence Jabiru presents. It's a one way ratchet. CASAs lawyers know this and will set an impossibly high standard for Jabiru to jump over - nothing less than Jabiru demonstrating that its engines meet the American certification standard will satisfy the lawyers, and there is no way in hell for Jabiru to do that, it doesn't have the money.

Extensions to consultations are mere play acting. Christmas is coming. Jabiru is going to find that thanks to Christmas holidays it has Two quarters of zero new engine sales at the very least, and that is even if the regulator retracts everything it has already said. A problem that will sink the company. Not only that, it cements a precedent that CASA can do what it likes to whom it likes, when it likes, for whatever reason, and it is going to rub Skidmores nose in it to train him.

Come to think of it; my first appreciation of Skidmore was that of a Lloyds "nodding Donkey" and nothing I have heard changes that view. He is undoubtedly a man of honesty and integrity. He is not experienced in dealing with grey areas, deliberate untruths and special pleading. The result is predictable; Skidmore will be dragged by the nose through the CASA strategy and the death of Jabiru is to educate Skidmore and to warn what’s left to shut up.

The demise of Jabiru is CASAs Christmas present to the Aviation industry, last year wasn't it Barrier aviation that was shut down on Christmas Eve?

Kharon
1st Dec 2014, 00:26
A short interlude, in the interest of attempting to care a damn.

Midday, Monday December 01, 2014 AEST, (Canberra) which makes it 2000 o'clock (Sunday) in Montreal, home of the picturesque Canadian 'late Autumn' and the much delayed motherhood review of our very own ATSB - the Mudpack report. So; that's what, another 12 hours to make it 0800 (Autumn time), and + 9 makes it 1700 (Autumn time); so between 12 and 21 hours to wait; for the optimist. Any takers?

Bets are on from 2000 (Canberra ) tonight up to and including 1730 (Canberra) tomorrow.

There's a Tim Tam in it. Closest to the mark wins (Time and time zone required). So place your bets here, for the great hot air release, from the land of Smokey mists, mirrored lakes and mellowed out waiting time.

While we wait: from John Keats ode, To Autumn.

Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness,
Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun;
Conspiring with him how to load and bless
With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eves run;
To bend with apples the moss'd cottage-trees,
And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core;
To swell the gourd, and plump the hazel shells
With a sweet kernel; to set budding more,
And still more, later flowers for the bees,
Until they think warm days will never cease,
For Summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells. -

Can you smoke that Maple leaf ?, must be goooood stuuurrff.

Toot a toot toot....:D..:D

Frank Arouet
1st Dec 2014, 01:29
Will Truss be released from the sanatorium to read it?


Will it be the original or edited version?


Is it written French or English?


Does it first need to be translated it into "bureauspeak"?


Will anybody understand any of it?

Sunfish
1st Dec 2014, 01:45
One am. Canberra time. Too late for the evening news cycle and a few hours later, too old to make the next morning news. Possibly a press release will be issued that will go into the waste basket unread like most of them. The document will be so obfuscatory and deliberately technically impenetrable to ensure as far as possible that the average lazy journalist won't bother to read past the first sentence.

A nice way to do this is to use as much industry jargon as possible in that first (very long) sentence.

Australopithecus
1st Dec 2014, 02:10
No takers here. I am sticking to my guns that it'll be the morning of the 22nd here. Or, the Canadians will announce a short delay which will takes us into the new year.

What was the original timing agreement, and with whom was it made? Was that a core promise made by them? :rolleyes:Did it involve any new taxes?

Jinglie
1st Dec 2014, 04:48
Austra,

May 2014. Beaker extended it till late June at the May Estimates. Only 7 months overdue now! Considering the Pel-Air accident is now over 5 years ago; it took 3 years to come up with a flawed report, and now 18 months to come up with a review of that report, betting on hours and dates is somewhat optimistic. I'm taking the Canadian strategy of mid-winter (Canadian season of course)! When the Canadians say late autumn, they didn't actually clarify in what hemisphere. So there is a chance it could be May 2015!
Mrdak did say at the last Estimates that the full repsonse to the ASRR would be prior to the end of the year, but he didn't say what year. He's definitely learnt a thing or two from the Canadians:{

Australopithecus
1st Dec 2014, 05:22
Well, May, 2015 isn't autumn anywhere. That's why I figured 21 Dec, which is when Autumn ends in Canada. They'll be a day or two late, so maybe the 23rd there, 24th here.

Talk about a snow job...

dubbleyew eight
1st Dec 2014, 10:27
while everyone details the watching of the farce that is australian aviation misregulation, there is the need for a rest from the gladiatorial tripe upon us.

I would sincerely recommend hunting out a copy of a John Steinbeck novel.
"The Moon is down"

read it. you'll never fear CAsA again.

my recommendation is probably nothing but Winston Churchill was also an appreciative reader of the novel.

it is not that big as novels go but it is brilliant.

welcome to your future CAsA :ok: you so richly deserve it.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
1st Dec 2014, 11:40
Can't copy the link in on my phone. Flight global has an article title 'CASA accused of "misconduct" by Australia's light aircraft association'.

Soteria
1st Dec 2014, 11:56
Here you go Herr Biscuit;

CASA accused of 'misconduct' by Australia's light aircraft association - 12/1/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/casa-accused-of-39misconduct39-by-australia39s-light-aircraft-406591/)

I guess that means Flightglobal, by default, are now part of the IOS and MaM as well?
Unfortunately for Jabiru they are done for. They have received a mark on the forehead from CASA and will pay the highest price. CASA have chosen now, the lead up into Xmas as the time to inflict the most pain and damage. It's an old trick, often resurrected and tweaked and then applied to an operation that CASA deem to be 'unfit' and a significant safety risk - overnight judge, jury and executioner. Another one bites the dust.....

halfmanhalfbiscuit
1st Dec 2014, 14:18
Soteria, what area of casa is driving this? Is it lsa, engineering and manufacturing or maintenance area?

Nice start for mr Skidmore.

Yes, flight global should get an ncn! Although it could be just as damaging to Jabiru as it is to casa.

Sunfish
1st Dec 2014, 19:06
Who is driving the RAA and Jabiru destruction? Can it only be the former General Manager of the RAA who was hired by CASA?

Anyone with half a brain who has studied the tactics of CASA can see that CASA is attempting to close Jabiru down. The assertion CASA is making is that Jabiru engines are terminally unsafe.

If the assertion is allowed to stand, no one will buy Jabiru engines at any price. Furthermore, anyone who already owns an aircraft powered by one has their investment rendered worthless. The outcome is most likely the death of the Jabiru engine company and perhaps the airframe builder as well.

In turn this destroys the RAA financially and perhaps the SAAA as well since a precedent has now been set that CASA can act with impunity on the basis of a mere assertion.

This action by CASA must be seen for what it is : an attack on recreational aviation in all its forms.

Personally I suspect this is an attempt by the senior managers of CASA to take revenge on recreational aviation groups for having the temerity to contribute to the recent Senate Review of CASA.

halfmanhalfbiscuit
1st Dec 2014, 19:34
Personally I suspect this is an attempt by the senior managers of CASA to take revenge on recreational aviation groups for having the temerity to contribute to the recent Senate Review of CASA.

If that is the case let the good Senators know the concerns. They seem to be getting grumpy with ASA presently.

Eddie Dean
1st Dec 2014, 20:43
Sunfish-- This action by CASA must be seen for what it is : an attack on recreational aviation in all its forms.
This maybe so, but old mate here where I am camped at the moment has been trying to get Jabiru to attend to the issues for over two years.

Sunfish
1st Dec 2014, 21:41
Eddie:

This maybe so, but old mate here where I am camped at the moment has been trying to get Jabiru to attend to the issues for over two years.

I agree that from what I have heard Jabiru has been, to put it mildly, less than stellar in its customer support.

However CASA has now used the equivalent of a shotgun to remove the proverbial splinter in the finger and it threatens the entire recreational aviation sector in the process.

The action against Jabiru is a perfect example, as if any more were needed, of the clearly deficient CASA culture. Even If we assume that CASA is genuinely interested in the safety of Jabiru operators, which I doubt, I would have thought that a rational strategy from a regulator who cared about the impact of its activities on its clients would be:

(1) Form a working group of CASA, RAA and Jabiru staff.

(2) Assemble available reliability data.

(3) Analyse the data to determine if there are systematic failure modes, compare the failure rates in each mode and in total against those for comparable engines, Rotax, Lycoming, Continental and others both certified and uncertified.

(4) As part of (3); Use statistical hypothesis testing to determine at a suitable degree of significance (say 95 and 99 percent) to quantify the risks of engine failure of Jabiru engines compared to the other makes.

(5) Now that we have rigourous data analysis, we can state the following: "We can say with 95% accuracy that the failure rate of Jabiru engines of this mod status is x/100,000 hours, compared to Rotax 912 engines with Y/100,000 hrs and lycoming with z/100,000 hrs".

(6) We can now look at options for improvement : " replacement of through bolts in X Jabiru engines will change failure rates from A/100,000 hrs to B/100,000 hrs at an estimated total cost of C dollars".

(7) We can then group the options to determine exactly what strategy results in the most bang per buck.

(8) CASA can then pull out its ******* great cannon and point it at Jabirus head and tell them to implement the recommendations as a set of service bulletins or CASA will issue them as airworthiness directives.

Yet what CASA seems to me to have done is adopt the opposite strategy; Ready, Fire, Aim.

And on a final, bizarre note, it would appear that the sensible strategy for an RAA Jabiru operator would be to replace the Jabiru engine with a completely untested car engine conversion. After all, if there is no data on its reliability, CASA have no grounds on which to restrict its use.

Sarcs
2nd Dec 2014, 21:41
Government responds to Aviation Safety Review

Media Release
WT249/2014
03 December 2014




Honouring a key aviation election commitment, the Australian Government today released its response to the 37 recommendations and related issues raised in the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss said the Report backs-up Australia's advanced aviation regulatory system as one of the safest public transport systems in the world.

“Australia has a well-earned reputation for aviation safety and is respected the world over,” Mr Truss said.

“However, given the speed with which the global aviation industry is changing, we must look for and embrace continuous improvement in our aviation safety regulatory system to capture the growing diversity of aviation in Australia industry.

“Today the Australian Government has responded to each of the recommendations and related issues raised in the Report, taking into consideration feedback received from key aviation agencies, the public and industry.

“The Australian Government has agreed to 32 of the Report's 37 recommendations and has agreed to undertake a more detailed examination of a further four.

“Aviation safety systems need everyone in the system to work closely and cooperatively to identify safety risks and to ensure that the most appropriate practices and technologies are adopted to address and reduce risks.

“Active engagement between industry and aviation agencies will help inform future regulatory priorities and the development of simpler regulations, standards and orders.

“Successful implementation of the Australian Government's response to the Report will require our civil and military aviation agencies to work closely together, as well as the active and constructive participation of both the aviation industry and aviation agencies.

“Information sharing between industry and safety agencies must be based on a strong ‘just culture’ approach to assist in preventing future safety events and reflect international best practice. We look forward to working with industry to implement improvements.”

The Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report is available at www.infrastructure.gov.au (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au).

ASRR Government Response (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR-Government-Response.pdf)

CASA Board appointments

Media Release
WT250/2014
03 December 2014




Today the Australian Government announced three new appointments to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Board.

As part of the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has appointed Ms Anita Taylor, Mr Ian Smith AM and Captain Murray Warfield to the CASA Board for the next three years.

“These appointments bring pertinent technical, operational and managerial experience to help the Board play a more active leadership and review role in setting and steering CASA's strategic direction,” Mr Truss said.
“Anita Taylor is a well-known sports aviator who has been gliding since she was 16. She is President of the Gliding Federation of Australia and a member of the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation. Ms Taylor is a chartered accountant and an experienced company director, with involvement in banking, finance, community and sport sectors.

“Ian Smith AM has 24 years' experience in the aviation insurance industry. Early in his year he was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia for the promotion and development of aviation. Mr Smith has been a private pilot since 1976 and has held both twin-engine and command instrument ratings.

“From 1979 to 1985, Mr Smith was actively involved with the staging of the Schofields Air Shows and has more recently contributed to the development of the highly successful Australian International Air Show held biennially at Avalon Airport in Victoria.

“Captain Murray Warfield is an aviation consultant who has held both piloting and senior executive roles with Qantas, after a successful career in the Royal Australian Air Force.

“These new appointments are consistent with Recommendation 6 of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report, namely that the Board possess a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds, and will strengthen CASA's vital role as the independent aviation safety regulator to the high standards expected by Australians.

“I look forward to working with the new Board, other Government agencies and the aviation industry on the implementation of the Government's response to the Report which I have released today.”

Today's announcement completes the expanded CASA Board following the recent appointment of Air Vice Marshal (Rtd) Mark Skidmore AM as Director of Aviation Safety and Mr Jeff Boyd as Deputy Chair earlier this year.


MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
2nd Dec 2014, 22:54
Read it once.

Proof, pudding, eating.

It is now a case of a contest of wills between the Board, DAS and senior CASA managers in my opinion.

Sarcs
3rd Dec 2014, 02:58
Ministerial Statement: The Australian Government's Response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report

Speech
WTS031/2014
03 December 2014

House of Representatives
Parliament House, Canberra

Madam Speaker, in November last year the Government established an independent review of Australia's aviation safety regulatory system to ensure that it is well positioned to meet Australia's future aviation demands.

The review was conducted by an independent panel headed by Mr David Forsyth AM, a respected figure in Australian aviation through his previous senior managerial roles in Qantas and as Chair of Airservices Australia.
Mr Forsyth was joined on the panel by two eminent overseas aviation safety experts—Mr Don Spruston from Canada and Mr Roger Whitefield from the United Kingdom.

On 3 June 2014, I tabled the panel's Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report in Parliament.

Since tabling the report the Government has given careful consideration to the 37 recommendations and other matters raised in the Report.

This consideration has been informed by close consultation with our aviation agencies and by 69 industry and public comments on the Report.
I am pleased today to be able to table the Government's response to the Report.

The Report confirms that Australia has an advanced aviation regulatory system in place and one of the safest regular public transport systems in the world.

Australia also has sound safety governance arrangements which ensure that the regulatory, investigative and service provision roles of our key aviation agencies are properly separated.

However given the speed with which the global and domestic aviation industry is changing, we need to look for continuous improvement in our aviation safety regulatory system.

We need to update our system to reflect the growing diversity of our aviation industry.

The Report has identified areas where our present arrangements, structures and relationships can be improved to ensure Australia remains a leading aviation State.

The Report made 37 recommendations, many relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), but others have implications for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Airservices Australia (Airservices), my Department and the Department of Defence.

The Government has fully agreed to, or agreed to undertake a more detailed examination of, 36 of the 37 recommendations.

Key Aviation Safety Principles



In responding to the Report the Government has endorsed a number of key principles that should continue to underpin our future aviation safety system:

safety should be the primary consideration of CASA, Airservices, the ATSB and the industry in the performance of their functions;
the highest safety priority should be afforded to passenger transport operations;
Australia's regulatory approach and responses should be based on a sound assessment of the level of risk associated with particular aviation operations;
aviation agencies and industry should work closely together to identify aviation safety risks and ensure that the most appropriate methods, practices and technologies are adopted to address and reduce these risks;
a strong “just culture” approach must underpin better information sharing between industry and safety agencies as information sharing assists in preventing future safety events and reflects international best practice;
recognition that Australia's safety regulatory system plays an important role in ensuring that Australia has a safe, efficient and competitive aviation industry;
Australia's aviation regulatory procedures, processes and approach to regulation should be fair, transparent and promote nationally consistent operations; and
active and ongoing engagement by industry and CASA will help inform future regulatory priorities and the development of simpler regulations, standards and orders.
These principles and the actions which flow from them will be contained in an enhanced State Safety Program (SSP). The SSP will outline short, medium and long term objectives for our aviation system including planned major regulatory, infrastructure and service changes.

In addition, the respective policy, regulatory, investigative and service provision roles and coordination between Government aviation agencies will continue to be clearly set out in the SSP and how they should work cooperatively on major initiatives.

The Government recognises that our agencies and industry are already operating to some extent in accordance with these principles but believes it is important that they be set out to help guide the future direction of our aviation safety system.


The Role of the Aviation Safety Regulator

CASA is a critical element in our aviation safety system.

CASA is first and foremost the regulator for civil aviation with the increasingly challenging task of implementing and oversighting a range of aviation regulatory arrangements.

Additionally CASA plays a key role in developing new regulations and amending existing regulations to take account of industry changes, emerging safety issues and meeting international standards and practices.

In establishing this review the Government was conscious of complaints it had received from industry about CASA's regulatory approach and the perceived insufficient regard to the impacts of regulatory actions or proposed new or amended regulations on industry operations. Problems with the implementation of new egulatory standards have also been raised by industry as an issue. The review panel has clearly received submissions that have raised similar concerns.

The role of the regulator is a difficult one. CASA serves not only the industry but the public more broadly.

CASA is part of a system which is charged with protecting all passengers, their crew and the community. Members of the travelling public are not usually able to make their own individual assessments of safety issues and rely on the regulatory system for assurance.

Aviation services can be complex and expensive operations. The business environment in which aviation operates is a challenging and often highly competitive one with fluctuating market conditions. Even well-established and well intentioned aviation operators can encounter problems.
In such a complex environment the Government expects the regulator to be firm but fair in how it conducts its role.

The regulator also needs to be well-informed about the industry context, conscious of the impacts that its actions have on operators and open to approaches which achieve safety outcomes without unnecessary impacts on industry.

This approach calls for effective and ongoing engagement and communication with the industry, both at a strategic and working level. As the Aviation Safety Regulation Review recommends, we need to create an “effective collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.”
[B]
CASA Governance

As a key part of our aviation safety system, the Government expects the CASA Board to take an active role in setting directions for CASA and overseeing its functions.

Critically the Government also expects the Board to maintain an effective dialogue with industry at a strategic level.

The Government has already moved to enhance the aviation skills and experience on the Board, with amendments passed earlier this year to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to expand the Board to seven members.

The Government has appointed Mr Jeff Boyd as Deputy Chairman of the Board, who brings valuable experience in working with different parts of the diverse Australian aviation industry.

Today I am pleased to announce the appointment of three more members to the CASA Board to fill the current vacancies.

The new members are; Anita Taylor, a Chartered Accountant, experienced company director and long term member of the Sport Aviation industry who has been gliding since she was 16; Captain Murray Warfield, formerly Qantas General Manager of Regulatory and Industry Affairs; and finally Ian
Smith, who has had a long and distinguished career in the aviation insurance industry earlier this year he was awarded a Member of the Order of Australia for the promotion and development of aviation.

The Government also welcomes the appointment of Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Mark Skidmore AM to the position of the Director of Aviation Safety. This appointment will bring a further wealth of aviation experience to the Board.

The Government will also be issuing a new Statement of Expectations (SOE) to the revamped CASA Board to give effect to the recommendations in the Report.

The Board will appropriately have the opportunity to set out in an implementation plan their response to the new SOE.

The Government looks forward to working with the new Board and Director in the delivery of all of these recommendations.

Consistent with the Government's broader agenda in deregulation, the Government also expects CASA to continue to look for ways to reduce regulatory costs on the industry without compromising safety.

ATSB Governance

The Government fully supports the vital role of the ATSB.
Independent investigation of accidents or incidents remains a critical element of the safety system, helping us understand the causes and hence the sources of risks to safety. This helps to avoid future accidents.

If the system is to work well, industry must cooperate in providing information during accident and incident investigations and in reporting incidents generally.



The Government will take a number of actions to give effect to this commitment including:

the appointment of an additional ATSB Commissioner with aviation experience; and
issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the ATSB once the Commission and the Government has had the opportunity to review the findings of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board review of the ATSB publicly released earlier this week.
Madam Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Transport Safety Bureau (TSB) released its independent report into the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

The ATSB tasked the Canadian TSB to undertake an independent review of their investigation methodologies and processes, how they were applied in specific cases and how this compared to international best-practice standards.

The TSB review looked in detail at three separate investigations, one of which was the Pel-Air inquiry which as Members may recall was the subject of a Report by the Senate Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.
While the Canadian TSB found that ATSB investigation methodology and analysis tools represent best practice and have been shown to produce very good results, they found that in the case of the Pel-Air investigation, there were errors made.

I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air off Norfolk Island in 2009.

As a consequence, I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to reopening the investigation.

On a related point, as I have just announced I will shortly be appointing a new Commissioner to the ATSB with a specific background in aviation. This will fulfil an undertaking made by the Coalition prior to the election.
I have asked that the fresh review of the Pel-Air accident should take into account the findings of the TSB's report.

Policy and Coordination Role of the Department

The Government has carefully considered the policy and coordination role of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, in the future aviation safety system.

The Government expects the Department as the Chair of the Aviation Policy Group (APG) to lead work between agencies to ensure coordinated planning and action on the development of the aviation safety system.
While each agency has its own legislative charter and priorities, planning needs to be coordinated across agencies.

The Department and the other members of APG, CASA, Airservices and the Department of Defence, should use that forum to coordinate and steer improvements in our aviation safety system.

APG should also take the lead in guiding the development, monitoring and maintenance of the SSP.

The Government has also identified a number of important aviation safety policy issues which it believes the Department is well placed, in close consultation with other aviation agencies, to progress final policy advice for the Government's consideration.

These policy issues cover aviation rescue and firefighting services and airspace protection.

Other Agencies and Departments

Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence play significant roles in our aviation safety system.

The current OneSKY Australia programme is aimed at establishing a nationally harmonised air traffic management system. The programme represents an exciting opportunity for both civil and military aviation to receive a better, seamless national air traffic service in the future.

It should also be acknowledged that increased civil aviation demand at several locations around Australia continues to place pressures on military aviation facilities and services.

While not specifically highlighted in the Report, the Government also recognises the key role the Bureau of Meteorology plays in our aviation safety system and this role will be reinforced in our State Safety Program.

Aviation Industry Role

The Government expects all of our civil and military aviation agencies to work together, and in close consultation with industry, to implement the Government's response to the Report.

But it is just as important that industry works collaboratively with aviation safety agencies to produce the best safety outcomes. Successful implementation of these recommendations will need the active and constructive participation of our aviation industry, working openly and positively with our agencies.

We are aware that relationships have not been as good as they need to be and there are diverse views even within the industry on some issues.

We also understand that industry commitment to work constructively with Government agencies on aviation safety issues requires industry members to dedicate scarce time and resources.

The Government strongly urges industry representatives and aviation agencies to work together across the broad range of issues, including the development of future regulatory priorities.

It is time to reset the relationship between industry and agencies and move onwards, recognising our strong aviation safety record and the potential improvements that can be made in line with the Report's recommendations.

On the basis of the strong response to the Review and the release of the Review's Report, the Government is confident that industry and our regulatory agencies will positively take up these opportunities.

I look forward to holding the first Aviation Industry Consultative Council meeting before the end of the year. This will provide a great opportunity to discuss matters of broader concern to the aviation industry and ensure that industry has a forum for putting forward their views.

Conclusion

Australia has worked hard to become one of the most respected aviation safety systems in the world.

But like any system it should be subject to continuous improvement and works best when all of those engaged in the system are working closely together.

The Report has offered us recommendations which will help with Australia's continuous commitment to improve our safety system.

The Government's response has clearly set out our aviation safety policies, principles and priorities to our agencies, industry and the community to help with this process.

The Government looks forward to working with our aviation agencies and industry in the implementation of the recommendations of the Report.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report to the Parliament.

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs
3rd Dec 2014, 06:23
AA online: Government backs bulk of ASRR recommendations (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/government-backs-bulk-of-asrr-recommendations/)

Oz Flying: Truss tables Government Response to Forsyth Report (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-tables-government-response-to-forsyth-report)

Aviation Business: Government finally responds to Forsyth Report (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/government-finally-responds-to-forsyth-report)

The Oz: Norfolk Island 2009 Pel-Air crash probe may be reopened (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/norfolk-island-2009-pel-air-crash-probe-may-be-reopened/story-e6frg95x-1227143094953)

I know..I know obscure headline but MMSM Steve does mention the Government response in there...err somewhere??

And finally...courtesy of AA online...;):Industry welcomes government response to ASRR (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/industry-welcomes-govt-response-to-asrr/)

Badly needed reforms to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have taken a “critical first step” with the appointment of three new directors to the board, an aviation industry group says.

Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia (AAAA) chief executive Phil Hirst says the addition of Anita Taylor, Ian Smith and Murray Warfield to what will be a seven-member CASA board, as well as the government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR), represents “a very welcome turning of the page for aviation policy”.

Hirst says the government’s commitment to issue a new statement of expectations to CASA as part of its response to the ASRR written by former Airservices chairman David Forsyth, where it will accept 32 of the report’s 37 recommendations, is also a welcome move.

“The announcement today of three new board members – all with aviation experience – is another strong downpayment on improving CASA governance and creating a better relationship with industry,” Hirst said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The government’s detailed response to the Forsyth review is also a very positive statement of intent to both reset the CASA/industry relationship and to bring CASA up to speed as a regulator we can be proud of.
“Industry desperately wants meaningful change in its interactions with CASA – including improvements in response to issues such as regulatory reform, AOC issuing and amendment timeframes, licencing and reductions in costs.”

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss handed down the government’s response to the ASRR (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/government-backs-bulk-of-asrr-recommendations/) on Wednesday.

Truss told parliament it was time to “reset the relationship between industry and agencies and move onwards, recognising our strong aviation safety record and the potential improvements that can be made in line with the report’s recommendations”.

“Successful implementation of these recommendations will need the active and constructive participation of our aviation industry, working openly and positively with our agencies,” Truss said in a statement to parliament.
As part of its response, the government said it would accept recommendations that called on CASA to fully disclose all findings from audits at audit exit briefings.

The Australian Airports Association (AAA) said this was a positive reform, given it would ensure airports were immediately altered to any potential safety issues and were able to respond quickly, rather than having to wait weeks or months for the formal results of the audit.

Also, AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie said the association supported the government’s request that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development provide further policy advice on airspace protection arrangements for Australian airports.

“Airspace protection is a critical issue for Australian airports, both large and small, and vital for the future growth of Australian aviation,” Wilkie said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Implementation of the government’s response to the recommendations should assist in strengthening the relationship, communications and engagement between the regulator and industry, which will help to deliver even stronger outcomes for aviation safety in Australia.”
The government’s full response can be found here (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/index.aspx). MTF...:ok:

Jinglie
3rd Dec 2014, 17:46
If they want to re-open the investigation, all they need to do is read the very detailed submissions to the AAI. A lot of detailed work done by experts, unlike Beaker and the incompetent crew. If they re-open it, who will do it? No-one involved at the ATSB or CASA can be trusted, and there were plenty involved. MD, IS, MW, JH, JW to name a few. At CASA, PB, RW, JG, TF, JM, RC, RW, JA, AA, JR etc. You know who you are. Shame on you for your part in this accident, but more so for being a major part in screwing the aviation safety system of Australia.

Sarcs
3rd Dec 2014, 19:29
Maybe Albo - along with his mate Bill(TR Zinger)Shorten - was on a high from kicking the living sh:mad:t out of TA and his govt over the last week; or maybe he thought he could get some cheap points - after all whoever listens to the opposition spokesman's reply to ministerial statements...:ooh:

Well I am afraid that I did and Jinglie - besides being a true affront to the senses of any genuine IOS member - I think you will find parts of the following self-flagellating, spin & bulldust quite revealing to why the initials you highlighted truly thought they could get away with it...:ugh::ugh:

To begin Albo went through the usual spiel of how aviation safety is not a political football and how essential it is to the economy..blah..blah..blah..:zzz:

But then the stropathon began:I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed. When Mr McCormick had advised me of the decision, I remember speaking to Prime Minister Gillard and informing her of what was about to occur—because, by definition, you cannot make a decision that an airline is unsafe and then say, 'we will ground them in a couple of days' time'. What it meant by definition was that people got stranded. There was a real-world impact on the travelling public, particularly given the nature of Tiger; and on many families who were able to travel by air for the first time, because it was a budget airline.
That was a courageous decision by John McCormick. The fact that Tiger has now been taken over by Virgin Australia and is now functioning in a way that satisfies all the safety concerns shows that that was not just a courageous decision but a correct decision. Err no comment but then it just got worse and IMO makes Albo close to public (IOS) enemy number one :=: In the report, the review panel expressed concern about relations between the industry and the regulator. It said this:
In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.
The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly. I think one of the worst parts of the job of being the aviation minister in this country is the fact that you get notified in real time. Except for the minister, people are probably unaware of that. I have had phone calls at all hours telling me that a plane with two or three people on board has gone missing. When the departmental head rang, or in the case of Mr McCormick there was often direct contact, you really did not want to receive that call.

If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.

I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder. And on the subject of the TSBC/bureau peer review - more weasel words laced with barely hidden malice & hypocrisy:I note the minister's comment that he is considering asking the ATSB to reopen the investigation into the Pel-Air incident of 2009. This follows the findings this week of the delayed report of the inquiry that I commissioned as the minister, which was conducted by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board. I note that the TSB found that the ATSB investigation methods were best practice, but I certainly welcome, as I previously said, the principle that, if there is any doubt at all, there is a need to take that precautionary principle into consideration.

I am concerned that the government has required aviation operators to cut about $12 million from their costs as part of its push to reduce so-called red tape. I also note that the government has made a similar demand of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. You cannot have organisations like CASA and AMSA, which perform such an extraordinarily important role in this country, and continue to put pressure on them to cut costs. AMSA has a critical role to play, as we have seen with the issue of the Malaysia Airlines search and rescue. AMSA looks after about one-third of the world's surface, so it is an absolutely critical agency. I do believe that there is a real case for quarantining it from cuts for aviation safety. This from the man who totally ignored the Senate AAI inquiry findings, while deviously & singlehandedly inflicting budgetary cuts to the bureau that has led to the loss of 200+ years of investigatory expertise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPU05SAYQ94

I think we can safely say that Albo was the No1. fan for the Beaker/McSkull instigated BASR, Big R regulator philosophy for embuggerance of the GA industry....steam still ON!:*

MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
3rd Dec 2014, 20:34
The Ministers and Opposition speeches makes it perfectly clear that the the possibility that a revitalized aviation sector might generate investment, jobs and economic growth in Australia is ignored by both parties. It is now certain that the aviation industry, especially the GA and recreational sectors of it, will remain in terminal decline.

I had hoped that the Ministers speech would have contained words to the effect that a strong, growing and vibrant aviation sector was important for the Australian economy but no. The closest he got was the use of the word "competitive", competitive with what?


I think I see the overall theme here that I missed before; CASA is charged with keeping the Australian public safe from aviation.]

CASAs function is thus characterised by both parties as :

(1) Ensuring passengers on airlines don't die in a screaming death plunge and,

(2) Preventing crazy pilots in all other little aircraft from making their own screaming death plunge into the members of the general public below them.

If in the process their actions destroy businesses and the investment, jobs and potential economic growth they provide....stiff.

That is what I read out of the speech quoted below:

The role of the regulator is a difficult one. CASA serves not only the industry but the public more broadly.

CASA is part of a system which is charged with protecting all passengers, their crew and the community. Members of the travelling public are not usually able to make their own individual assessments of safety issues and rely on the regulatory system for assurance.

Aviation services can be complex and expensive operations. The business environment in which aviation operates is a challenging and often highly competitive one with fluctuating market conditions. Even well-established and well intentioned aviation operators can encounter problems.

In such a complex environment the Government expects the regulator to be firm but fair in how it conducts its role.

The embuggerance will now continue redoubled. Jabiru is the latest victim to be slaughtered along with the Recreational Aircraft Association. Good work CASA, all the jobs at Jabiru will go along with a thousand now useless recreational aircraft and the association that administered them. In fact there will probably be more casualties,, for without a self administering body like the RAA to give recreational aircraft a home, how can they be regulated and rendered flyable?

Kharon
3rd Dec 2014, 21:13
Gee whiz; crumbs Sunny dire predictions will only come true if, and it's a big IF industry allows it. So far the industry has shown no signs of scampering away, tail between legs, from the fight. In fact industry is ahead on points as we approach the last couple of rounds, the legs are still good, plenty of wind and lots of sting left in the jabs.

We are all very well aware of the problems and the ways in which thing may be twisted to suit a purpose. So far, this has been prevented; now is the time for solutions and the weeding out of those imbued with the McComic perversion and methodology.

Cheer up mate, the sky is firmly in place and hopefully about to become a much better place.

Toot toot...:D...:D

Turn that frown upside down.

Sunfish
3rd Dec 2014, 23:30
Kharon, the Minister went out of his way to deny that the regulator had any duty of care whatsoever to those regulated.

Until such time as the regulator is required to take into account the likely effect of its actions on the economic health of the industry it regulates, then the option remains open to it to fulfil its role by prohibiting aviation - the "safe skies are empty skies" option, as is currently being used on Jabiru.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that the iron heel is going to be taken off our necks. My guess is that the full weight of the unmodified European Union over regulation is going to be used to crush the life out of us.

Creampuff
4th Dec 2014, 02:48
It’s interesting that even Phil Hurst has been sucked in by all the smoke and mirrors.

I have to hand it to governments: They’ll never go broke underestimating the credulity of punters. :D

dubbleyew eight
4th Dec 2014, 11:03
CASAs function is thus characterised by both parties as :

(1) Ensuring passengers on airlines don't die in a screaming death plunge and,

(2) Preventing crazy pilots in all other little aircraft from making their own screaming death plunge into the members of the general public below them.


not totally correct old son.
the islamic world has put the cat among the pigeons and the problem is preventing terrorism.
aviation provides a wonderful mechanism for unchallenged attack and that is what worries the numpties to their core.

my mate the prison psychologist told me a little while ago that criminals in australian society only exist at about a 3% of the population.
97% of us are honest upright trustworthy citizens.

the islamic terror worries have an entire army of security utterly foxed.
they don't know where the next threat will come from.
so instead of seeing us as honest people to deal with they sit there worried and slowly going insane in their efforts to prevent a calamity.

of course if you charge a paperwork generating abortion like CAsA with a task of actually doing something. ...well they're stuffed aren't they.

if you want a happy future just ignore the nutters totally and go flying.

Lookleft
4th Dec 2014, 20:24
Good on you Sarcs for posting Albos rationalisation of his do nothing time in Government! Now that Truss has responded and the TSBC have highlighted where the ATSB can improve lets hope they stop the procrastinating and just get on with it. Based on past performance though I dont recommend holding your breath. Maybe plant an oak tree and see what comes first; a mature oak tree or a mature Regulator.

Kharon
4th Dec 2014, 20:36
CP – "It’s interesting that even Phil Hurst has been sucked in by all the smoke and mirrors."

Has he though?, no one could call Hurst dopey and it would be incorrect to say that he does not fully understand the twisted by-ways of Pollywaffle and the Murky Machiavellian method of bending light. It's up to industry now to make certain that the fish does not wriggle off the hook. The first polite steps have been taken and even if Truss has offered a placebo, the words and music are there. Every pilot and operator needs to grab a copy of the Forsyth recommendations and the Truss response and turn them into lethal weapons.

Every time someone has their cage rattled; see what was promised and point out to the 'rattler' that the action they propose is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Truss acceptance of the Rev. Forsyths' little shopping list. None of the promised changes will happen if industry does not pull it's weight and make things happen. Jabiru can now dispense with the old method of simply copping it. Use the words to insist on an new deal, fresh eyes and proper homework being presented to Skidmore and his board. Make the buggers work.

'Jab' handled properly could do more to decimate the remnants of the McComic supported bastardry than Pel Air did. For starters, it's jobs and exports CASA intend to remove, that has legs. Prove the 'facts and circumstances' to be incorrect and take them directly to 'the man', argue the case and prove the vendetta was all about the CASA antagonist covering his arse, lest the duck-ups from his previous jobs reflect badly on his future well being. This is now contrary to the stated government policy of change. The tools are there, just pick 'em up and use them; without fear.

Change will not occur with industry sitting on it's rump, trying to keep warm wrapped in a the tissue thin comfort blanket offered by Truss. Light a fire, make it happen for it's as sure as eggs, the McComic remnants will have recruited the MM crew to find ways and means of reversing the good intent and finding alternate means of continuing their merry charade.

The history of the previous inquiries into 'CASA' shows exactly what will happen; if industry sits back and thinks it's won. See Morrison, 300 sitting days of inquiry and CASA ran around the back alleys and made sure nothing changed.

Seconds out, round two ; ding ding.

Soteria
4th Dec 2014, 23:55
Well it is that time of the year again. Usually CASA, at any given time, are under some sort of public scrutiny or accusation. In turn when that scrutiny is very public they like to shutdown an operator, somewhere, anywhere, to prove that they truly have 'safety' at the forefront of all decisions. Yes the big 'R' regulator likes to use Xmas as the perfect time to issue a safety alert causing business closure, awkward appeals, loss of December revenue, and making it hard for the operator to respond around the public holidays :=
So who will be the victim this December/January? My source tells me that Inspectors are paying 'extra attention' to several operators at the moment! Is the 'R'egulator poised to strike? Have you my friends been left off this years CASA Xmas card list? You better check behind the bushes, above the horizon and under the desk as you never know if Inspector Plod is lurking. Yes I hope you have been good boys and girls otherwise SantaCASA won't be bringing you anything nice :=

Sarcs
5th Dec 2014, 00:34
To begin I would first like to note that Dougy is MIA and his SARtime note has expired...:{ Oh well here is hoping that all is well...:rolleyes:

MMSM Steve has been busy here are two of his offerings, both published at 12am today: Norfolk Island probe ‘flawed’ (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/norfolk-island-ditching-probe-flawed-says-canadian-inquiry/story-e6frg95x-1227145159305) & Coalition backs safety review (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/government-backs-aviation-safety-regulation-review-report/story-e6frg95x-1227145174162)

I won't rehash either of those articles but needless to say SC has succeeded in regurgitating most of the information already put out by his peers. He does however manage to get a quote or two from the RAAA which is new:
Regional Aviation Association of Australia chairman Jim Davis said yesterday that his organisation had always supported the ASRR report.
“We’ve always seen it as the way forward. We’ve seen it as the blueprint that was needed to reform CASA and to bring regulatory reform in Australia back into balance,’’ Mr Davis said. “So we’re very pleased to see that the majority of recommendations in the report have been adopted.’’
Mr Davis said the RAAA had not agreed with the rejected recommendation.
“The only reservation we have at this point is that quite a lot of recommendations were agreed to but in principle only,’’ he said, adding the RAAA would like to see these issues followed through and not lost because of technical or legal difficulties.
“We’d like the see the spirit of the ASRR report carried through right to the end to achieve a satisfactory result with CASA and the regulatory reform program.’’
Mr Davis welcomed the appointment to the CASA board of Mr Warfield as “an excellent choice’’ because of his breadth of experience.
“In fact, we think all the board members are a good choice,’’ Mr Davis said. “We think they provide quite a cross-section of the industry and quite a breadth of experience and we believe most of them. or all of them, will be hands-on and get quite involved in this process of restructuring and bringing governance to CASA.’’ Given the comments from Creamy & Co on AerialAg Phil I thought it was apt to include Proaviation's article on just that subject..:D: Agricultural operators welcome government’s ASRR response (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/12/04/agricultural-operators-welcome-governments-asrr-response/)
The Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, one of the most energetic critics of the regulator’s recent performance, has warmly welcomed Government’s response to the Forsyth Aviation Regulation Review and the Deputy Prime Minister’s appointment of an additional three experienced aviation people to the CASA Board.

AAAA CEO, Phil Hurst, said that the appointments to the CASA Board were “a critical first step to reform of a dysfunctional CASA.”

http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Airtractor-06-1024x680.jpg (http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Airtractor-06.jpg)

“AAAA has previously welcomed the appointment of a new CEO of CASA, Mr Skidmore, and the announcement today of three new Board members – all with aviation experience – is another strong downpayment on improving CASA governance and creating a better relationship with industry,” said Mr Hurst.

“The Government’s detailed response to the Forsyth Review is also a very positive statement of intent to both reset the CASA/industry relationship and to bring CASA up to speed as a regulator we can be proud of.
“In particular, AAAA welcomes the Government’s commitment to issue a new statement of expectations to CASA that will give effect to the recommendations in the Forsyth Report.

“By committing to a risk management hierarchy based on a classification of operations (Recommendation 28 in the Government’s response), the Government will reinforce the value of identifying sectors of industry that are capable of delivering safety outcomes with CASA support, as witnessed by AAAA’s ongoing work with CASA on establishing a sector risk profile for aerial application.

“AAAA fully supports the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to not force the transfer of ATSB’s safety education role to CASA as ATSB’s education role is fundamentally different to CASAs.

“AAAA notes, however, that good policy intentions from the Government must be converted into coherent actions and improvements by CASA. Industry desperately wants meaningful change in its interactions with CASA – including improvements in response to issues such as regulatory reform, AOC issuing and amendment timeframes, licencing and reductions in costs.

“The government’s response today should represent a very welcome turning of the page for aviation policy. AAAA remains fully committed to working with the government, the new CASA Board and the new CASA CEO to deliver a better aviation industry for all Australians.” Finally Hitch gives a pretty good summary of the weeks events as they unfolded...;): The Last Minute Hitch: 5 December 2015 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-5-december-2015)
The week just past may be remembered in Australia as the turning point in the fortunes of aviation in this country. A series of good-news stories rolling out of Canberra displayed a willingness to change on behalf of government, and a recognition that a long barrage of complaints had to have some merit.

Oddly enough, Australian aviation's good-news week started in Canada when the Canadian TSB published their review of the ATSB (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/canadian-review-criticises-norfolk-island-investigation). Comparing ATSB methods over three investigations, it found that they failed miserably to apply good practice to the Pel-Air Norfolk Island ditching investigation. That they found little else wrong with the ATSB but that begs (and fails) to ask why that particular report and no other? Had they found regular, serious systemic issues you would write-off Pel-Air as just another instance of mismanagement, but as they didn't, we can't. My love of a good conspiracy theory drives me to smell political interference.

The applause from that had barely died down when Warren Truss rose in the lower house to deliver the government's response to the Forsyth Report (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-tables-government-response-to-forsyth-report). For aviation's movers, shakers, lobbyists and supporters, the response was effectively vindication that the struggle they have been through was right. The government response gives new Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore a mandate to return CASA to a position of respect and integrity within aviation. It demands a culture change, better engagement with industry, less Draconian measures, a system of regulation built on justice and a new era of accountability. In the shortest possible words: Warren Truss wants the second "A" in CASA to have meaning. So, now we the aviation industry have 80-90% of what we wanted, what are we going to do next? The time for agitating and non-co-operation appears to be over. It's OK for the government to embrace reform, but the industry has to get in on the group hug or next year we'll all still be complaining. The sun has shone ... let's make hay.

Certainly there is one man in Australia who is feeling the sun on his face this week: Dominic James. Since the ATSB squarely blamed him for ditching Westwind VH-NGA off Norfolk Island in 2009, he has been working hard to get the ATSB to withdraw the report and straighten out some anomalies in the reasoning and look a lot closer at the systemic failures. This week, the government has agreed with James, and stated in parliament that it will ask the ATSB to consider re-opening the investigation. (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/canadian-review-criticises-norfolk-island-investigation) After the damning senate inquiry and the Canadian TSB review, this call should be enough to sway the commission to withdraw the report and this time do it properly.

And we finally have the last three members of the CASA board (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/final-three-members-of-casa-board-named). It has been a while coming, but the new look board now has a good mix of aviation people and governance experts that are capable of exerting full control over CASA. The previous board remained too anonymous to be able to gauge their performance, except to say that a good board is not anonymous. Mid next year, we can expect the board chair to pass to respected aviation identity Jeff Boyd. Not a lot of bad news there, either.

Where bad news did come from was the loss of Gordon Rich-Phillips as Victorian Minister Responsible for the Aviation Industry. With the change of government last weekend, Australia lost its one and only aviation minister. Whether or not you are Liberal or Labor, Gordon did some fantastic work for aviation, fueled by an enthusiasm for general aviation. His work improved the lot of the general public in regional Victoria with significant airport upgrades that would enable air ambulances to operate from airfields previously excluded. We all owe him a vote of thanks.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch MTF...:ok:

Ps If Dougy turns up will update...:E

robsrich
5th Dec 2014, 09:35
Australian nominated for ICAO Secretary General.

Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, at the conclusion of his presentation titled “Australia and CAEP”.

Media reports suggest there are four candidates for the position being from Australia, Brazil China, and India.

AHIA

Soteria
5th Dec 2014, 10:14
Media reports suggest there are four candidates for the position being from Australia, Brazil China, and India.Correct, 4 candidates, however only 2 are in the real running, one of them being Herr Skull......and i got that directly from the halls of Can'tberra :E
Only time will tell (by around March 2015) if the angry one succeeds in winning possibly the most coveted aviation position within the upper echelon of apple bobbers. I just hope that Montreal is ready for the cigar smoking anger management failure from Australia! I hope they have somewhere for him to park his precious Yak, somewhere for him to smoke his stoogies (out of the blizzards), somewhere for him to hang up his Hawaiian shirt and moose hat, and that they provide an object free work environment where all loose items are tied down and tethered in his office to prevent them being thrown at walls!!

Hang on to your maple leaves my dear Canucks, the Skull is on short finals......

dubbleyew eight
6th Dec 2014, 03:59
you are all a bunch of suckers.
The mountain of waffle legislation with all its included bullshit and draconian provisions is still there in its entirety.

....but now it will be implemented by a bunch of really nice guys. wowie. :mad::mad:

until all the bollocks legislation ( which btw is fully approved by the government ) is trashed and replaced by something trim and to the point....

YOU HAVENT ACHIEVED ANYTHING.

suckers all of you. :}

dubbleyew eight
6th Dec 2014, 04:43
W8 has a few litmus items that indicate change for the better is actually occurring.

The canadians had a problem with owners doing their own maintenance.
the bastards wouldn't stop doing it.
So transport Canada mounted a safety case. an honest look at the "problem".
What they found in the statistics was that private owner maintainers weren't crashing aircraft at any greater rate than "properly" maintained aircraft.
The statistics proved that there was no detriment.

So canada made private owner maintenance legal.
they also created an owner maintained category of registration.
this allows commercially built privately owned aircraft to be decertified and maintained by the owner on a stand alone basis.

all on the basis of a safety case done by honest enquiring minds.

compare the australian situation. 2 years in prison for not having a maintenance release. no option for owner maintenance at all.
a system that tries by draconian legislation to preserve a totally certified environment.

in reality among all the private owners I know there is only one not actively maintaining his own aircraft.

if you want further proof that the world has moved on from CAsA's draconian "certification" download the australian VH aircraft register from the CAsA website. stick it in a spreadsheet and count the number of amateur built aircraft.
then do some further churning. work out the percentage of new aircraft that weren't built in factories.

when we see the reality reflected in some sensible legislation, then and only then, will we have made progress.

until then private owners like me will ignore it all.

CAsA, the Clueless And Senile Administrator.

Sunfish
6th Dec 2014, 20:48
For the avoidance of doubt, the former and perhaps again future Minister For Aviation has by his own words branded himself as a hater of aviation in all its forms.

I refer to his speech as reported by Hansard, in response to Minister Truss's announcement of the Governments response to the Forsyth report.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed.

Factually incorrect. Ansett lost their AOC. CASA routinely kills charter operators all the time but these are beneath Albaneses notice.


In the report, the review panel expressed concern about relations between the industry and the regulator. It said this:
In recent years, the regulator has adopted an across the board hard-line philosophy, which in the Panel’s view, is not appropriate for an advanced aviation nation such as Australia. As a result, relationships between industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have, in many cases, become adversarial.
It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.


Why "particularly in Aviation?

The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly.

So we are "naughty children" who know nothing? Might the light aircraft accident rate have something to do with the fact that there are a lot of them?


If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.

The public rate the probability of an accident event proportional to the ease with which it can be imagined, not the actual probability. Albanese is similarly ignorant. How many cars run into houses and pedestrians? Lots. AIrcraft? The last on ground fatality caused by an aircraft that I can remember was in 1978, this one:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24632/197802547.pdf


I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder.

So preventing aviation is Albaneses preferred method of regulation of the industry, not a word about the positive effects of aviation on jobs, investment and growth.

No wonder this country is in a mess.

Kharon
6th Dec 2014, 21:18
Just to add insult to injury; the current minuscule has let the opposition steal the high ground; politically exposing Abbott to more ridicule and censure. Truss had Albo by the 'ackers and then just stood there, letting him wriggle away. That gives the potential leader of the opposition a bag full of free kicks; particularly as Truss has done bugger all of consequence, and even that pittance, so begrudgingly doled out, so late as to make the industry despair. Mrdak has much to answer for; fat chance he'll ever be forced to carry the can. Not while the scapegoat paddock is brimming with fresh, juicy morsels; there's even some old weathers laying about to use up, before he needs to look to the new stock.

Albo hates aeroplane noise – he's bound by his voters to do so. And he's good at it.

SIUYA
6th Dec 2014, 22:41
Karon, to add more insult to the injury...

Australian nominated for ICAO Secretary General

Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development...

The appointment seems to demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever the contempt held by the leadership of the Department of the Australian aviation industry in general if it's prepared to make that nomination, particularly after all that's transpired with regard to the disgraceful events surrounding the PEL AIR investigation 'debacle', and especially after the concerns expressed by the Senate Inquiry regarding the involvement of the former DAS.

The mind boggles. :mad:

Frank Arouet
6th Dec 2014, 23:56
Who is the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development?


This bloke perhaps?


https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/about/secretary.aspx

thorn bird
7th Dec 2014, 05:12
Jeez frank, can the Murky Macavellian, get any murkier??..no doubt about it the consummate "Sir Humphry".

No wonder the country is in the state its in.
Public servants?....servants of the public??...self serving...now we are getting closer to the truth.

Classic commentary in the weekend Australian about how big business collude with the unions to inflate costs of public projects by acquiescing to thuggish illegal union demands. Increased costs equals increased profits. Who pays? the poor old taxpayer, anything up the 35% more for given projects.

Where are the Pollies and their Sir Humphries in all this? I always imagined they were the ones supposedly sworn uphold the rule of law??
Silly naïve boy, they are Plotting and Manipulating to protect their campaign contributions and bonuses, bugger the taxpayer.

Sunny

The Macavellian Manipulator's previous Mindee...what a piece of work....then again aint they all.

I'm of the opinion, which seems to be shared by an awful lot of people that the number of "Honest" politicians in our current parliament you could probably count on the fingers of one hand, and you certainly don't rise to the position of a senior bureaucrat by being an honorable person.

What has happened to our democracy??, we'd be better off letting the Mafia run the country.

"When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed."

Bull..sh.t! what was courageous about shutting down a small overseas controlled airline in the big scheme of things?

Except costing Singapore Inc 35 Mil or so. Rumour had it they were on the way down here with a bunch of lawyers to have CAsA on.
Wiser heads prevailed because it was easier to get their their money back by screwing QANTAS and Sh.t Star.
Asians do not like being stiffed, especially Singaporeans, there will always be an accounting.

"I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry;"

Tell you what you supercilious buffoon, I'd be happy to respect CAsA when they respect the industry. Respect is EARNED!

"They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe."

And if you had the faintest idea on anything to do with aviation you'd know that whole statement is the reverse of reality.

"Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals."

If that upsets you, move. Airports are for the public good, not playthings for dirt bags.

"But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly."

Finally agreement on something.

Same goes for those bloody trucks cluttering up the highways.

Oh! and dont get me started on those pesky private drivers, crashing all over the place because its too expensive to fly, which is not safe anyway.

Trouble is, conclusively, CAsA have failed with their BIG R Philosophy, incompetence and maleficence to have the slightest affect on safety.

Safety in Australia has not improved one iota. Unlike the USA, who have an entirely different approach.

But I guess you would be heartened that CAsA's incompetence has brought the industry to its knees

Wont affect the number of aircraft flying over your house unfortunately, however most of them will be foreign.

What you should do is move to Bankstown or Archerfield or Moorrabin, wont be long before all you can complain about is the noise from the industrial estates.

Creampuff
7th Dec 2014, 06:40
Additionally CASA plays a key role in developing new regulations and amending existing regulations to take account of industry changes, emerging safety issues and meeting international standards and practices.This is the chronic structural problem in aviation regulation. I will try to explain the problem by analogy.

Imagine that the police are made responsible for the road toll and are given power to set the speed limit and the criteria to obtain a driver's licence, a car mechanic's licence and a roadworthy certificate. And the police get to charge money for the "service" of getting the necessary licences and certificates.

The police also have the power to revoke those licences and certificates.

However, the police do not have the expertise or the budget or the power to repair roads, build better roads or divided highways, install traffic lights or roundabouts etc.

(We could add to this (purely hypothetical) scenario some (purely hypothetical) trucking empires with influence in high places.)

In this scenario, what would we expect the police to do in response to road accidents? Simple really: Reduce the speed limit and make the criteria for obtaining a licence more stringent. Local councils not repairing the roads or the traffic lights, resulting in more accidents? Simple: Reduce the speed limit and make the criteria for obtaining a licence more stringent - lots more interactions with the regulator ($$ to the 'regulator') and lots more regulatory micro-management ($$ to the 'regulator'). Beef up the construction standards and inspection regimes of vehicles ($$ to the 'regulator'). All in the name of 'road safety'.

Note that the police don't do any analysis to find out the overall cost to society of all these responses, and whether the cost of, for example, repairing the pot holes and fixing the traffic lights, or building a dual, divided highway to replace the old road, is far outweighed by the benefit of having roads that can be used more efficiently by more people. That's not the job of the police.

This is precisely the place in which CASA has been put by successive governments. The current example, par exellance, is CASA's response to the Angel Flight accident, which is merely a subset of the classification of operations mess that has been dragging on for decades.

What would we expect CASA to do in response to Angel Flight accident? Simple really: Set increasingly higher standards for Angel Flights.

The fundamental structural problem is that CASA does not - because it cannot - weigh up all of the opportunity costs of setting standards. In the case of Angel Flights, for example, setting higher standards will reduce the number of pilots and aircraft that would otherwise have carried out thousands of Angel Flights without accident or incident. What is the cost of that to the community? CASA does not know and, more importantly, CASA doesn't care, because if some of those people die of their condition or in a road accident, that's not something for which CASA is responsible.

This is one of the many costs of the 'deal' done between governments and CASA. If CASA is going to be the patsy for anything that goes wrong in aviation, governments have to have plausible deniability of control over the 'independent' regulator. That's why Laborial Senators wave rhetorical fists rather than vote to make real changes to aviation-related legislation, and Ministers sing the praises of and reward whovever is prepared to be the chief patsy from time-to-time.

Sunfish
7th Dec 2014, 18:09
Brilliant analogy Creampuff!

thorn bird
7th Dec 2014, 19:14
Perfect Creamie, thank you:D:D

Kharon
7th Dec 2014, 20:13
First class – Creampuff, Bravo and thank you. The Tim Tams are in the big tin on the top shelf along side the very best of posts..:D..:ok:

Speaking of Patsy - have the unforgivable delays in report release and government response been induced by the 'department'. It's rumoured to be, all in an attempt to get the McComic boots under the ICAO table without the world realising just what they are having tea and biscuits with. At least one director of the FAA knows, but is he aware that the next McComic pantomime, starring Patsy is opening in Montreal...:suspect:

Sarcs
7th Dec 2014, 21:04
Yes indeed top post Creamy...:ok: Maybe should be FWD to the NXT party for consideration: Nick Xenophon to launch new party, hopes to press reset on politics (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/nick-xenophon-to-launch-new-party-hopes-to-press-reset-on-politics-20141207-121zd8.html)

Perhaps between you and KC (& the AMROBA Band) you could draft up an Act amendment for an NX private members bill, as you appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet:
2015—Don’t Expect Changes in GA
The economic and political environment that we are in will prevent the reforms that are highlighted in the ASRR recommendations being properly implemented.
At last, the CASA Board has been announced thus meeting another point of the government’s aviation policy.
The government has also endorsed most of the ASRR recommendations.
However, the Federal government is being very conservative in making decisions, especially now elections and polls are working against them.
It is recognised by all participants in aviation that aviation is over-regulated even when compared to Europe.
GA is way over-regulated when compared to America, NZ and the ICAO SARPs.
Until regulatory imposed costs have been drastically reduced to enable young people to obtain pilot licences, then GA will languish. There are other costs associated with all training that needs to be contained.
Today, commercial jobs in GA for young pilots are few and far between. Private use of aircraft is too costly.
The private use of non-transport aircraft is declining but controlling ‘gophers’ are doing what their leaders direct which is not in the best interest of a safe and viable GA industry. Safe but no one is flying.
Since the beginning of the CAA/CASA era, post the Department moving from Melbourne, GA has become more regulated and increasingly hit with more and more costs.
Until government reviews the Civil Aviation Act, CASA will continue to have the same approach as now.
9A Performance of functions
(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA
must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important
consideration.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), CASA must exercise its powers
and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as
far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(b) the effects associated with the operation and use of
aircraft.
And, the main object of the Act makes participants wonder whether their survival & jobs are ever considered.
3A Main object of this Act
The main object of this Act is to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.
With that anchor around your neck, the new CASA Board and DAS Skidmore are fairly restricted.
Change must come eventually but when? Next election?
Basically, the view of Parliament is that a regulatory framework that prevents aviation accidents, incidents and making no effect on the environment is the main reason for developing aviation regulations.
Until we have a Parliament that has a priority to develop Australian jobs and de-regulate GA to the same level as the ICAO SARPs, USA and even NZ, then sensible, workable regulatory reforms will not happen.
The ASRR Report, prepared by a Canadian, Englishman and an Australian, after consultation, gives some hope.
The foundations for job growth in general aviation and charter sectors is about enabling those that hold licences, delegations or authorisations issued by CASA to hold the same responsibilities as they hold in the USA FAR system.
To enable the creation of jobs, it is pressing that Australia’s future [aviation/aerospace] regulatory system must be completed within 2 years based on ASRR principles; using performance-based regulations (PBR), supported by all aviation safety compliance requirements documented in regulations/standards that receive Parliamentary scrutiny. That is, a return to “rule-of-law” principles.
Another reason that 2015 will not see any changes is that there is still no Ministerial Strategic Direction yet written to the CASA Board and CASA itself.
There are many jobs that can be created, especially in regional Australia, not only directly in aviation but in other associated activities, if the government’s strategic direction includes the ASRR & red tape reduction program.
The Minister’s strategic direction must require Australia & New Zealand to have common Australasian aviation standards, to enable better trade within a single aviation market. New Zealand aviation regulatory development is years ahead of Australia’s regulatory development.
Immediate adoption of the FAA system for GA, in a like manner as has been done in New Zealand, will see investment in GA because of long term certainty.
The longer government, government departments & its agencies procrastinates over aviation the longer it will be before positive action is taken to stabilise rural Australia.
A positive is the Department sets policy, Board will direct CASA, Government supports most of the ASRR Report.
However, a badly structured Civil Aviation Act is still fundamentally what is wrong with the current system.
{Reference: AMROBA Newsletter Vol11/issue12 (http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%2012.pub.pdf)}

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird
7th Dec 2014, 22:40
:D:DAMROBA pretty much nail it again.

As things are, if the government withdrew VETS, foreign flying training would desert Australia as fast as a fart in a thunderstorm, and whats left?

A pitiful band of old farts, with decrepid old machinery, clinging by their finger nails waiting for the inevitable.

Going broke before they are picked off by CAsA.

Rumor has it that one of those old farts, a highly respected one, was recently picked off by the "Black widow", handmaiden of the infamous Wodger the Wabbit. Wonder what the old fart did to piss Wodger off? or was it payback.

dubbleyew eight
8th Dec 2014, 06:35
it always amazes me that the technology of aviation is so utterly reliable.
use the air at speeds faster than freeway driving and it performs admirably as a useable fluid.
the reactions are understood and can be accurately predicted.
machine can be built in a myriad of materials that manipulate the air reliably.

however it is a technology that isn't obvious.

what amazes me in Australia is that people who have no knowledge at all can set themselves up to control something that they have no understanding of.
they are even seen as competent airing policy that is nothing but unfounded fear.
it beggars belief that the entire system of aviation regulation is controlled by people who have no competent understanding of any of it.

the system of control we have in this country is one of the very reasons we have accidents.
if I can manage years of accident free flying over the 42 years since I started then any one can.
pity is that they have to do it illegally because the regulations don't work.
they have actually never worked but being unenforced no one noticed.

australia you take the cake for utter stupidity in government.

Soteria
8th Dec 2014, 12:18
Australian nominated for ICAO Secretary General

Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development...
Ive been trying to tell everyone this for 2 months, but nobody would listen. Y'all thought I had been chewing beetlenut and smoking Kharon's bloody elephant pooh (dried out of course). So this is a tricky one, the wily old Skull actually has quite a high I.Q, smart bloke. The downside is his vile temper and inability to feel empathy for human beings. Although that complete **** Albo thinks Herr Skull is the best thing in aviation since the universe was created (or just appeared, whichever theory floats your boat), those of us who don't have our toenails hanging out of a Prime Ministers (or former Prime Ministers) anus know that the stoogie muncher set Australian aviation back a good 5 years. That's the reality. God help aviation worldwide if 'he who hates tautological rubbish' receives an anointing at the Montreal star chamber. Oh dear......

halfmanhalfbiscuit
8th Dec 2014, 16:47
So who will be next for an icao audit?

a) Canada

b) Australia.

thorn bird
8th Dec 2014, 19:36
Soteria,

"God help aviation worldwide if 'he who hates tautological rubbish' receives an anointing at the Montreal star chamber. Oh dear......"

Fortunately ICAO, much like the UN, is or has become a bit of a toothless tiger. Actually it might be a good place to put the screamer. He'd be in an environment where his ego would be continually stroked and his ability to damage aviation any further would be minimal.

The FAA, as I understand it, have already witnessed the Skull is full out of control screaming rage mode.

I'd love to have witnessed one of those.

A very senior FAA person did and described it as awesome.

I also understand the FAA provides a quite large slice of ICAO's funding.
The Skull may have to enroll in Anger Management classes because I doubt the USA will put up with his Jeckle and Hyde antics and they are well aware of the regulatory debacle he inflicted on Australia

"that the stoogie muncher set Australian aviation back a good 5 years".

A good bit father than that I fear.

General aviation in Australia is on its last gasp. Flying training is probably all that's left and only then with government subsidy which could be pulled at any time. I just cannot see foreign students coming here, unless they are looking for a passport rather than a pilots license.

Our costs are about to skyrocket thanks to part 61 and its associated gobbledygook, much like the death of our manufacturing industry, we are regulating ourselves out of business.

The airlines will fare little better. I suspect the limit has been reached where regulatory costs can just be added to the ticket price without affecting yield.

All the parasite industries that have sprung up that suck the life out of airlines are doing very well, but their host I'm afraid is starting to falter.

The airline industry I fear, is slowly morphing back to the two airline days, seat prices are rising and I think the punters are doing their sums and moving back to their cars.

Over regulation has become the biggest enemy of aviation in Australia and McComic presided over the implementation of the worst of it.

Sunnies post on Albo's speech illustrates just how ill informed the politicians are and how much they care.

Sarcs
8th Dec 2014, 23:54
First from Hitch...:D: Industry reacts to Forsyth Response (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/industry-reacts-to-forsyth-response) Some parts of which are repeats of industry identities commentary on the Govt response. However Hitch did get this from KC (& the AMROBA Band..;)):
Ken Cannane from the Aircraft Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) approached the response cautiously, offering a more tempered analysis.

"After closely studying the response, AMROBA supports what government proposes to do but are concerned that this political response is similar to past governments’ responses to the numerous aviation reviews and enquiries during the past 30 years.

"The government has placed ineffable trust in the CASA Board and CASA DAS Skidmore to take actions as directed by a new Minister’s 'Statement of Expectations'.

"Other recommendations have been left for CASA to consider. Our members are, were and will be looking for more permanent long term solutions that, in AMROBA’s opinion, can only be properly and permanently implemented if the Civil Aviation Act is amended to provide legislative support to many of the changes proposed in the ASRR Report.
"Without a commitment to permanent changes being included in the Civil Aviation Act, our members do not see the cycle of continual aviation reviews and enquiries stopping.

"Notwithstanding, AMROBA is fully committed, as we have done in the past, to working collaboratively with government and CASA to adopt and implement the endorsed recommendations of the ASRR report. In addition, we support the time table for regulatory change contained in the Report so jobs can be created, especially in general aviation." Next is Phelan with this headline...:D:D - Go easy on the euphoria (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/12/08/go-easy-on-the-euphoria/)


Input from general aviation identities isn’t exactly brimming with relief at the government’s response to the ASRR Panel’s detailed study and recommendations – and it’s easy to understand why. Here’s a comment from veteran airport, charter and training operator Sandy Reith, who no longer operates an aviation business and has no personal axe to grind.

Sandy is down to just one private aeroplane (although a remarkable one to be sure) but still cares about what is and what is not happening.

http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Wren-1.jpg (http://proaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Wren-1.jpg)

The letter was originally from Sandy to former AOPA Chair Phillip Reiss in response to Phillip’s circular to AOPA members, and was also widely circulated to interested parties including the media. It reminds us that a great deal more needs to happen before all that mistrust can be expected to start dissolving.

Phillip,
I am sure that we are all gratified that at least, and at last, General Aviation industry ills have gained some recognition. Unfortunately the mooted remedies will fade away, whiteanted, delayed and ultimately lost from memory except for the few of us who have watched with dismay the destruction of what should be a vibrant and useful Australian industry. Younger GA participants could not imagine the dynamic growth of GA in the thirty years to, say, 1990.

The government’s response is full of ‘maybes’, ‘lots of work to assess’, ‘if resources can be found’, ‘may take some time’, ‘must check with ICAO’, ‘new board and CEO need to formulate strategies’ etc etc ad nauseam. Take as an example the agreement to consider the ASIC problem, the report finishes talking about just a possible change but in reality keeping this card. Thus the ‘agree in principle’ CASA modus operandi is writ large throughout the document. Soft soap from the experts.

Not a word about deleting the requirement for an AIr Operator Certificate for flying training, mentioned for further consideration by the Panel but not given as a recommendation. This would be probably the only measure that could quickly reinvigorate training. Flying training is the first and most urgent segment of GA that needs to be unshackled from the exceptionally onerous and expensive AOC system. In the USA some 70% of pilots are trained by individual instructors. VH (ie. mainstream GA aircraft) flying schools are now the rarest of animals, even the Nation’s capital lost its last school four years ago. This is a National disgrace. Nearly 400,000 Canberrans, of the wealthiest demographic and most influential have no flying school. Airline pilots are now on the 457 visa list.

The new CEO has a command pyramid type background, and no ‘coal face’ GA business experience. Minister Truss did nothing to assist GA when he was the Minister in the Howard government. I took a deputation to Mr Truss regarding reform during that time. Instead of listening to our suggested growth plans, he cut short our (concise) presentation and defended the decline in VH registered GA as being balanced with the growth in RAAus below 600 kg category. The low weight category in present form is extremely poor policy, encouraging thousands of flyers into, in many cases, unsuitable light weight aircraft hard up against the thoroughly unrealistic gross weight limit of 600 kg. That is often the combination of two people, engine, propellor and fuel and oil leaving not much for an airframe fit for purpose.

Unless the Minister makes fairly specific directions and imposes time limits, then the CASA juggernaut will roll on. Can anyone really believe that the authoritarian and make work CASA system and culture will now be turned into an enlightened and helpful regulator? I fully agree with your concerns in this regard. If real reforms were carried out half the CASA staff would be redundant, they know this better than anyone. Most of their work could be tendered out for a fraction of present cost, NZ CAA would be a prime contender.

What is it now? Twenty five years, hundreds of $ millions and still they have not finished the rule re-write. The system is broken and the Board, without Ministerial Direction and backup, will be impotent.

With respect, there is actually no firm result and little hope of timely meaningful reform. Platitudes and window dressing is about all we really have, until and unless Parliament finds the willpower and demands action. This will not happen unless we achieve the sympathetic attention of Federal MP’s. I have suggested that AOPA run a petition, one measure that might gain publicity. I would appreciate an answer or acknowledgment of that email.

Regards,

Sandy Reith

ProAviation invites readers to contribute similar summaries on this issue, which we would propose to publish as opinion at the foot of this article. They should be restrained, factual, ASRR-relevant and free from vituperation, and we offer the option of identifying writers or not, according to their preference. Please address them to [email protected]
And while Proaviation was filing the above, some very ASRR – relevant comment arrived in a media release from Ken Cannane at AMROBA:

GOVERNMENT AVIATION RESPONSE IS OPEN-ENDED
The Aviation Maintenance Repair & Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) welcomes the government making public its response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) Report and the announcement of the remaining members of CASA’s Board.

The government has agreed to 20 of the 37 recommendations; agreed in-principle to eleven more, noted five and rejected one.

However, there is a real urgency today to move from words to outcomes for industry than at any time during the past three decades. Many of the non-airline sectors are basically in recession awaiting job creation opportunities.

After closely studying the response, AMROBA supports what government proposes to do but are concerned that this political response is similar to past governments’ responses to the numerous aviation reviews & enquiries during the past 30 years.

The government has placed ineffable trust in the CASA Board & CASA DAS Skidmore to take actions as directed by a new Minister’s “Statement of Expectations”.

Other recommendations have been left for CASA to consider. Our members are, were and will be looking for more permanent long term solutions that, in AMROBA’s opinion, can only be properly and permanently implemented if the Civil Aviation Act is amended to provide legislative support to many of the changes proposed in the ASRR Report.

Without a commitment to permanent changes being included in the Civil Aviation Act, our members do not see the cycle of continual aviation reviews and enquiries stopping.

Notwithstanding, AMROBA is fully committed, as we have done in the past, to working collaboratively with government and CASA to adopt and implement the endorsed recommendations of the ASRR report. In addition, we support the time table for regulatory change contained in the Report so jobs can be created, especially in general aviation.

Contact Person Ken Cannane, AMROBA

Phone: (02) 97592715; Mobile: 0408029329; Website: AMROBA - Safety all around | Australia's aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul industry (http://www.amroba.org.au) Hmm...PP is kind of leaving himself open there...:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
9th Dec 2014, 07:13
Unfortunately possums, the Ministers "Statement Of Expectations" of CASA will be written by Mr. Mrdak and CASA itself, thus neatly negating any possibility of reform.

I have it in my mind to talk to one or Two MP's and Senators I know plus One ex-PM if I can sufficiently distract him into being candid. My suspicion now is that private and general Aviation is equated with terrorism. We are to be killed off as "too dangerous".

CASAs solution to this is to regulate every aviation institution as if it were an airline thus giving effect to the "only airlines and RAAF" limitation on flying.

I come back again to the need for an Aviation enthusiasts political party targeting marginal Senate seats nothing else will get the politicians attention.

A Petition to Parliament?? Are you kidding? What a waste of time!

A more useful idea would be to develop a questionnaire on aviation and send it to every member of parliament and the Senate and every candidate in future.

To put that another way, the time for "sweet reason" is over. It ended with the governments lukewarm non-response to the review and the appointment of a superannuated doddering complaisant RAAF officer to preside over the next phase of our destruction.

To put that another way, fight or you are going to go under. Take lessons from the CFMEU.

For a start, if there were an industry association with any guts, call for a complete GA and recreational aviation boycott of the Avalon Exhibition next year .

Man the lifejackets
9th Dec 2014, 11:01
i know nothing abut aviation but judging by the present state - there will be no future - you cannot have people who are condemned by their peers running a successful circus.

And the problem for them is - the evidence is in and even a layman knows it

where are the incorruptible, the honest?

Kharon
9th Dec 2014, 19:52
Sarcs – "Hmm...PP is kind of leaving himself open there.

I think Paul is like many of us; and simply cannot comprehend why the indefensible, irrefutable, independently provided evidence is being treated as something nothing. The jury has returned a guilty verdict yet the culprits are still at large, fancy free and continuing their good works – all in the name of safety, you understand

Perhaps it's the 'new' law; commit any crime you like and toddle off, Scot free with a gold plated watch at the end of your shift. Those dragged up in front of ICAC must be breathing a sigh of relief, for no matter what you do, you're safe. Oh, sorry, it appears that only applies to a very select few of those who must be protected, lest the unpleasant truth of carefully concealed 'bigger' secrets are revealed. Sad and shameful, but there sits the evidence in full public view and no one will lift a finger or even break wind to sort out the unholy mess. What an indictment...:mad:.

Toot toot...

Frank Arouet
9th Dec 2014, 20:45
Labor Constituents have the option of voting for a plethora of alternative Party's if the mob offered up fail to meet their expectations. The Greens for example. Few will ever vote for the conservatives while there is an alternative who will probably give preferences to them anyway and their protest vote is heard.

LNP Constituents do not have that luxury. Time after time Pauline Hanson/ Palmer types crop up and amount to nothing in The House of Representatives. The Senators are mainly viewed as an impediment to progress and I believe this may be sorted out before the next elections which WILL be a DD for sure.


The Nationals will be having meetings in telephone box's shortly and they know it. They are in trouble in the bush and if it weren't for a couple of performers, and a couple of independent ex Nationals, people in the rural areas would be voiceless. They have been let down badly. Truss is a poor leader and a worse Deputy Prime Minister. Abbott could do better and I believe he knows it. GA needs rural representation.

It's worth the time to advise every National MP that you, if you are a Constituent, do not intend to vote for them or anyone who preferences them. A "donkey vote" is the same as giving Labor the vote so the threat has to be prove to us you are up to the job or we vote Labor. What you actually do is your business as it should be, but the threat must be believable. The list follows.

The Nationals > Our Team > The Nationals Parliamentary Team (http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/TheNationalsParliamentaryTeam.aspx)

Frank Arouet
9th Dec 2014, 20:55
The aviation industry has to lobby for a Minister for Aviation.


We don't have one now.

bilbert
10th Dec 2014, 02:59
Err,, how about "Aviation Enthusiasts Party" for the senate?

Sarcs
10th Dec 2014, 04:37
Bilbie - "Err,, how about "Aviation Enthusiasts Party" for the senate?"

How about joining Nick's mob...;)
It's time for politics, done differently.
Good Morning.
I wanted to personally write to you today to let you know about my plan (http://nickxenophongroup.createsend1.com/t/d-l-ydjriry-khtjukc-s/) to try and take federal politics in a new direction.
The last two weeks in Federal Parliament have been further proof of how toxic and gridlocked politics has become in our nation.
That's why I'm sticking my neck out to form the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), a new national political movement that will run candidates in every state and territory at the next federal election.
NXT is all about politics, done differently.
The major parties have turned politics into an ideological arms race.
NXT is not about left or right, it is about right or wrong.
You have been of invaluable help to me in the past. I couldn't have gotten across the line without you.
Now I need your help to be part of a new, national, common-sense approach to solving the challenges our country faces.
I would encourage you to be a part of this by becoming a founding supporter member of NXT.
If you have friends or family that may be interested in being part of this, please also let them know.
If they live interstate that’s even better, because the plan is to take NXT national.
This is our chance to build a team that will bring some balance, civility and common-sense back to Australian politics.
With best wishes


http://i1.createsend1.com/ei/d/44/31E/67D/csimport/NXBlackSigemailNewsletter_083956.073526.png



Become a founding member of NXT
When you become a founding supporter member of NXT you will be a part of a new, centrist, common-sense voice in Australian politics.
Your membership fee will help fund the day-to-day operation of NXT and ensure we have the resources to make a real difference.
You will also receive regular updates on key issues and have the opportunity to provide feedback on our policies and direction at member forums.

Annual membership fees are $50 per person, or $75 per couple. Concession holder fees are $25 per person, or $37.50 per couple.

And to thank you for your past support, we'll also extend your membership period for an extra 12 months, with our compliments.

To become a Supporter Member, click here. (http://nickxenophongroup.createsend1.com/t/d-l-ydjriry-khtjukc-g/)


And Nick's current feelings on the gov't response to the ASRR etc. - Aviation safety failure (http://www.nickxenophon.com.au/media/releases/show/aviation-safety-failure/) :D:D:

"...Senator Xenophon said the Government was yet to act on the findings of the Senate report, and criticised the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report, launched last November and completed in June, as “a missed opportunity for reform"...”

While on the rare subject of politics & aviation it would appear the Miniscule has briefly made an appearance back in Cantberra...:rolleyes::
New Aviation Industry Consultative Council takes flight

Media Release
WT257/2014
10 December 2014




Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has established the Aviation Industry Consultative Council—providing the aviation sector with a direct voice to the Minister and the Australian Government.

Chairing the first meeting in Canberra today, Mr Truss said the Council is dedicated to aviation matters and will be a valuable forum for discussion between the industry and Government.

“Aviation is central to the Australian economy—from domestic and international tourism, to business and work-related travel, family reunions and medical emergencies; so the Australian Government is committed to ensuring aviation's many voices are heard,” Mr Truss said.

“Our government has already initiated and responded to the landmark Aviation Safety Regulation Review, we have reformed the Qantas Sale Act, abolished the carbon tax on aviation fuel, revived the Enroute Charges Payment Scheme and ended half-a-century of dithering by locking-in Badgerys Creek as the site for a dedicated Western Sydney airport.

“But there is more to do in this ‘aero-space’ and we welcome ideas and insights from industry. The Council will act as an advisory body tackling high level strategic issues, but it is not a decision-making entity.

“The Council is made up of 18 members from across the aviation sector (see ‘Attachment A’ below), providing a broad range of perspectives, including representatives from airlines, airports, manufacturing, maintenance and flight training sectors.”

At today's inaugural Council meeting, members highlighted issues of concern to the industry, notably opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens, challenges in regional aviation, the need to revitalise the General Aviation Industry Action Agenda, aviation workforce skills and implementation of the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report.

These will be considered further as part of the future work program for the Council.
Mr Truss also introduced the newly appointed Director of Aviation Safety, Air Vice-Marshal (Ret'd) Mark Skidmore AM, to the Council. The Council will meet twice a year, or as required, and will complement other industry forums, not compete with them.
“I am pleased to be Chairing this new Aviation Industry Consultative Council and working side-by-side with industry to build a better future for Australian aviation,” Mr Truss said.

Attachment A
Aviation Industry Consultative Council membership

Mr Stephen Goodwin* - National Chairman - Australian Airports Association
Mr Jim Davis - Chairman - Regional Aviation Association of Australia
Mr Martin Laverty - CEO - Royal Flying Doctor Service
Mr Alan Joyce* - CEO - Qantas
Mr Michael Monck - President - Recreational Aircraft Australia
Mr John Borghetti* - CEO - Virgin Australia
Mr David Boundy - Chairman - Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia
Mr Mike Close - President - Air Sport Australia Confederation
Mr Barry Abrams - Executive Director - Board of Airline Representatives of Australia
Mr Ken Cannane - Executive Director - Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association
Mr Philip Reiss - Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
Mr Peter Pallot - CEO - Sunshine Coast Airport
Mr John Patterson - Executive Director - Australian Mayoral Aviation Council
Mr Tony Brand - Director - Horsham Aviation Services
Mr Pine Pienaar - CEO - Flight Training Adelaide
Mr Allan Brooks* - President - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
Ms Marj Davis OAM* - Immediate Past Pres. - Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia
Mr Darryl Taylor* - Managing Director - Tasmanian Helicopters

Not present at the first meeting. Mr Joyce, Mr Borghetti and Mr Goodwin nominated alternative representatives who took part in the meeting. While your there Miniscule how about putting Beaker out of his misery...:E

MTF...:ok:

Frank Arouet
10th Dec 2014, 05:49
UITA. It's probably gone over most heads the name of the Federal Treasurer of The nationals. Shouldn't say any more.


Sarcs. So we now have another acronym to memorize. (ICC). Groan! Maybe they'll recommend another inquiry or review, to review the review, before the recommendations of the last review gets implemented.


I wish Senator X well. unfortunately I'm too old and tired of it all now. I'm going sailing.

Sarcs
10th Dec 2014, 07:02
Sarcs. So we now have another acronym to memorize. (ICC). Groan! Actually it is AICC Frank but who cares about semantics...:E

Hitch has fired up this arvo 1st giving us a summary on the Miniscule missive - New Consultative Council meets in Canberra (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/new-consultative-council-meets-in-canberra) :D

But then Hitch dares to go - where other aviation journalists from the MSM dare not go - with an opinion piece on the Gov't response to the Forsyth Report:

A Perspective on the Forsyth Response (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/a-perspective-on-the-forsyth-report)

10 Dec 2014
by Steve Hitchen


Comment

When I first wrote the words "The Forsyth Report", it sounded scarily like the title to a Robert Ludlum novel. I imagined a Matt Damon-like hero running through the cobbled streets of an eastern European city whilst shadowy gunmen who look like Dolph Lundgren charge after him in black Mercedes saloons; their misson to stop him making the contents of the covert Forsyth Report known to benevolent power brokers high in the US government.

There might even be a late-night dash from Washington to Europe in a Legacy 500 or Citation X+ involved.

And for a while there, between June and December, it seemed like my little fantasy was not that far-fetched, provided you took away Damon and Lundgren. Although the Forsyth Report was made public in June, it was another six months or so before the government released their response. That was plenty of time for the aviation community's optimism to erode and fertilise the growth of conspiracy theories that had many filing the Forsyth Report away under the heading "Aviation White Paper".

Some people, such as me, were expecting a complete white-wash of the whole affair presented to parliament on the last sitting day of the year in a dump-and-run style, similar to a late Friday Show Cause Notice. In fact, although it was very late in the parliamentary year, the response was far from a white-wash, it was more like stripping off the paint to expose the true structure beneath.

The government's response recognises the truth in what aviation's town criers have been shouting for years: aviation regulation needs a overhaul badly to repair the damage of neglect and a corrosive attitude towards aviation. For the first time in many years, the government and the industry are at last on the same page, and work on the restoration can now begin in earnest.

So what is it in the Forsyth Response (a Ludlum sequel?) that gives us the confidence that CAVOK days lie ahead for aviation in Australia? It's not the full 37 recommendations, or that the government has agreed outright with 20 of them; for aviation to start healing, the government needed to agree to only seven. They are (in precis):

(6) CASA board to exercise full governance control
(14) CASA to change regulatory philosophy to build a relationship with industry
(17) CASA to publish and demonstrates a "just" culture
(18) CASA to reintroduce use of discretion
(24) CASA to provide full disclosure at audit exit briefings
(25) CASA to introduce graded Non-conformance Notices based on the level of seriousness of the offence
(26) CASA to ensure audit consistency.

It is the government's agreement to these seven recommendations (No.18 in-principle) that enables us to declare the entire review panel, report and response process and complete success for aviation. None of the others will have an impact on the aviation community as much as these seven will. Without agreement to these, the other 30 were a waste of printer's ink.
For it is these seven that together exhibit the basic concepts of fairness, transparency and respect that the aviation community longs for. All the other recommendations are will be nice if we can get them, but they are peripherals. Aviation needs these central seven in order for the Forsyth Report to have any meaning whatsoever. Think about it. If these recommendations were missing from the report when it was released in June, would we have hailed it heartily as we did?

But, I am perhaps putting aviation a bit further down the recovery road that it really is. The government has at this stage only agreed; it still has to implement. There are some industry commentators who are crying for changes to the Civil Aviation Act to force these reforms to be permanently enshrined so we don't have to keep reviewing, writing, rewriting and lobbying to ask for the same reforms year after year.

Of the "peripheral" recommendations, there are another eight that stand to make substantial improvements to aviation:

(8) CASA to adopt a code of values
(15) CASA to continue to indemnify delegates
(21) CASA to move to client-oriented outcomes
(28) CASA to establish risk-management hierarchy and base oversight on risk levels
(30) CASA to change to a three-tiered system of regulation, where the third tier is in plain English
(35) CASA to delegate DAMEs to issue medical certificates where the standard is met first time
(36) Government to change regulations so Aviation Security Identification cards are needed only for Security Restricted Areas.

In these recommendations we have day-to-day changes that stand to restore faith in CASA's ability to manage their own operations, and a recognition that they exist to service a community external to Aviation House. In sum, they tell us that CASA will recognise the impact of what they do on stakeholders.

Recommendation 30 got the loudest applause from me because it means regulations would be written so that we can all understand them, not just the CASA Office of Legal Services. The sting comes in the wording of the government's response, where it adds a little caveat that says "CASA ... will continue to ensure new regulations and instruments adhere to Commonwealth legal drafting practices ...". It is these very practices that the industry has trouble with! Scratch that recommendation.

Let's face it: 35 and 36 are really no-brainers, but despite persistant lobbying we've failed to get either. The DAME medical is particularly galling because two preceeding CASA bosses, Bruce Byron and John McCormick, both promised to make this happen, and yet in neither case did it happen. How was this possible that person at the top could not force change on their own organisation? Having the DAME medical as a Forsyth recommendation does not etch it on a tablet; there is clearly resistance from within.

The odd one out is recommendation 36. ASICs have nothing to do with safety or CASA. ASICs are demanded by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and are a security issue. However, the ASRR panel clearly had so many submissions during their inquiry that it became impossible for them to ignore it. Getting this up would be a huge win for aviation, but the chances are not good; it has to overcome the inherent resistance in goverment to relaxing security measures of any nature.

It is also true to say that all of the recommendations are going to meet resistance on sme level. The first challenge, that of getting official recognition that reform is needed, has been met, but the path to change goes through a gauntlet of hardened bureaucrats determined to alter the reform recipe into something that they believe the aviation community should just shut up and swallow.

For the ASRR to realise its raison d'etre in full, it needs the government, the new broom in CASA and the aviation community as a whole need to get just as hard-headed as the bureaucrats and insist, insist, insist.

The driving force behind this insistence may be the new Aviation Industry Consultative Council that met in Canberra for the first time this week. With representatives from all sectors of aviation, including GA, the AICC may be the last tumbler in the combination that is needed to crack open a new future for the aviation industry. Well done Hitch hats off for you...:D:D;)

MTF...:ok:

Creampuff
10th Dec 2014, 09:12
Mr Hitchen is probably a very nice person with very good intentions, but he has, like so many commentators on aviation regulation, no clue on the subject. He lost me here:(6) CASA board to exercise full governance controlI do take my hat off to successive governments at the masterful way in which they've scammed punters into believing that the CASA board makes a difference. However, I have difficulty in accepting that anyone who presumes to claim a modicum of knowledge or understanding of the recent (two decades or so) history of aviation regulation or the role of the CASA board can reasonably believe that the CASA board has made and will make a difference.

But I'm always prepared to stand corrected. Can anyone walk me through what s/he considers the CASA Board will do to change things?

An example: A CASA delegate has decided that pilots with CVD who can't pass either of the two prescribed colour vision tests, or the CAD test, are not allowed to have a particlar kind of medical certificate.

What do people think the CASA Board can do about that decision?

What, precisely?

I'm not interested in waffly Jeff-Boyd-and-Chuck-Yeager-on-the-Board-will-save-the-world-of-aviation crap (despite the fact that others, like me, may have enormous respect for both.)

Tell me what the Board does, in fact, step-by-step, to change the decision.

Soteria
10th Dec 2014, 11:13
Creamy = :D:D:D
Exactly as I expected, not one response to Creampuff's challenge!! The CASA Board to date, has and will always, do sweet FA. Their role is solely to add another layer of protection to the Miniscules protective garrison to ensure neither he, nor his boss of the day the PM, are tarnished by some rogue aviation zealot armed with an SMS manual and a pilots licence shouting out some ritualistic fundamentalist safety prayer! Heaven forbid!
No, the Board are always people who have earned a reward for some good deed they have done for a bureaucratic mate, somewhere. They are people who like to earn 6 figures for one months work per year, and usually they sit on around 3 or 4 different Boards. So you be the judge as to what their main concerns are. The trough dwelling cardboard statue like Board members that have traditionally graced CASA's hallways are about as useful as a bad case of thrush.

Creampuff, you are very naughty setting a challenge that simply can't be met. Something a little easier next time, please?

Sunfish
10th Dec 2014, 18:34
I note that the President of the SAAA is the only name missing from the consultative council. That means that Experimental is the next group to get the chop after CASA has finished digesting Jabiru and the RAA.

However the idea of "consulting" with CASA is like the Lamb "consulting" the wolf.

Kharon
10th Dec 2014, 18:49
'Twas a sombre start to BRB last evening: item first, Bill Whitworth (Whitworth Aviation) has had a close encounter of the unpleasant kind with a CASA FOI and failed his MECIR with all the associated trimmings. The number of IFR pilots Bill has trained and tested over a 40 (ish) year career must be in the many, many hundreds and I'd expect he would have struggled through some 50 or 60 ME IR 'proficiency' checks an equal number of Instructor rating renewals and a fair few revalidation of ATO delegations, not to mention Chief Pilot approvals etc. Seems this is of no value – whatsoever; a technical, contentious fail is all that's needed. Seems we have seen this stunt pulled before at Bankstown, by the same crew. There are now some fairly hefty scalps on the managers belt, a couple escaped but not without bending the knee and kissing some ass. Another great contribution to aviation safety made by the leading lights. Seems there is no satisfying the rapacious appetite for decimating the ranks of senior, experienced C&T pilots. No doubt the CASA spawned FTE will be taking over as they leave CASA, to "return to industry". A little more to follow on this outrageous episode, as they say.

- - - - - - - - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ - - -- - - - - - - - -

Lighter topics followed, the evening kicked off with a 'guest' speaker who has, literally, a back room piled with full document boxes, all related to secondary airports and the associated 'development' thereof, Bankstown being the focus. Now, I walked home scratching my head, for it was quite a story. In fact, I'm still trying to take it all in, which is why I thought it was worth a twiddle on Pprune. One thing was clear enough though, it would take ICAC (or similar) quite a while to untangle the 'corporate' side, which is murky and salted with tales of unpaid stamp duty and large sums of money slipping through the cracks. Too much for my un-corporate wooden head, but the solid logic and first class research impressed.

The part that intrigued me was the 'joining of the dots'. The picture I got was not one of 'conspiracy': being a follower of the duck up creed, the sceptic was to the fore, ready to decry the smallest chink or fluffy assumption. I'll leave it up to you, here are the salient details offered as a series of potted questions:-

(i) Where in the Sydney basin would be an ideal place for a large property development? The rider being, which council is developing 'river bank' areas as desirable life style projects.

(ii) Where in the Sydney basin is there a large open area suitable for development at a knock down price?

Clearly a no-brainer – Bankstown airport. Next came a curly question to which extensive research provided an answer.

(iii) Where has the most odious of CASA action against industry occurred?, the rider being which part of the aerodrome has been most affected?

Again, no-brainer; Bankstown, under Chambers has become a kill zone, 3:1 the ratio compared to the least mauled secondary airport.

(iv) Where have the most contentious brawls related to lease and rent agreements emanated? Same answer once again.

(v) Which airport has actually felt the weight of large trucks bearing fill and 'dozers to level it off. Same answer once again.

(vi) Who was responsible for 'tweeking' the rules to accommodate the sale of our secondary airports, who was running the sell off show and who has extensive influence within the infrastructure governing 'airports'. Well, it seems the Murky Machiavellian ticks all boxes.

I just don't know – it all makes sense in a weird way. I can see why the man flogging off the assets would finesse the rules to suit those who purchased the land with a view to development. I can even just about swallow a line that 'assistance' to reduce the number of movements and operations at airports to support a case for closing the now useless aerodromes was on offer. I can even manage the logic that CASA has been used to target Bankstown operators making life as miserable and difficult as possible. A five year plan is routine for this scale of operation, but to take over an airport by stealth, 'discourage' operators ,render it useless and build on it, well it's possible. The tail end of the 'briefing' listed the statutes, rules, regulations and tenets of decency which have been treated with contempt and manipulated, it is extensive.

Just dunno what to make of it all; it's a working hypothesis and certainly food for thought, but, has it got legs?.

Anyway: FWIW - Handing over....:confused:.

Don't shoot the messenger, I just thought it was worth airing the topic. BRB 50/50 spilt, dead even and no discussion afterwards. That, stand alone is remarkable, no doubt it will keep till next time.

Toot toot...:ok:

Frank Arouet
10th Dec 2014, 22:18
Why do I get an illuminating and disturbing image of names with commonality of association flashing in my mind?

tipsy2
10th Dec 2014, 22:41
Kharon, The history of Hoxton Park fits as well.

Tipsy

Sarcs
10th Dec 2014, 23:57
'Twas a sombre start to BRB last evening: item first, Bill Whitworth (Whitworth Aviation) has had a close encounter of the unpleasant kind with a CASA FOI and failed his MECIR with all the associated trimmings. Most disturbing indeed - I once had the upmost respect for that FOI in question,especially after completing and passing a MECIR renewal where I was hopelessly out of IFR currency and no extra funds to do a pre-test flight.

However now I have heard of at least two similar tales about this FOI & former ATO...:{ The first was probably one of the worst examples of FF pilot embuggerance that I have ever had cause to review - & that was before this FOI was coerced across to the dark side and into Wodger's warren...:=:= (i) Where in the Sydney basin would be an ideal place for a large property development? The rider being, which council is developing 'river bank' areas as desirable life style projects.

(ii) Where in the Sydney basin is there a large open area suitable for development at a knock down price?

Clearly a no-brainer – Bankstown airport. Next came a curly question to which extensive research provided an answer.

(iii) Where has the most odious of CASA action against industry occurred?, the rider being which part of the aerodrome has been most affected?

Again, no-brainer; Bankstown, under Chambers has become a kill zone, 3:1 the ratio compared to the least mauled secondary airport.

(iv) Where have the most contentious brawls related to lease and rent agreements emanated? Same answer once again.

(v) Which airport has actually felt the weight of large trucks bearing fill and 'dozers to level it off. Same answer once again.

(vi) Who was responsible for 'tweeking' the rules to accommodate the sale of our secondary airports, who was running the sell off show and who has extensive influence within the infrastructure governing 'airports'. Well, it seems the Murky Machiavellian ticks all boxes.
Hmm...wish I could have made it to the BRB I have vast volumes of information that could IMO have swung the consensus to at least 60/40 for M&M being the root of all evils for the woes of the IOS/MaM...:ugh:

Back at post #1550 (http://www.pprune.org/8756556-post1550.html) I highlighted a speech made by M&M at the recent AAA convention which was also belatedly reported on (regurgitated) by MMSM Steve - Mrdak stresses need to protect airspace from residential projects (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mrdak-stresses-need-to-protect-airspace-from-residential-projects/story-e6frg95x-1227137381906)
Infrastructure Department secretary Mike Mrdak was among those who emphasised the need to protect airspace around airports, describing it as one of the critical areas of future public policy.

“Having been through the experience of trying to get a new airport through, I think it’s very important that we as an industry talk a lot about why it’s so important to protect our existing assets,’’ he said.

“Safeguarding our airports from inappropriate development around them which will have the potential to constrain the growth of our airports, I
think, is a key fundamental planning area for reform in Australia.

“And this will become a more intense and difficult challenge as our major cities grow.’’

Mr Mrdak said that as aviation demand expanded and major cities doubled in size by the middle of the century, the issue of co-ordinated planning was assuming *increasing importance.

“It is very vital that airport planning take into account the *development around airports but also that airport planning be rigorously transparent,” he said.

“But just as important is that … planning by state and local *governments take account of airports, their role and value to the community.

“Developments around airports and under flight paths can constrain operations, either directly, where they conflict with the safety or airport operations, or indirectly where they lead to public pressure to change flight paths or impose on increasing restrictions on operations.’’

The infrastructure head said good planning was essential to protect the amenity of residents near airports,

He said every effort should be made to avoid placing residential developments in areas “which are or will be affected by significant noise’’, or at the very least making sure people understood clearly what they were dealing with when an airport introduced changes.

He recognised this was a challenge for state and local planners trying to maximise land use their own jurisdictions.

“But as we know, if we don’t protect our long-term assets, then we aren’t going to meet our growth challenge.’’ However - as he has done many times in the past - that speech was carefully crafted so that there was never any mention of major city Secondary Airports; nor does he mention any consultation with the tenants or users of these airports...:ugh::
Mr Mrdak said proscribed airspace was defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and any building penetrating it *required commonwealth regulatory approval informed by advice from CASA, Airservices and the industry.

“If our advice is that if the construction activity will reduce safety or efficiency for an airport, we cannot and will not approve it,’’ he said.
“I’m afraid it’s going to be that simple and we have to be much more determined on our position on these matters.

“And I know this is becoming a much more resource-intensive task for our major airport operators and it can be an unwelcome distraction, but if we don’t protect that airspace now, we will in the long term come to rue our failure to do so.

“I think it’s one of the most important tasks government and the industry must work on together.’’

The closest thing so far is a National Airports Safeguarding Framework set up in 2012 to protect airspace near airports.

The infrastructure secretary said there had been some progress with the framework, which now included guidelines for planners on particular issues such as aircraft noise, hazards, wildlife strikes, lighting distractions and windshear.

“There are further guidelines under development but implementation, unfortunately, remains patchy across jurisdictions,’’ Fascinating that certain parts of the M&M pretty much parroted statements he made back in 2011 (yes over three years ago..:rolleyes:) at the Sup Estimates:
Mr Mrdak: This is an area of growing concern for us, as the department acknowledged before the dinner break. Mr Russell, Mr McCormick and I, as the aviation policy group, which is the CEOs of the aviation agencies, have discussed this issue at length. We have recognised the need to improve the processes involved in judging and advising. Also in relation to the point you raised, to some degree the aviation industry has worked hard to accommodate in the past some of these breaches of services. I think we have reached the point where we believe we can no longer do that. Hence there is some work happening at the moment where we have established a group of officers from our respective departments and agencies which is now working on a much more robust approach to, firstly, identifying potential breaches. As you know there are regulations under the Airports Act which provide for protection of prescribed airspace. How do we better identify those, how do we ensure that local and state governments are aware of it and how do we as the agencies get together much more effectively to make sure that those breaches of the services are no longer accommodated in the way that they have been?
This was in response to a Senator Fawcett line of inquiry, this was also the 1st appearance by DF and officially announced the new Senator's keen interest in all things aeronautical - starting with Aviation & Airports:
Senator FAWCETT: I want to confirm whether the department still acts on behalf of the Commonwealth in leases of airports?

Mr Mrdak: Yes.

Senator FAWCETT: Section 9.2 of the lease talks about maintenance of runways and pavements:

The lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for safe access by air transport to a standard no less than the standard at the commencement of the lease.

Why then at Bankstown Airport has the airport operator ripped up the cross-runway, which is the only north-south runway available to light operators in the area, closed taxiways, reduced the number of runways by nearly three-quarters and moved the purpose-built compass wing area to a part of the tarmac that has ferrous material in it, which makes it not suitable, and also reduced significantly the area available for rotary wing training operations by moving it from the south to the north side of the runways?

Mr Doherty: The decommissioning of the cross-runway at Bankstown occurred in March 2005. It was identified in the master plan as a change of the layout of the aeronautics and that is provided for in the Airports Act. The new master plan was approved in 2005, so that was the basis for the action that then followed.

Senator FAWCETT: The changes were also opposed by operators at the airfield and MOPS 139 requires operators be consulted. Also with the cross-runway, particularly where there is ab initio training involved which there is—in fact the minister just in the last 12 months has reported the number of training operations at Bankstown is increasing—means the useability factor for a runway and cross-wing operations in particular should be 99.5 per cent. Was it actually established prior to that plan being approved and were the opinions of the users taken into account? The users certainly still believe that whilst they put forward contrary positions they were not considered nor in fact available publicly to see who opposed it.

Mr Doherty: I can only speak broadly. I understand that there were submissions from two of the tenants at the time which were taken into account and, I think before the decision was made, advice was sought from both CASA and Airservices. The essential advice was that the cross-runway was used very rarely, that it was inappropriate to use it while the main parallel runway system was in operation and the requirement to use the cross-runway occurred on maybe a couple of days a year for part of a day, so it was used to a very small extent, and there was no objection raised from CASA on safety grounds.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, how often do you use the airbags or seatbelts in your car?

Mr Doherty: I use the seatbelts all the time.

Senator FAWCETT: To prevent injuries in an accident. How often are they required?

Senator Carr: It is a bit unfair to put it to these officers. A decision
was made and signed off, as I understand, by Minister Anderson at the time of the previous government. It really is a bit difficult to pursue the matter with officers some years later.

Senator FAWCETT: Minister, my point is that the process in terms of transparency around the relationship between the department, regardless of the flavour of government, and the aviation operators is not effective in terms of actually preserving the utility of airports for their primary purpose which is aviation. To quote the current minister: 'Nothing, I repeat, nothing is as important in aviation as safety.' I have no further questions.
Oh there is so much more in the Sup Estimates Hansard (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/commttee/s379.ashx) of 2011 - that supports the BRB hypothesis - but in the interests of not drifting I think this subject would be better discussed on the Senate thread...:E

MTF...:ok:

Ps The worst thing in regards to the Whitworth Aviation embuggerance is that it is further proof that Wodger and his cronies are still at it - & obviously feel that the M&M campaign of GA decimation is alive & well...:{

Pps Feedback on yesterday's festivities in Cantberra reveals a disturbing suspicion that there are signs that GB is being wooed across to the dark side and the Miniscule (with GB support) is advising that the AICC members should knock off for Xmas i.e. standby and wait...well I say bollocks to that...:E

thorn bird
11th Dec 2014, 06:36
Sarcs old mate, "that" particular FOI has the nickname "The black widow" since she departed the "Industry" and was swallowed up by the dark lord.

She is now a handmaiden of the Bankstown ex RAAF baggage handler, AKA Wodger Wabbit, the dark Lord, acolyte of the Screaming Skull.

One thing is immediately apparent.

Older folk, especially those with ATO privileges, or involved in check and training are being targeted by Wodger Wabbit, and should protect themselves.

They would be well advised to have their lawyer present during any encounter with the black widow, or at least have a reliable witness present, she cannot be trusted, like a black widow spider she will eat you alive.

Perhaps the best thing would be to record the whole process so it can be peer reviewed. Always keep in your mind, CAsA cannot be trusted, there is no probity involved with CAsA, the system is corrupt.

Kharon's suggestion of a conspiracy to clean out the Southern, South Western side of Bankstown by shutting down the operators there certainly has a ring of truth given the stats. The Wodger Wabbit wrecking ball continues its rampage unabated.

Who's next??

Sarcs
11th Dec 2014, 06:42
Aviation shake-up to 'reverse toxic relationship' (http://www.cqnews.com.au/news/aviation-shake-up-to-reverse-toxic-relationship/2480740/)
THE Commonwealth Government's planned shake-up of aviation safety regulations has been welcomed by the chief of regional airline Rex as an opportunity to "reverse the toxic relationship" between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the industry.

Neville Howell said airlines would hold the Federal Government to its word on implementing the changes without undue delay and hoped it would "move much faster than it has done in selecting the new CASA board members and CEO".

"Rex is pleased to see that the government has accepted 32 recommendations and has committed to further reviewing another four. Industry has suffered for far too long and we are happy to see the Abbott government taking firm action on this critical issue," he said.

"We note that the government has only agreed in principle with some key recommendations and we urge them to fulfil the full intent of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report recommendations and not just pay lip service."

Among the recommendations was the reformation of CASA amid widespread concerns its current approach has resulted in the aviation industry actively avoiding engaging in contact with the body, commercial law firm Ashurst has stated in an industry alert.

The review also found CASA should delegate responsibility for day-to-day operational management to Airservices Australia, and change its regulatory philosophy to build a better relationship with airline operators.

"The government has been in office now for more than a year during which time the industry has been waiting for decisive action from the Minister," Mr Howell said.

"We do not have any more time to waste before the next election comes around again."

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said the implementation of the recommendations would help build a more vibrant and co-operative industry.

"Active engagement between industry and aviation agencies will help inform future regulatory priorities and the development of simpler regulations, standards and orders," he said.
Pity Nifty Howell wasn't present at yesterday's inaugural AICC love-in, reckon he would have livened up the conversation. And I don't
reckon he would have been talking about knocking off for Xmas...:ugh:

Hopefully RAAA's Jim Davis relayed Nifty's message to the apparently mute and dozy man at the back of the room Skidmore...:E

MTF...:ok:

Sunfish
11th Dec 2014, 18:54
Watch what happens to jabiru, they will be forced to close permanently at Christmas,

robsrich
11th Dec 2014, 18:55
AICC members - AHIA Missing in Action?

At present the Australian Helicopter Industry Association consists of more than 90 company members (one third of helicopter AOCs) and over one hundred individual members, plus links to HAI and other international associations; including NZ.

For more than a year or so the AHIA has had a CASA LO (Dale South) appointed from Standards to assists our various volunteer working groups; and AHIA has invited CASA to AHIA trade shows to form face to face panels to accelerate the reviews of legalisation. At the next Avalon Airshow AHIA is sponsoring conference hall space on 26 Feb '15 to host CASA (and also Air Service) teams to continue efforts in getting feedback running between the regulators and guys trying to make a buck!

AHIA volunteers are working with the TAAAF; SCC and other government committees. In particular the National Skills Councils tasked with rewriting engineering and aircrew training legislation - which CASA has to follow; but has not at this time; subject to interdepartmental tensions. That is why an RTO has to have two sets of operational documents - one for CASA and one for skills councils. (We are talking thousands of pages here).

Why bother? No RTO approval - no foreign students; or advanced training courses if required under various contracts.

The RW fleet makes up 14% of the register and 30% of the AOC list. And 25% of all GA accidents - a fact they are not proud of).

And AHIA has been advised by HAI members Australia is now second in numbers of registered helicopters in the Western World!

But the questions is - now they have such a large membership, a CASA LO and such good attendance at CASA talk fests and working groups doing excellent work; and ongoing work with the future Air Transport changes – why ignore the AHIA?

And a final gripe. The CASA Annual Report ending 30 June 2014 confirmed over the past decades CASA RW registrations grew at an average annual rate of 6 to 8%. Always at least twice the GDP growth, It was really good news for investors and industry workers.

But with the current uncertainties associated with the paralysis of the Government - CASA - industry interface the helicopter fleet has made an increase of only .06% over the past six months. . Almost zero and dangerously close to slipping into recession.. Why have the training schools gone almost into reverse and why are potential engineers not applying for courses?

So the AHIA, with their rapidly growing association and a good knowledge of the pot holes in the road ahead is not considered to be part of the AICC? Why?

More in the next AHIA e-newsletter 'Helicopters Australasia" a freebie - no advertising - do you want one for an update - just ask!

Sunfish
11th Dec 2014, 20:08
Why not? Because you might represent your members views instead of being a complaisant lap dog. These consultative bodies are merely a fig leaf - window dressing for CASA. A lot of people get their egos stroked by being invited to join. Christmas drinks in Parliament House and an annual cocktail party with the Minister is all you need.

To put that another way, watch as each member of the group does nothing to criticise CASA and justifies each and every CASA action to its members.

By way of example, how can the President of the RAA possibly sit on such a council while his jabiru owning members are being slowly crucified???. And spare be the "inside the tent p1ssing out" BS.

Kharon
11th Dec 2014, 20:21
Don'tcha just love the way the lobotomy machinery swings into action at the time of year when sugar plums, Reindeer and school holidays are atop the agenda, after a long hard year.

Rucking freemarkable, the way it works out, ain't it..:ugh:

Frank Arouet
11th Dec 2014, 20:27
It would have been nice to see Arthur Pape involved, but as Sunfish says....

greylocks
12th Dec 2014, 22:56
I reckon CASA personnel could easily fit this description of politicians!

While stitching a cut on the injured hand of a 75 year old farmer, the doctor struck up a conversation. Eventually the topic got around to politicians and their role as our leaders.

The old farmer said, "Well as I see it, most politicians are Post Turtles."

The doctor asked what a Post Turtle was.

The farmer said, "when you drive down a country road and come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a Post Turtle."

The farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face and continued.

"You know he didn't get up there by himself;

he doesn't belong up there;

he doesn't know what to do while he's up there;

he's elevated beyond his ability to function and

you wonder what kind of dumb arse put him up there to begin with!"

thorn bird
13th Dec 2014, 08:19
Greylocks, :D:D
I'll petition the boatman for a chokkie frog for you, I believe your post deserves a Tim Tam, but he is a meany handing them out. I think Minnie keeps pinching them so he loses track of what's in stock.

Kharon
13th Dec 2014, 18:55
Master Aloysius Thornbird.
C/- Matrons Nest School of Beating Down Social Misfits.(BDSM).
Little Whopping.
Gentle Beating in the bushes.
U2CAN_D0.

Dear Master TB. (a.k.a. Lampshade boy).

In primus; as you are very well aware, the issuing of Choc Frogs (CF) is not the responsibility of the Styx river transport department. Under section 666 (i) (c) of the CF Act only the minuscule may issue a suggestive directive, which, after approval by the select committee may be sent to the Word Weasel department for amendment, before being forwarded to a department, (any department will do), where after a minimum period of due and careful consideration and an environmental impact study and a departmental safety (CYA) case generated, the draft will be returned to the minuscule. Once the minuscule is satisfied, the first draft is ratified and passed along to the transport executive (legal section) to develop a robust safety training regime before being slightly scrambled and filled with loop holes. Once the accompanying non disclosure document is signed and fees paid, then; and only then, may said CF be issued to the selected minion.

Secundus; We are well aware of the illegal, irresponsible actions of certain members of the IOS who have taken it upon themselves to issue Choc frogs without due process. This completely unsanctioned action is under review by our crack investigative team who, after much diligent searching of U-Bend video evidence have traced a clandestine supply operation to a Canadian source, buried deep within the infrastructure of the international CF oversight organisation (CFOO). Multiple layers of deep protection has, thus far prevented the 'team', despite numerous, tiring journeys to Canada from identifying the recalcitrant rebels, led by the infamous Gobbledock.

We shall continue our robust efforts to eradicate the source of the illegal CF and it's distribution network; and, although penetrating the defences of the Styx river houseboat park has proved difficult (the investigators keep disappearing) we are determined to stop the practice.

Yours In Eptitude.

A Minusculian Minion.

- - - - - - - - -Houseboat response.- - - - - - -

GL has been granted a big smile;..:D... however, as the article has been featured before (with a picture), the committee feel that a CF award would lower the benchmark. The CF award is only issued for true originality, wit and talent. The high standards set for the coveted Tim Tam award for excellence must not be debased. The IOS do have some rules and position in society to consider. Although it is accurate to say that any true IOS member may bestow the CF or TT award as and when pleases them best.

Toot toot....:D,,:D,,:D

greylocks
13th Dec 2014, 20:40
I thankyou for wishing to bestow on me such prestigious awards, however, I must confess it is not my work; I merely adopted it. I don't know where it originated, but it was an opportunity too good to miss.

greylocks
14th Dec 2014, 05:47
Apologies for mis-spelling your name! It was a computer error! It seems to have a mind of its own. I tried to correct it but wasn't able after I sent it.

aroa
14th Dec 2014, 07:20
must be the male equivalent of hornbag then.:ok:
But that's the English lanuage for ya...and spell checker:{

Ziggychick
14th Dec 2014, 10:01
So,

Some dot connecting.

John Sharp- CEO Pel-Air, REX
Ex Tpt Mini
Currently:
Federal Treasurer for NATS, whose leader is Truss

Political donations:

From REX:

250k to Labor when they were "in", a month before release of ATSB report.

@75k to Libs
@75k to NATS - before further Senate inquiry Nov 2012

No political donation to Gov from them since 2004. Questionable.

Question:

Can the CEO of the company under investigation donate to the same party that he is Federal Treasurer for?
Does that mean the donations to the NATS from REX fall into his portfolio?
If so, what did he do with it, and is it legal to donate to, well, yourself from the company you are a CEO at which is under the microscope?

Crazy. They take care of each other. Wolf packs!

thorn bird
14th Dec 2014, 18:53
Greylocks,
I have the same problem. These computer thingies are developing a mind of their own, they'll be writing the posts for us soon. Thanks for your analogy, cracked me up, very apt.

Sarcs
14th Dec 2014, 21:12
On REX..:oh::Crazy. They take care of each other. Wolf packs! Unfortunately Ziggy it seems that is the way of the world the spin offs are huge...:ugh:

Here is a classic recent example of how it works..:(

Less than a week ago we get this article - Aviation shake-up to 'reverse toxic relationship' (http://www.cqnews.com.au/news/aviation-shake-up-to-reverse-toxic-relationship/2480740/) - where basically Nifty Howell bangs the table and tells the Miniscule & CAsA to get on with implementing the Forsyth report.

Then today we get this announcement: REX - Regional Express (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airline/ZL) (ZL, Wagga Wagga (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/326)) says it has secured an Area Air Operator’s Certificate (AAOC) from the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) which will allow it to expand its vast Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) network without the need for CASA to approve each new destination.

“The AAOC authorises Rex to conduct an internal approval process for RPT services to the 16 new Queensland ports on the regulated routes that have recently been awarded to REX by the Queensland State Government," REX Chief Operating Officer Neville Howell said.

Following a tendering process, REX was awarded three additional regulated regional air routes from the Queensland government in October. The AAOC will now allow the carrier to open up flights connecting Cairns (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/CNS), Normanton (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/NTN), Mornington (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/ONG), Burketown (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BUC), Doomadgee (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/DMD), Mount Isa (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/ISA), Brisbane Int'l (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BNE), Brisbane West Wellcamp (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/WTB), Saint George, QL (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/SGO), Cunnamulla (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/CMA), Thargomindah (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/XTG), Charleville (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/CTL), Quilpie (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/ULP), Windorah (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/WNR), Birdsville (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BVI), Bedourie (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BEU), Boulia (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/BQL), Townsville (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/TSV), Winton (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/WIN), Longreach (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/LRE), Hughenden (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/HGD), Richmond, QL (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/RCM), and Julia Creek (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airports/JCK).

"We are very proud that we are now in a position to start operations on January 1, 2015, a mere 8 weeks after being awarded the contract,” Howell added. No comment...:oh:

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
15th Dec 2014, 18:21
All of which simply removes one large dissenting voice; having got that which was asked for, the price will be silence. Rex has deep roots and powerful connections who may now return to golf and morning tea, knowing 'their' part of the aviation world is safe. It would be churlish to continue protesting when so much has been given.

Divide and conquer, the only way to help your mates run a democracy.

Greedy
16th Dec 2014, 00:38
More empty rhetoric from an individual who was personally responsible for a serious breach of privacy from CASA. What a hypocrite.
Greedy

aroa
16th Dec 2014, 01:12
Bizarre for JA to be talking about trust :mad:
Tok pekpek tru.

Soteria
16th Dec 2014, 03:02
Of bollocks;
Trust, of course, is a two-way street. Relations of trust need to be mutual and reciprocal to flourish. And if reliability forms the basis on which trust is built, it is reasonable and proper that verification should be readily forthcoming from both sides of the relationship.
More wordsmith sculpted folly from the master of wank words! That guy must seriously get a chubby from sprouting endless speeches and writing endless papers that are peppered with educated words and PHD methodology? I didn't hear the words 'bullshit', 'crock of shit' or 'complete shit' used?

There will never, and I repeat in a deep IOS monotone, never be trust between CASA and the aviation 'community' as long as thieves, bullies, liars, incompetents, Nupty's, halfwits, dimwits, dipshits, gronks, shonks and other peddlers of bollocks are allowed to apply their trade free of accountability without repercussion.

Frank Arouet
16th Dec 2014, 04:44
Is the conclusion the premise or is the premise the conclusion?

Kharon
16th Dec 2014, 08:21
To make one's bones – Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_one's_bones)– explains the whole thing, very nicely.

Well, now we have two of them; both with much to prove. Lets start with the 'easier' target.

Doc. Jonathon Aleck: and, his 'Gold Coast' speech to a fairly hostile audience of the "Australian Airports Association", which, by any measure are a fairly 'unsettled' outfit; given the Murky Machiavellian manipulation of 'system', was a masterpiece. In what?, well may you ask. There are those who will have it that Doc Aleck is, essentially, a frustrated man with both a moral compass and a first rate brain. Let us, just for the moment, accept that as a given.

There are tools at his disposal which could, in fairly short order, generate a lot of the much wanted trust. For example: he runs a thing called the ethics committee. I can without referring to any notes cite at least a half dozen 'cases' which demand his immediate attention; and, should he decide to act honourably (remember that word) he could, in a very short space of time restore most of the credibility which he and 'his' committee have resoundingly lost during the preceding five, long, weary years of the McComic era. Want trust, want to earn it: Jonathon you know the cases, as well as we do. You also know who perpetrated the aberrations, who told Porkies, who fiddled with evidence, who delayed, who lied under oath, who manipulated the ATSB and also, who benefited.

Start there, do a good job and perhaps you will be accepted into the fraternity of "aviators". Never; not even for one moment, forget, 'we' all know and have examined those cases in detail and have formed 'considered', provable opinions. Stand up FCS and be what many believe you are, an honourable, honest man (and a lover of the Bard).

Skidmore?, he has the easy task; look, listen, learn and FCO bloody L, do something: to get the dogs under management. The safety watchdogs are slinking back into the safety of kennels: muzzles bloodied after a sheep killing rampage. 'They' have done an incredible amount of damage to the reputation, credibility and integrity of CASA and the associated agencies – all easy to fix. Acknowledge and rectify – just duck the politics and trust will be gifted. It would, IMHO, be a grave error to allow the travelling public to become 'aware', shall we say, of just how pathetic, unreliable and morally bankrupt the 'safety watchdogs' have become, protected under the McComic regime.

Call the Ethics committee – use the Board – examine the cases we all know and ACT. For pities sake, ACT before the world does. Hells bells, you may even enjoy being "your own men", for just a while a least.

Do not ask for credit – refusal oft offends.

Handing over: your call – but remember 150, 000 readers this month have failed, dismally, to defend CASA, their Board, the cast or crew. Think on that.

Aye well: Selah children; and back to my knitting, I guess.

aroa
16th Dec 2014, 22:02
Its a side step shuffle mob for a dance move if the ICC comes up with a result not to CAsA's liking. A bastard child of McComic.:mad::mad:

And you have to laugh when they have "ethics" in the moniker when those in the committee dont have any.:eek:

aroa
17th Dec 2014, 04:38
The standing man is a senior airworthiness inspector who has just caught a private individual ( now deceased) checking a split pin on the elevator of his pvt aircraft that does not have a current MR.

Since this heinous event is a crime of strict liability that may result in a hefty fine, jail time or death and serious injury the SAWI from the agency that acts as judge, jury and executioner has just carried out the execution to save time, and taxpayer dollars in having to deal with the CDPP, courts or the AAT.
The court may not produce the result that CAsA required... so much easier to do an 'in-house' job. Or in the field, so to speak
Another notch on the butt, another unsafe aviator removed from the skies...permanently. RIP GA.


Or have I got that completely wrong... the guy on the ground is the tosser from AusCheck that just told the pilot he could NOT fly or even taxi his a/c because he has no asic.!! Dont laugh, true.

Yep, that's it
Time to fight back.:ok:

Creampuff
17th Dec 2014, 06:18
Only an extraordinarily clever person could have survived as a senior manager and executive in CASA for nearly two decades and yet have had no involvement in, no influence over and no responsibility for any of the kinds of systemic or specific problems of substantial concern to the AAI committee or ASRR panel. Thank heavens people of that calibre are on hand to help “develop meaningful and enduring solutions” to all the problems that, weirdly enough, look exactly like the enduring problems to which, in an amazing coincidence, meaningful solutions have been promised but never delivered by CASA over the last decade or so.

Only an extraordinarily clever person, with extraordinary chutzpah.

I remain in genuine, absolute awe, Jonathan Aleck. :D:D:D:D

aroa
17th Dec 2014, 06:45
re JA the long term time server welded..cleverly but firmly to the trough.....

A recent example of his 'chutzpah' which shows how his word-smithing has been a great survival tool and diverted any attentions that may have come his way....smother it in BS and/ or verbal vomit.

False sworn statements to be used in a court of law to bring about the conviction of an individual that would result in a hefty fine or jail time....according to Herr Doktor are not false or lies..."they are only discrepancies in the wording used, or containing the odd discrepant word"...thus rendering them ( the false statements) not untrue and therefore not lies..!! Yes folks..white IS black
Astounding brilliance in perception. Bravo Jono!!:D
Wasnt any "discrepancy" that caused the CDPP to chuck out the case.!!
IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS ALL BULLSH*T

It's an enduring problem alright..:mad::mad::mad:

Time to stick another BIG pin in the voodoo doll.:ok:

Soteria
17th Dec 2014, 10:31
I think the picture is of the Screamer taking out a pesky IOS member who tendentiously blogged about him. Then again it could be a picture of an ICC member dealing with an industry complaint! Naughty UITA, one photo yet it has endless possibilities.

Sarcs
17th Dec 2014, 22:46
Slight drift but another area currently under the Senate blowtorch which also involves a politically (M&M) selected AVM (active) and a new Hoodoo Doc (although not quite in the calibre of JA), which most definitely falls into the M&M remit...:E

Remember this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p73nOD0ZGoc

Which AVM 'Stabbed in the Dark' eventually responded with this wet lettuce, weasel, worded correction to the Hansard record:
3.) Correspondence received 25 November 2014 from Ms Margaret Staib, Chief Executive Officer of Airservies Australia, clarifying evidence given on 20 October 2014.(PDF 116KB) (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/rrat_ctte/estimates/sup_1415/infra/AA_25112014.pdf)
Then three days later we had this - An inquiry into the performance of Airservices Australia. (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Airservices_Australia/Public_Hearings)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-6j5g0xuw

Well from that session there was a number of QONs (37 in total) generated and surprise...surprise the AQONs are already released, all 184 pages of them...:ooh::1 http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Images/pdf.png (http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=07a76e2d-6ff0-442e-9c8e-8f2df25acc75) Answers to questions taken on notice on 28 November 2014 in Canberra, ACT. Most of the answers are obviously designed to put the most avid readers to sleep...:zzz:

However there is some of particular interest for the average nerd...:8

1st example and on the subject of ethics was this AQON from Dr (Duck'n'weave) Ethics:

...Dr Weaver: I have chaired that committee since March this year.


Senator STERLE: So there are three of you on that who know about that.

Dr Weaver: There are also representatives from the rest of the organisation—so the chief auditor; the manager, security and resilience is often in attendance; and other representatives from people and culture.

Senator STERLE: You can provide names. That is fine. How many are there all up?

Dr Weaver: The key members of the committee are the executive—

Senator STERLE: Who would have known—Mr Weaver, very clear, very precise—when I asked the question of Ms Staib at Senate estimates two weeks ago, that there was credit card fraud?

Dr Weaver: The people that know of credit card fraud are the members of that committee and the representatives of that committee.

Senator STERLE: You have said all that. Tell me how many people—five, 10, half the organisation, 2,000, what?

Dr Weaver: To be clear, there will be other people that would know about individual cases of credit card fraud.

Senator STERLE: So a lot of people would know?

Dr Weaver: About individual cases, it would be quite a small number that would know about each individual case.


Senator STERLE: Mr Weaver, do you know how many people?


Dr Weaver: I do not know the exact number, no.

Senator STERLE: Can you find out for me, please?

Dr Weaver: Yes.

Answer:

Instances of serious credit card misuse are reported to the Fraud and Ethics Committee which has five permanent members:


Executive General Manager, Safety, Environment and Assurance

Chief Finance Officer

Executive General Manager, People and Culture

Executive General Manager, Projects and Engineering

Chief Auditor.



The number of people who may know of an individual case will vary depending on the circumstances and may involve staff from security and resilience, human resources, employee relations, legal counsel, in-line managers or senior executive outside of the committee. Matters are always dealt with cognisant of the privacy of the individual and balanced against organisational responsibilities to effectively manage the issue.

The details of the specific case that was raised at the 20 October 2014 Estimates hearing involving a staff member that was dismissed were explained during the in-camera hearing.


Next example perked my interest in light of the recent Miniscule v Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce AAT hearings:
CHAIR: I think I will take this to public works from here. We have not had a bad day, have we? Tell me about the runway at Archerfield. Is it true that it does not comply—whatever one they are arguing about that has been shortened?

Mr Hood: I will have to take that on notice. I am not aware of any complaints in relation to any—

CHAIR: As you would know, and as Mr Murdoch is very conscious of, there is a contest of interests at airfields like Bankstown, where the developers—and they have ways and means of convincing people. It appears to me that there is a bit of pressure on in various airfields, including Archerfield and, of course, Bankstown. It appears to me that all of a sudden they have woken up to the fact that whichever runway it is is no longer compliant, even though they are using it. I am wondering, if something goes wrong, who is going to be liable for that.

Mr Hood: It is the first time it has been raised with me, but I am certainly happy to take it on notice.

It could cut across CASA as well. I am happy to take that.

Answer:
In 2008, it was identified that a building infringed one of the restrictive surfaces (the PANSOPS surface) for the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) for one of the runways at Archerfield (28 Right).

At the time, Airservices initial action was to issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) which moved the PANS-OPS surface to a position whereby the building was no longer penetrating it.

Subsequently, specific cloud and visibility requirements were put in place for use of the procedure to ensure that it could only be used in circumstances when the building could be sighted by pilots. The NOTAM was then rescinded, making the full length of the runway available again.

An ATSB report (AI-2008-038) published in April 2010 assessed the actions of Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to be adequate to address the safety issues raised.

Airservices procedures are fully compliant.
Again another example - by ASA this time - of all care and no responsibility when it comes to Secondary Airports...:(

Ok back to the current topic on JA & ethics...

Creamy - "...Only an extraordinarily clever person, with extraordinary chutzpah.

I remain in genuine, absolute awe, Jonathan Aleck." :D:D:D:D

Choccy frog for Creamy I reckon...:E

MTF...:ok:

Kharon
19th Dec 2014, 21:06
As it's Christmas, I reckon CP merits a Tim Tam. Not so sure that the Word Weasel work shop deserves any such consideration for the AQON; what – 180 odd pages, most of it more work-shopped drivel, to clearly outline where the wriggle room for spending 'airline' monies is located. A clever, determined, only slightly larcenous lad (or ladette) could drive a horse and cart through the clever construction the 'Slicks' have provided. When you skim past the obvious, stultifying, mind numbing, soporific, tedious stating of the bleeding obvious; you get to some answers – one liners – maybe two sentences. Which complete the 'loop'; now having gained time, the game is to wait for the obvious questions the estimates crew must pitch at you.

When the approved Word Weasel work-shop answer is not available, roll off the top, take it an notice and Bingo, you have just earned another three months of salary. It's like the shell game; invented by charlatans, perpetuated by the shills in the Souq, to take advantage of those naive or gullible enough to risk their dinars. It must drive the likes of Heffernan and Sterle nuts; I expect 'Elphy Bey' Truss barely notices the time or the money slipping away down the well trodden back alley into the coffers of those who profit most from 'the great game'.

The answer to your question Senator is under one of these three shells; you can pick only one though; so pick one, any one you like, but ante up first; there's a good chap.

Toot-toot..:D..

Sunfish
20th Dec 2014, 17:09
Jabiru has been shafted, Truss review worthless,

Kharon
20th Dec 2014, 21:05
Sunny – "[Truss] review worthless"

Don't know as I can agree Sunny. Before the whole cartload of change (AAI recommendations, Forsyth recommendations, TSBC recommendations, ATSB Pel-Air review) can be delivered at the current glacial pace, there has to be a hiatus. Christmas break, new DAS, new bored members; and, probably a new Minuscule (gods willing, weather permitting). It's been a tiring year, the Senate committees have moved a mountain even if it was perforce at a suitably dignified 'parliamentary pace'.

Before the proposed changes and policy kick in, any licks CASA wanted to get in must be taken now. If Jabiru can hold on and generate a sustainable rebuttal; then, perhaps in the new year there will be an opportunity for 'sensible' discussion leading to a solution. There is, at face value, 'a case' for both parties to argue which, 'in the heat of battle', precludes a balanced approach; it will be down to the 'judge' to make a 'safe' ruling.

CASA believes that 'top cover' will be enough to prevent any serious ordinance impacting on their bunker. It is an incorrect, flawed assumption. The top cover will melt away to protect it's own rice bowl, when the going gets tough. How tough?, well that remains to be seen, but what with airports becoming a hot topic, Pel Air trailing along behind, ASA in the gun, ATSB due for a roasting and a very cranky Senate committee driving the bus; I'd say once Heff and his crew have had enough Christmas pudding and a surfeit of Damson gin; things just may become a little warmer over at Sleepy Hollow. They are after all the most vulnerable target, located in an almost indefensible position, with the most to hide, from a determined, well supplied opposition.

Could all turn to worms, as it has in the past, but by the pricking of my thumbs and the smell on the breeze, I'd say it will be an 'interesting' next twelve month.

It may seem as though little has been achieved since last Christmas; but I believe the goal posts have been firmly relocated in the right place; up to the teams now to play up, run hard and do strong.

Toot toot...:D...

Frank Arouet
20th Dec 2014, 22:13
I wonder if we can expect anything positive for aviation in the reshuffle this afternoon. Like a Minister for transport for example. The Nats usually suffer this portfolio and Truss is seen by everyone to be doing a poor job. Perhaps a Lib may be given the job.


Truss should piss, or get off the pot!

dubbleyew eight
21st Dec 2014, 02:39
question for Mr Kharon and others.

a rat is smelled. what is at the core and what is the basis of the peculiar smell?

where does the statute of limitations feature in all of this?
could the obfuscation and behaviour be nothing more than a delaying tactic to let the matters age beyond a limitations of action statute?

serious question.
W8

Kharon
21st Dec 2014, 20:57
Don't know as I can tell you the answer W8. Certainly delay, diversion and dilution are a part of the external defence system for Sleepy Hollow; but that is not unusual, they've been at it for years. The more intriguing aspect is why the minuscule has allowed this to continue on his watch; there are some 60 serious, far-reaching, recommendations knocking on his door, demanding attention, that's before the tacit and published recommendations of the Canadian safety authority are considered. The list of what I believe are serious' matters is extensive and growing by the day, so the reason for delay at government level could be explained by the sheer volume of and implications drawn from those reports. What Truss should, quite rightly, be able to do is rely on is the integrity and competence of 'his' aviation safety authorities. It must be a shock, considering the amount of money it costs and the wider implication of discovering that the Emperor and minions have no clothes.

The problems are of ministerial proportion and serious. The airports debacle is about to land firmly and squarely on his desk. Consider the ministers position; he most certainly cannot admit to the world that his much vaunted aviation safety system has degenerated into an expensive sham; that the great Australian airports rip-off is about to become public; that his ATSB told fairy stories or that the monster lurking under the bed is CASA. He cannot allow that to be discovered; therefore he must act as the repercussion to his government would be disastrous, particularly as the MH 370 incident is developing a life of it's own, outside of 'his' control. Another accident or incident will place the government at risk, should they not act.

So time, for Truss is of the essence, for he's damned if do and equally damned if he don't. Tough spot his trusty watchdogs have placed him in. Then, being isolated from the IOS, he must rely on those paid to give him advice, the Sir Humphries of this world, to turn down the noise and ensure that his arse in not in the next sling leaving Dodge.

When you add it all up ASA, ATSB, CASA all suffer the same blight, it needs to be eradicated, but it must be done so the public never see it done. That takes time, I doubt the 'statute of limitations' will ever come into play; as it will be difficult for the AFP to define a brief, let alone get it to the stage where the DPP can frame a case; too many locked doors to batter down and little or no political interest in doing it will see off those unpleasant 'legal' aspects. On the bright side though, all roads lead to Rome and the seat of 'real' power is readily identified. Once the Gordian knots on the apron strings of power are undone, things will rapidly improve. One small step, will Truss take it ? who'd know, certainly not I.

Well, FWIW, that's my two bob spent.

Creampuff
28th Dec 2014, 20:37
Prepare for a masterclass in using the infinite flexibility of language to choose any approach you like from time-to-time to justify anything you like from time-to-time time:Whether specifying, interpreting, applying or, where necessary, enforcing regulatory requirements, CASA is bound to regard safety as the most important consideration. This is what our Act has provided since CASA’s predecessor, the Civil Aviation Authority, was established in 1988, and there is no indication of which I am aware that this will be changing any time soon. At the same time, however, it is crucial to recognise that, whilst safety must be our most important consideration, it is not, and may not properly be, our only consideration. In exercising our powers and performing our functions, CASA is neither discouraged nor prevented from taking a wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account. In fact, we are required by law to do so.

This critical recognition, which I fear is sometimes lost in the otherwise appropriately privileging ‘rhetoric of safety’, resonates well with the Government’s policies on regulation, and it is entirely consistent with the first Key Performance Indicator in the Government’s recently released Regulator Performance Framework, which directs that regulators must ‘not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of regulated entities’ -a formulation that departs in a deliberate way from the original draft KPI, which called for regulators to ‘facilitate the efficient operation of regulated entities’.

I’ll return to this subtle but important point in a moment. ...

A recent and important example of the kind of regulatory relief CASA is providing for operators and airports alike involves regulations relating to narrow-runway operations. No longer will aerodromes be required to widen runways to allow for the operation of aircraft which have been assessed as capable of operating safely on narrower runways. The expectation is that such aircraft will be issued with an approved narrow-runway flight manual supplement, giving operators the freedom and the responsibility to address what is essentially an operational issue, without the need for aerodrome operators to seek an exemption from previously applicable requirements.

The new rules commended less than two weeks ago, on 13 November 2014.But wait a moment ...

Who made the runway width rules, from which CASA is providing relief, in the first place? :confused:

And when those rules were made in the first place, weren't the obligations imposed on CASA precisely the same as they are now: "Whilst safety must be [CASA's] most important consideration, it is not, and may not properly be, [CASA's] only consideration. In exercising [CASA's] powers and performing our functions, CASA is neither discouraged nor prevented from taking a wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account. In fact, [CASA is] required by law to do so. :confused:

What we have is precisely the same decision making obligation applied to precisely the same objective risks and benefits, but with different decisions made at different points in time.

Having taken safety into consideration as the most consideration, and having taken the wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account, as CASA is "required by law" to do, CASA made the decision to make the runway width rules.

Having taken safety into consideration as the most consideration, and having taken the wide range of other relevant and important considerations into account, as CASA is "required by law" to do, CASA made the decision to "provide relief" from the runway width rules.

All that really changed was that enforcement of the runway width rules became politically 'inconvenient'. At that point it became politically expedient for CASA to 'remember' the obligation to take account of "a wide range of relevant and important considerations" other than safety, and to quietly 're-assess' the relative importance and relative weightings to be attributed to those considerations.

As I've said many times, aviation regulation in Australia is mostly politics dressed up in the language of safety. And to get away with it, you need extraordinarily clever people. People who are willing and able expertly to advocate for and justify a decision one day, then expertly advocate for and justify a decision to the opposite effect the next.

I remain in genuine awe, Jonathan Aleck. :D:D

Sunfish
28th Dec 2014, 23:15
To put it another way Creampuff, CASA is absolutely and totally dishonest and corrupt. The very essence of bureaucracy in the Weberian sense, is for strict rules and authorities to be applied without fear or favour and transparently and equally.

By Dr. Alecks own admission, CASA does not adhere to those rules but claims the right to make "appropriate considerations" this is nonsense and any judge or tribunal that accepts it is corrupt as well.

Soteria
29th Dec 2014, 03:18
Start with the removal of Farquartson and Aleck.
The reason for this - just look at the Jabiru and RAus mess for a start, the John Quadrio affair, PelAir. The lies to the Senate committee.
To date - all of this has been an acceptable means of compliance to CASA. The fact that some of these individuals have held key organisational roles for many decades proves that CASA's master - the Australian government, is more than happy with CASA's modus operandi. And for CASA it is a dream come true, being allowed to shift the goal posts if, as and when it chooses. The CASA beast is never accountable and is never liable. It is judge, jury and executioner. What a fantastic framework for those employeed within its ranks! Operate with impunity and full immunity. Sweet!!

"Massaged skies for all"

tipsy2
31st Dec 2014, 22:52
OK Mr Skidmore. Today you formally/officially take up the position of Director of Aviation Safety.

Now that your feet are under the table I look forward to your actions, particularly those as the result of the ASRR.

Get your "skates" on and get doing.

Happy New Year (and hopefully a decent CASA culture)

Tipsy

Kharon
31st Dec 2014, 23:24
Another new year, but for the minuscule, the same old 'challenges' remain, steadfast as ever. A now forearmed Iron Ring with advance knowledge of what the 'industry' would like to have had for Christmas can, at their leisure forward plan to make sure that nothing changes.

The stalwart 'political' suicide argument will be polished to a mirror shine.

The trusty 'personal liability' option v an 'alternative' solution on the Hobson's choice machinery will be fuelled and oiled, to generate the smoke of self protection.

The infallible 'fear' factor will be sharpened to surgical precision and placed discretely on the bored room table; to provide 'pause for thought' to reinforce the notion that any, even a mild disagreement with the will of the Iron Ring will paid for, in blood.

Then, the GWM will be fed, watered and unleashed to keep the populace in it's rightful place.

Indeed, the IR may contentedly sit back knowing that not even the lightest zephyr or hint of breeze will disturb the calm surface of their self satisfaction. Good work if you can get it; dead man's boots job of course and the queue is long.

So what tools do we have available to unlock the doorway to the serene mill pond of Zen like contemplation. Well:-there's the holy hand grenade of the Rev. Forsyth and his happy band of miscreants. The notion of a revisit and audit, to measure tangible change, evaluate the fiction and assess the reality of the "changes" fairy story would be a good place to start. Say in a six month, bring them back to have a good sniff about. Of course, there is the bored to step around, then the Iron Ring, then the GWM to plough through, but if industry supports the effort, perhaps some small concession would be granted; if only for a little peace and quiet.

Unravelling the Pel-Air debacle at Senate committee level would open some windows a crack and let some fresh air and light in. Taken to it's natural conclusion it may even heal some of the dreadful wounds inflicted by Albo's hand picked, one man hit squad and his catamites. But that needs the independent, bi-partisan efforts of a dedicated, informed committee, fully supported by the Minuscule. Political will, executive horsepower, and some old fashioned courage will be needed to stare down the iron Ring.

Well, here we are in the ring waiting for the bell to start Round 1. It's never too early to start loosing, so don't let the opposition get the first hit; standing still and waiting for the other fellah to thump you, has never been a good way to start a street fight.

Game on, shake off the hangover and lets try to keep the pressure on, before Abbott drops the ball and Albo emerges, once again and re-hires the McComic. Up to you ALL, at the end of the day, all 275,000 of you who read Pprune this past month. You know you want to..:ok:....

Selah.

Sunfish
31st Dec 2014, 23:46
...and welcome to the New Director Of Air Safety whose term begins today. Good luck.

Soteria
1st Jan 2015, 08:08
Willypedia definition of 'CASA Croquembouche'
ˌkrɒkɒmˈbuːʃ/
noun
a decorative Government organisation consisting of a choux DAS and crystallized executive management team arranged in a cone-like arrangement and held together by a mixture of sticky regulations, policies and procedures force-fed to a multi disciplined group of aviation ills of society.

"Happy Tautological Year". 2015 with the theme of 'same shit different year'!

Kharon
1st Jan 2015, 20:14
Now, I freely acknowledge that as a political 'advisor' or even a commentator, it would be better all round, if I stuck with the day time job. I struggle to understand even the simplest of manoeuvres and, left to my own devices will happily remain in a state of disinterest until disturbed. However, even I can see that the Abbott crew are in deep do-do and need to get some runs on the board. As aviation safety is a hot topic at any BBQ you care to attend, could Truss not strike while the iron is hot and use the enhanced public awareness of matters aeronautical to score a few runs for the Abbott team?

The current, truly dreadful state Australian aviation has descended into could all be tracked back to the last minuscule. It is an open secret that Albo was 'instrumental' in hiring McComic and ordering the pogrom on aviation. Albo would not even have allowed the Rev. Forsyth (bless) to conduct his review, but, happily Forsyth did, and did it proud. It's no secret or rumour that Albo would never, not in a million, have countenanced the recommendations being effected. That would never happen on his watch, which IMO was a risky strategy – politically, considering the way thing have developed.

It seems to me that spending half an hour briefing Skidmore to undo the McComic legacy and enabling the changes recommended by intelligent, competent, qualified, trustworthy people, old mate Wazza could score some much needed political points by simply highlighting that Australia was clawing it's way back to international credibility from the unholy mess Albo left in his wake. Give Be-a-Cur and his mates their marching orders, sign a couple of DCM's and just like that, the strong man of transport is seen by a fairly concerned public as actually caring whether or not they arrive at their destination. Or even if they don't, then the system will swiftly, competently and honestly be able to inform their families why not.

I just can't see why there is a hold up, not with so much to play for. The choice is simple, upset a couple or three discredited public servants and ruffle a few feathers; or run the risk of the public knowing that he, Truss had the tools in his hand to fix the wheel on his aviation wagon and failed to use them.

But then, as stated, politics is a strange, alien world to me; it's this accursed curiosity bump which generates the "I wonder" enunciator. I know: Truss doesn't worry about how I do my work and I probably shouldn't be wondering about how he does his; but I do.

'Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost, which is so deemed
Not by our feeling, but by others' seeing.
For why should others' false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?

Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own;
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel.
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown,
Unless this general evil they maintain:  
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.  

S 121

Selah..

Frank Arouet
1st Jan 2015, 21:43
Hacker: Are you saying that winking at corruption is government policy?Sir Humphrey: No, no, Minister! It could never be government policy. That is unthinkable! Only government practice.

Sarcs
2nd Jan 2015, 00:02
Choccy frog for Frank...:D As for the Ferryman puzzle well perhaps the answer lies within this SMH article (good catch Stan..;)) - Democracy in crisis (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/democracy-in-crisis-20141228-126quk.html):
...Parties in government, regardless of their ideological preferences or election promises, are expected to conform to these strictures. They are assisted in this by elements of the bureaucracy well schooled in the new orthodoxy. They in turn regularly consult with and are monitored by international organisations, be it the OECD or the International Monetary Fund, credit-rating agencies and audit firms. Addressing stark inequalities of wealth and income or enhancing human security find little place in this discourse.
As a consequence, governing parties, having to operate within a highly restricted political space, find solace in the perks of office, occasionally breaching the boundaries of ethical or even legal conduct. Electorates displeased with the outcome feel they can do no more than punish the party in office and elect their opponents, and so the cycle continues with little prospect of significant change in either policy direction or political culture......or perhaps not...:{

IMO there is another disturbing element with the governance of the aviation agencies tasked with the (mal-)administration of aviation safety in this country. Which the former slime-ball miniscule Albo never fails to highlight in any of the very few speeches that he has made on the subject of aviation in the Parliament: ..I have always said that aviation safety is an issue that is well above politics. I am pleased to say that for the many years that I have been first a shadow minister, then a minister, then back again as a shadow minister, the current minister for transport has had the same view. I respect that. That is as it should be.
If there is any area that is above politics it has to be this one, because the whole of the parliament has an interest in working towards ensuring that aviation safety remains an issue of which Australia can be rightly proud...

...I will conclude by indicating publicly, as I have privately to the minister, that the opposition is firmly committed to working in a constructive and bipartisan way on these issues. I note that the minister has been exemplary in ensuring appropriate briefings and in ensuring that this issue continues to be where it was when I was the minister and, previously, under the Howard government...

...I indicate that that should not be seen in any way as a suggestion that we will operate politically on this issue, because we will not. We will deal with these things on their merits. I thank the minister for his response and conclude where I began: it is good to see him back in the House. And so ends the chance of there being any meaningful debate on the alarming issues highlighted in both the Forsyth report & the Senate AAI report...:ugh:

For those into pictures here is part of the Albo speech but be warned a (BYO) bucket may be required..:bored:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzH89IjhMM

However in that speech (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fb1d2e0ad-97f9-41e8-b5ac-42a061730951%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fb1d2e 0ad-97f9-41e8-b5ac-42a061730951%2F0000%22) - which was in reply to the Truss speech introducing the Government response to the ASRR report - Albo couldn't hide his complete contempt for all things aviation and his continual love affair for his appointed former DAS McComic...:yuk::yuk:

On McComic:...I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time...

...That was a courageous decision by John McCormick. The fact that Tiger has now been taken over by Virgin Australia and is now functioning in a way that satisfies all the safety concerns shows that that was not just a courageous decision but a correct decision. On non-aviation attitude:...It went on to recommend a new strategic direction for CASA, calling for a more 'collaborative relationship on a foundation of mutual trust and respect'. It is here that I would respectfully sound a note of caution to the minister. I certainly agree that it is important for a regulated industry, like aviation, to have constructive and respectful relations between the regulator and the industry; but I would be very concerned if the relationship between CASA and aviation operators became too close. I expressed this concern to David Forsyth, who the minister ensured—and I thank him for this—gave me a verbal review as well, and we were able to have a very constructive discussion about it. If I could, I would like to express some caution. I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.

The term 'trainspotters' is pretty familiar to people; in aviation there are 'plane spotters'. They think that they know best, and they do not want to be told by any regulator that they do not know how to keep their plane safe. But the truth is that the incidents that have occurred in this country have occurred particularly with small planes, which are involved in incidents all too regularly. I think one of the worst parts of the job of being the aviation minister in this country is the fact that you get notified in real time. Except for the minister, people are probably unaware of that. I have had phone calls at all hours telling me that a plane with two or three people on board has gone missing. When the departmental head rang, or in the case of Mr McCormick there was often direct contact, you really did not want to receive that call.

If I could sound that cautious note, as I expressed to David Forsyth: the customers are not the people who own the planes; the customers of CASA and aviation safety are the people on the planes and the people who would be impacted if there were an incident. Planes fly over my house at far too regular intervals. My electorate is the second smallest geographically; Wentworth is the smallest. These areas have highly dense populations. If there were an incident in these most densely populated areas of Australia, it would have an impact not just on people on the planes but on people in the vicinity of an airport. If I could express that concern—that we must never sacrifice rigour for harmony.

I agree with the minister that the actions of the regulator must be firm, and they must also be fair. But the minister has a responsibility to hold the line against industry pressure. We must maintain the necessary tension between the regulator and the regulated to keep all parties on their toes. If they are on their toes then they are focused on what matters: the safety of the travelling public. If they were allowed to operate too closely and without appropriate distance, the public would be the loser. So, while doing all we can to promote professional dealings among all participants in the industry, our overriding responsibility is to make accident prevention and proper safety standards our primary concern. All other concerns must be further down the ladder. It should also not be forgotten that this disgusting former miniscule for non-aviation was not only responsible for obfuscating the Senate Pilot training inquiry recommendations but for obfuscating/delaying the former Govt response to the Senate AAI report...:ugh: And this was despite strong non-partisan pressure for him to urgently respond. This was a fact that Planetalking at the time did not fail to remind this consummate (slime-ball) politician.

Here - Pel-Air update: Minister wants to respond with urgency (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/29/pel-air-update-minister-wants-to-respond-with-urgency/) - and then here - Pel-Air on prime time TV snares Minister’s false statement (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/28/pel-air-on-prime-time-tv-snares-ministers-false-statement/) :
The Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese was caught out on 7 News tonight in a report by Chris Reason on the festering sore that is the proven hush up by CASA and the ATSB of all of the circumstances that were relevant to the crash of a Pel-Air operated air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

Albanese said he was unable to take action over a damning Senate committee report on lies and deceits of Australia’s two air safety authorities because parliament went into caretaker mode.

Minister, this is total unmitigated rubbish. Caretaker mode began on 5 August.

On 29 May after consultation with your department Plane Talking published this story as to the urgency with which you and your departmental head Mike Mrdak (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/29/pel-air-update-minister-wants-to-respond-with-urgency/) were claimed to be responding to the unanimous report of the Senate Committee inquiry into aviation safety investigations with particular reference to the performance of the ATSB (the safety investigator) and CASA (the safety regulator).

At that inquiry the Director of Safety at CASA, John McCormick, admitted to withholding an internal audit by CASA that found that the accident was preventable if CASA had actually carried out its duties and obligations in law in relation to the oversight of Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick also apologised for his actions, which the committee has referred to the Australian Federal Police to resolve whether or not it was action that constituted an offence under the Transport Safety Investigations Act of 2003. (If the words in the act mean what they say, McCormick broke the law.)

The committee went on to devote an entire chapter of its report into its lack of confidence in the testimony given by the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan. The committee’s findings, made by a panel drawn from Labor, the Coalition and the Greens, was unanimous in its findings.
It also recommended, among other things, that the ATSB reconsider its final accident report and in the process retrieve the data recorder from the wreckage of the jet, which lies at a recoverable depth on the sea floor near Norfolk Island where it came to rest after being ditched immediately before it ran out of fuel. (All six persons on board were subsequently rescued by a fishing boat in the middle of the night).

The ATSB has deliberately chosen not to recover the data, which carries the distinct possibility of proving that the pilot did not receive correct meteorological information before flying the jet to a position where it could no longer divert to an alternative airport in Noumea or Fiji should it be unable to land at Norfolk Island for a refueling stop.

The ASTSB failed to honor its international obligations to make safety recommendations in relation to the failure on board the ditched jet of all of the safety equipment to perform as intended. It regarded the eventual discovery that CASA had found Pel-Air to be in breach of dozens of safety requirements at the time of the crash as ‘immaterial’, and it framed its final report to visit the entire blame for the accident on the captain Dominic James, who was central to the 7 News report, which should be readily found by a search query on the internet later tonight.

As Mick Quinn, the former deputy chief executive officer of CASA told Chris Reason on 7 News tonight, this corrupted and untruthful circus performance by the safety bodies in relation to the Pel-Air investigation has destroyed Australia’s reputation as a first class nation when it comes to the administration of air safety.

Minister, you are personally responsible for this. You allowed commitments to be made on your behalf, which were not honoured, and you have demonstrated contempt for the Senate of Australia by not responding to the committee’s recommendations within 90 days.

This means you have not acted in a timely manner to correct or restore the integrity of the aviation safety authorities, and that means the safety of Australian air travellers, and those of foreign airlines and their passengers using our air space and airports, is no longer a given.

On 30 May Plane Talking reported on the intention of the department of Infrastructure and Transport to ‘ride out’ the controversy (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/30/atsb-casa-to-ride-this-one-out-over-pel-air-scandal/) over the disgraceful report issed by the ATSB into this accident.

Minister, surely you are not a party to ‘riding out’ critically important air safety issues? The world is unlikely to let Australia get away with such a poor attitude, as explained in this more recent report (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/24/rudd-governments-air-safety-failure-a-risk-to-all/).

If the Minister can say so during caretaker mode, what was he thinking when he gave his misleading answer about his inability to repond to these matters in the Chris Reason interview?

Was it amnesia? Or did he think no one would notice that what was broadcast night night was in conflict with his position at the end of May? As Kharon alludes in his top of the page post...

"...Game on, shake off the hangover and lets try to keep the pressure on, before Abbott drops the ball and Albo emerges, once again and re-hires the McComic. Up to you ALL, at the end of the day, all 275,000 of you who read Pprune this past month. You know you want to.."

...now is not the time to relax, if M&M & the Iron Ring with the support of the likes of Albo get their way it is simply all over...:{

Kharon
2nd Jan 2015, 05:18
Well, I got hooked and read the whole thing; despite there being some lightweight assumptions drawn by [email protected] (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sd7gtn) which could, for the purist at least, detract a little kudos from what is a very sane, solid piece of research and dot joining. For instance:-

Julie 1. As far as I can tell, there have been no updates (or corrections) to this article — meaning that no one, from Boeing or elsewhere, appears to have come forward and stated that it was impossible for MH370 to have flown at FL45 — beyond it's certified maximum.

Just because an aircraft is "certified" to a flight level, does not mean it cannot, quite safely operate above that level. It is an easy enough task to 'google' the type certification data and perhaps even ask Boeing what was the maximum demonstrated height used to derive the certification data matrix; it will not be a 'national secret'. Also, F 430 or 450 there's little difference in 'survivability' time if the cabin was dumped.

But apart from niggles like that and a couple of other 'minor' technically fluffy bits, the piece makes interesting thought food. I have cherry picked some parts which relate directly to the Australian government's involvement. If you can spare the time, the links provided by Julie are worth following, if only for the sake seeing through what seems to be rapidly developing into a smoke and mirrors show.

Julie 2. The paragraph that begins the altitude discussion starts with "According to military radar". Again, I initially thought this was very sloppy, both in the writing and the editorial, because WHOSE radar was not specified. Of course, most people would just naturally assume that given the context, the writer meant MALAYSIA'S military and keep moving. But was Malaysia's military the ONLY military that *saw* MH370 right AFTER its turn over the South China Sea?

There's every chance that JORN did. JORN is a joint American/Australia piece of hi-tech radar gear and it is directly connected with the five powers MoU – see Sarcs #-HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-130.html#post8784948) for details.. Which is passing strange, considering the smoke generated when any line of discussion related to radar data is opened. For example:-

Bradsher –"The main evidence for the conclusion lies in a re-examination of Malaysian military radar data and in a more detailed analysis of electronic 'handshakes,' or pings"...and;

Bradsher –...a comprehensive international review has found that the Malaysian radar equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision to draw any conclusions about the aircraft’s true altitude.

Now that is a troubling statement, how in the seven hells can anyone responsibly assign altitude and guarantee separation (or contact) using a 'not calibrated enough' radar system. Even though it is a very expensive and reputedly highly sophisticated equipment system. So they just bought a brand new Rolls Royce, with all the whistles and bells, and then just parked in the ghetto. Nah, don't believe a word of it.

Bradsher –"'The primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable" said Angus Houston...Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, agreed with Mr. Houston. 'There’s nothing reliable about height'..

Mr. Houston and Mr. Dolan declined to discuss any details about the Malaysian radar readings."..

Huston perhaps with the national interest at heart and being naturally sensible may well have declined to speculate, leaving the 'Dolan' camp and his associated departments bereft of one mirror, to assist with the 'departmental' smoke and mirrors strategy for a 'clean' exit. It's a notion which may explain, in part, the developing rift between two camps and the bizzare, one line interviews Dolan is gracing the international media with. There's nary a skerrick in the local rags; unless you consider his IOS celebrated 'lunch' with the SMH as investigative journalism.

Julie – "SO THE DISMISSAL OF THE RADAR ALTITUDE DATA PROMPTED A CHANGE IN THE FOCUS OF THE SEARCH." (CAPS mine)".

Julie –Without a peep (in that article) from any Malaysian officials, and from the pulpit in Australia — sans any details as to who conducted the "comprehensive international review" of Malaysia's military radar system — or an explanation of the technical basis for determining that Malaysia's system was not "calibrated with enough precision" — it was announced that Malaysia's military altitude data was so imprecise that it was being dismissed. Which then allowed the authorities to CHANGE the SEARCH focus.

Julie –Other than Keith Bradsher, is there an aviation journalist anywhere on earth who caught this - or questioned it (or the authorities in AUS) in any meaningful way?

Yes, our very own Ben Sandilands was onto this and other 'interesting' elements of the incident and is also worth 'reading' in the manner prescribed by Julie in her 'longer twitter'.

Australia has more skin in the #MH 370 game than many realise and with a yawning chasm developing between the 'Mrdak/Dolan' front of house clean exit team and the Huston – 'Just do it right' crew, perhaps those who are going to be closest to the incoming flack had better pay a little attention to the Dolan domestic woes, before it becomes another Pel-Air, writ large and spread all over the pages of both domestic and international newspapers. If it was my shout, I'd drag the inestimable Julia Bishop into the front line and clean up the Australian aviation safety system 'image', before the unmentionable hits that which is rotating at an increasing speed. (Bit of diplomatic double speak there, but you get the drift).

I just wonder which of the major oil exploration companies is going to 'buy' the sea floor maps from the whoever owns them and what the final price will be; I mean the maps have to be worth something, to someone don't they?

Aye; it's all interesting enough, but will it get the Forsyth and Senate reports over the wire? Who would know just who will have a seat, when the music stops, as it must.

Nice work Julie – Cyber Choc frog delivery through cyber space – Send..:D..

Soteria
2nd Jan 2015, 06:46
Nice work Julie – Cyber Choc frog delivery through cyber space – Send.... Perhaps the chocy frogs can be delivered by Drone?

Jetsbest
2nd Jan 2015, 09:20
The "military radar" being referred to here is not an ATC radar but rather the type of radar designed to detect uncooperative aircraft such as an enemy which is not squawking any kind of transponder. One part of such a radar is that which tries to verify an aircraft's altitude by triangulation of the direct range and the antenna elevation angle: there are potentially large deductive errors if such a radar has not been "calibrated".
It's no surprise to me that such a conclusion might be reached.:O

Kharon
2nd Jan 2015, 10:34
JB. Even so: and I will acknowledge superior knowledge; but perhaps, particularly in that 'role', there just, conceivably, may be an even greater need for precision, rather than an 'approximation' to dispatch fighter aircraft to – duuno. But it still begs questions. However, the questions Sirrah are not my questions, but those of 'expert' commentators, repeated here solely in the interests of discussion and, mayhap, the Australian national interest; which you'll own, is not being well served at the moment. 'Twas but an idle twiddle based on what perhaps the world may perceive.

I still believe ET got it. This is, after all the entertainment channel..:D..

Jetsbest
2nd Jan 2015, 11:57
Agreed: accurate assessment of a contact's altitude is important....

But, in a purely military sense, when using such a ground-based radar in an air defence scenario to direct fighters (Malaysia for eg has Mig 29s, SU30s & Hornets) toward such a target, approximate is good enough because the fighter radar will be far more accurate. It's not about arranging or monitoring deconfliction, it's about getting the fighter radar pointed into the right piece of sky in order to be able gain radar contact in its own right which then allows a target to be intercepted.

In the absence of imminent hostilities I imagine that Malaysia's Air Force, like many others around the world with similar risk assessments, is faced with the same compromises wrt the costs of systems calibration and around-the-clock monitoring: hence the somewhat discredited altitude data from that source.

Just a humble opinion.:O

Kharon
2nd Jan 2015, 20:10
Thanks JB; a good post serving to highlight, very well, the difference a considered, informed opinion can make to 'speculation'. It makes perfect sense – once explained. Perhaps if more explanations of this calibre were provided, the public anxiety and suspicion levels would drop along with wind in some 'theorists' sails.

Much appreciated..:ok:...The Tim Tams are on the top shelf, next to the good posts..:D...

Frank Arouet
2nd Jan 2015, 21:53
Notably absent here is any discussion on ADSB and WAAS and "new" aircraft disappearing from "radar" who would be assumed to be WAAS or at least ADSB capable. I stand ready for correction, but I was of the opinion such a Satellite was positioned in the Asian theatre of operations. If in fact we are talking ADSB tracking, and not uncalibrated military "primary" radar tracking for separation purposes, it puts paid to the old chestnut we were sold that ADSB is also a SAR device.


I'd like to hear more about "JORN" and its possible role. Would Truss know anything about any MoU? He is the Deputy Prime Minister after all. Would Dolan know anything? (no, ignore that last sentence).


But I digress, the ADSB was being rammed down our throats in another time and another Minister of the day.

Sarcs
2nd Jan 2015, 22:28
In case you missed it here is the most relevant part of my Senate thread post - Aviation Mandarin, JORN & the sleepy echidna. (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-130.html#post8784948)
...If so there would yet again be another fascinating connection to MH370, for it seems that the RAAF has been dancing the tango with Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements for 43 years and the IADS has always been under the command of a RAAF AVM.

Reference from page 84 - The Five Power Defence Arrangements:The Quiet Achiever (http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol3no1Thayer.pdf):
The Commander of IADS has always been an Australian Air Vice Marshal
assisted by a deputy who rotates between Malaysia and Singapore.
Reference from the Strategist article - FPDA—not fade away (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/fpda-not-fade-away/):
Unlike the echidna, the FPDA has at least adjusted its gait to move with the times, re-badging IADS from integrated air defence to area defence as far back as 2001. Exercise and interoperability themes have since been broadened from conventional defence to HADR and maritime security. FPDA was not publicly invoked during the search for MH 370, but the disaster has focused an operational spotlight on the need for integrated air surveillance and SAR coordination across Southeast Asia and beyond. The apparent failure to track the airliner as it passed north of Butterworth was not IADS’ finest hour. But the continuing multinational search operation has unquestionably benefited from the institutionalised trust built up between Malaysia and its fellow FPDA members.
This apparent anomaly - although totally missed by most Oz MSM - was not missed by the international MSM nor the TBA.

Example from IBT - MH370: Australia Seems Conspiring to Hide Something, Random Letter Sparks Questions on Au’s Security Radar (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/553339/20140522/mh370-australia-search-update-missing.htm#.VJAAF0j9mP9) :
...With this, he explained that JORN can search most of the way to India (http://au.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/420/india/).
"Given this, the only way for the radar not to have detected something like MH370 is for it to be switched off at the time, which raises its own questions."

The most interesting detail the Mr La Franchi pointed out is that Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom (http://au.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/346/united-kingdom/) jointly operate the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) integrated air defence centre based in Malaysia.

He said that Australia had even funded the modernisation of the centre back in 1990. The modernisation entailed for the centre to be able to "recognised air picture" of all of Southeast Asian airspace using feeds from both civil and military radars.

"That centre has a live feed into the Australian Air Defence Ground Environment (ADGE) which underwent extensive modernisation across the 2000s. The FPDA integrated air defence data is fused with data from JORN in the ADGE, with this data available in real time at centres in Adelaide, Canberra and Newcastle," he explained.

With this information at hand, Mr La Franchi could not understand why MH370 was never detected by Australian system.
Kharon - "...Thanks JB; a good post serving to highlight, very well, the difference a considered, informed opinion can make to 'speculation'. It makes perfect sense – once explained. Perhaps if more explanations of this calibre were provided, the public anxiety and suspicion levels would drop along with wind in some 'theorists' sails..."

Sorry "K" in the case of #MH370 I beg to differ...:rolleyes: Maybe with a cover-up like that revealed with PelAir it is still possible to contain the leaks and amp up the smoke machine and add a few more mirrors but with #MH370 it simply has a life of its own.

To give an example take a look at the following article from Malay-mail online - Surviving MH370: One woman cries conspiracy (http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/surviving-mh370-one-woman-cries-conspiracy). The following quotes are from under the by-line - 'A cover-up?': “It doesn’t smell right and exactly what is going on, I honestly don’t know. I have no question what-so-ever that there is a cover up, at least related to MH370,” she said, adding that information has been withheld intentionally. “There is nothing that has been proven correct in the entire investigation, nothing, no proof,” she concluded. “It could be that the cover up is that literally they don’t know. It could be that everybody is mystified and honestly doesn’t know and really covering that up by claiming that they know where it is in the ocean. “I just don’t believe that it’s in the ocean. “Every expert that I’ve talked to says it’s impossible for an airplane like that to go into the ocean without debris, impossible,” she said. Bajc said the official story has so many holes in it that “it’s impossible to believe”. “I hear all the theories, some of them are absolutely crazy but most of them are more believable to me than the official story. So that’s why I continue to work at finding the truth,” she said, adding that now, she’s spending five to ten hours a week on finding answers. Pause for a moment and consider that this is just one obviously educated, intelligent woman's opinion that something does not 'smell right' - now expand that by how many millions?? Then consider who the PM & DPM have (by default) put in charge of the search for what is no doubt the highest profile aircraft disappearance mystery the world has ever seen...:{

A muppet who colluded/conspired to help perpetuate the PelAir cover-up; ..a muppet who after the Senate AAI report is now the most di-credited active bureaucrat involved in aviation safety administration/oversight in this country;..a muppet who appears to have gone rogue on the JACC & is now leaking to the international MSM...:=:=Kharon - Thanks JB; a good post serving to highlight, very well, the difference a considered, informed opinion can make to 'speculation'. It makes perfect sense – once explained. Perhaps if more explanations of this calibre were provided, the public anxiety and suspicion levels would drop along with wind in some 'theorists' sails. Now to contradict myself if we were to go back in time...;)

Nailed down Ferryman...:D:D Jetsbest post is exactly what should have come out of the JACC back then i.e. theory considered, measured, assessed and properly discounted...JB help yourself to the Tim Tams...:E

I'll be back...:ok:

Lookleft
3rd Jan 2015, 00:00
I think that, by definition, a regulator must have a bit of tension with those people who it is regulating, particularly in aviation.

Just to go back to your post Sarcs about Albanese, if the appropriate level of tension existed between the ATSB and CASA as it did during Lockhart River then quite possibly the whole Pelair debacle may not have taken the course that it did. The ATSB should have looked at the organisational issues surrounding Pelair's medevac services and I believe would have if they had been truly independent and not tied to CASA via the MOU. The MOU come about because the Queensland Coroner criticized the tension that did exist between the agencies. You can't have it both ways. BTW Albo a planespotter is an enthusiast who doesn't give a toss about the politics behind why he/she is able to enjoy watching planes take-off and land. What he doesn't seem to get is that an aviation professional has every right to criticize a system that is more against aviation than for it. Rant over:ugh:

Kharon
3rd Jan 2015, 00:57
As Lefty correctly points out; we have our own troubles here at home; however. Franks' question is a valid one, in relation to how the Australian system will be viewed as a direct result of the Albo & Co legacy, the MoU and Pel-Air.

Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-search-for-malaysian-airlines-mh370-wreck-of-unidentified-aircraft-in-bay-of-bengal-crucial-information-withheld/5389187)- Many people are asking why the Australian over the horizon radar Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) did not see MH370. The map below showing the JORN range is taken from an Australian Air Force fact sheet on JORN (https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_Fact_Sheet.pdf):

As I keep pointing out; the more Australia gets 'embroiled' the more danger there is that the 'credibility' of Angus Houston and by default the government will be tarnished by the 'say nothing' syndrome. This is why IMO it is crucial that open, honest, considered, professional opinion is offered, to each credible theory; even if it's a 'negative'. It beats the vacuum of no information into a cocked hat. Jetsbest's post is a perfect example of why communication, from accredited, qualified experts works so well and pays dividends; it is, as Sarcs mentions, not only totally credible, but earns gold stars. "Yes, we have carefully examined that theory and feel comfortable dismissing it, here's why". Full stop, gold star, media applause and maximum public credibility.

But no, in true Australian style in house politics at departmental level has to be played, the Be-a-Cur life support system weighs in and suddenly, in the midst of the straight, steady leadership of Houston and the excellent AMSA services, the Muppet creeps onto centre stage and into the media. Seems MH 370 is now to be cynically used in a vainglorious attempt to resurrect an image; not that of the ATSB mind you, but that of one who's very own Senate in Parliament dismissed it, with publicly stated open contempt.

It was always going to be tough enough for Julia Bishop to keep the collective Australian arse out of the blow back from MH 370, even with the credibility of Houston and AMSA front and centre. But with the Murky Machiavellian's glove puppet love child leading the way, from the pages of the SMH restaurant guide, mission impossible seems an appropriate title. What's next, Be-a-Cur does MKR? (gods spare us).

The Indonesian NTSB must be so happy that they got their act together and adopted the Alan Stray system rather than the 'beyond all reason' methodology and may rightfully compare their excellence now to be superior to that of the country which not only exported Stray, but then provided the world with the co author of the Pel-Air fiasco. Can you believe as 'the' accredited expert to lead the way to solving the confused MH 370 puzzle. Yeah, I also though it a joke until the Australian media was boycotted in favour of the international set. Perhaps the next planned stop is meant to be Montreal; then ICAO can have a matching pair. What a set of bookends to have on the mantelpiece, what a conversation starter that would make.

FFS someone bang on the miniscule's door, his alarm clock must have stopped working and he's late; almost too late....:ugh:..

Toot –toot – Tick-tock - CLICK MH 370....:oh:

dubbleyew eight
4th Jan 2015, 10:15
MH370 and australia's primary defence radar being turned off at the time.
ha ha ha ha ha plonkers. even if it wasn't turned off ...still plonkers.

I loved the russian response to the air asia crash.
here is one of our seaplanes that is able to land beside wreckage and retrieve stuff. (like you lot can't )
here are some of our divers as well who can dive on submerged wreckage.
the rest of the first world responses seem so anaemic in comparison.
ruskies win that one.:D

an incident of interest to me.
an australian P3 orion flying in international waters at 500 ft thinking it was totally dark and invisible and all that, detects 2 indonesian sukois making a bee line to intercept them.
how on earth did they know???? :E

methinks it pays not to ever think the indonesians are idiots. the western world hasn't always treated them fairly in its dealings, australia especially, if they haven't quietly caught up they aren't far off.
good one to the indonesians. selamat malam and all that.

...back to your regular entertainment...

Frank Arouet
4th Jan 2015, 21:23
I'm not convinced Houston is a "white hat". He's another political appointment suffering dependency syndrome.

thorn bird
5th Jan 2015, 03:48
Have we have learnt nothing?

The Zippy Share link at the bottom of the page will take you to a discussion written by ex-TAA Captain, turned lawyer Paul Clough. The opinion, comments and advice provided are persuasive. Expertise in both the aviation and legal disciplines add weight to the construct, which is provided for mature consideration.

The opinion provides a measured response to two, of several events which occurred during the past five years i.e. the Polar Aviation decision and the grounding of Tiger Airlines.

In my opinion, the piece provides a powerful insight into the burgeoning “Rule of the Regulator”, the consequences of that ethos and graphically illustrates how the unconscionable, immoral behavior of the so called “Iron ring” utilizes the CASA legal department in a “win at all cost” battle against any action which challenges the premise that CASA cannot be wrong.

The terms model litigant and due process are merely paid lip service when a determination has been made to take a course of action.

This practice tarnishes the reputation of all public servants and denigrates the legal profession, as a direct result.

If, as the Forsyth review recommends, CAsA is to genuinely seek rehabilitation within the aviation community then the opinion of Clough and many other aviation oriented counsel who contributed to the review must be considered essential to the dialogue.

Clough reaches back in time and uses as an example an incident which, to my knowledge, was never made public, Valuable lessons were therefore not learned, to the detriment of air safety.

There are many parallels and similar events occurring today, but lack of transparency and independence of public investigations achieves the same result as the cited incident.

Zero safety lessons learnt.

One of the startling differences is that the DC9 crew acquiesced to the CAA demands; the consequences were demonstrably almost fatal, certainly expensive.

There are several individual cases from 'today' that I am aware of, and probably many more that I aren’t, where crew or trainers have refused to oblige the CAsA demands, the aircraft remained undamaged, lives perhaps saved, but because of their dissent, the effect of that refusal has been detrimental to the careers of those pilots who stuck to SOP and the manufacturers prohibitions contained within the approved aircraft flight manual.

The many relevant messages contained within the article, the lessons that could have been learned by industry, are as relevant now they were during the DC9 incident. The questions raised are the same today and not just in aviation, but across the spectrum where the rule of the regulator impinges on an industry.

There is also some sound advice on protecting yourself and your organization should you become a potential victim of the 'system'. What is terribly sad is that that advice should be necessary, that a mature debate on a safety issue cannot be had with the regulator for fear of punitive retribution.

The DC 9 incident rang the warning bells, very loudly. TAA acted, promptly and correctly, but the regulator's official slipped away unscathed. Since the incident was managed 'quietly' and in house, the regulator has not taken the steps required to ensure, that from their end, the DC 9 incident could not be repeated. Indeed, recent court hearings have demonstrated that the ability to act irresponsibly has been enshrined in law; under the banner of 'safety'.

Those same warning bells are today ringing equally loudly, only an inch from our ears yet still the industry blindly follows the “Judas” goat to oblivion, like lemmings off a cliff.

Just like the ferryman, I get this curiosity itch. Scratch it and it just gets worse, no matter how I try to ponder an answer, for the life of me I cannot see why those of the 'Iron Ring' are so determined to destroy the very industry they oversee and draw revenue from.

What motivates them on this course? Are they being driven against their better judgment by a political agenda, such as that of Minister Albanese ?

Or is there a darker reason?

GA secondary airports have become very valuable pieces of real estate. Evidence is surfacing of a bit of derring do between various government officials and property developers during the original sell off.

Kill off GA and these very valuable pieces of underutilized real estate if commercially developed would make someone a lot of money.

I cannot accept that anyone in the bureaucracy could be so blind not to realize that destroying the industry they regulate they destroy themselves.

There must be intelligent people among their ranks, we have all observed just how cleverly they can manipulate events when it suits them.

I cannot accept that they are oblivious to the cause and effect of their actions on General Aviation, or the whole industry, Tiger for an example.

The affect of the law of diminishing returns must, eventually have an adverse effect on their own organization and by extension, their own well being.

The question I ask is why? What do they possibly hope to gain?

Zippyshare.com - Clough_DC9.pdf (http://www24.zippyshare.com/v/81215712/file.html)

Don't forget, hit the Download Now button to avoid spam.

I have taken the liberty of using 'bold' text to emphasise some bits and pieces that to me seem to be important and added some of my own thoughts and questions in the brackets.

Soteria
5th Jan 2015, 04:48
Well done Terry!! Only 4 years AFTER the PelAir clusterf#ck :D:D

CASA wishes to advise Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 3) (FRLI number F2014L01793) has been registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and is now in effect.

A copy of the Instrument can be downloaded from ComLaw by clicking on the following link:
Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Instrument 2014 (No. 3) (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01793/Download).

Kharon
5th Jan 2015, 19:45
Well done TB, you know where the Tim Tams are....:ok:

TB – "If, as the Forsyth review recommends, CAsA is to genuinely seek rehabilitation within the aviation community then the opinion of Clough and many other aviation oriented counsel who contributed to the review must be considered essential to the dialogue."

Spot on, the galling thing is that 'industry', from top to bottom, has responded magnificently to each and every 'inquiry' made. Hours of research, checking, writing editing, re-writing ensuring the message is delivered in a manner 'acceptable'; yet silence has been the stern reply. The response from the other side is to actively and openly seek ways and find means to minimise and avoid as many of the recommendations as possible, history is trying to repeat.

TB – "The DC 9 incident rang the warning bells, very loudly. TAA acted, promptly and correctly, but the regulator's official slipped away unscathed. Since the incident was managed 'quietly' and in house, the regulator has not taken the steps required to ensure, that from their end, the DC 9 incident could not be repeated. Indeed, recent court hearings have demonstrated that the ability to act irresponsibly has been enshrined in law; under the banner of 'safety'."

Amen. Indeed, little has changed since the DC 9 incident and 'stalling' is still a major issue. There are those who are 'black letter' pedantic. One of many similar tales from the Bankstown Chronicles goes like this: an RCA was raised against an ATO, essentially claiming that 'stalls' had not been correctly executed during aircraft based type rating training and check. It seems the only right and acceptable way to do this was to fully disable the stall protection systems. It took a letter from the manufacturer and much argument to persuade the CASA team that this was not only a bad idea, but was prohibited both by certification and the AFM. No matter, the type ratings were disallowed (even the FO's, who where not required to risk it under 40.1) and the RCA was produced and used as 'evidence' later, which of course was the purpose of the exercise. It's only one of many stories attributable to inutile FOI who can and will use the rules as required to achieve a desired outcome, which has sod all to do with 'safety'. There is a bit more to that tale, but you get my drift. Tell you it all over the next beer.....

TB – "There are several individual cases from 'today' that I am aware of, and probably many more that I aren’t, where crew or trainers have refused to oblige the CAsA demands, the aircraft remained undamaged, lives perhaps saved, but because of their dissent, the effect of that refusal has been detrimental to the careers of those pilots who stuck to SOP and the manufacturers prohibitions contained within the approved aircraft flight manual."

It's one of the great ironies, we spend a fortune to get the 'top end' of CASA straightened out, but the real grass roots embuggerance continues without let or hindrance. Much for Mr. Skidmore and his merry bored to consider, if they want to do the job right, not just look like they're doing it. A reassessment of their coal face troops and managers would be a great place to start. (.:E...Chuckle) – wouldn't it be a hoot if we started generating 'industry NCN' and sent them off to Skidmore......."Dear Mark this idiot (pick one) has just stated that we must (pick one). This is pony-pooh and we ain't having a bar of it. L&K the operator". That'd rock 'em..:D...:D..

Aye well; in the meantime I shall study the Clough (http://www24.zippyshare.com/v/81215712/file.html) offering carefully, it seems to make a lot of sense. Bravo Mr. Clough. Thanks mate..:ok:..

Toot toot.

Sarcs
5th Jan 2015, 21:30
Top stuff Thorny a fascinating tale that fortunately did not end in tragedy - perhaps more to do with the almost bullet-proof DC-9 airframe than anything else. The DC 9 incident rang the warning bells, very loudly. TAA acted, promptly and correctly, but the regulator's official slipped away unscathed. Heard whispers around the traps that one of the major suspected causal factors for the AirNorth Brasilia accident was just such an overzealous FOI - who strongly encouraged (enforced) Check & Trainers conduct instantaneous (chopped power lever) for all V1 cuts & EFATO. Now it may be just whispers but interestingly enough this FOI at the time - after apparently some higher profile operators complaints - was subsequently dispatched to some pencil pushing slot somewhere down near YMML only to re-emerge as a regular caricature in the Bankstown chronicles...all rumour & innuendo mind..:E

On a less serious tale I remember that many moons ago another overzealous FF official - while conducting a CP review in CM's (Alligator Airways) beloved Beaver floatplane - BASR wanted to conduct a x-wind landing on Lake Kununurra...:mad:WTF Subsequently the Beaver ended up upside down - oh how embarrassing...:E Hmm...wonder where that bloke ended up?? Soteria - Well done Terry!! Only 4 years AFTER the PelAir clusterf#ck :D:D
Yep absolutely disgusting...:yuk: Especially considering that by August 2010 the white hats had already drafted a version of that amendment and ironically it had already been drafted ready to sign by McComic..:= See here - Part One- The inconvenience of facts & timelines?? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-109.html#post8608928)

On a more positive note M&M's department have finally deigned to publish the IOS responses to the original Forsyth report - you know the one we were all asked to contribute to by the end of June '14...:ugh::
Public and Industry Comments on the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report

Listen to this page (http://app.as.readspeaker.com/cgi-bin/rsent?customerid=5274&lang=en_au&readid=text&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.infrastructure.gov.au%2faviation%2fasrr %2fpublic_comments%2findex.aspx)

A (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/index.aspx#) A (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/index.aspx#) A (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/index.aspx#)

Public and Industry comments made on the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report are set out below, except for comments that were submitted to the Department as confidential comments, and comments that the Department has elected to withhold on the basis that they contain significant personal, sensitive, and/or potentially defamatory information. Published comments have been redacted in some cases to remove personal or sensitive information (such as personal addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, licence or membership numbers, and scanned signatures).
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is not responsible for the content of these comments, which remains the responsibility of the original authors, and comments do not represent the views of the Department. To the extent permitted by law, the Commonwealth disclaims liability to any person or organisation in respect of anything done, or omitted to be done, in reliance upon information contained in any of the comments.
The Government received 21 confidential comments.

Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia LTD (AAAA)PDF: 895 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Aerial_Agricultural_Association_of-Australia_Ltd.pdf) / Aero Enterprise Australia Pty LtdPDF: 89 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Aero_Enterprise_Aus_PL.pdf) / Air Sport Australia ConfederationPDF: 90 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Air_Sport_Australia_Confederation.pdf) / Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA)PDF: 2014 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Aircraft_Owners_and_Pilots_Association_of_Australia.pdf) / Alan Baskett PDF: 60 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Alan_Baskett.pdf) / Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc PDF: 25 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Archerfield_Airport_Chamber_of_Commerce_Inc.pdf) / Arkaroola Air Services PDF: 177 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Arkaroola_Air_Services_Pty_Ltd.pdf) / Australasian Society of Aerospace MedicinePDF: 189 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australasian_Society_of_Aerospace_Medicine.pdf)/ Australian Airports Association (AAA)PDF: 238 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_Airports_Association.pdf) / Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA)PDF: 301 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_and_International_Pilots_Association.pdf) / Australian Aviation Business Association Inc (AABA)PDF: 14 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_Aviation_Business_Association.pdf) / Australian Certified UAV Operators INC (ACUO)PDF: 1011 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_Certified_UAV_Operators_Inc.pdf) / Australian Federation of Air PilotsPDF: 190 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_Federation_of_Air_Pilots.pdf) / Australian Mooney Pilots Association LtdPDF: 125 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_Mooney_Pilots_Association_Ltd.pdf) / Australian Sport Rotorcraft AssociationPDF: 67 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_Sport_Rotorcraft_Association_Inc_Redacted.pdf) / Australian Warbirds Association LtdPDF: 187 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_Warbirds_Association_Ltd.pdf) / Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association Inc (AMROBA)PDF: 245 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Aviation_Maintenance_Repair_and_Overhaul_Business_Associatio n.pdf) / Avlaw Pty LtdPDF: 174 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Avlaw.pdf) / Bob WarnPDF: 19 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Bob_Warn.pdf) / Bock ConsultingPDF: 93 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Bock_Consulting.pdf)/ Borgelt InstrumentsPDF: 14 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Borgelt_Instruments.pdf) / Chris ReillyPDF: 14 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Chris_Reilly.pdf) / Dan TylerPDF: 271 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Daniel_Tyler.pdf) / David KleinPDF: 13 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/David_Klein.pdf) / Douglas Aircraft Sales Pty LtdPDF: 26 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Douglas_Aircraft-Sales_Pty_Ltd.pdf) / Douglas StottPDF: 10 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Douglas_Stott.pdf) / Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Committee IncPDF: 110 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Evans_Head_Memorial_Aerodrome_Committee_inc.pdf) / Execujet Australia Pty LtdPDF: 24 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Execujet_Australia_Pty_Ltd.pdf) / Jim McDowellPDF: 34 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Jim_McDowell.pdf) / Karen CaseyPDF: 59 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Karen_Casey.pdf) / Michael WatsonPDF: 28 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Michael_Watson.pdf) / National Business Aviation AssociationPDF: 72 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/National_Business_Aviation_Association.pdf) / Neil KellerPDF: 44 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Neil-Keller.pdf) / Neill RearPDF: 27 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Neill_Rear.pdf) / Owen BrayPDF: 26 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Owen-Bray.pdf) / ProAviationPDF: 108 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/ProAviation.pdf) / Professional Aviators Investigative NetworkPDF: 111 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Professional_Aviators_Investigative_Network.pdf) / Recreational Aviation Australia IncPDF: 1192 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Recreational_Aviation_Australia_Inc.pdf) / Regional Aviation Association of AustraliaPDF: 396 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Regional_Aviation_Association_of_Australia.pdf) / Regional Express Group (Rex)PDF: 291 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Regional_Express_Group.pdf) / Richard GreenPDF: 24 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Richard_Green.pdf) / Riverina Air Motive Pty LtdPDF: 224 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Riverina_Air_Motive-Pty-Ltd.pdf) / Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of AustraliaPDF: 147 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Royal_Federation_of_Aero_Clubs_of_Australia.pdf) / Royal Victorian Aero ClubPDF: 143 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Royal_Victorian_Aero_%20Club.pdf) / Sydney Airport Corporation LimitedPDF: 2819 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Sydney_Airport_Corporation_Limited.pdf) / The Gliding Federation of Australia IncPDF: 129 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/The_Gliding_Federation_of_Australia_Inc.pdf) / UAS InternationalPDF: 172 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/UAS_International_Pty_Ltd.pdf) / William HamiltonPDF: 247 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/William_Hamilton.pdf)
WOW a veritable list of 'who's who' in Australian aviation circles...:ooh: Take a bow IOS but remember the jobs not done yet...:E

I'll be back...:ok:

Ps My nomination for the IOS award for excellence (which has a 1st prize of a year's supply of Tim Tams..:ok:) in response to the Reverend Forsyth's report has to go to Nathan Safe & crew at AIPA- TOP STUFF!:D:D

From cover letter (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_and_International_Pilots_Association.pdf):

AIPA REVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AVIATION SAFETY REGULATORY REVIEW PANEL

The Australian and International Pilots’ Association (AIPA) is grateful for the opportunity to supplement our submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) by commenting on the recommendations of the Panel. We congratulate them on achieving what was a difficult and complex task.

From the outset, AIPA is most concerned that there may be a number of senior members of the Executive who consider the ASRR process to be an irrelevant political process that has little or no import for how aviation safety is managed in Australia. The recent actions taken by CASA to unwind Australia’s Colour Vision Deficiency (CVD) policy position, one of the most enlightened in world aviation in regard to permitting pilots to fly in commercial service despite having an identified CVD, indicate a serious disregard not only for their relationship with the industry at large but also for the concept of evidence-based safety.

As the largest Association of professional airline pilots in Australia representing over 2,300 professional airline transport category flight crew and as a key member of the International Federation of Airline Pilot Associations (IFALPA) which represents over 100,000 pilots in 100 countries, AIPA wishes to make it very clear to you that the achievement of continuing high levels of aviation safety in Australia will only come about when the relevant government agencies act credibly and with integrity in all of their activities. They must "walk their own talk" and be model aviation citizens – they must lead by example rather than rule by coercion.

Our membership places a very strong expectation of rational, risk and evidence-based safety behaviour on our government agencies and we are all looking to you to affect serious change in the administration of aviation safety in Australia.

We therefore offer the following commentary on the Recommendations made by the ASRR Panel in the interests of furthering those expectations.

aroa
5th Jan 2015, 23:30
A packet of Chocolate Wheaten (tm) for Kharon..
...".but the real grass roots embuggerance continues without let or hinderance"

Oh How right you are!! One has to wonder what Regional Office "managers" actually manage, when those in the office are out and about causing grief and mayhem, wasting $$s and time for NO "safety" benefit.

For example, J. Retski of the Townsville office now promoted to "team leader" (sic...very sick), was a star player with false testimony and conspiracy in the Wilga Tail Affair costing the poor taxpayer some $350K. Result for any aviation "safety" benefit....nix, nought, SFA.:mad:
A prime example of CAsA leadersh*t..! :mad::mad:

The Industry NCN ...Great idea.:ok: There are others at it already, and I have a batch of names/incidents for Skidmore to go. Swamp the new DAS and he may get the message.
Be concise, no discrepancies in your wording tho...or:{

Frank Arouet
6th Jan 2015, 00:27
A complaints register was begun some years back, (1992 I think), after a Hervey Bay operator, (BR), was subjected to attack and subsequent life of poverty when he failed a student on a commercial training navex. Overloading an aircraft by a dangerous margin. The student was a relative of a CAsA, (CAA), stormtrooper.

One can only imagine that perhaps that failed pilot is still with us today, maybe even contributing to this forum, and only because of cronyism and corruption that got him a pass but, at the expense of a family, a home, a business, and a viable taxation contributor to the Australian economy. Not to mention emotional and psychological damage which can never be repaired.


The Wilga is another chapter that will add infamy to the years of aviation wilderness. I don't know where that register went, but I know Paul Phelan had much copy which should be catalogued and presented to Mr Skidmore for at least an apology for past wrongs.

Kharon
6th Jan 2015, 19:18
You know, despite being dubbed as 'mutterers', tendentious bloggers, the barking minority and other choice, albeit unsavoury labels; the quality of response to the Rev. Forsyth's ASRR is impressive. You'd be hard pushed to find better, the thing I like best is the willingness to voluntarily help, to be part of the reform process. Sure, all have vested interests and a particular bias toward their own area, that's natural and reasonable; AIPA would struggle to understand the intricate needs of the AAAA or the RFACA; but in essence, general agreement is writ large and clear across the responses.

If for no other reason than the unstinting effort, thought, discussion and expertise offered, the contributors to the ASRR and their response to the recommendations should be applauded. The comments, advice and the logic supporting the constructs are all worthy of serious consideration by the Minister as they provide a clear, considered, expert, industry supported pathway toward financially viable, operationally sound, legally compliant growth of a ham-strung industry working with a respected regulatory authority.

One thing is clear, we can no longer continue with the existing system, not if we intend to survive. Compare any of the following with CAIR 09/03 or the Chambers report and then decide which direction the industry should take. I know where my vote would go.

Time prevents in depth reading of all the respondents, however the following (IMO) summarise, very well, some of the published issues, not the unspoken ones, but within the constraints of the ToR and good manners, the message is clear enough. Choc frogs awarded to:-

AAAA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Aerial_Agricultural_Association_of-Australia_Ltd.pdf)

AIPA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_and_International_Pilots_Association.pdf)

BROCK. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Bock_Consulting.pdf)

RAAA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Regional_Aviation_Association_of_Australia.pdf)

RFACA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Royal_Federation_of_Aero_Clubs_of_Australia.pdf)

Find the time, if you can and see what the mandarins will be trying to prevent. They are good at it and, it's been done so many times before; 2008 anyone.

aroa
6th Jan 2015, 22:04
I am convinced some? of these CAsA tossers are drug addicts...they get off snorting the powder of unfettered, unaccountable power and abuse it to make their point..What I say goes, even it it causes a prang. By whatever it takes, criminally, immorally or otherwise.

You only have to know of the trauma caused to JQ, financially and mentally to wonder what the destruction of this individual has done to benefit "safety"in this country. As usual, nix nought Sweet FA :mad::mad: All leavened with a bucket load of taxpayers dollars and costly time. The loony wasters!

And the most galling part is the smiling assassins just take a walk, unaccountable, unpunished and un-bothered by CAsAs up top that couldnt give a rats.

As on the painted wagon... CAsA is seriously corrupt and morally bankrupt.

Which proves that the current "code" is a sick, joke document.

Skidmore..take note and make your mark.

Sarcs
7th Jan 2015, 07:48
Time prevents in depth reading of all the respondents, however the following (IMO) summarise, very well, some of the published issues, not the unspoken ones, but within the constraints of the ToR and good manners, the message is clear enough. Choc frogs awarded to:-

AAAA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Aerial_Agricultural_Association_of-Australia_Ltd.pdf)

AIPA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Australian_and_International_Pilots_Association.pdf)

BROCK. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Bock_Consulting.pdf)

RAAA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Regional_Aviation_Association_of_Australia.pdf)

RFACA. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Royal_Federation_of_Aero_Clubs_of_Australia.pdf)
In agreement Ferryman some wise old heads have created some top responses in that lot...:D:D:D

For pure unadulterated but controlled fury you simply could not go past Forray Phil's May 21st letter to the Miniscule, which was in response to Hawkey's inflammatory missive...:ugh::
Dear Deputy Prime Minister

I recently received a letter from Mr Hawke, the Chairman of the CASA Board, regarding the AAAA submission to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review that you established. Given the seriousness of the correspondence (which I understand your office also received a copy of), I felt it was appropriate to respond directly to you.

Firstly, I confirm that the media attention Mr Hawke refers to was not solicited by AAAA and appeared without our prior knowledge or participation. Regardless, media interest in the current review should not be a surprise. Neither should light being shed on CASA's poor performance by people and the organisations affected.

The AAAA Board has considered the letter and regards it as an inflammatory attempt to stifle legitimate and evidence-based criticism of CASA's performance. The seeping culture of intimidation and harassment, something you have heard first hand from at least one AAAA member and from many other aviators and maintainers, has become CASA's trademark.

Mr Hawke's letter is extraordinary in its timing and content in that the ASRR is shortly to report. For any government organisation to seek to become a political player while they are under active review takes either a certain amount of bravado or a complete insensitivity to their correct place in the political and democratic process.

I believe Mr Hawke's intervention- this being his first formal direct correspondence with AAAA since his appointment and the first contact of any type for over four years - is illuminating in many ways. It should be very useful in providing an insight into the very problems AAAA identified in its submissions to the ASRR regarding CASA"s culture.

The 'facts' presented by Mt Hawke as to how CASA has been so helpful to the industry and AAAA in particular, are as problematical as they are wrong. For example, the following corrections are warranted:

• The risk sector approach is simply a copy of what NZ has already done and AAAA was only advised of its existence in the last two months. AAAA has sought to work cooperatively with the concept and is several years advanced on CASA's position.
• The single point of entry is the GA Taskforce – i.e. there is no Aerial Agricultural Unit and the problems of inconsistent decisions continue due to the ongoing emasculation of the GA 'Taskforce'.
• There has been noformal contact by CASA with AAAA on fixing CAO 48 1.
• The revised AAAA Standard Ops Manual is still with CASA awaiting approval - it has not been approved or 'republished'. The CASA insistence on rewriting the manual at this time for petty changes was opposed by AAAA given the significant upcoming rewrite necessary to accommodate Part 61, Part 137 (revised) and CAO 48.1. CASA has never been involved with its publishing, which demonstrates Mr Hawke's advisers' poor grasp of the standard manual process.

The CASA failure to renew a night recency exemption for agricultural ops until after the last night season, the ongoing problems around unnecessary HAAMC appointments, the unwarranted and heavy handed actions regarding aircraft groundings for petty issues in south east Queensland, the attempted bullying and harassment of operators, the unique Australian costs of operating agricultural aircraft, and the wide range of other practical problems highlighted in submissions to the ASRR are conveniently ignored.

Mr Hawke's letter simply highlights the ongoing disconnect between how the CASA hierarchy view their contribution and performance, compared to what industry actually experiences - and documents - at the coal face.

Mr Hawke’s claims regarding the offer of a joint Board meeting simply do not reconcile with my recollection. Regardless of events in 2009/10, there has been no contact regarding the CASA Board since that time.

Mr Hawke's letter seems to infer that I do not keep the AAAA Board appraised of our relationship or correspondence with CASA. This would be a grave misjudgement.

The AAAA Board views Mr Hawke's correspondence as emblematic of the issues identified in the AAAA ASRR submissions The AAAA Board at this time feels it has no option other than to express no confidence in Mr Hawke as Chairman of the CASA Board or the other current members of the CASA Board. AAAA is particularly concerned with any role for Mr Hawke and other current Board members in the selection of a new CASA CEO.

The AAAA Board respectfully requests that as a consequence, you immediately terminate the current CASA Board under Section 60 (3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and use this significant action to reset the relationship between CASA and industry so that we can all focus on cooperating to make aviation safer, stronger and an even greater contributor to the Australian commonwealth.

Yours faithfully

Phil Hurst
CEO-AAAA
Hmm..no comment required...:oh:

I'll be back...:ok:

Sunfish
7th Jan 2015, 18:39
In my opinion, after the next major accident occurs, there is enough gunpowder stored in this Pprune Thread to blow CASA, the ATSB, the Department and the Minister to kingdom come.

How is it that CASA is allowed to get away with what it continues to do?

Kharon
7th Jan 2015, 20:24
""

The 'Phil Buster' letter is a classic example of how to get the message though without tipping the baby out with the bathwater. Coming from a sanguine, competent man who may rightly be adjudged every bit qualified to be operating in the 'diplomatic' atmosphere of matters which involve 'government', it qualifies as ordinance. But what calibre, what has it hit, who heard it and who cared? - all valid questions. Not the Iron Ring, that's for certain; like cockroaches the IR will survive the next holocaust and continue to intimidate the new bored and work within the established protocols .

Every fool in the market place knows that that the trough is a Cornucopia; deeply hidden and well protected by layer upon layer of every conceivable device to keep it that way. The many generations of 'public service' families have worked tirelessly, while we paid them, to make absolutely sure that nothing penetrates the fortress curtain wall very deeply. Not even the recent tragic events involving our neighbours to the North, not the fall out, or the blowback from the result of a major accident. Why?, well we do have a world class, publicly funded system for protecting those grazing in the Elysian fields and dining from the comu copiae; that's why.

You need to look no further than McComic or Dolan to see the 'system' working; despite everything that has transpired, evidence by the cartload, condemnation and censure from Senators, the Minister and peers, not even a mild flogging with Creamies wet lettuce leaf. Hundreds of pages, thousands of words, millions of dollars and the return on that investment? a snotty letter from Hawke which infuriated a gentleman like Phil Hurst. Phil's fury finished up where? Oh yes I remember, from the minion sweeping up the post, to the filter which directs traffic, to the Machiavellian in tray before beginning it's long journey to the minuscles's desk, via the property developers filter and steam by-pass valves.

What a wondrous system, shame Phil's little tirade has marked him for future, subtle but non the less lethal attention. For speaking one's mind against the 'system', even mildly carries dire consequences. Welcome to the IOS chapter supporting the 'mutterers and mumblers' Phil. Unfortunately, we cannot offer full IOS status against this one effort, but pull up a chair anyway, you can at least watch the train smash from here.

Is it bloody disgraceful?, you bet.

Ala Sunny - Put it another way - Johnson was fired from the ministry for denigrating the boat building fraternity. Hawke gets a government issue chocolate frog (rum flavoured).

The cornucopia (from Latin cornu copiae) or horn of plenty is a symbol of abundance and nourishment, commonly a large horn-shaped container overflowing with produce, [B]flowers or nuts

Sarcs
8th Jan 2015, 04:53
M&M has sure kept this quiet...:rolleyes:
Truss Approves Bankstown Master Plan (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-approves-bankstown-master-plan)
07 Jan 2015

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss today approved the Bankstown Airport 2014 Master Plan.

Bankstown Airport submitted its Plan in October 2014, to replace the 2005 Master Plan.

“The Master Plan sets out Bankstown Airport's strategic direction for the next 20 years and provides information for the community about site operations and future development,” Mr Truss said.

“The Plan proposes a range of aviation developments including runway lighting upgrades and runway, taxiway and apron pavement strengthening.”

According to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, the plan seeks to support the long-term sustainability of the aviation industry in the Sydney region "consistent with the Australian government's strategic planning for Sydney region aviation—including the recent announcement of Badgerys Creek as the location for a Western Sydney airport."

While Bankstown Airport has been experiencing declining aircraft movements for some time, over the next 20 years aircraft movements are predicted to increase from around 220,000 movements in 2013 to around 298,000 in 2034.

No increase to the current provision for Regular Passenger Transport links has been proposed, and although the plan has been approved, individual developments contained within the plan still need to be signed-off by the Department.

Bankstown Airport is now required to publish the master plan within 50 working days. This comment from Beryl is spot on...:D:Beryl Lester. • a day ago (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-approves-bankstown-master-plan#comment-1775863092)
They kept their cards (plans) close to their chest. Looks like with stealth they will win. Those famous last words Bankstown will never become a busy Airport. Passing strange is that the presser for this announcement was only released yesterday but apparently the Miniscule signed the Master Plan on Monday...:confused:: Approval granted for Bankstown Airport Master Plan (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2015/January/wt001_2015.aspx)

For those interested here is what Truss has signed off on - 2014 Preliminary Draft Master Plan (http://www.bankstownairport.com.au/Corporate/Master_Plan/2014_PDMP/2014_Preliminary_Draft_Master_Plan.aspx)

I guess the issues with the McBank & Floodplains have all been addressed..or have they??

You Tube

If nothing else I guess that means the miniscule is back at work; although after that decision I'm not exactly sure in what capacity...:ugh::{

Maybe I'll be back...:*

Kharon
8th Jan 2015, 20:01
The minuscule is only required to turn up Mondays, before 1000 and unlock the rubber stamp box; the Murky Machiavellian crew then have free access to the rubber stamp until Friday 1700, when the minuscule wanders in (looking windswept and interesting) to lock it up again.

The smooth untroubled waters of government are rarely ruffled by interfering politicians, perish the thought and wash your mouth out. Shame on you Sarcs...;).

Toot toot...:D.

greylocks
11th Jan 2015, 04:53
There was a crooked man
Who walked a crooked mile

This man he worked for CASA
And so he couldn't smile

He bought a crooked cop
That caught a crooked clerk

And they all lived together
In a little crooked Ark.

Frank Arouet
12th Jan 2015, 00:27
CAsA are comedians playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

Kharon
12th Jan 2015, 21:29
M&M has sure kept this quiet..

There's barely enough horsepower at BK to keep the candles burning; those left behind must creep about like mice on eggshells lest the cat spot them and feeling peckish, snaffle them for a mid morning snack.

I expect the 'stealth' release of the 'master plan' has more to do with economic expediency and establishing a 'legal' position which will be expensive to beat, due to a degree of paranoia stemming from the doughty, robust defence the crew at Archerfield have put up.

I notice this subject popped up on the GA pages, the response was pitiful; seems getting a taxi is the only major problem....:ugh:.... I can just picture one lone figure, swathed in rags and a long coat sitting on a discarded aircraft tyre, waving a hand written sign – bulldozers GO HOME as the developers march in. Ayup, that'll stop 'em all right – provided the three lines in the Torch don't put the feral gummint into a tail spin first.

Archerfield may survive to fight another day due to the sterling efforts of a few with the support of many; Jandakot seem safe enough for the while due to some 'plane' talking and early action; Parafield appears safe enough. But Bankstown is where the big property dollars are and the fight is dirtiest. And they worry about taxi's; wait till there's a bus depot outside Westfield, no transport problems then.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOVZZzn8g2gMWFe_xeLGAbDUe3FYMFgYpOLcXXiK5 yCVLF-IuE

thorn bird
13th Jan 2015, 08:14
Of course he's kept it quiet boatman!!!

What do you think will be his reward?

An ex state Pollie and ex federal minister gets a few years directorship, on massive remuneration to top up his already exorbitant parliamentary super, but also a wonderful farm in New Zealand, courtesy of a certain bank, and he was only in at the start.

Imagine what an M&M is punting for??

Remember BK, as real estate is worth billions, people get murdered for less than a few thousand.

Corrupting a mandarin or two, or sorting out the retirement plans for one or two iron ring members is chicken sh..t, in the overall Scheme of things.

SIUYA
13th Jan 2015, 08:59
What do you think will be his reward?

If recent NSW ICAC 'results' are anything to go by TB, hopefully an invitation to a giant arse-kicking party, a very public DCM, and perhaps some time in the 'big house'.

But, dreams aside, probably a nice golden handshake and a politically (Truss) supported high-level gig to ICAO, if past results are anything to go by. :yuk:

Soteria
13th Jan 2015, 10:22
Saw him on the news the other night, campaigning. To be honest, Truss looked worse than normal, he looked like complete shit. Has somebody taken the trough away from him, looks like he has lost weight? And his skin looked like it had been napalmed!! Perhaps he won't get to stick around long enough to enjoy the fruits of his less than average labor??

Sarcs
15th Jan 2015, 06:08
Other than Thorny there has not been much commentary on the miniscule signing off on the BK Master Plan...:rolleyes: Not sure if this is typical apathy; or resignation; or maybe it is seen as a good thing by some??

Anyway in the course of doing some internet trolling on the subject, I came across a document off M&Ms website that was of interest...:ooh: This document was titled - Bankstown Airport draft Master Plan 2010 (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airport/files/Bankstown_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf)- Reasons for Decision (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airport/files/Bankstown_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf)


Basically the 13 pages contained within summarised why Albo had formally rejected the BAL dMP from March 2010:


Findings on material questions of fact and reasons for decision

18. The Minister decided not to approve the draft master plan because he was not satisfied that the draft master plan adequately achieved the purposes of a final master plan. The Minister further concluded that the consultations carried out by BAL in relation to the draft master plan were not adequate. The Minister also considered that the outcome of those consultations had not been satisfactory addressed.

19. The Minister also found that: carrying out the dMP would adequately meet the present and future requirements of civil aviation users; the dMP specified the matters prescribed in subsection 71(2); and BAL has complied with section 72 of the Act.

20. The Minister also found that the introduction of RPT services at Bankstown could raise issues relating to airspace management in the Sydney basin. The Minister noted that the 2003 Airservices Report into the operational capability of Bankstown Airport raised airspace concerns surrounding the introduction of RPT at BAL. The Airservices submission in the dMP process also refers to new air traffic arrangements and identifies the need for new arrangements to fit with Sydney Airport procedures...

Blah...blah...blah...however I do wonder if the former miniscule's real concerns with the dMP were not contained in paragraphs 33-36:33. ...The Minister was also concerned that the dMP lacked sufficient information about the consequences, particularly in terms of aircraft noise, of the proposed use, and about mitigation strategies...

35. ...BAL further indicated that it would have informed the public about passenger services through a second consultation phase that would include: flight timings and weekly schedules; noise impacts; ground traffic impacts; operational impacts; and the use of flight tracking technology...
36. ...to the Minister would have better informed the public about the intended use of the Airport, by revealing the potential impact of the intended use on issues of concern to the community, such as noise levels at particular times and places or traffic impacts...
What perked my interest however was the reference to the 2003 AirServices report, so I did some further digging and came across some interesting passages of Hansard from a HoR adjournment 5 August 2004 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2004-08-05%2F0103;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2004-08-05%2F0000%22)

This was part of the 1st instalment - from the former member for Blaxland - on the subject of YSBK & the dMP: Mr HATTON (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FLN6%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) (10:39 AM) —Bankstown Airport Ltd have just released the preliminary draft master plan for Bankstown Airport, which gives their vision of the way Bankstown Airport should operate in the next 20 years. The reason that Bankstown Airport Ltd have done it, and not the federal government, is that the federal government sold the lease on the airport before it had worked out a plan for how Bankstown is to be used in the future.


The expectation of most people in Bankstown was that this master plan would not dramatically change the way things happen in Bankstown. On the briefings that I got from Bankstown Airport Ltd, I did not expect any major change; I expected that this general aviation airport would continue to operate in the way it had operated in the past. I understood that the one thing they were looking for was an extension of the runway by 200-odd metres in order to send freighters out of Bankstown Airport fully laden. However, here today—as I did in a press release recently—I absolutely condemn the fundamentals of this plan.


The demand for a 220-metre extension to the runway is matched by the consideration that they want to strengthen that runway so that it could regularly take not 20-tonne loads, as it has taken historically, but 50-tonne loads. The thrust of this draft master plan is that regular passenger transport operations should be introduced to Bankstown Airport. When you look at the figurings for the future, you see that that would knock out most of the general aviation operations that are the core of Bankstown Airport's current operation.


This is the biggest business in Bankstown. This is the fundamental heart of our industrial activity. General aviation training and general aviation bring income from all over the world into Australia. It is the very engine of our economy in Bankstown. What the draft master plan would seek to do is to supplant general aviation with regular passenger transport services—jet and turbo-prop. What this plan does not seek to do at all, as the government has never sought to do, is to write out 737s and above using Bankstown Airport for the whole of the future and certainly for the next 20 years...

And the reference to the ASA 2003 study is contained in a further passage of Hansard from the former member for Blaxland here (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2004-08-05%2F0175;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2004-08-05%2F0000%22).



All of which got me thinking that maybe there is a lot more to the miniscule's very low key announcement on approving (signing) the BAL October 2014 Master Plan..:confused: (one perhaps for the BRB...:rolleyes: )



While on the subject of YSBK I note that Toll has made a significant commitment to a major investment with the airport...:D:D: Toll scores aeromedical contract (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/tolls-scores-aeromedical-contract) Australia’s largest provider of transport and logistics, Toll Group, has signed an aeromedical contract with the NSW Health Administration Corporation that is expected to generate revenues of approximately $800 million over 10 years.

The work will see eight new, purpose-built medical helicopters service the southern half of NSW and the ACT from four bases, as well as building and operating an aeromedical training centre of excellence at BankstownAirport, a first in Australia.


Toll Group Managing Director Brian Kruger said Toll will take advantage of its air evacuation and search and rescue expertise to provide an outstanding emergency response service to the people of NSW and the ACT.


"Every year in NSW and ACT there is more than 3,000 flights needed for emergencies such as car accidents, inter-hospital transfers and search and rescue tasks," Mr Kruger said.

"Toll is well known for providing operational excellence in a range of transport services, including helicopter services for the Australian Federal Police in the Solomon Islands and the Australian Defence Force in East Timor, and providing disaster relief management support across the Asia Pacific region on behalf of Australian Government agencies.


"The experience we bring will give confidence to the people of NSW and the ACT that an outstanding helicopter medical rescue service is available."

One of the highlights of Toll’s capabilities is the development of an aeromedical training centre of excellence at Bankstown Airport.

The state-of-the-art training centre will include flight and training simulators, advanced underwater escape training complex, and wet and dry winching practice towers.

Mr Kruger said the centre of excellence at Bankstown will allow Toll to deliver world’s best helicopter emergency retrieval service for NSW Ambulance.





Hmm...wonder if there is a connection...:confused:




I'll be back...:ok:

thorn bird
15th Jan 2015, 08:44
Hmm,

I wonder what Toll paid for that contract Sarcsie?

I always imagined the BK Master plan was to get as much aviation off the airport as possible, to go hat in hand to the Government and complain that Bk was unviable as an airport, but as an industrial site, wow!!!

Think of the contributions we could make to your re-election funds now, and the directors fees we could pay once you leave politics!!

Poor man GA!!..screwed by CAsA from above, screwed by property developers from below.

Read the crap spouted by Mr. Hatton, well I mean, was he serious??

...and it came to pass... Sleezy lay with Mcbanki and beget trussy who lay with Mc bali and beget... ??

Sorry people, the only people who want GA in Australia is GA.
Stick your head out the door and yell WHO WANTS GA..the sound of the crickets will deafen you.

Sarcs
16th Jan 2015, 01:02
Thank God Dougy & Hitchen are back I was getting a bit of sick of the likes of resident MSM aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas flooding us with sensationalist bulls:mad:t in regards to the AirAsia tragedy...:ugh: From AvBusiness online -Editor's insights 15 January 2015 (http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/editor-s-insights-15-january-2015) - it seems that Dougy was in agreement in (re: above) to the 'media frenzy' over the crash of QZ8501 :D:
Naturally the aviation event that took centre stage over the Christmas season was the loss of that Air Asia flight. At such times a I am always amazed by the eagerness of the general media to provide ‘answers’ even 24 hours after the event, when the aircraft hasn’t even been located let alone retrieved in any sense. I’m also always surprised at the number of aviation insiders who are prepared to feed that media frenzy with speculation too often presented as ‘expert’ analysis, at a time when we just don’t know what happened.

As I write this the black boxes have only just been recovered and when some data from them have been analysed and released then we might be a position to make appropriate comment. I think we do our industry a disservice by rushing to assumptions at an early stage. But maybe I’m the only one who thinks that. Hitchen's first weekly summary for the New Year was much more topical to the thread - The Last Minute Hitch: 16 January 2015 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/the-last-minute-hitch-16-january-2015) - so here it is in full:
And so we start the 2015 aviation year with mixed feelings about the future of our industry. For sure there is a lot more optimism around than there was leading into 2014, but it is a reserved optimism that will stay low-key until the Federal Government converts words into actions. Given the history of apathy that has come out of Canberra in the past, we couldn't really expect the industry to backflip from despair to joy based solely on the Forsyth Report. It is only now the real work is beginning; it is only the results that will add bouyancy to the outlook.

As 2015 progresses, there are bound to be some changes going on, and we'd be more than happy to hear what you have to say about it. You can send me a note any time [email protected]

There is some good news in the NSW Government's grant program for regional airports (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/state-funding-offered-to-30-nsw-airports). As I said about the scheme that ran under the previous Victorian government, we'll take money anyway and anyhow we can get it. The back-hander is that it's restricted to only 30 airports from the outset, because the cash is intended to boost tourism into the regions, by air. Consequently, only those airports with RPT, or recently lost RPT, are eligible. If you're not one of those airports, you're out in the cold.

Bankstown's Master Plan has been approved (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/truss-approves-bankstown-master-plan). It will still be some time before we get to have a look at it (7 Jan plus 50 working days), but it appears to contain not a lot of surprises. Most interesting is the prediction that the airport movements will increase by 78,000 per year over the next 20 years. I'd like to hope that's true, but even with an RPT service, it's hard to see where the increase will come from given that movements at BK have been on the decline since the 367,000 of 2008. The 2014-15 year looks like it's headed for a 230,000 year; a decline in movements of 26% if that figure is accurate. Bring on the Master Plan.

Good to see the Outback Air Race (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/outback-air-race-ready-to-go-in-august)is on again! This is a fund-raiser for the Royal Flying Doctor Service that drags pilots all over the outback from Esperance to Hamilton Island. The crews come back with stories of getting lost, getting found, nights in the pub and discovering new mates. It might be all in a good cause, but I don't get the feeling that's why they're doing it!

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch :D:D I'll be back...:ok:

Frank Arouet
16th Jan 2015, 02:31
230,000/ 365 makes for 630 movements per day. This would be hard to reconcile with what I saw last year, on a Friday and Saturday combined. I'd say the figure was an improvement. I'm unsure if budgeting for an extra 78,000 means 213 more per day, or 10.6 per day amortized over the 20 years and makes me think the movements are "enthusiastically elasticized" or purposefully "fuzzy".

Kharon
16th Jan 2015, 19:43
Dunno about those numbers Frank, had a quiet chuckle when I saw them, "enthusiastically elasticized" and "fuzzy" were not my first thoughts.

But, pause for a second, perhaps the numbers are 'enthusiastic' because it's the first time, in many years anyone has had to contemplate BK being an operational aerodrome. The mere mention of growth has been taboo for a long while. I believe we may have to upgrade to using Minuscule rather than the diminutive. The unspeakable Albo not only sat on his signing hand when matters aeronautical were on the table, but hid the pen. Now the Minuscule has signed three MP this past week. Don't know if a Choc frog would be considered a bribe?, perhaps if he disclosed it all would be well; but the signing off of three MPs, for whatever reason is a good thing. Thank you....

The question now of course is why, why now?

There are some intriguing theories of course; matters of a financial nature leading the charge. Now if the plot to decimate an industry and 'develop' the aerodromes has failed, someone is going to take a financial bath, a long cold one. The notion of strata title may just warm the water up and save the Commonwealth purse. But someone is going to loose.

Then there are matters referred to ICAC, from which the Minuscule must distance his government. The idea of the murky world of influence and big bucks, under the spotlight may have been persuasive. The Minuscule will not want to be associated with that little dance party, if the music ever starts.

Then of course there are the Archerfield defence corps to contend with. Some experts are predicting a win. The 'legal' arguments are complex and way beyond my grasp, but it seems there is yet another embarrassing 'translation' of law to suit a purpose about to implode. That challenge is still in abeyance, but a betting man could do worse than '10 bob the win' – Archerfield, a win which would seriously influence the betting across the board.

Another subtle, but persuasive force emanates from the Senate. It's not too a long a stretch to believe that the estimates crew are all over the game and intend to return the goal posts to their rightful place. If you extracted from Hansard the questions and answers related to 'airports' and the development of same; you end up with a thick volume and a very, very clear picture of how the good Senators see things. Add in the written questions and it would be truly difficult to deny that the good Senators have earned their keep.

My favourite notion is that our trusty Minuscule has seen the light; and in an epiphany has realised that Albo's CASA is totally beyond salvation, that Albo's ATSB has become an international joke, that Albo's ASA is being milked by very skilled hands; and, that his own department has become the playground of choice for an unsavoury gang of facilitators, clinging to the Albo mantra.

But, any form of progress is welcome and should be encouraged. Those enthusiastic numbers were probably grabbed from fresh air, by a minion with NFI that any forward progress was scheduled, for they were never calculated. Has the Minuscule caught them all with their pants down? – I would love to think so...We'll have to call him Minister then by Golly, now wouldn't that be a fine thing....:ok:..

Toot – toot..:D..

Kharon
18th Jan 2015, 01:19
or: Willyleaks email 1313.
Subject: STFU.
Date:13/13/14
From: Grown up search boss.
To: TB #1.

Shut down that Blog and STFU you embarrassing, moronic specimen.

L&K Lord A.

Subject: STFU.
Date:13/13/14
From: TB#1.
To: Lord A.

Yes Sir: Click – Comments closed.
- - - - - - - - - -- - - -......:eek:...
Dear Mr Truss.

Please Sir, I can't laugh any more; please don't make me, my sides ache. One of your minions has been running private blog through a government web site, open to public comment. See – HERE (http://atsb.gov.au/infocus/posts/2014/cautious-optimism-in-search-for-mh370.aspx#.VLrdbwtfMwY.twitter) -. It must be banned as there is simply too much hilarity being generated, people are dizzy from spin and sick from laughing. It all began as a smart idea to show the riff-raff, IOS and the MaM how to be a tendentious blogger and slap down any outrageous comment or theory which did not fit the beyond all reason methodology. Indeed, all was well until some qualified, expert comments started to pop up, following a major event. Had TB#1 been qualified, in any way to respond to expert questioning then, things may have been different; but, as it stands, your boy has had his pants pulled down and his bottom royally and publicly slapped by people who have a rough idea of what they speak. Delay, spin and deception don't cut much mustard with qualified experts and TB spent a lot of time running back to the grown ups for advice before eventually, part answering the question. You know the style as well as we do; hell you've seen it done many times before in estimates, inquiry and the like.

Perhaps the final ignominy was being forced to close down the comments section when the game got too rough. It's not easy being a tendentious blogger, one needs to have a vague idea of what one is discussing, be able to field the questions in real time, head off conspiracy theories forming in the information vacuum and defending your rear against the slings and arrows which may be attracted thereto (or is it netherto?)

Now this fellah – HERE (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/01/18/mh370-is-it-time-to-investigate-the-investigators/) – is a tendentious blogger and he is bloody good at it. The opinion article is properly presented, balanced and reasoned. Perhaps your boy TB#1 could learn to do it properly if he studied; for he has NFI about water searches or 'Black box' recovery from watery graves, in fact, many of us doubt he can even swim (aquphobic, some say). There is even a vicious, unsubstantiated rumour that he has trouble tying his boot laces; but we'll take that question on notice.

We understand you may be finding it difficult to fire him; so failing that, please, for the sake of my aching, ancient sides shut him down; )or up(as pleases best. I don't care just so long as it stops soon.

VB Regards the IOS chapter for Disavowing Absolute Flaming Tendentions. (DAFT).

Sarcs
19th Jan 2015, 21:55
Love your work "K"...:E

Flicking through the news spiels from MSM, the TBA etc. and I came across this MMSM article by AK who sometimes fills in for Steve...:8:
Airline Rex ‘can’t explain’ its massive donations to political parties (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/airline-rex-cant-explain-its-massive-donations-to-political-parties/story-fnr8rfrw-1227190040783)

LISTED airline Rex has been unable to explain why it made unprecedented, massive donations to political parties two years ago, at the same time as an investigation into the crash of one of its aircraft was being conducted.


Last month, Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss called for the reopening of an investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air plane carrying six passengers into the ocean near Norfolk Island in 2009, after systemic “errors” were found in the initial report. Pel-Air is a fully owned subsidiary of Regional Express, or Rex.

The investigation into the crash, which involved one serious injury, took the Australian Transport Safety Board almost three years to complete but did not mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel Air found by regulator the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority.

Until 2012, the only political donation Rex had made was $3486 to the ALP in the year to June 2004. Then between July and November 2012, the company donated $250,000 of shareholder funds to the federal ALP, $95,700 to federal Nationals and $40,000 to the Liberal Party, marking it as one of the biggest political donors in the nation.

Rex spokeswoman Alicia Chapple refused to comment yesterday when asked why the airline had made the donations, whether they were related to the Pel Air investigation, or whether Rex welcomed the reopening of that investigation.

The donations have raised additional question marks because Rex has repeatedly described the airline industry as being in crisis, stating it was “beyond crisis”, and highlighting the “graveyard” of collapsed rivals in its last annual report.

It was unclear why it had donated $250,000 to the federal ALP when shortly afterwards, ahead of the 2013 federal election, the group warned the aviation industry would struggle if the ALP were re-elected. Perhaps the Miniscule could help out with some of AK's QONs...:E

I'll be back...:ok:

Addendum: Planetalking article - Pel-Air, party donations, and air safety. An inexplicable coincidence? (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/01/20/pel-air-party-donations-and-air-safety-an-inexplicable-coincidence/):
Conditional kudos to The Australian today for bringing something that might seem inexplicably coincidental in terms of political donations and hitherto secret lapses in the public administration of air safety in this country into the national mainstream media.

The story, by Anthony Klan, is invisible actually quite hard to find on the newspaper’s site, but has been shared on Google+ so here is the gist.
LISTED airline Rex has been unable to explain why it made unprecedented, massive donations to political parties two years ago, at the same time as an investigation into the crash of one of its aircraft was being conducted.
Last month, Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss called for the reopening of an investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air plane carrying six passengers into the ocean near Norfolk Island in 2009, after systemic “errors” were found in the initial report. Pel-Air is a fully owned subsidiary of Regional Express, or Rex.
The investigation into the crash, which involved one serious injury, took the Australian Transport Safety Board almost three years to complete but did not mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel Air found by regulator the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority.
Until 2012, the only political donation Rex had made was $3486 to the ALP in the year to June 2004. Then between July and November 2012, the company donated $250,000 of shareholder funds to the federal ALP, $95,700 to federal Nationals and $40,000 to the Liberal Party, marking it as one of the biggest political donors in the nation.
Rex spokeswoman Alicia Chapple refused to comment yesterday when asked why the airline had made the donations, whether they were related to the Pel Air investigation, or whether Rex welcomed the reopening of that investigation.
The donations have raised additional question marks because Rex has repeatedly described the airline industry as being in crisis, stating it was “beyond crisis”, and highlighting the “graveyard” of collapsed rivals in its last annual report.
It was unclear why it had donated $250,000 to the federal ALP when shortly afterwards, ahead of the 2013 federal election, the group warned the aviation industry would struggle if the ALP were re-elected.
While the story has been circulated today to an apparently select group of recipients, it may have been first published late last year.

However when stories by Mr Klan are searched for they lead to this page (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation), which is a mixture of old and recent, none by Mr Klan, although further adventures with Google turned up this article (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/rex-wont-match-high-flying-generosity-of-former-rival-skytrans/story-fnr8rfrw-1227188929386), about political and community donations by Rex and its failed competitor in Queensland, Skytrans, dated yesterday 19 January and quoting the same figures for Rex donations as the invisible hard to find story shared on Google+.

(Finding what you really want on The Australian’s cutting edge website is journalism’s equivalent to searching the southern Indian Ocean for MH370. You just know it’s there, somewhere.)

Should we be able to find it, any subsequent Rex response to the story about its generosity to a Labor party which was hell bent on driving rural aviation into ruin together with the live beef export industry will of course be published here.

In the meantime, and that could be a long time, let’s assume that this astonishing outbreak of political generosity was just a brain fade on the part of the airline, or that a data input error turned $2.50 into $250,000. Looks like your not the only one having probs Frank...:rolleyes:

thorn bird
19th Jan 2015, 22:35
"LISTED airline Rex has been unable to explain why it made unprecedented, massive donations to political parties two years ago, at the same time as an investigation into the crash of one of its aircraft was being conducted".

The Asian owners of Pel Air were simply applying long held Asian business principles to make a problem go away.

Whats wrong with that??

Same principles apply here, except the payment is generally after the event not during or before, that way its not defined as corruption.

For example:

Some conspiracy theorists believe that the Murkey Macevillian conspired with a certain Mc Bank to buy up all the GA secondary airports.

Very careful leases were arranged so that additional funds did not have to be allocated for things like state stamp duty, or pesky state EPA approvals.

Little bits and pieces could be hived off to ease the burden of running costs while getting rid of the GA industry so the whole airports could be subdivided, releasing the $$$$'s to enable distribution to everyone involved retirement plans.

The Macevillian then installed a screaming Skull as CEO of a regulator with the prime directive to wipe out GA, in return he would receive a place in a Sociopaths Nivana, chairmanship of a large International institution.

Aww, come on guys, more plausible than some of the M370 theories!!

Frank Arouet
19th Jan 2015, 23:33
I'm having trouble locating Anthony Klan's story via other links. I'm not a subscriber to The Australian. Looked for a link with the "twitterati" and no luck either. Has the story been "pulled"?

Soteria
20th Jan 2015, 09:21
And remember, Mr. Bartsch is an AAT member. Hmmmm indeed he is. And I really can't see a level of independence in that. Blurred lines ring a bell? Then again isnt Trevor Danos a Board Member of CASA while also a Director in Brisbane Airport Corporation?

tipsy2
20th Jan 2015, 18:24
Oh dear me, has somebody had their toes trodden on or their ears tweaked then.

Previously threads have been canned for much less. Especially when they expose a raw nerve.

Oh well, the expectation is realised again.

Tipsy
:=

Lookleft
20th Jan 2015, 20:45
Why does it matter so much to you Kharon? If it is so damn important to you start your own website and moderate to your hearts content, or head over to UITA's website and post on that.

But apparently – the thread is 'boring', irrelevant, a two man show that no one cares about and is 'static'. I've heard some fine fairy stories in my time, even twiddled a few myself; but the Pprune fairy story takes the biscuit. Top marks Pprune. Bravo. A total of 1,400,000 views over the two threads parlayed into "Click", you must be so proud....

Not apparently, it was! I think the Mods indulged you for a long time. At least Sarcs put new info up but the constant banter of "choccy frog for you" and "top post K" was as stomach churning as watching an Oprah show with Tom Cruise as the guest.

As to the number of views for all we know that could have been you viewing 11,000 times a week. If you want to see some impressive viewing numbers have a look at the R&N threads on Air Asia AF447 etc.

If you feel your literary or investigative journalistic skills have been stymied well write a book or start your own blog and call it "K Talking". You never know I might even subscribe to it.:8

Sarcs
20th Jan 2015, 22:27
While on the subject of Mr Bartsch it would seem that he also wears another hat as the Chairman of UAS International.

In this MMSM Steve article - Expert questions CASA regulatory powers over drones (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/expert-questions-casa-regulatory-powers-over-drones/story-e6frg95x-1227186252581) - RB points out yet another elephant in the room that the Miniscule & Skates are going to have to deal with real soon...:( :THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s ability to regulate drones has been called into ­question by a leading aviation legal expert who says his findings raise privacy and security issues.

UAS International chairman Ron Bartsch is publishing a thesis arguing that the ability to place electronic limits on drones could make some CASA rules restricting their use invalid under the constitution.

CASA rules prohibit drones that do not have the proper approval from flying above 400ft (122m) over populated areas, within 30m of a building or car or within 5.5km of an aerodrome or landing site. Other rules include that they operate during the day and in visual line of sight.

But Mr Bartsch contends that constitutional limitations on the federal government’s ability to regulate aviation mean unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with “electronic fences or g-gates” that prevent them flying beyond a predefined height, or impose geographic restrictions, may be beyond CASA’s ­regulations.

“It’s really going to cause a bit of a headache,’’ he said.

“And it’s not something that anybody’s really considered at this stage. It’s going to be extremely contentious.’’

The problem for CASA is that a UAV incapable of flying into navigable airspace — usually above 400ft — does not “commingle’’ with other interstate and international aircraft.

Mr Bartsch said aviation was not mentioned in the constitution and the government relied on heads of power covering international or interstate trade, as well as those covering international obligations such as aviation’s ­Chicago Convention, to make ­national laws. Commingling was first introduced in the US in the 1920s. It was first considered in Australia in 1936 in the prosecution of Henry Goya Henry after his flight under Sydney ­Harbour Bridge.

It became an accepted legal position endorsed by the High Court in the 1965 Airlines of NSW case, which found intrastate aviation could be federally regulated if it affected interstate or international aviation. This meant federal authorities controlled all aspects of aviation in navigable airspace, Mr Bartsch said.

But there are still limitations on issues not covered by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, such as insurance, which require the states to pass mirror legislation to cover purely intrastate flights.

Without this, Mr Bartsch said, CASA would be unable to regulate a drone incapable of ascending into navigable airspace but still capable of flying below it.

“This is going to open a real Pandora’s box, particularly for human rights groups and for privacy and security issues,’’ he said.

“It means that people can buy a UAV and if it’s a type that’s not capable of flying (in navigable airspace) ... then CASA or the federal government will not have the ability to control it.’’ Apparently this thread is also slated for closure..:rolleyes:..so if this happens to be my last post on here..choke..sob..:{...it's been fun...;)

Hmm...maybe I won't be back?? :(

Kharon
21st Jan 2015, 09:56
Lefty, darling, you are such an total tosser.... Fair dinkum, for a poster with so little to contribute, except to snipe at your peers and getting booffed (often) off professional threads for talking bollocks. Your sad plight just makes me clough, clough, clough. Snipe away mate, hope you and your mate 'Tidy Bin Laden with self righteousness' (please tell me you're not holding hands in the moonlight and sharing a toothbrush) enjoy a phyric, short lived victory. 1.4 million readers at the last (all up) count will wait a while, Twitter is coming to this lazy, apathetic deceitful backwater. Soon: you may count on it.

L& K "K".

Creampuff
21st Jan 2015, 10:09
Hmmmm

In the context of the various threads relating to various Parliamentary inquiries into the activities of the aviation regulator and accident investigator, and the actual responses in the wake of those inquiries, I think you'll find that Lookleft's and my predictions have been more consistently accurate than any other contributors.

I do hope, K, that you're not mistaking accurate predictions for earnest endorsements.

Lookleft
21st Jan 2015, 10:39
Hell hath no fury like a Kharon spawned eh. Lashing out all over the place Kharon, I noticed your spray on against HLB. I really hope that you are not in command of anything bigger than a pedal car at the moment because your meltdown is clear for all to see. As I said start your own blog and see how popular you are.

Kharon
21st Jan 2015, 10:41
Creamy, with great respect and even a modicum of affection; thank you. It's all a little too late; I will for the sake of 'gentlemanly' conduct – back off. Quite a long way; and, let the gutless, apathetic Pprune warriors continue on their merry way to discussing pens for MR, the endless, tedious discussion of changing their agreed terns and conditions for earning a living (after having paid for the privilege), silly rants about Qantas which can never be changed; the pointless ramblings about taxi's at Bankstown while the airport is stolen under their feet. In fact, - Ah, forget it.

The Senate inquiry into the total fiasco that was Pel-Air is slipping away; the Forsyth review is being rendered nugatory as we speak; the Canadian report just so much paperwork. I am no longer certain that the 'industry' can even think for itself let alone operate without Mamma CASA holding it's hand.

Pprune used to have a voice - no longer. I ain't quit (unless barred) but a rethink and the use of a truly international audience requires some thought. Pprune numbers just don't signify (or seem to matter) when the chips are down. It is a great shame that I must spend even a part of RDO attempting to keep the Senate and it's first class work in front of an industry audience which is part terrified, part brainwashed, part plain dopey: but there it sits.

LL aka TBL again with little to contribute, why not talk to the other 'big iron' drivers' - they all seem to love your wit, insight and advice. Want the post numbers and links? course not. Tip - Toss pot 2/- each way in the third at the local track.

Selah & Toot 'em: – toot 'em all.

Lookleft
21st Jan 2015, 11:02
Honestly I have read a lot of crap but this self-serving, purile pile of hubris takes the cake.:mad:

Pprune used to have a voice - no longer.

If you're the Voice you simply don't understand it (sorry JF)! The Mods call time on the ramblings of someone who loves the sound of their own keyboard and he gets the huffs and behaves just like the very people he accuses of bullying the industry. If you were the shining light of the industry then turn them off as you slam the door shut. I'm sure the rest of us can make do with the emergency generator.

Kharon
21st Jan 2015, 11:33
What is that word - oh yes.

Bollhttp://i1.cpcache.com/product/1385475421/bollocks_35_button_100_pack.jpg?height=225&width=225

Look Left is a puzzle, now dress to left, (if ya got one) = simple explantion....:D